Torts Magic Notes

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 200"
PRELIMINARY MATTERS: *Those in SMALL CAPS (and underlined) were highlighted by Sir Casis during the class. If none are found !ust refer to those in bold letters and those in the Notes. "ood luc# class$ates% &torts $agic notes tea$
Prof. Casis _S.Y. 200 !
of in!uring 'orcester both as a )ri(ate )erson and as a go(ern$ent official as the editorial ob(iously referred to hi$. 'orcester alleged that he was li#ened to 8birds of )rey: in the following $anner< 8Such are the characteristics of the $an who is at the sa$e ti$e an eagle who sur)rises and de(ours a (ulture who gorges hi$self on the dead and )utrid $eats an owl who affects a )etulant o$niscience and a (a$)ire who silently suc#s the blood of the (icti$ until he lea(es it bloodless.: T&: In fa(or of 'orcester= 4efendants 3ointl) and se1erall) liable for the P>/# total da$ages. ISS?9< '5@ the defendantsA indi(idual )ro)erties can be $ade !ointly and se(erally liable for the da$ages under the ci(il and co$$ercial codes 4EL0: Bes. TC $odified. 4a$ages reduced Santos absol(ed. The )resent action is a tort. 5ni1ersal do'trine: each !oint tortfeasor is not only indi(idually liable for the tort in which he )artici)ates but is also !ointly liable with his tortfeasors. If se(eral )ersons co$$it a tort the )laintiff or )erson in!ured has his election to sue all or so$e of the )arties !ointly or one of the$ se)arately be'a,se the TORT IS IN ITS NAT5RE A SEPARATE A&T O+ EA&4 IN0IVI05AL. It is not necessary that coo)eration should be a direct cor)oral act* e.g. assault and battery co$$itted by (arious )ersons under the co$$on law they are all )rinci)als. ?nder co$$on law he who aided or counseled in any way the co$$ission of a cri$e was as $uch a )rinci)al as he who inflicted or co$$itted the actual tort. 6eneral R,le: Coint tortfeasors are all the )ersons who co$$and instigate )ro$ote encourage ad(ise countenance coo)erate in aid or abet the co$$ission of a tort or who a))ro(e of it after it is done if done for their benefit. They are each liable as )rinci)als to the
sa$e e+tent and in the sa$e $anner as if they had )erfor$ed the wrongful act the$sel(es. Coint tortfeasors are !ointly and se(erally liable for the tort which they co$$it. Coint tortfeasors are not liable -ro rata. The da$ages can not be a))ortioned a$ong the$ e+ce)t a$ong the$sel(es. They cannot insist u)on an a))ortion$ent for the )ur)ose of each )aying an ali,uot )art. The) are 3ointl) and se1erall) liable for the f,ll a(o,nt. A )ay$ent in full of the da$age done by one tortfeasor satisfies any clai$ which $ight e+ist against the others. The release of one of the !oint tortfeasors by agree$ent generally o)erates to discharge all. The court howe(er $ay $a#e findings as to which of the alleged !oint tortfeasors are liable and which are not e(en if they are charged !ointly and se(erally. Art. 2 #%7. In $otor (ehicle $isha)s the owner is solidarily liable with his dri(er if the for$er who was in the (ehicle could ha(e by the use of the due diligence )re(ented the $isfortune. It is dis)utably )resu$ed that a dri(er was negligent if he had been found guilty or rec#less dri(ing or (iolating traffic regulations at least twice within the ne+t )receding two $onths. *this was drafted with Cha)$an (. ?nderwood in $ind.
VI. PERSONS LIABLE A. The Tortfeasor

Art. 2 !". 'hoe(er by act or o$ission causes da$age to another there being fault or negligence is obliged to )ay for the da$age done. Such fault or negligence if there is no )re*e+isting contractual relation between the )arties is called a ,uasi*delict and is go(erned by the )ro(isions of this Cha)ter. (-./0a) Art. 2 # . 'hoe(er )ays for the da$age caused by his de)endents or e$)loyees $ay reco(er fro$ the latter what he has )aid or deli(ered in satisfaction of the clai$. (-./1) Art. 2 $%. The res)onsibility of two or $ore )ersons who are liable for ,uasi*delict is solidary. (n)
&LASS NOTES There 'an be (ore than one tortfeasor and the) are 'alled *OINT TORT+EASORS Are )o, s,--ose to s,e all of the(. NO be'a,se )o, 'an /et relief fro( one of the(. 0o the) ha1e to a't in 'on'ert. NO
&LASS NOTES Sir highlighted that 8Tort is in its nature a se)arate act of each indi(idual: & so no need to sue all of the tortfeasors%
2or'ester 1. O'a(-o 2ebruary 03 -.-0

+A&TS: 4ean 'orcester filed an action to reco(er da$ages resulting fro$ an alleged libelous )ublication against Martin 5ca$)o Teodoro M. 6alaw Lo)e 6. Santos 2idel A. 7eyes 2austino Aguilar et al as the owners directors writers editors and ad$inistrators of the daily news)a)er 89l 7enaci$iento: (S)anish (ersion) and 8Muling Pagsilang: (tagalong (ersion). 'orcester alleged that the defendants ha(e been $aliciously )ersecuting and attac#ing hi$ in the news)a)ers for a long ti$e and they )ublished an editorial entitled 8;irds of Prey: with the $alicious intent
&ha-(an 1. 5nder8ood March 0D -.-1

+A&TS: C.E. Cha)$an was trying to board a 8San Marcelino: car trough the rear )latfor$ when he was struc# by Mr. Ca$es ?nderwoordAs auto$obile which was at that ti$e dri(en by his chauffer. ?nderwoodAs dri(er was guilty of negligence because he was )assing an onco$ing car u)on the wrong side when he ran o(er Cha)$an. Cha)$an was not obliged for his own )rotection to obser(e whether a car was co$ing u)on hi$ fro$ where he was because according to the law no auto$obile or other (ehicle

co$ing fro$ his left should )ass u)on his side of the car. T&: In fa(or of ?nderwood ISS5E: '5@ ?nderwood is res)onsible for the negligence of his dri(er. 4EL0: @o. TC affir$ed. The inter(al between unlawful act and the accident was so s$all as not to be sufficient to charge ?nderwood with the negligence of the dri(er. The dri(er does not fall within the list of )ersons in Art. -./F (now 0-D/) for whose acts ?nderwood would be res)onsible. This rule a))lies e(en if the owner of the (ehicle was )resent at the ti$e of the accident ,nless
T4E NE6LI6ENT A&TS O+ T4E 0RIVER ARE &ONTIN5E0 +OR S5&4 A LEN6T4 O+ TIME AS TO 6IVE T4E O2NER A REASONABLE OPPORT5NITY TO OBSERVE AN0 TO 0IRE&T 4IS 0RIVER TO 0ESIST T4ERE+ROM.
&aedo 1. Y, >he Thai 4ece$ber -D -.>D

+A&TS: Marcial Caedo with his fa$ily was dri(ing his Mercury car on 94SA. 5n the o))osite direction was the Cadillac of Bu 6he Thai dri(en by 7afael ;ernardo. They were both tra(eling at $oderate s)eeds and the headlights were $utually noticeable fro$ a distance. Ahead of the Cadillac was a carretela. ;ernardo testified that he saw the carretela only when it was already only D $eters away fro$ hi$ (This is the -st sign of negligence because the carretela was lighted* hence shouldA(e gi(en hi$ sufficient warning). ;ut ;ernardo instead of slowing down or sto))ing tried to o(erta#e the carretela by (eering to the left. The carAs right rear bu$)er caught the wheel of the carretela and collided with the Mercury. Caedo in the $eanti$e slowed down and thought that the Cadillac would wait behind the carretela. Ee tried to a(oid the collision at the last $o$ent by going farther to the right but was unsuccessful. T&: ;ernardo and Thai !ointly and se(erally liable for da$ages ISS5E: '5@ Bu 6he Thai as the owner of the Cadillac is solidarily liable with his dri(er. 4EL0: @o. TC $odified. Thai not solidarily liable with ;ernardo. Art. 0-D1 a))lies< In $otor (ehicle $isha)s the owner is solidarily liable with his dri(er if the for$er who was in the (ehicle could ha(e by the use of the due diligence )re(ented the $isfortune. It is dis)utably )resu$ed that a dri(er was negligent if he had been found guilty or rec#less dri(ing or (iolating traffic regulations at least twice within the ne+t )receding two $onths. ?nder Art. 0-D1 if the causati(e factor was the dri(erAs negligence the owner of the (ehicle who was )resent is li#ewise held liable if he could ha(e )re(ented the $isha) by the e+ercise of due diligence. &This rule is not new although for$ulated as a law for the first ti$e in the new Ci(il Code. It was e+)ressed in Cha)$an (. ?nderwood.
Basis of (aster=s liabilit) in 'i1il la8: @5T respondeat superior but paterfamilias. The theory is that ulti$ately the negligence of the ser(ant if #nown to the $aster and susce)tible of ti$ely correction by hi$ reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order to )re(ent in!ury or da$age. ;ernardo was a )retty good dri(er and had no record. @o negligence for ha(ing e$)loyed hi$ $ay be i$)uted to Thai. The only negligence that can be i$)uted to ;ernardo was when he tried to o(erta#e the carretela instead of sto))ing or waiting*and this cannot be i$)uted to Thai because there were no signs for hi$ to be in any s)ecial state of alert. Ee could not ha(e antici)ated his dri(erAs sudden decision to )ass the carretela. The ti(e ele(ent 8as s,'h that there 8as no reasonable o--ort,nit) for Thai to assess the ris<s in1ol1ed and 8arn the dri1er a''ordin/l). Test of i(-,ted ne/li/en'e ,nder 2 #%: *to a great degree necessarily sub!ecti(e. Car owners are not held to a unifor$ and infle+ible standard of diligence as are )rofessional dri(ers. The law does not re,uire that a )erson $ust )ossess a certain $easure of s#ill or )roficiency either in the $echanic of dri(ing or in the obser(ance of traffic rules before they can own a $otor (ehicle. Test of ne/li/en'e 8ithin the (eanin/ of 2 #%: *his o$ission to do that which the e(idence of his own senses tells hi$ he should do in order to a(oid the accident. R5LE: negligence $ust be sought in the i$$ediate setting and circu$stance of the accident i.e. in his failure to detain the dri(er for$ )ursuing a course which not only ga(e hi$ clear notice of the danger but also sufficient ti$e to act u)on it. NOTES: Art. 2 #% is based on &ha-(an. 5nless the o8ner 'o,ld=1e -re1ented the ne/li/en'e: or he 8as ne/li/ent in sele'tion and s,-er1ision: he 'annot be held liable. Art. 2 #%: o8ner 'an be held solidaril) liable 8ith the dri1er onl) if the o8ner is IN the 'ar. &o,rt=s test: . senses of o8ner 2. 'ir',(stan'es
2hen 8ill the o8ner be liable.9 An owner who sits in his (ehicle and )er$its his dri(er to continue in a (iolation of the law by the )erfor$ance of his negligent acts after he had A 79AS5@A;L9 5PP57T?@ITB T5 5;S97G9
TE9M A@4 T5 4I79CT TEAT TE9 47IG97 C9AS9 TE979275M ;9C5M9S EIMS9L2 79SP5@SI;L9 257 S?CE ACTS.
2hen 8ill the o8ner be NOT liable.9if the dri(er by a sudden act of negligence and without the owner ha(ing reasonable o))ortunity to )re(ent the act or its continuance in!ures a )erson or (iolates the cri$inal law the owner of the (ehicle )resent therein at the ti$e the act was co$$itted is not res)onsible etiher ci(illy or cri$inally therefor. The a't 'o(-lained of (,st be 'ontin,ed in the -resen'e of the o8ner for s,'h a len/th of ti(e that the o8ner: b) his a';,ies'en'e: (a<es his dri1er=s a't his o8n. 7?L9< ?nderwood is not liable for his dri(erAs act e(en if he was inside the car at the ti$e of the accident (unless he let the negligence continue for a long ti$e without correcting it) because the dri(er is not listed in -./F (now 0-D/) as one of the )ersons whose acts ?nderwood would be res)onsible for.
&LASS NOTES
&LASS NOTE In this se'tion: a -erson is held liable for a'ts not his o8n b,t be'a,se of the e?isten'e of a relationshi-.
The standard set in this 'ase is still REASONABLE OPPORT5NITY. 0ifferen'e bet8een res-ondeat s,-erior 1s. -aterfa(ilias Res-ondeat s,-erior: acts under orders (- negligent & the one who ga(e the orders) Paterfa$ilias< acts under guidance (0 negligent & both the owner and the dri(er) T9ST of i$)uted negligence< S?;C9CTIG9 *not all owners are learnedH)rofessional dri(ers & thatAs why they hire dri(ers for the$% GICA7I5?S LIA;ILITB< found in Article 0-D/ (but use the ter$ 8tortfeasors: instead of 8one: *a tortfeasor would be liable not only for his own acts or o$issions but also for those of )ersons for who$ he is res)onsible Ta#e note of difference between @CC and 2C< ,nder the N&&< the father and in cases of his death or inca)acity the $other will be res)onsible for the da$ages caused by their minor children who live in their company ,nder the +&: parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be ci(illy liable for the in!uries and da$ages caused by the acts or o$issions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. Portions of 0-D/I$odified by 2C 4oes 7A.F11 affect the liability of )arents and guardiansJ @5 ;asis of liability of )arents and $inor children< PA79@TAL A?TE57ITB Eow does the 2C affect 0-D/J Is the )erson below 0- still liableJ 2or those abo(e -K but below -D who acted with discern$entIbasis to use is 0-D/
Art. 2A". 9$anci)ation for any cause shall ter$inate )arental authority o(er the )erson and )ro)erty of the child who shall then be ,ualified and res)onsible for all acts of ci(il life. (1-0a)
Re1ised Penal &ode

Title +i1e9&i1il Liabilit) &ha-ter One9Person &i1ill) Liable for +elonies Art. @@. &i1il liabilit) of a -erson /,ilt) of felon). I 9(ery )erson cri$inally liable for a felony is also ci(illy liable. Art. @ . R,les re/ardin/ 'i1il liabilit) in 'ertain 'ases. I The e+e$)tion fro$ cri$inal liability established in subdi(isions - 0 F K and > of Article -0 and in subdi(ision 1 of Article -- of this Code does not include e+e$)tion fro$ ci(il liability which shall be enforced sub!ect to the following rules< +irst. In cases of subdi(isions - 0 and F of Article -0 the ci(il liability for acts co$$itted by an i$becile or insane )erson and by a )erson under nine years of age or by one o(er nine but under fifteen years of age who has acted without discern$ent shall de(ol(e u)on those ha(ing such )erson under their legal authority or control unless it a))ears that there was no fault or negligence on their )art. Should there be no )erson ha(ing such insane i$becile or $inor under his authority legal guardianshi) or control or if such )erson be insol(ent said insane i$becile or $inor shall res)ond with their own )ro)erty e+ce)ting )ro)erty e+e$)t fro$ e+ecution in accordance with the ci(il law. Se'ond. In cases falling within subdi(ision 1 of Article -- the )ersons for whose benefit the har$ has been )re(ented shall be ci(illy liable in )ro)ortion to the benefit which they $ay ha(e recei(ed. The courts shall deter$ine in sound discretion the )ro)ortionate a$ount for which each one shall be liable. 'hen the res)ecti(e shares cannot be e,uitably deter$ined e(en a))ro+i$ately or when the liability also attaches to the "o(ern$ent or to the $a!ority of the inhabitants of the town and in all e(ents whene(er the da$ages ha(e been caused with the consent of the
Presidential 0e'ree No. "@A

0e'e(ber @: $!% T4E &4IL0 AN0 YO5T4 2EL+ARE &O0E &ha-ter %9Liabilities Of Parents Art. B#. Torts. 9 Parents and guardians are res)onsible for the da$age caused by the child under their )arental authority in accordance with the Ci(il Code. +a(il) &ode Art. 2 #. The school its ad$inistrators and teachers or the indi(idual entity or institution engaged in child are shall ha(e s)ecial )arental authority and res)onsibility o(er the $inor child while under their su)er(ision instruction or custody. Authority and res)onsibility shall a))ly to all authoriLed acti(ities whether inside or outside the )re$ises of the school entity or institution. (F1.a) Art. 2 $. Those gi(en the authority and res)onsibility under the )receding Article shall be )rinci)ally and solidarily liable for da$ages caused by the acts or o$issions of the une$anci)ated $inor. The )arents !udicial guardians or the )ersons e+ercising substitute )arental authority o(er said $inor shall be subsidiarily liable. The res)ecti(e liabilities of those referred to in the )receding )aragra)h shall not a))ly if it is )ro(ed that they e+ercised the )ro)er diligence re,uired under the )articular circu$stances. All other cases not co(ered by this and the )receding articles shall be go(erned by the )ro(isions of the Ci(il Code on ,uasi*delicts. (n) Art. 22 . Parents and other )ersons e+ercising )arental authority shall be ci(illy liable for the in!uries and da$ages caused by the acts or o$issions of their une$anci)ated children li(ing in their co$)any and under their )arental authority sub!ect to the a))ro)riate defenses )ro(ided by law. (0-D/(0)a and (1)a )
B. Vi'ario,s Liabilit) a<a I(-,ted Ne/li/en'e

authorities or their agents inde$nification shall be $ade in the $anner )rescribed by s)ecial laws or regulations. Third. In cases falling within subdi(isions K and > of Article -0 the )ersons using (iolence or causing the fears shall be )ri$arily liable and secondarily or if there be no such )ersons those doing the act shall be liable sa(ing always to the latter that )art of their )ro)erty e+e$)t fro$ e+ecution. Art. @2. S,bsidiar) 'i1il liabilit) of inn<ee-ers: ta1ern<ee-ers and -ro-rietors of establish(ents. I In default of the )ersons cri$inally liable inn#ee)ers ta(ern#ee)ers and any other )ersons or cor)orations shall be ci(illy liable for cri$es co$$itted in their establish$ents in all cases where a (iolation of $unici)al ordinances or so$e general or s)ecial )olice regulation shall ha(e been co$$itted by the$ or their e$)loyees. Inn#ee)ers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods ta#en by robbery or theft within their houses fro$ guests lodging therein or for the )ay$ent of the (alue thereof )ro(ided that such guests shall ha(e notified in ad(ance the inn#ee)er hi$self or the )erson re)resenting hi$ of the de)osit of such goods within the inn= and shall further$ore ha(e followed the directions which such inn#ee)er or his re)resentati(e $ay ha(e gi(en the$ with res)ect to the care and (igilance o(er such goods. @o liability shall attach in case of robbery with (iolence against or inti$idation of )ersons unless co$$itted by the inn#ee)erMs e$)loyees. Art. @A. S,bsidiar) 'i1il liabilit) of other -ersons. I The subsidiary liability established in the ne+t )receding article shall also a))ly to e$)loyers teachers )ersons and cor)orations engaged in any #ind of industry for felonies co$$itted by their ser(ants )u)ils wor#$en a))rentices or e$)loyees in the discharge of their duties. cri$inal liability. Eowe(er the child shall be sub!ected to an inter(ention )rogra$ )ursuant to Sec. 0/ of this Act. A child abo(e fifteen (-K) but below eighteen (-D) years of age shall li#ewise be e+e$)t fro$ cri$inal liability and be sub!ected to an inter(ention )rogra$ unless heHshe has acted with discern$ent in which case such child will be sub!ected to the a))ro)riate )roceedings in accordance with this Act. The 9+e$)tion fro$ cri$inal liability herein established does not include e+e$)tion fro$ ci(il liability which shall be enforced in accordance with e+isting laws. &i1il &ode Art. 2 #@. The obligation i$)osed by Article 0-3> is de$andable not only for oneMs own acts or o$issions but also for those of )ersons for who$ one is res)onsible. The father and: in 'ase of his death or in'a-a'it): the (other: are res-onsible for the da(a/es 'a,sed b) the (inor 'hildren 8ho li1e in their 'o(-an). "uardians are liable for da$ages caused by the $inors or inca)acitated )ersons who are under their authority and li(e in their co$)any. The owners and $anagers of an establish$ent or enter)rise are li#ewise res)onsible for da$ages caused by their e$)loyees in the ser(ice of the branches in which the latter are e$)loyed or on the occasion of their functions. 9$)loyers shall be liable for the da$ages caused by their e$)loyees and household hel)ers acting within the sco)e of their assigned tas#s e(en though the for$er are not engaged in any business or industry. The State is res)onsible in li#e $anner when it acts through a s)ecial agent= but not when the da$age has been caused by the official to who$ the tas# done )ro)erly )ertains in which case what is )ro(ided in Article 0-3> shall be a))licable.
Lastly teachers or heads of establish$ents of arts and trades shall be liable for da$ages caused by their )u)ils and students or a))rentices so long as they re$ain in their custody. The res)onsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the )ersons herein $entioned )ro(e that they obser(ed all the diligence of a good father of a fa$ily to )re(ent da$age. (-./Fa) Art. 2 # . 'hoe(er )ays for the da$age caused by his de)endents or e$)loyees $ay reco(er fro$ the latter what he has )aid or deli(ered in satisfaction of the clai$. (-./1) Art. 2 #2. If the $inor or insane )erson causing da$age has no )arents or guardian the $inor or insane )erson shall be answerable with his own )ro)erty in an action against hi$ where a guardian ad lite$ shall be a))ointed. (n)
&LASS NOTE
;asis< )arental authority Are the )arents still liable for if abo(e -D but below 0-J Bes. Legal basis< P4 >/F
. Parents Csee table after 'asesD E?'onde 1. &a-,no Cune 0. -.K3

+A&TS: 4ante Ca)uno -K years old a student of the ;alintawa# 9le$entary School was instructed by the city schoolAs su)er(isor to attend a )arade in honor of 7iLal in San Pablo City. 2ro$ the school the students boarded a !ee) and when it started to run 4ante too# hold of the wheel while the dri(er sat on his left side (re$e$ber that the steering wheel is at the L92T side). The !ee) turned turtle and 0 )assengers died. 4elfin Ca)uno the father was not with 4ante at the ti$e of the accident nor did he #now that 4ante was going to attend a )arade. Ee only found out after the accident when 4ante told hi$ about it. &ri(inal 'ase: T&: 4ante was con(icted for 4ouble ho$icide through rec#less i$)rudence. &A: affir$ed
RA $A%% *,1enile *,sti'e and 2elfare A't of 2@@"

A-ril 2A: 2@@" Se'. ". Minimum Age of Criminal responsibility* A child fifteen (-K) years of age or under at the ti$e of the co$$ission of the offense shall be e+e$)t fro$

&i1il 'ase: a/ainst 0elfin and 0ante &a-,no (reser(ed by Sabina 9+conde $other of one of the deceased)< T&: Con(icted 5@LB 4ante to )ay the da$ages. &A: certified to SC ISS5E: 2ON 0elfin &a-,no 'an be held 'i1ill) liable: 3ointl) and se1erall) 8ith his son for da(a/es. E9L4< Yes. TC Modified. 4elfin and 4ante are !ointly and se(erally liable for the da$ages. Art. $@A a--lies: EThe obligation i$)osed by the ne+t )receding articles is enforceable not only for )ersonal acts and o$issions but also for those )ersons for who$ another is res)onsible. The father and in case of his death or inca)acity the $other are liable for any da$ages caused by the (inor children who li(e with the$. N++ 2inally teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any da$ages caused by their )u)ils or a))rentices while they are under their custody. . S'hool is NOT liable Art. -./F (now 0-D/) about teachers a))lies only to institutions of arts and trades and not to any acade$ic educational institution. ;alintawa# 9le$entary School is an acade$ic institution hence neither the teacher nor the head can be held liable. 9(en if 4ante was on the !ee) )ursuant to the city schoolA su)er(isorAs instruction neither the head of the school nor the city schoolAs su)er(isor could be held liable because 4ante was not a student of an institution of arts and trades. 2. 0elfin: as the father IS liable. Ee failed to )ro(e that he e+ercised all the diligence of a good father of the fa$ily to )re(ent the da$age. The ci(il liability which the law i$)ose u)on the father or the $other as the case $ay be is a necessary conse,uence of the )arental authority they e+ercise o(er the$. This )arental authority i$)oses u)on the )arents the duty to su))ort and instruct the$ in )ro)ortion to their $eans and gi(es the$ the right to correct and )unish the$ in $oderation. 4o8 to a1oid liabilit): )ro(e that they e+ercised all the diligence of a good father of a fa$ily to )re(ent the da$age 0ISSENT: Re)es Ee wants TC affir$ed (relie(ing 4elfin of liability)< There is no sound reason for li$iting Art. -./F to teachers of arts and trades and not to acade$ic institutions. The )hrase 8teachers or heads of establish$ents of arts and trades: does not ,ualify 8teachers: but only 8heads of establish$ents.: If the basis of )resu$)tion of negligence in Art. -./F is so$e cul)a in (igilando that the )arents teachers etc. are su))osed to ha(e incurred in the e+ercise of their authority hence when the )arent )laces the child under the effecti(e authority of the teacher the teacher and not the )arent should be the one answerable for the torts co$$itted while under his custody. 2h). for the (ery reason that the )arent is not su))osed to interfere with the disci)line of the school nor with the authority and su)er(ision of the teacher while the child is under instruction. If there is no a,thorit): there 'an be no res-onsibilit). Eence 4elfin should not be $ade liable for a tort that he was in no way able to )re(ent and which he had e(ery right to assu$e the school authorities would. Ee rebutted the )resu$)tion of negligence under -./F when he )ro(ed that he entrusted custody of 4ante to the school authorities. R5LES: Ma3orit): Liability of teachers or directors are li$ited to institutions of arts and trades. 0issent:
-. Art. -./F inter)retation too li$ited. Teacher $aster or in the absence of school authorities should be liable for the negligence. 0. 5nce the )arent entrusts custody to the school authorities )resu$)tion is rebutted and burden of )roof is shifted to clai$ant to show actual negligence on the )art of the )arent in order to render hi$ liable. NOTES: This case is cited as basis of liability arising fro$ )arental authority.
Salen and Salbanera 1. Bal'e A)ril 03 -.>/.

+A&TS: Carlos Salen (single) died due to wounds caused by "u$ersindo ;alce -D single and li(ing with Cose ;alce his father. "u$ersindo was con(icted of ho$icide and was sentenced to i$)rison$ent and to )ay CarlosA heirs inde$nity. ;ut "u$ersindo was insol(ent hence Se(erino Salen and 9lena Salbanera (Salens) the )arents (and heirs) of Carlos de$anded fro$ Cose to )ay but he refused. Eence the suit. T&: dis$issed. Sustained CoseAs theory that the ci(il liability of "u$ersindo arises fro$ his cri$inal liability and therefore $ust be deter$ined under the 7PC and not under Art. 0-D/ of the Ci(il Code which only a))lies to obligations arising for$ O4s. There is no law which holds the father either )ri$arily or subsidiarily liable for the ci(il liability incurred by the son who is a $inor of -D years. ISS5E: '5@ Cose ;alce can be held S?;SI4IA7ILB liable to )ay the inde$nity his son was sentenced to )ay in the cri$inal case against hi$ (the son). 4EL0: Bes. Cose ;alce is ordered to )ay the inde$nity. TC re(ersed. As a r,le: the 'i1il liabilit) arisin/ for( a 'ri(e shall be /o1erned b) the RP&. ;ut since the 7PC is silent as to the subsidiary liability of )arents for a $inor o(er -K who acts with discern$ent resort should be $ade to the general law which is the Ci(il Code. And Art. 0-D/ is the law that a))lies. To hold that Art. 0-D/ a))lies only to O4s will result in an absurdity that while for an act where $ere negligence inter(enes the father or $other $ay be
10-D/ now< The obligation i$)osed by Article 0-3> is de$andable not only for oneMs own acts or
o$issions but also for those of )ersons for who$ one is res)onsible.
The father and in case of his death or inca)acity the $other are res)onsible for the da$ages caused by the $inor children who li(e in their co$)any. N++ Lastly teachers or heads of establish$ents of arts and trades shall be liable for da$ages caused by their )u)ils and students or a))rentices so long as they re$ain in their custody.

held subsidiarily liable no liability would attach if the da$age is caused with cri$inal intent. The (oid that a))arently e+ists in the 7PC is subser(ed by 0-D/ of the Ci(il Code as $ay be gleaned fro$ so$e recent SC decisions< Exconde v. Capuno9where the father was held solidarily liable for the cri$e his son co$$itted. Araneta v. Arreglado*(where Arreglado fired at Araneta because he resented the re$ar#s Araneta $ade about his lea(ing Ateneo and enrolling in La Salle. The court con(icted Arreglado but sus)ended his sentence because he was only -1.) The court held the father the $other and the son to )ay the Aranetas da$ages. &ri(inal 'ase: T&: 7ico guilty. Ci(il liability to be deter$ined in the ci(il case &i1il 'ase: T&: Aga)ito liable under 0-D/ for $edicine M4 94 and attyAs fees. CA< 7educed M4 ISS?9< '5@ Aga)ito 2uellas 7icoAs father is liable for da$ages. 4EL0: Bes. Aga)ito is liable for da$ages. &A affir(ed . Aga)ito contends that he cannot be liable under 0-D/ in connection with 0-3> there being no 8fault or negligence: but deliberate intent to cause in!ury. S&: *,ris-r,den'e -ro1es hi( 8ron/. Araneta v. Arreglado9Cthe Arre/lados9father: (other and son 8ere held liable for da(a/esD 'i1il la8 liabilit) ,nder 2 #@ is not res-ondeat s,-erior b,t pater familias which bases the liability of the father ulti$ately on his own negligence and not on that of his $inor son and that if an in!ury is caused by the fault or negligence of his $inor son the law )resu$es that there was negligence on the )art of his father. Exconde v. Capuno*(the father was held solidarily liable with his son for da$ages) The ci(il liability of the father is a necessary conse,uence of the )arental authority he e+ercises. 5nly defense is )roof of diligence of a good father of the fa$ily to )re(ent the da$age. Manresa: Children and wards do not ha(e the ca)acity to go(ern the$sel(es so )arents and guardians ha(e the duty to e+ercise s)ecial (igilance. If they fail to co$)ly with this duty they should suffer the conse,uences of their abandon$ent or negligence by re)airing the da$age caused. 2. Aga)ito clai$s that he could only be liable if the action was based on the subsidiary liability of the )arents under the 7PC. And since 7ico acted with discern$ent the )ro(isions do not co(er the case. S&: &ase la8 is a/ainst hi( a/ain.
Salen and Salbarena v. Balce* (where father was $ade to )ay the inde$nity his -D year old son was sentenced to )ay because his son was insol(ent) Since the 7PC is silent as to the subsidiary liability of a $inor o(er . but under -K who acted with discern$ent resort should be $ade to the general law which is the Ci(il Code s)ecifically 2 #@. A. CA decided the case based on the e(idence sub$itted by both )arties inde)endently of the cri$inal case. 7es)onsibility for fault or negligence under 0-3> (u)on which this action is instituted) is entirely se)arate and distinct fro$ the ci(il liability arising fro$ fault or negligence under the 7PC hence any discussion of 7icoAs cri$inal intent is of no $o$ent.
&LASS NOTE In this 'ase: the liabilit) of father 8as dee(ed to be s,bsidiar).
&LASS NOTES In this 'ase: -arental liabilit) 8as -ri(ar).
+,ellas 1. &adano 5ctober F- -.>+A&TS: Pe)ito Cadano and 7ico 2uellas both -F were class$ates at St. MaryAs Eigh School. 'hile Pe)ito was studying 7ico too# a class$ateAs )encil and )ut it in Pe)itoAs )oc#et. 'hen the class$ate as#ed 7ico for the )encil it was Pe)ito who returned it. This angered 7ico thus he held Pe)ito by the nec# and )ushed hi$ to the floor. A teacher bro#e u) the fight and sent the$ ho$e. Pe)ito has !ust gone down fro$ the school house when he was $et by a still angry 7ico. A class$ate as#ed the$ to sha#e hands but instead of sha#ing Pe)itoAs e+tended hand 7ico held hi$ by the nec# )ut hi$ off*balance which caused Pe)ito to land on his right side brea#ing his ar$. 7ico !ust got u) and ran away. ?) to the last day of the hearing of the case Pe)itoAs forear$ was seen to be shorter than his left and cannot be fully used. 0 se)arate actions were instituted< -. Cri$inal case against 7ico for Serious Physical In!uries 0. Ci(il case for da$ages against Aga)ito 2uellas 7icoAs father.
6,tierreF 1. 6,tierreF Se)te$ber 0F -.F@ote< The in!ured and the accused ha(e the sa$e surna$e.
+A&TS: The car owned by Mr. and Mrs. "utierreL and dri(en by ;onifacio "utierreL -D years old with his $other and 3 other $e$bers of the fa$ily EG&L50IN6 Mr. "utierreL the father collided with a )assenger truc# while atte$)ting to )ass each other. As a result @arciso "utierreL a )assenger suffered a fractured leg. ISS5ES: -. '5@ Manuel "utierreL the father is liable for da$ages (yes) 0. '5@ the truc# owner and dri(er are liable for da$ages. (yes) 4EL0: Manuel "utierreL the owner and the dri(er of the truc# are !ointly and se(erally liable for da$ages. . Anent Man,el 6,tierreF=s liabilit):

The guaranty gi(en by the father at the ti$e the son was granted a license to o)erate $otor (ehicles $ade the father res)onsible for the acts of his son. ;onifacio was an inco$)etent dri(er was s)eeding and lost his head when he a))roached the bridge and the truc#. ;ased on these facts and )ursuant to -./F (now 0-D/) the father alone and not the $inor or the $other would be held liable for the da$ages caused by the $inor. In the ?S it is unifor$ly held that the head of a house the owner of an auto$obile who $aintains it for general use of his fa$ily is liable for its negligent o)eration by one of his children who$ he designates or )er$its to run it where the car is occu)ied and being used at the ti$e of the in!ury for the )leasure of other $e$bers of the ownerAs fa$ily than the child dri(ing it. The theory of this law is that running of the $achine by the child to carry the other $e$bers of the fa$ily is within the sco)e of the ownerAs business so that he is liable for the negligence of the child because of the relationshi) of $aster and ser(ant. 2. Anent the o8ner=s and dri1er=s liabilit): ;asis< contract. The )osition of the truc# the s)eed and lac# of care e$)loyed by the dri(er $a#e the$ both liable. H,estion: ?nder -./F only if the father is dead inca)acitated or absent will the $other be held liable. If this case were decided now with the 2C what would be the effectJ
st

Se)te$ber -D -..0
&A: affir$ed in toto
2nd &A: reduced unearned earnings award The dela 7osas failed to )ay because they had no cash. The writ of e+ecution yielded only a no$inal a$ount. Present status of Luis< $arried with 0 #ids li(ing with uncle in Madrid earnings hardly enough to su))ort his fa$ily has no assets of his own. ISS5E: 'hether the father Cose should be $ade )ri$arily or subsidiarily liable for the liability of his son Luis. 4EL0: Pri$ary liability. Cose is liable for his sonAs liability. 0nd CA set aside. -st CA reinstated with the $odification that the attyAs fees will earn interest. 4ela 7osas in(o#e Elcano v. Hill to su))ort their cali$ for subsidiary liability only. In 9lcano it was held that Art. 0-D/ a))lied to Atty. Eill des)ite the e$anci)ation by $arriage of his son but since his son attained age as a $atter of e;,it): Atty. EillAs liability had beco$e $erely subsidiary to that of his son. S&: ?nwilling to a))ly e,uity instead of strict law in this case because it will not ser(e the ends of !ustice. Luis is abroad and beyond the reach of Phili))ine courts. Plus he does not ha(e nay )ro)erty and his earnings are insufficient to su))ort his fa$ily. Other iss,es: -. CAAs reduction of life e+)ectancy< SC said go*#art not dangerous. 0. CAAs reduction of net annual inco$e of 7oberto due to increasing annual )ersonal e+)enses< SC said if )ersonal e+)enses increase it would not be unreasonable to su))ose that his gross inco$e would also increase. F. SC granted award of attyAs fees )lus interest fro$ date of TCAs decision. NOTES: technically the son should )ay because he is of age already
+A&TS: Culie and 'endell were sweethearts for 0 years when Culie bro#e it off due to 'endellAs sadistic and irres)onsible nature. A $onth after their brea#*u) Culie and 'endell died each fro$ a single gunshot wound traced to the gun licensed in the na$e of Cresencio Libi the father of 'endell. There were 0 (ersions of the story< Libis< another $an shot the 0 "otiong< 'endell shot Culie and then co$$itted suicide. The "otiongs (!ulieAs )arents) fiuled for da$ages against the Li(is under Art. 0-D/. T&: dis$issed for insufficiency of e(idence IA&: Set aside TC and found the Libis s,bsidiaril) liable. ISS5E: '5@ Art. 0-D/ was correctly a))lied to hold the Libis liable. 4EL0: Yes. Libis are -ri(aril) liable &A affir(ed. The Libis were grossly negligent fro$ )re(enting 'endell fro$ ha(ing access to the #ey to the safety de)osit bo+ where the gun was stored. 4iligence re,uired is that of instr,'tion and s,-er1ision of the #id. B5T: liabilit) is not s,bsidiar): it is PRIMARY 7ule on )arentAs liability is correct but characteriLation of their nature $ust be gi(en a second loo# (coL SC held in so$e cases that the liability of )arents is subsidiary). If the liability of the )arents for cri$es or O4s of their $inor children is subsidiary then they can neither in(o#e nor be absol(ed of ci(il liability on the defense that they acted with the diligence of a good father of a fa$ily to )re(ent da$ages. ;ut if the liability is direct and )ri$ary the diligence would constitute a (alid and substantial defense.
Rodri/,eF9L,na 1. IA& 2ebruary 0D -.DK

+A&TS: 7oberto Luna dri(ing a go*#art and Luis dela 7osa dri(ing a Toyota collided in the go*#art )ractice area in "reenhills. 7oberto died. At that ti$e Luis was only -F and had no dri(erAs license. The heirs of 7oberto (will be referred to as the Lunas) sued for da$ages. T&: Cose dela 7osa (father) and Luis dela 7osa are !ointly and se(erally liable.
Libi 1. IA&

4en'e: the liabilit) of -arents for H0s of their (inor <ids as 'onte(-lated in 2 #@ is PRIMARY and not s,bsidiar). In fact a))lying 0-.1 (solidary liability of !oin tortfeasors) the )arent is also solidarily liable with the child. The liabilit) of -arents for felonies is li<e8ise PRIMARY I not s,bsidiar). Art. @ : RP& sa)s so. 2or both O4s and cri$es the )arents )ri$arily res)ond for such da$ages is buttressed by the corres)onding )ro(isions in both the 7PC and CC that the $inor transgressor shall be answerable or shall res)ond with his own )ro)erty only in the absence or in case of the insol(ency of the )arents. Arts. 0-D00 CC and -/-F 7PC su))ort this. R5LES: . +or 'i1il liabilit) fro( 'ri(es 'o((itted b) (inors ,nder the le/al a,thorit) or 'ontrol or 8ho li1e in the 'o(-an) of the -arents: PRIMARY 9Pre$ised on Art. -/- 7PC with res)ect to da$ages ex delicto by #ids . or under or .*-K but without discern$ent *Pre$ised on Art. 0-D/ CC for #ids .*-K with discern$ent or -K*0- (now -D) 2. Liabilit) effe'ted a/ainst father or (other. BOT4 PARENTS AN0 T4OSE 24O EGER&ISE PARENTAL A5T4ORITY OVER T4E MINOR. ?nder 0-D/ the liability shall be effected against the father and in case of his death or inca)acity the $other*which rule was a$)lified by the Bouth and 'elfare Code. B5T under the 2a$ily Code this ci(il liability is now without such alternati(e ,ualification the res)onsibility of the )arents and those who e+ercise )arental authority o(er the $inor offender. A. +or 'i1il liabilit) arisin/ fro( H0s 'o((itted b) (inors: sa$e rules in accordance with 0-D/ and 0-D0 as so $odified. NOTES: This case cleared u) the issue on whether the )arentAs liability is )ri$ary or subsidiary.
liability on the ground that he had acted without discern$ent. 0. ci(il co$)laint against the ;undocs the natural )arents of Adelberto. The ;undocs clai$ed that the 7a)isuras should be held liable instead that they are indis)ensable )arties because )arental authority had already shifter to the$ the $o$ent the successful )etition for ado)tion was filed. T&: dis$issed the co$)laint. The ;undocs are not indis)ensable )arties to the action. &A: dis$issed )etition. Ta$argos lost their right to a))eal. ISS5E: 'ho are the indis)ensable )artiesJ The ;undocs or the 7a)isurasJ 4EL0: The natural )arents the ;undocs are the indis)ensable )arties. CA re(ersed and set aside co$)laint reinstated and case re$anded. 'hen Adelberto shot Cennifer )arental authority was still lodged in the ;undocs his natural )arents. Eence they who had actual custody of Adelberto are the indis)ensable )arties to the suit for da$ages. Ratio: The act of Adelberto ga(e rise to a cause of action on O4 under 0-3> against hi$. 5n the other hand the law i$)oses ci(il liability u)on the father and in case of his death or inca)acity the $other for any da$ages that $ay be caused by a $inor child who li(es with the$. The )rinci)le of )arental liability is a s)ecies of what is fre,uently designated as 1i'ario,s liabilit) or the doctrine of 8i(-,ted ne/li/en'e : where a )erson is not only liable for the torts co$$itted by hi$self but also for torts co$$itted by others with who$ he has a certain relationshi) and for who$ he is res)onsible. Thus )arental liability is $ade a natural or logical conse,uence of the duties and res)onsibilities of )arentsItheir )arental authorityIwhich includes the instructing controlling and disci)lining of the child.
&LASS NOTES 'hat is the basis of the doctrine that liability of )arents is )ri$ary and not solidaryJ 'hyJ o 0 legal bases< -/- 7PC and 0-D0 CC 'hyJ*)ro(isions )ro(ide for such defenseI liability of )arents is )ri$ary According to the Court the reliance on Fuellas v. Cadano was @5T correct because the liability in fuellas was P7IMA7B (syllabus can be wrong #asi) 'hy )ri$ary liabilityJ -. law )ro(ides a defense= 0. )ro)erty of $inor only liable when )arents are insol(ent
Ta(ar/o 1. &A Cune F -..0

+A&TS: Adelberto ;undoc -/ years old shot Cennifer Ta$argo with an air rifle causing in!uries which resulted in her death. AdelbertoAs natural )arents for da$ages. Adelberto was li(ing with his natural )arents at the ti$e of the accident but a )etition for his ado)tion has already been filed by the 7a)isura s)ouses. This )etition was granted after the shooting of Cennifer. The Ta(ar/os filed: -. cri$inal co$)laint for ho$icide through rec#less i$)rudence but Adelberto was ac,uitted and e+e$)ted fro$ cri$inal
2 Art. 0-D0. If the $inor or insane )erson causing da$age has no )arents or guardian the $inor
or insane )erson shall be answerable with his own )ro)erty in an action against hi$ where a guardian ad lite$ shall be a))ointed. (n)
3 Art. -/-. 7ules regarding ci(il liability in certain cases.

+++ Should there be no )erson ha(ing such insane i$becile or $inor under his authority legal guardianshi) or control or if such )erson be insol(ent said insane i$becile or $inor shall res)ond with their own )ro)erty e+ce)ting )ro)erty e+e$)t fro$ e+ecution in accordance with the ci(il law.

The basis for the do'trine of 1i'ario,s liabilit) 8as e?-lained in Cangco v. Manila Raildroad: 'ith res)ect to e+tra contractual obligations arising fro$ negligence whether of act or o$ission the legislature has elected to li$it such liability to cases in which the )erson u)on who$ such an obligation is i$)osed is $orally cul)able or on the contrary for reasons of )ublic )olicy to e+tend that liability without regard to the lac# of $oral cul)ability so as to include responsibility for the negligence of those persons whose acts or omissions are imputable, by legal fiction to others who are in a position to exercise an absolute or limited control over them. The legislature which ado)ted our ci(il code elected to limit extra contractual liabilityIwith certain well*defined e+ce)tionsIto cases in which moral culpabilityu can be directly imputed to the persons to be charged. This $oral res)onsibility $ay consist in ha(ing failed to e+ercise due care in oneAs own acts or in ha(ing failed to e+ercise due care in the selection and control of oneAs own agents or ser(ants or in the control of persons ho! by reasons of their status! occupy a position of dependency ith respect to the person liable for their conduct. Basis of 'i1il liabilit) i(-osed on -arents for torts of their (inor <ids li1in/ 8ith the(: PA79@TAL A?TE57ITB (ested by the ci(il code. In other words -arental liabilit) is an'hored ,-on -arental a,thorit) 'o,-led 8ith -res,(ed -arental dereli'tion in the dis'har/e of the d,ties a''o(-an)in/ s,'h a,thorit). Parental dereliction is only a PRES5MPTION which can be o(erturned under 0-D/ by )roof of all the diligence of a good father of a fa$ily to )re(ent the da$age. The basis of )arental liability for the torts of a $inor child is the relationshi) e+isting between the )arents and the $inor child li(ing with the$ and o(er who$ the law )resu$es the )arents e+ercise su)er(ision and control. Art KD of the Child and Bouth 'elfare Code< res)onsibility for child under )arental authority Art. 00- 2C< child (tortfeasor) $ust be in the actual custody of the )arents sought to be held liable Anent the retroa'ti1it) of -arental a,thorit) to the ti(e of filin/ of the -etition for ado-tion: 7etroacti(e effect $ay )erha)s be gi(en where such is essential to )er$it the accrual of so$e benefit or ad(antage in fa(or of the child. Eere no )resu$)tion of )arental dereliction on the 7a)isuras could ha(e arisen since Adelberto was not in fact sub!ect to their control at the ti$e the tort was co$$itted. R5LE: Parents $ust ha(e actual or )hysical custody o(er the $inor to be held liable. NOTES: 5nly benefits retroact to the ti$e of filing of the )etition for ado)tion not )arental authority Parental Authority< Control and su)er(ision o(er children. Eence no PA no )arental liability.
&ase E?'onde 1s. &a-,no (;SP as#ed by school head to go to the )arade) A'tion forJ Ci(il action for da$ages (father and son i$)leaded) 2ho held liable TC< only son liable SC< Pa and son !ointly and se(erally liable *not the school because not a school of arts and trades SC< 2ather liable subsidiarily *child abo(e -K below -D Basis for liabilit) A $@A Cno8 2 #@D: 2ATE97 liable for acts of MI@57 S5@ *ci(il liability is a necessary conse,uence of parental authority they e+ercise o(er their MI@57 children A @ RP& in'o(-lete so resort to A2 #@ of N&& Ca))ly 9+clusio ?nus 9+clucio ?lterus) & MI@57 son LIGI@" in their co$)any A2 !" an A2 #@ Cnot based on RP&D *e(en if son caused in!uries with deliberate intent (and not $erely negligence) *note< not subsidiary liable 6,itierreF 1s. 6,itierreF (bus collision fa$ily e+ce)t )a in the car dri(en by $inor) Rodri/,eF9 L,na 1s. IA& (go*cart (s. Toyota)
Ci(il action (s. Manuel "uitierreL (the father) only (P bus dri(er and owner)
SC< The father bus dri(er and owner !ointly and se(erally liable
as $entioned under Libi (s. IAC A2 #@: 'o((on la8: (aster and ser1ant Cnot -aterfa(iliasD & $a not liable e(en if )resent during ti$e of incident A2 #@: stri't la8 *donAt a))ly 9lcano (. Eill where court allowed only subsidiary liability because it will not ser(e ends of !ustice Art 22 : +&K Art 2 #@: N&&K Art @ : RP& 2h) -ri(aril) liable: -. If liability of the )arents for cri$es or O4s of their $inor children is subsidiary then they can neither in(o#e nor be absol(ed of ci(il liability on the defense that they acted with the diligence of a good father of a fa$ily to )re(ent da$ages. 0. The liability of )arents for felonies is li#ewise Pri$ary and not subsidiary under A-/- of 7PC< $inor only liable if )arents are insol(ent (A-/-
Ci(il action (s. )a and son
Libi 1s. IA& (Suicide or ho$icideJ)
Ci(il action (s. )arents
SC< Pa $ade )ri$arily liable for the in!ury caused by son (son already of age said to be insol(ent but in Madrid%) SC< Libis are )ri$arily and directly liable
Salen and Salbanera 1s. Bal'e (son abo(e -K but below -D #illed -D yr old) +,ellas 1s. &adano (stole )encil and had the ner(e to be $ad by brea#ing class$ateAs ar$%)
Cri$inal case with ci(il liability arising fro$ it
Cri$inal action (s. 7ico for Serious Physical In!uries Ci(il action (s Aga)ito (the father) only
SC< Pa liable

Ta(ar/o 1s. &A (ado)ted child still with )arents at ti$e of incident) Cri$inal co$)laint Ci(il co$)laint (s. @atural )arents of child SC< ;undocs (natural )arents) are indis)ensable )arties *the ado)ting )arents had no actual custody yet )arF) Art. 2 !": -arental a,thorit) 'o,-led 8ith -res,(ed -arental dereli'tion in the dis'har/e of d,ties a''o(-an)in/ s,'h a,thorit): do'trine of 1i'ario,s liabilit) as e?-lained in &AN6&O VS. MANILA RAILROA0 7IMPORTANT: PARENTS M5ST 4AVE A&T5AL OR P4YSI&AL &5STO0Y
OVER T4E MINOR TO BE 4EL0 LIABLE
10
Art. 2 !. In case of foundlings abandoned neglected or abused children and other children si$ilarly situated )arental authority shall be entrusted in su$$ary !udicial )roceedings to heads of childrenMs ho$es or)hanages and si$ilar institutions duly accredited by the )ro)er go(ern$ent agency. (F-1a)
obser(ed all the diligence of a good father of a fa$ily to )re(ent da$age. (-./Fa) Art. 2 # . 'hoe(er )ays for the da$age caused by his de)endents or e$)loyees $ay reco(er fro$ the latter what he has )aid or deli(ered in satisfaction of the clai$. (-./1)
&LASS NOTE
'hat is a foundlingJ A baby deserted by un#nown )arents. (e.g. those left at the doorste)) Art. 2 #@. The obligation i$)osed by Article 0-3> is de$andable not only for oneMs own acts or o$issions but also for those of )ersons for who$ one is res)onsible. The father and in case of his death or inca)acity the $other are res)onsible for the da$ages caused by the $inor children who li(e in their co$)any. 6,ardians are liable for da(a/es 'a,sed b) the (inors or in'a-a'itated -ersons 8ho are ,nder their a,thorit) and li1e in their 'o(-an). The owners and $anagers of an establish$ent or enter)rise are li#ewise res)onsible for da$ages caused by their e$)loyees in the ser(ice of the branches in which the latter are e$)loyed or on the occasion of their functions. 9$)loyers shall be liable for the da$ages caused by their e$)loyees and household hel)ers acting within the sco)e of their assigned tas#s e(en though the for$er are not engaged in any business or industry. The State is res)onsible in li#e $anner when it acts through a s)ecial agent= but not when the da$age has been caused by the official to who$ the tas# done )ro)erly )ertains in which case what is )ro(ided in Article 0-3> shall be a))licable. Lastly teachers or heads of establish$ents of arts and trades shall be liable for da$ages caused by their )u)ils and students or a))rentices so long as they re$ain in their custody. The res)onsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the )ersons herein $entioned )ro(e that they
A. Tea'hers and 4eads of Instit,tions +a(il) &ode

Art. 2 #. The school its ad$inistrators and teachers or the indi(idual entity or institution engaged in child are shall ha(e s)ecial )arental authority and res)onsibility o(er the $inor child while under their su)er(ision instruction or custody. Authority and res)onsibility shall a))ly to all authoriLed acti(ities whether inside or outside the )re$ises of the school entity or institution. (F1.a) Art. 2 $. Those gi(en the authority and res)onsibility under the )receding Article shall be )rinci)ally and solidarily liable for da$ages caused by the acts or o$issions of the une$anci)ated $inor. The )arents !udicial guardians or the )ersons e+ercising substitute )arental authority o(er said $inor shall be subsidiarily liable. The res)ecti(e liabilities of those referred to in the )receding )aragra)h shall not a))ly if it is )ro(ed that they e+ercised the )ro)er diligence re,uired under the )articular circu$stances. All other cases not co(ered by this and the )receding articles shall be go(erned by the )ro(isions of the Ci(il Code on ,uasi*delicts. (n) Art. 2 #@. The obligation i$)osed by Article 0-3> is de$andable not only for oneMs own acts or o$issions but also for those of )ersons for who$ one is res)onsible. The father and in case of his death or inca)acity the $other are res)onsible for the da$ages caused by the $inor children who li(e in their co$)any. "uardians are liable for da$ages caused by the $inors or inca)acitated )ersons who are under their authority and li(e in their co$)any.
2. 6,ardians +a(il) &ode

Art. 2 ". In default of )arents or a !udicially a))ointed guardian the following )erson shall e+ercise substitute )arental authority o(er the child in the order indicated< (-)The sur(i(ing grand)arent as )ro(ided in Art. 0-11= (0) The oldest brother or sister o(er twenty*one years of age unless unfit or dis,ualified= and (F) The childMs actual custodian o(er twenty*one years of age unless unfit or dis,ualified. 'hene(er the a))oint$ent or a !udicial guardian o(er the )ro)erty of the child beco$es necessary the sa$e order of )reference shall be obser(ed. (F1.a FK-a FK1a)
4 Art. 0-1. In case of death
absence or unsuitability of the )arents substitute )arental authority
shall be e+ercised by the sur(i(ing grand)arent. In case se(eral sur(i(e the one designated by the court ta#ing into account the sa$e consideration $entioned in the )receding article shall e+ercise the authority. (FKKa)

The owners and $anagers of an establish$ent or enter)rise are li#ewise res)onsible for da$ages caused by their e$)loyees in the ser(ice of the branches in which the latter are e$)loyed or on the occasion of their functions. 9$)loyers shall be liable for the da$ages caused by their e$)loyees and household hel)ers acting within the sco)e of their assigned tas#s e(en though the for$er are not engaged in any business or industry. The State is res)onsible in li#e $anner when it acts through a s)ecial agent= but not when the da$age has been caused by the official to who$ the tas# done )ro)erly )ertains in which case what is )ro(ided in Article 0-3> shall be a))licable. Lastl): tea'hers or heads of establish(ents of arts and trades shall be liable for da(a/es 'a,sed b) their -,-ils and st,dents or a--renti'es: so lon/ as the) re(ain in their ',stod). The res)onsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the )ersons herein $entioned )ro(e that they obser(ed all the diligence of a good father of a fa$ily to )re(ent da$age. (-./Fa) ISS5E: '5@ the teacher or head of the school should be held res)onsible (instead of the father) since the fight ha))ened during recess ti$e in school (Lourdes Catholic School). 4EL0: @o. The )u)ils were not in the 8custody: of the school. CA 7e(ersed as to M4 but affir$ed the award of $edical e+)enses. This was answered in Exconde v. Capuno through Custice ;autista< 8we find $erit in this clai$. It is true that under the law teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any da$age caused by their )u)ils or a))rentices while they are under their custody. B,t this -ro1ision onl) a--lies to an instit,tion of arts and trades and not to an) a'ade(i' ed,'ational instit,tion.L Custody ($e$oriLe%)< 8SO LON6 AS T4EY REMAIN IN T4EIR &5STO0Y:* C5@T9MPLAT9S A SIT5ATION 24ERE T4E P5PIL LIVES AN0 BOAR0S 2IT4 T4E TEA&4ER: S5&4 T4AT T4E &ONTROL 0IRE&TION AN0 IN+L5EN&E ON T4E P5PIL S5PERSE0ES T4OSE O+ T4E PARENTS . In these circu$stances the control or the influence o(er the conduct and actions of the )u)il would )ass fro$ the father and $other to the teacher= and so would the res)onsibility for the torts of the )u)il. S,'h a sit,ation does not a--ear in the 'ase at bar. The )u)ils go to school during school hours and go bac# ho$e to their )arents after. The sit,ated 'onte(-lated in the last -ar. of art. 2 #@ (I thin# he $eant 0nd to the last )ar) does not a--l): nor does -ar 2B 8hi'h (a<es the father or (other res-onsible for the da(a/es 'a,sed b) their (inor 'hildren. 4en'e: the 'lai( of Mer'ado that res-onsibilit) sho,ld -ass to the s'hool: (,st be held to be 8itho,t (erit. Anent the M0< 5nly )ossible circu$stance in which M4 $ay be granted is if a felony or O4 has been co$$itted.
5 The father and
11
-. no cri$inal action for )hysical in!uries has been )resented 0. e(en if this is a O4 within the $eaning of Art. * Art. 00-. )ar 0> the facts show that AugustoAs act was occasioned by the fact that Manuel Cr. tired to inter(ene or interfere with AugustoAs atte$)t to reco(er his )itogo. Eence the -ro?i(ate 'a,se of Manuel CrAs in!ury is his own fault or negligence for ha(ing interfered. Eence no M4 coL the cases in Art. 00-. were not shown to e+ist. R5LE: e+conde (. ca)uno doctrine3< acade$ic institutions not included in Art. 0-D/ 0. e+conde (. ca)uno doctrine< res)onsibility )asses fro$ )arents to teachers or heads of 5@LB institutions of arts and trades A. Lo,rdes is not liable be'a,se the) don=t retain ',stod) C',stod)Mli1in/ 8ith the tea'hers or headsD of their -,-ils. 1. Ciriaco Mercado is not res)onsible e(en under Art. 0-D/ )ar. 0*)robably because Manuel Cr. did not die nor was he inca)acitated. K. @o $oral da$ages because cases in Art. 00-. were not shown to e+ist. >. Augusto was only . and was not shown to act with discern$ent 3. 9(en if there was a O4 on AugustoAs )art the )ro+i$ate cause of the in!ury was Manuel CrAs own act of interference. 0O&TRINE: what Art. 0-D/ $eans by 8custody:
1.
Mer'ado 1. &A: et al May F/ -.>/

+A&TS: Augusto . years old lent his )itogo to ;enedicto who lent it to 7enato. 'hen Augusto tried to retrie(e his )itogo Manuel Cr thin#ing it was ;enedictoAs interfered and told Augusto not to get it fro$ 7enato as 7enato was better at )utting the chain into the holes of the )itogo. Augusto resented this re$ar# and aggressi(ely )oushed hi$. A fight ensued and Augusto wounded Manuel Cr. on the right chee# with a )iece of raLor. The doctor who testified did not declare the a$ount he collected as fees and Manuel Cr. was not hos)italiLed. T&: dis$issed the co$)laint filed by Manuel Cr. and his father &A: 5rdered Ciriaco Mercado (the father) to )ay for the $edical e+)enses and M4 but no M4 for the )arents.
Paliso' 1. Brillantes 5ctober 1 -.3+A&TS: 4o$inador Palisoc -> years old and Girgilio 4affon of age were class$ates at the Manila Technical Institute. 4uring recess while wor#ing on a $achine 4affon $ade a re$ar# that Palisoc was li#e a fore$an because he was $erely watching the$. Ir#ed Palisoc bitch*sla))ed 4affon. In retaliation 4affon ga(e
6Art. 00-.. Moral da$ages $ay be reco(ered in the following and analogous cases<
(0) Ouasi*delicts causing )hysical in!uries=
in case of his death or inca)acity the $other are res)onsible for the da$ages
caused by the $inor children who li(e in their co$)any.
7 Although later cases say this is a $ere obiter because the issue was won the father had ci(il
liability

Palisoc a strong flat blow on the face followed by fist blows on the sto$ach. Palisoc tried to retreat but 4affon followed hi$. They e+changed fist blows until Palsioc stu$bled on an engine bloc# which caused hi$ to fall face downward. Ee fainted and ne(er regained consciousness. The auto)sy re)ort said he died of bro#en ribs and he$orrhage on the brain caused 8)robably by strong fist blows.: T&: 4affon liable for O4 under 0-3>. Absol(ed the following because 0-D/ is not a))licable< It a))lied Mercado v. CA s definition of !custody" -. ;rillantes*$e$ber of the board of directors of MTI 0. Galenton )resident of MTI F. Ouibulue instructor of the class. ISS5E: '5@ the other defendants (board $e$ber )resident and instructor) should be held solidarily liable with 4affon 4EL0: Bes. TC Modified. 4affon Galenton and Ouibulue are solidarily liable for da$ages. ?nder 0-D/ the )resident and instructor are liable solidarily for da$ages. ;rillantes is not liable because he is a $ere $e$ber of the board (he could ha(e been liable if not for the incor)oration of the school $a#ing a cor)oration the owner of the school and not hi$ any$ore). The school cannot be held liable as it was not i$)leaded as a )arty defendant. The TC based its decision on Mercado (. CA which in turn was based on a dictu$ in 9+conde (. Ca)uno. The case here was instituted directly against the defendants (as against the cited cases where the father was the defendant). The )arents here are not in(ol(ed since 4affon was already of age at the ti$e of the incident. MTI is un,uestionably a non*acade$ic school. . E',stod)L The TC erred in absol(ing the defendants on the ground that they can only be held liable if they 8li(ed and boarded with his teacher or the other defendants* school officials.: The -hrase Eso lon/ as Cthe st,dentsD re(ain in their ',stod)L (eans TE9 P75T9CTIG9 A@4 S?P97GIS57B
C?ST54B TEAT TE9 SCE55L A@4 ITS E9A4S A@4 T9ACE97S 9N97CIS9 5G97 TE9 P?PILS A@4 ST?49@TS 257 AS L5@" AS TE9B A79 AT ATT9@4A@C9 I@ TE9 SCE55L I@CL?4I@" 79C9SS TIM9.
12
CMEMORINED NOT4IN6
S&4OOL. IN T4E LA2 REH5IRES T4AT +OR S5&4 LIABILITY TO ATTA&4: T4E P5PIL9TORT+EASOR M5ST LIVE AN0 BOAR0 IN T4E
2. Rationale of the liabilit) The rationale of the liability of school heads and teachers is that they stand to a certain e+tent as to their )u)ils and students in loco parentis and are called u)on to 8e+ercise reasonable su)er(ision o(er the conduct of the child.: A. 6o1ernin/ Prin'i-le in la8 of torts In the law of torts the go(erning )rinci)le is that the )rotecti(e custody of the school heads and teachers is $andatorily substituted for that of the )arents and hence it beco$es their obligation as well as that of the school itself to )ro(ide )ro)er su)er(ision of the studentsA acti(ities during the whole ti$e that they are at attendance in the school including recess ti$e as well as to ta#e the necessary )recautions to )rotect the students in their custody fro$ dangers and haLards that would reasonably be antici)ated including in!uries that so$e students the$sel(es $ay inflict willfully or through negligence on their fellow students. %. Mer'ado o1ert,rned. Re)es= dissent r,lesO Adheres to 7eyesA dissent in 9+conde< If the basis of )resu$)tion of negligence in Art. -./F is so$e cul)a in (igilando that the )arents teachers etc. are su))osed to ha(e incurred in the e+ercise of their authority hence when the )arent )laces the child under the effecti(e authority of the teacher the teacher and not the )arent should be the one answerable for the torts co$$itted while under his custody. 2h). for the (ery reason that the )arent is not su))osed to interfere with the disci)line of the school nor with the authority and su)er(ision of the teacher while the child is under instruction. If there is no a,thorit): there 'an be no res-onsibilit). Eence the )resident and instructor $ust be held solidarily liable unless they )ro(e that they obser(ed the diligence of a good father of a fa$ily to )re(ent the da$age*which they failed to do.
0issent: Ma<alintal 'ants Mercado sustained. ItAs unfair to hold teachers andHor ad$inistrati(e heads res)onsible for tortuous acts of their students considering the high nu$ber of enroll$ent. It would de$and res)onsibility without the co$$ensurate authority. Moreo(er since the res)onsibility ste$s fro$ loco parentis then it follows that -. custodyQ li(e in co$)any (li#e for )arents and guardians) and 0. res)onsibility li$ited to $inors only (li#e for )arents and guardians) &on',rrin/: Re)es Concurs with $a!ority but dissents with the dissent. Ma#alintalAs inter)retation not in accord with the law. -. 5nly the guardians and )arents are e+e$)t once the child reaches $a!ority 0. The authority and custodial su)er(ision (of the teachers and heads) o(er the )u)il e+ists regardless of the )u)ilAs age. R5LE: . Mer'ado do'trine abandonedPo1ert,rned 2. 2ants to o1ert,rn E?'onde Cto in'l,de a'ade(i' instit,tions in the s'o-e of 2 #@D b,t has no 'han'e be'a,se MTI is anon9a'ade(i' instit,tion. A. 0efinition of E',stod)LM the )rotecti(e and su)er(isory custody that the school and its heads and teachers e+ercise o(er the )u)ils and students for as long as they are at attendance in the school including recess ti$e. CMEMORINED
A(adora 1. &A A)ril -K -.DD

+A&TS: Alfredo A$adora -3 yrs old was shot by his class$ate Pablito 4affon F days before his high school graduation while he was at the auditoriu$ of the Colegio de San Cose*7ecolectos either to finish a Physics e+)eri$ent or to sub$it a Physics re)ort. 4affon was con(icted of ho$icide thru rec#less i$)rudence. The A$adoras sued for da$ages against the School (Colegio) the dean of boys and the )hysics teacher and 4affon. T&: defendants are liable for da$ages

&A: All the defendants were absol(ed. Colegio is not a school of arts and trades and 4affon was not in custody since the se$ester already ended. ISS5E: Inter)retation of Art. 0-D/ 4EL0: Petition denied. None are liable. The SC su$$ariLed F cases which ha(e been decided in connection with 0-D/< Exconde*school not liable because it is not a school of arts and trades *7eyesA dissent*rule was i$)osed on teachers in general and heads 52 establish$ents of arts and trades. Mercado*reiterated 9+conde. School not liable because it is not an establish$ent of arts and trades *4efined 8custody: as li(ing and boarding with the teacher "alisoc* Set asideHabandoned the doctrines in 9+conde and Mercado. *4efined 8custody: to $ean that the )rotecti(e and su)er(isory custody of the school and its heads and teachers o(er the students are in force so long as they re$ain in school including recess ti$e. *in a footnote Tehan#ee (the )onente) said that he agreed with 7eyes in his 9+conde dissent to include acade$ic schools but had no chance because the school in(oled is a non*acade$ic one. A$adora is the case% . Art. 2 #@ a--lies to both a'ade(i' and non9 a'ade(i' s'hools #eddendo $ingula $ingulis% a. if acade$ic* teacher is liable for the )u)ils and students ("eneral 7ule) b. if non*acade$ic* head is liable for the a))rentices (9+ce)tion) *;ut sa$e (igilance is re,uired% 7eason for dis)arity< historically the heads of arts and trades e+ercised a closer tutelage o(er his )u)ils than the head of an acade$ic school.. There is no substantial distinction between an acade$ic and a non*acade$ic school insofar as torts co$$itted by their students are concerned. The same vigilance is e+)ected fro$ the teacher o(er the students under his control and su)er(ision whate(er the nature of the school he is teaching. 2. Art. 2 #@ a--lies so lon/ as the st,dent is ,nder the 'ontrol and ',stod) and 8ithin the s'hool -re(ises: re/ardless of 8hether the se(ester has not )et be/,n or has alread) ended C0,ration of Res-onsibilit)D CMEMORINE STAN0AR0D: E&5STO0YL IS NOT &O9TERMINO5S 2IT4 T4E SEMESTER. AS LON6 AS IT &AN BE S4O2N T4AT T4E ST50ENT IS IN
T4E S&4OOL PREMISES IN P5RS5AN&E O+ A LE6ITIMATE ST50ENT OB*E&TIVE: IN T4E EGER&ISE O+ A LE6ITIMATE ST50ENT RI64T: AN0 EVEN IN T4E EN*OYMENT O+ A LE6ITIMATE ST50ENT PRIVILE6E: T4E RESPONSIBILITY O+ T4E S&4OOL A5T4ORITIES OVER T4E ST50ENT &ONTIN5ES.
13
e+cul)ate itself by )roof of e+ercise of diligence of bonus paterfamilias.Idefense which is also a(ailable to the teacher or the head. %. P,-il not re;,ired to be a (inor to hold tea'her liable ?nli#e the )arent who will be liable only for his $inor child the teacher is answerable for torts of his students regardless of the studentAs age. 4en'e: -. Alfredo A$adora was still in the schoolAs 8custody: when the incident ha))ened 0. rector high school )rinci)al and dean of boys @5T liable because none of the$ were the teacher*in charge (they only e+ercised a general authority and not the direct control and influence e+erted by the teacher*in* charge) 4ean of boys not liable although he earlier confiscated a gun because it was not shown that the gun he confiscated and the gun that was used in the shooting were the sa$e. F. Physics teacher not liable because there was no showing that he was negligent in his duties. Eis absence cannot be ta#en against hi$ as he was not re,uired to re)ort to school that day. 1. Colegio not liable because 0-D/ does not a))ly to school but only to its teachers and heads. &ON&5RRIN6 I 0ISSENTIN6: Melen'io94errera *8teacher: in 0-D/ should not be li$ited to the 8teacher* in*charge: *the school $ay be held res)onsible under 0-D/ as the e$)loyer of the teachers and heads &ON&5RRIN6: 6,tierreF: *r. *reiterates the need for an a$end$ent due to the non* e+istent dis)arity between teachers of acade$ic schools and heads of arts and trades R5LE: -. Custody definition 0. a))lication of 0-D/ to both acade$ic and non*acade$ic schools F. teachers is to )u)ils and students as heads is to a))rentices 1. school not directly liable under 0-D/ )ar 3.
E1en if the st,dent sho,ld be doin/ nothin/ (ore than rela?in/ in the 'a(-,s in the 'o(-an) of his 'lass(ates and friends and en3o)in/ the a(bien'e and at(os-here in the s'hool: he is still 8ithin the ',stod) and s,b3e't to the dis'i-line of the s'hool a,thorities ,nder the -ro1isions of Art. 2 #@. 8Custody does not connote i$$ediate and actual )hysical control but refers $ore to the influence e+erted on the child and the disci)line instilled in hi$ as a result of such influence. A. Liabilit) i(-osed not on the s'hool itself It should be noted that the liability i$)osed is su))osed to fall directly on the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades and not on the school itself. If at all the school whate(er its nature $ay be held to answer for the acts of its teachers and heads under the general )rinci)le of respondeat superior it $ay
9 This dis)arity no longer e+ist in (iew of the increase in enroll$ent. ;ut thatAs a tas# for the
legislature.
8 7eferring each to each= referring each )hrase or e+)ression to its a))ro)riate ob!ect or let each
be )ut in its )ro)er )lace i.e. the words should be ta#en distributi(ely

NOTES: dangerous definition of 8custody: because it is so broad (e(en if !ust wal#ing around school en!oying its a$bience and at$os)here)
14
&LASS NOTE facts< in Acade$ic school by student of the school after se$ ends A0-D/ a))lies to both ACA49MIC and @5@ACA49MIC schools Acade$ic< teacher*in*charge<< Institute of Arts and Trades< Eeads Custody does not connote I@2L?9@C9 e+erted on the child and the 4ISCIPLI@9 instilled in hi$ as a result of such influence )u)il is not re,uired to be a $inor for the teacher to be liable% (A0-D/ doesnAt re,uire $inority) A))licability to acade$ic institutions 'AS an issue )rior to this caseIsee 9+conde 4es)ite the broadness of the definition of custody @5 5@9 was held liable in A$adora%
0ISSENT: Sar(iento Par K-/ of 0-D/ $ay be construed as the basis of liability of the school as the e$)loyer for the failure of its teachers or heads to )erfor$ their $andatory legal duties as substitute )arents. Melen'io94errera Coins Sar$iento in his dissent. School $ay e+cul)ate itself by )ro(ing diligence of a good father of a fa$ily. H5ESTION: 'ould the school be held liable after the 2a$ily CodeJ ANS2ER: Bes% School can be held liable under 0-D 2C--
out of the in ti$e. Blarde sustained in!uries which caused his death F days later. The Blardes ($o$ and dad) sued A,uino and Soriano the )rinci)al for da$ages. T&: dis$issed the co$)laint. -. digging was )art of wor# education 0. A,uino e+ercised ut$ost diligence F. BlardeAs death was due to his own rec#less i$)rudence. &A: Affir$ed TC ISS5E: '5@ both A,uino and Soriano $ay be held liable. 4EL0: A;,ino is liable for inde(nit): E0 and M0 ,nder 2 !" Cart. The -etition is based onD and (a) be held liable ,nder 2 #@. Soriano: as a head of an a'ade(i' s'hool: 'annot be held liable. &A re1ersed and set aside. . Soriano 'annot be held liable a. Ee is a Eead of an acade$ic school and not of a school of arts and trades (in line with A$adora) b. Ee did not order the digging 2. Ylarde (a) be held liable ,nder 2 #@ as the tea'her9in9'har/e Ee was negligent in his su)er(ision and he failed to ta#e the necessary )recautions. B5T: the Ylardes based their -etition on 2 !". A. A;,ino is liable for da(a/es ,nder 2 !" (O< '5@ the act or o$ission of A,uino a$ounting to fault or negligence has a direct causal connection to BlardeAs death) a. K negligent acts of A,uino i. he shouldA(e used adult laborers and not -/ year olds ii. he re,uired the #ids to re$ain inside the )it #nowing that a huge bloc# was !ust nearby iii. the stone was ob(iously at the brin# of falling yet he re,uire the #ids to le(el the soil around the e+ca(ation i(. he left the #ids (. he left the #ids near an attracti(e nuisance
&LASS NOTE facts< by students wHn school )re$ises against ACA49MIC school A0-D/ doesnAt include Acade$ic schools (this is the case where the court researcher was not aware of the ruling in A$adora (s. CA) 4onAt sue school based on 0-D/ (3)
Pas'o 1. &+I of B,la'an: Bran'h V A)ril 0K -.DD

+A&TS: 7eynaldo Pasco was $auled by a grou) of Musli$ students and stabbed by Abdul while wal#ing inside the Araneta ?ni(ersity (Araneta). Pasco had !ust finished his classes and the Musli$ grou) were also students of Araneta. Pasco assisted by his father sued Abdul and Araneta for da$ages. T&: dis$issed case against Araneta ISS5E: '5@ Art. 0-D/ is a))licable to acade$ic institutions. 4EL0: )etition dis$issed. 'rong issue. There is no need to discuss the a))licability of 0-D/ to educational institutions for the iss,e is a't,all) 8hether or not: ,nder 2 #@: the s'hool or the ,ni1ersit) ITSEL+ Cas distin/,ished for( tea'hers or headsD is liable. Answer to that issue< NOO the -ro1ision s-ea<s onl) of TEA&4ERS or 4EA0S.
Ylarde 1s. A;,ino Culy 0. -.DD

+A&TS: 9dgardo A,uino a teacher in "abaldon Pri$ary School gathered his $ale students aged -/*-to clean*u) the re$nants of ''II. They had to dig a hole to bury the concrete bloc#s. Ee left while the wor# was unfinished and the #ids !u$)ed in the )it. 5ne of the #ids !u$)ed on the concrete bloc# causing it to fall in the )it and )inning Blarde who was not able to get
10 9$)loyers shall be liable for the da$ages caused by their e$)loyees and household hel)ers
acting within the sco)e of their assigned tas#s e(en though the for$er are not engaged in any business or industry.
11
Art. 0-D. The school its ad$inistrators and teachers or the indi(idual entity or institution engaged in child are shall ha(e s)ecial )arental authority and res)onsibility o(er the $inor child while under their su)er(ision instruction or custody. Authority and res)onsibility shall a))ly to all authoriLed acti(ities whether inside or outside the )re$ises of the school entity or institution. (F1.a)

b. the negligent act of A,uino in lea(ing the #ids in such a dangerous site has a direct causal connection to the death of Blarde. It was but natural for #ids to )lay around c. digging was not )art of wor# educationH d. a truly careful and cautious )erson wouldA(e acted in all contrast to the way A,uino did. %. Ylarde 'annot be 'har/ed 8ith re'<less i(-r,den'e The degree of care re,uired to be e+ercised $ust (ary with the ca)acity of the )erson to care for hi$self. A $inor should not be held to the sa$e degree of care as an adult but his conduct should be !udged according to the a(erage conduct of )ersons of his age and e+)erience The standard of conduct to which a child $ust confor$ for his own )rotection is that degree of care ordinarily e+ercised by children of the sa$e age ca)acity discretion #nowledge and e+)erience under the sa$e or si$ilar circu$stances. IA&: Affir$ed but $odified award ISS5E: '5@ Sal(osa and ;C2 can be held solidarily liable with Abon for da$ages under 0-D/. 4EL0: @o. Abon was not in the custody of ;C2 at the ti$e of the incident. IAC 7e(ersed in so far as it holds Sal(osa and ;C2 solidarily liable with Abon. . Rationale for liabilit) 7eiterated Palisoc< The rationale of the liability of school heads and teachers is that they stand to a certain e+tent as to their )u)ils and students in loco parentis and are called u)on to 8e+ercise reasonable su)er(ision o(er the conduct of the child.: 2. Abon 8as not in the E',stod)L of B&+ 8hen he shot Na-oleon 0E+INITION
O+
15
&LASS NOTE School< ACA4 P Institute of Arts and Trade ti$e< dis$issal where< in )ar#ing lot of school against who< student of ?ni(ersity of ;aguio Me$oriLe< recess and custody A$adora< legiti$ate student ob!ecti(eRGicti$ is own student Sal(osa< a))lied Palisoc definition of custodyRGicti$ is student of another school Ponente forgot A$adoraIdecided > $onths earlier. So to reconcile both cases< If (icti$ is a student of schoolIA$adora= If (icti$ is @5T a student of school*Sal(osa
E&5STO0YL CMEMORINEOD99 T4E
PROTE&TIVE AN0
St. +ran'is 4i/h S'hool 1s. &A 2ebruary 0K -..+A&TS: 2erdinand Castillo -F and a fresh$an at St. 2rancis Eigh School drowned during a school )icnic while trying to sa(e a fe$ale teacher. The Castillos sued the school the )rinci)al and the > teachers who were at the )icnic for da$ages. T&: Eeld the > teachers solidarily liable for A4 S M4 Absol(ed the school and the )rinci)al ;oth a))ealed &A: Modified TC. Eeld the school the )rinci)al and 1 teachers solidarily liable for A4 M4 and 94. ISS5E: '5@ 0-D/ is a))licable. 4EL0: @o. CA set aside. @o one is guilty under 0-D/. @o M4 coL case does not fall under any of the grounds for M4 and they are not guilty of negligence. . None of the( are /,ilt) of either their o8n ne/li/en'e or of the ne/li/en'e of those ,nder the( 2. S'hool not liable ,nder 2 #@ T5 ;9 E9L4 LIA;L9 ?@497 0-D/ TE9
EIS
S5PERVISORY &5STO0Y T4AT T4E S&4OOL AN0 ITS 4EA0S AN0 TEA&4ERS EGER&ISE OVER T4E P5PILS AN0 ST50ENTS +OR AS LON6 AS T4EY ARE AT ATTEN0AN&E IN T4E S&4OOL: IN&L50IN6 RE&ESS TIME.
&LASS NOTE facts< students teachers and )rinci)al i$)leaded A))lied A$adora doctrine< (teacher<ACA4<<heads<9stablish$ents of arts and trade) #ualifying $custody% In line with Paliso' 79C9SS IS A T9MP57A7B A4C5?7@M9@T 9M;7AC94 I@ TE9 C5@C9PT 52 8AT ATT9@4A@C9 I@ TE9 SCE55L.: IT
IS A SIT?ATI5@ 'E979 TE9 ST?49@T STILL 79MAI@S 'ITEI@ TE9 CALL 52 EIS M9@T57 A@4 IS @5T P97MITT94 T5 L9AG9 TE9 SCE55L P79MIS9S 57 TE9 A79A 'ITEI@ 'EICE TE9 SCE55L ACTIGITB IS C5@4?CT94.
Sal1os 1. IA& 5ctober K -.DD

+A&TS: Ci$$y Abon was a student of the ;C2 and an e$)loyee of A2P (as an ar$orer for the ;C2*75TC unit) with wor# )re$ises inside the ;C2. Abon shot @a)oleon Castro a co$$erce student of ;C2 with an unlicensed gun fro$ the 75TC ar$ory at the ;C2 )ar#ing lot at around D)$. Ee was con(icted of Eo$icide. @a)oleonAs heirs (Castros) sued for da$ages i$)leading Abon The 75TC Co$$andant ;. Sal(osa*)resident and chair$an of ;C2 board C. Sal(osa*the 9GP of ;C2 the dean and ;C2. T&: Solidary liability of Abon ;. Sal(osa and ;C2 Absol(ed other defendants
RE&ESS BY ITS NAT5RE 0OES NOT IN&L50E 0ISMISSAL. Plus the $ere fact of being enrolled or being in the )re$ises of a school without $ore does not constitute 8attending school: or being in the 8)rotecti(e and su)er(isory custody: of the school as conte$)lated in the law. Abon cannot be considered to ha(e been in 8attendance in the school : or in the custody of ;C2 when he shot @a)oleon. Plus he was su))osed to be wor#ing when the incident ha))ened. R5LE: 0efines Ere'essL H,alified &,stod) NOTE: Sal(osa $itigates the effects of A$adora*but this was not cited in Sal(osa.
ACT 57 5MISSI5@ M?ST
EAG9 5CC?7794 'EIL9 A@ 9MPL5B99 'AS I@ TE9 P97257MA@C9 52
ASSI"@94 TAS6S. The )icnic was not a

sanctioned school acti(ity nor an e+tra*curricular acti(ity. A. The Prin'i-al is not liable ,nder 2 #@ Mere #nowledge of the )icnic is not enough Ee did not consent to the )icnic %. Tea'hers are not ne/li/ent hen'e not liable a. instructors and scout $asters who had #nowledge in -st aid and swi$$ing were in(ited b.life sa(ers were brought c. they did all that is hu$anly )ossible to sa(e 2erdinand 0ISSENT: Padilla -. teachers were negligent. a. They failed to obser(e the )ro)er diligence BE+ORE T4E IN&I0ENT Cwater was dee) only oral instructions were gi(en) b. The su))osed life guards were not there% They were ha(ing a drin#ing s)ree 0. Princi)al was negligent Ee #new of the acti(ity and he did not ta#e the a))ro)riate $easures to ensure the safety of his students. F. School is liable under 0-D/ )ar. K The negligence of an e$)loyee in causing in!ury or da$age gi(es rise to a )resu$)tion of negligence on the )art of the owner andHor $anager of the establish$ent. Acti(ity was sta$)ed with school authority. Many of the teachers were )resent and the acti(ity was organiLed by the teachers for the students. R5LE: Liability only for failure to )erfor$ assigned tas#s NOTES: Authority in saying that diligence should be ;92579 and not after the 2ACT and its officers filed a Motion to 4is$iss on the ground that 0-D/ as )er !uris)rudence does not include acade$ic institutions. T&: MT4 denied &A: Affir$ed TC coL 0-D/ a))lies to all #inds of educational institutions. ISS5E: '5@ PS;A can be held liable under 0-D/ 4EL0: @o. ;ut case is re$anded to deter$ine if PS;A failed to discharge its obligations under its contract with ;autista CA correct in denying MT4 but on the wrong grounds. . Art. 2 #@ doe not a--l) be'a,se offender 8as not a st,dent of PSBA ?nder 0-D/ the offender should be a )u)il of the school. In this case it was established that the offenders were not PS;A students. 2. PSBA (a) be held liable based on brea'h of 'ontra't 'hen a student enrolls there is an established contract between hi$ and the school resulting in a bilateral obligation***therefore this is not based on a O4 which arises when )arties are not bound by any contract. Although a O4 $ay still arise e(en when there is a contract if the act which breaches the contract is done in ;2 S be (iolati(e of Art. 0-. In this case though PS;AAs negligence would only be rele(ant in the e+istence of a contract. PS;AAs negligence cannot e+ist inde)endently of the contract unless the negligence occurs under the circu$stances set out in Art. 0-. R5LE: Art. 0-D/ a))lies only if the offender was a student of the school
16
A0-D/ a))lies to schools only if student liable but if student a (icti$ ;5C
Soli(an: *r. 1. T,aFon May -D -..0

+A&TS: Ma+i$o Soli$an Cr a student of the 7e)ublic Central Colleges was shot by Ci$$y Solo$on a security guard assigned to the school. Solo$on was e$)loyed by 7L Security Agency. Soli$an sued Solo$on 7CC and the 7L for da$ages. 7CC filed a MT4 on the following grounds< -. 7CC not the e$)loyer of Solo$on 0. Art. 0-D/ nHa because Solo$on was not a student of 7CC T&: granted MT4 ISS5E: '5@ the 7CC $ay be held liable under 0-D/ 4EL0: @o. ;ecause Solo$on was not an e$)loyee of 7CC and neither was he a student. ;ut under the case of PS;A 7CC $ay be held liable under the a contract. Case re$anded to deter$ine if there was a breach of contract. . Art. 2 #@: -ar B 2 does not a--l) 7CC was not the e$)loyer of Solo$on. 7CC was only a client of 7L*the e$)loyer of Solo$on hence 7CC had no hand in the selection and su)er(ision )rocess.
PSBA 1s. &A 2ebruary 1 -..0

+A&TS: Carlos ;autista was stabbed to death by outsiders within PS;AAs )re$ises. The ;autistas sued PS;A and its cor)orate officers for da$ages. PS;A
&LASS NOTE
12
The owners and $anagers of an establish$ent or enter)rise are li#ewise res)onsible for
da$ages caused by their e$)loyees in the ser(ice of the branches in which the latter are e$)loyed or on the occasion of their functions.

2. Arts. 2 #@ -ar. !: A A%$: AB@: I AB2 % does not a--l) Solo$on was not a student of 7CC. Eence school had no substitute )arental authority o(er hi$. A. PSBA a--lies 7CC $ay be held liable under the i$)lied contract between 7CC and Soli$an. ?nder this contract the school has an i$)licit obligation to )ro(ide students with an at$os)here conduci(e to learning. TC< -. St. MaryAs is liable for da$ages under 0-D S 0-.-K 2C 0. The 4aniels were held subsidiarily liable in the e(ent of St. MaryAs insol(ency. F. Ca$es was absol(ed due to his $inority. 1. Gillanue(a was li#ewise absol(ed. &A: Affir$ed but reduced A4. ISS5E: 2ON St Mar)=s is liable 4EL0: @o. CA re(ersed and set aside. Case re$anded for deter$ination of liability of defendants e+cluding St. MaryAs. . St. Mar)=s is not liable The s)ecial )arental authority under 0-D 2C a))lies to< -. the school its ad$inistrators and teachers 0. the indi(idual entity or institution engaged in child care This s)ecial )arental authority and res)onsibility a))lies to all authoriLed acti(ities whether inside or outside the )re$ises of the school entity or institution. Such authority and res)onsibility a))lies to field tri)s e+cursions and other affairs of the )u)ils and students outside the school )re$ises whene(er authoriLed by the school or its teachers.
15
17
?nder 0-. 2C if the )erson under custody is a $inor those e+ercising s)ecial )arental authority are )rinci)ally and solidarily liable for da$ages caused by the acts or o$issions of the une$anci)ated $inor under their su)er(ision instruction or custody. ;ut for St. MaryAs to be held liable there $ust be a finding that the act or o$ission considered a s negligent was the )ro+i$ate cause of the in!ury caused because the negligence $ust ha(e a causal connection to the accident. a. The )ro+i$ate cause of the accident was not the negligence nor the rec#less dri(ing of Ca$es but the $echanical defect of the !ee). The steering wheel guide was detached while the !ee) was running. b. ThereAs no e(idence that St. MaryAs allowed the $inor Ca$es to dri(e the !ee). It was the grandson of Gillanue(a who had control and )ossession of the !ee) who allowed Ca$es to dri(e. 2. Parents are Pri(aril) liable 'hether the accident was due to Ca$es negligence or the $echanical failure the )arents $ust be held )ri$arily liable. St. MaryAs negligence was only a re$ote cause and either the 4anielsA negligence or the $echanical failure was the inter(ening cause. A. Villan,e1a: as the re/istered o8ner of the 3ee- is liable for da(a/es 5(erwhel$ing e(idence that the accident was due to the detach$ent of the steering wheel guide. NOTES: a))lied 2C*this see$s to i$)ly strict liability but SC here allowed defense of diligence.
&LASS NOTES A0-D/ not a))licable to nonstudents to non* e$)loyees This case should ha(e used the )ro(isions fro$ the 2a$ily Code.
St. Mar)=s A'ade() 1. &ar-itanos 2ebruary > 0//0

+A&TS: St. MaryAs Acade$y conducted an enroll$ent dri(e for the inco$ing school year. This in(ol(ed (isitation of schools. Sherwin Car)itanos who was )art of the ca$)aigning grou) rode the !ee) along with other ES students. The !ee) was owned by Gillanue(a and was dri(en by Ca$es 4aniel II a -K year old student. They were on their way to an ele$entary school when the !ee) turned turtle due to Ca$esA rec#less dri(ing. Sherwin sustained in!uries which caused his death. The Car)itanos sued St. MaryAs Ca$es the 4aniels ()arents of Ca$es) and Gillanue(a.
13 Lastly
teachers or heads of establish$ents of arts and trades shall be liable for da$ages
Art. 0-D. The school its ad$inistrators and teachers or the indi(idual entity or institution
engaged in child are shall ha(e s)ecial )arental authority and res)onsibility o(er the $inor child while under their su)er(ision instruction or custody.
caused by their )u)ils and students or a))rentices so long as they re$ain in their custody. Authority and res)onsibility shall a))ly to all authoriLed acti(ities whether inside or outside the
14 Art. F1.. The following )ersons shall e+ercise substitute )arental authority<
(0) Teachers and )rofessors= +++ (1) 4irectors of trade establish$ents with regard to a))rentices=
)re$ises of the school entity or institution. (F1.a)
Art. 0-.. Those gi(en the authority and res)onsibility under the )receding Article shall be )rinci)ally and solidarily liable for da$ages caused by the acts or o$issions of the une$anci)ated $inor. The )arents !udicial guardians or the )ersons e+ercising substitute
&LASS NOTE school liable if Pro?i(ate &a,se of the in3,r) is their ne/li/en'e s)ecial )arental authority a))lies as long as the acti(ity was a))ro(ed by an office of the school 2C A0-D< school its @CC A0-D/ )ar3<
Art. FK/. The )ersons na$ed in the )receding article shall e+ercise reasonable su)er(ision o(er the conduct of the child.
)arental authority o(er said $inor shall be subsidiarily liable.
The res)ecti(e liabilities of those referred to in the )receding )aragra)h shall not a))ly if it is Art. FK0. The relations between teacher and )u)il )rofessor and student are fi+ed by go(ern$ent regulations and those of each school or institution. In no case shall cor)oral )unish$ent be countenanced. The teacher or )rofessor shall culti(ate the best )otentialities of the heart and $ind of the )u)il or student. All other cases not co(ered by this and the )receding articles shall be go(erned by the )ro(isions of the Ci(il Code on ,uasi*delicts. (n) )ro(ed that they e+ercised the )ro)er diligence re,uired under the )articular circu$stances.
'ho liable

ad$inistrators and teachers or the indi(idual entity or institution engaged in child Rha(e s)ecial )arental authority and res)onsibility Rto all authoriLed acti(ities 8hether inside or o,tside the )re$ises of the school entity or institution Minor child while under their su)er(ision instruction or custody A0-.< une$anci)ated $inor Princi)ally and solidarily liable & schools Subsidiarily liable & )arents !udicial guardians )ersons e+ercising substitute )arental authority teachers or heads of establish$ents of arts and trades *In St. 2rancis Case acti(ity should be inside school )re$ises 1. Rodri/,eF9L,na: )ri$ary liability of )arent K. Libi: Pri$ary liability of )arent*CL9A794 ?P ISS?9 5@ P7IMA7B 57 S?;SI4IA7B LIA;ILITB >. Mer'ado: CustodyQli(ing and boarding with teacher or head 3. Paliso': custody*)rotecti(e and su)er(isory custody. 4oes not ha(e to li(e or board with teacher or head 5(erturned Mercado. @o chance to 5(erturn 9+conde. Their )u)ils and students or a))rentices so long as they re$ain in their custody Pri$arily and directly D. A(adora: 0-D/ a))lies to all schools. 5(erturned 9+conde *Acade$ic school*teacher*)u)il *Arts S trades*head*a))rentice ;road definition of custody .. Pas'o: 0-D/ a))lies to teachers or heads not to school itself. -/. Ylarde: head of an acade$ic school not liable. --. Sal1osa: defines 8recess:= ,ualifies ($itigates a$adoraAs effects) custody
18
Phili--ine Rabbit B,s Lines: In'. 1s. Phil9 A(eri'an +or8arders: In' March 0K -.3K
+A&TS: 2ernando Pineda dri(er of a Phili))ine A$erican 2orwarders freight truc# hit a Phili))ine 7abbit ;us along a national highway. The bus dri(er suffered in!uries and the bus was unusable for 3. days resulting in loss of inco$e. ;alingit as the $anager of PA2 and Pineda were sued based on a O4. (;alingitAs defense was that he was not the e$)loyer of Pineda) T&: 4is$issed co$)laint against ;alingit as he is not the 8$anger: conte$)lated under 0-D/. ISS5E: 2ON Balin/it is liable ,nder 2 #@. C2ON e(-lo)ersPo8nersP(ana/ers of an establish(entPenter-rise in'l,des (ana/ers of 'or-orationsD 4EL0: @o. . Balin/it is not the E(ana/erL 'onte(-lated in 2 #@ The owners and $anagers of an establish$ent or enter)rise are li#ewise res)onsible for da$ages caused by their e$)loyees in the ser(ice of the branches in which the latter are e$)loyed or on the occasion of their functions. The ter$s 8e$)loyers: and 8owners and $anagers of an establish$ent or enter)rise: 459S @5T I@CL?49 TE9 MA@A"97 52 A C57P57ATI5@. TE9 T97M MA@A"97 (4I79CT57 I@ SPA@ISE G97SI5@) IS 5SE0 IN T4E
SENSE O+ EMPLOYER 'EICE IS @5T 9O?AL T5 A MA@A"97 52 A C57P57ATI5@ 'E5 IS ALS5 A@ 9MPL5B99 C57P57ATI5@.
2or da$ages caused by
Liability
-0. St. +ran'is: 0-D/ a))lies to school sanctioned acti(ities and in the failure to )erfor$ assigned tas#s. -F. PSBA: offender $ust be a student of the school= not an outsider for 0-D/ to a))ly. ;ut $ay in(o#e contractual obligation -1. Soli(an: @o substitute )arental authority o(er security guard who was neither an e$)loyee nor a student -K. St. Mar)=sK 'ho $ay be liable under s)ecial )arental authority.
I$)ortant to note that< ?nder the 2C no distinction is $ade '5@ School is ACA49MIC or @5@ACA49MIC Incident ha))ened 'ITEI@ 57 5?TSI49 school )re$ises. 0-D/ not li$ited to $inors and liability of teacher is only when acade$ic and not arts and trades S,((ar) of 'ases: -. E?'onde< Pri$ary liability of )arent 0-D/ a))lies only to arts and trades 0. Salen: subsidiary liability of )arent F. +,ellas: )ri$ary liability of )arent (did not categorically state that )arent is subsidiarily liable)
(49P9@4I9@T9)
52 TE9
%. O8ners Establish(ents
and
Mana/ers
of
*7ationale of e$)loyers being liable< )olicy considerationIallocating ris#s
2. PA+ is a 'or-oration 8ith a -ersonalit) se-arate and distin't fro( that of Balin/it (this was not alleged in the co$)laint). The argu$ent that PA2 is a $ere business conduit of the ;alingit s)ouses i$)lies the )iercing of the (eil of cor)orate fiction. Since this was not raised in the lower court it cannot be countenanced in this a))eal.

B. E(-lo)ers
NOTES: &'#($ )A*)'M (79;?TTA;L9 P79S?MPTI5@) 24Y.* coL hard for (icti$ to )ro(e that e$)loyer was not negligent (si$ilar to res i)sa) hence e$)loyer should )ro(e diligences as a defense 24Y O2NER.9dee)er )roc#ets +A&TS: Abad a )roduction $anager of Castile+ was dri(ing his co$)any*issued (ehicle after office hours. Ee hit Gas,ueL who had a studentAs )er$it and on a $otorcycle. Abad brought hi$ to the hos)ital but he died anyway. The cri$inal case did not )ros)er for failure to )rosecute. The ci(il case for da$ages was filed by Gas,ueLAs )arents. TC and Ca ruled for Gas,ueLs.CA held the liability of Cadtile+ was 8(icarious not solidary contrary to TCAs ruling. ISS5E : '5@ CA erred in a))lying )ar K and not )ar 1 of Art 0-D/ 4EL0: @5. SC ruled that the Kth )ar $erely says being engaged in a business is not necessary for the )aragra)h to a))ly. The Court $ade distinctions between the 0 )aragra)hs. %th -ar 5wners and $anagers Co(ers negligent acts or e$)loyees co$$itted either in the ser(ice of the branches or on occasion of their functions Bth -ar 9$)loyers in general '5@ engaged in a business or industry 9nco$)asses negligent acts of e$)loyees as long as they were acting within the sco)e of their assigned tas#s
19
Curis)rudence e(en if the relationshi) is #espondeat superior+% not ,ater familias.. O-eration of E(-lo)er=s Motor Vehi'le in 6oin/ to and +ro( Meals The e$)loyer is liable if the (ehicle is used to reduce his ti$e*off and de(ote $ore ti$e to the )erfor$ance of is duties. O-eration of E(-lo)er=s Vehi'le in 6oin/ to and +ro( 2or< The e$)loyer is liable if he deri(es so$e s)ecial benefit such as $ore ti$e for the )erfor$ance of duties or that such duties re,uire the e$)loyee to circulate in a general area for wor#. The latter is called the 8s)ecial errand: or 8ro(ing co$$ission: rule. 5se of E(-lo)er=s Vehi'le O,tside Re/,lar 2or<in/ 4o,rs The e$)loyer is liable if he deri(es so$e incidental benefit. The e$)loyer is not liable when the (ehicle is used for a )ersonal benefit and returned to where it is nor$ally #e)t. @ote< This see$s to contradict with GalenLuela ( CA. Sir says there is no contradiction. The )lace where the e$)loyee is co$ing fro$ is $aterial. NOTES: IMPLI&ATION: 1th )ar co(ered by Kth )ar hence 1th )aragra)h is useless Bth -ar*an e+)ansion of the 1th )ar in both e$)loyer co(erage and acts included 'f ValenF,ela98h) different res,lts. &coL GalenLuela Abad ca$e fro$ a different )lace. in
Philtran'o 1. &A Cune -..3

+A&TS: A Philtranco bus dri(en by Manhilig was being )ushed and !u$)started along a )er)endicular street. It started suddenly and ran o(er Acuesta a bi#er. The dri(er didnAt sto) but was forced to by a co) who saw the accident and boarded the bus. AcuestaAs heirs sued Manhilig and Philtranco for O4. Philtranco argues it e+ercised due diligence in the selection and su)er(ision of its e$)loyees saying Manhilig had an e+cellent record and e+ercised the diligence of a (ery cautious )erson. ISS5E: '5@ Philtranco $ay be held liable for the act of Manhilig 4EL0: B9S. The action is an action for da$ages for O4 under Art 0-3> and 0-D/. The Court has considered the liability of a registered owner of a )ublic ser(ice (ehicle for da$ages arising fro$ tortuous acts of the dri(er as )ri$ary direct and !oint and se(eral or solidary with the dri(er (Art 0-.1)->. The e$)loyerAs only recourse is to reco(er what it has )aid fro$ the e$)loyee who co$$itted the fault or negligence (Art 0-D-)-3.
NOTE: Sir says this case has the i$)lication that )ar 1 is su)erfluous because )ar K enco$)asses e(erything. ISS5E 2: '5@ Castile+ has the burden of )ro(ing that Abad was not wor#ing within the sco)e of his assigned tas#s 4EL0: @5. The )laintiffs ha(e the burden. Ee who alleges $ust )ro(e. ISS5E A: '5@ Abad was wor#ing within the sco)e of his assigned tas#s $a#ing Castile+ liable
&LASS NOTE 9$)loyers liable because of )aterfa$ilias
&astile? 1. Vas;,eF 4ece$ber -...
&LASS NOTES Castile+ sold furniture (rele(ance< on 8engaged in a business or industry: under A0-D/ )arK) RESPON0EAT S5PERIOR: C&'C()S*+E 2A?LTH@9"LI"9@C9 52 9MPL5B99 PATER+AMILIAS: P79S?MPTI5@ C?7IS TA@T?M (REB),,AB(E "RES)M",*&')
16 Art. 0-.1. The res)onsibility of two or $ore )ersons who are liable for ,uasi*delict is solidary.
(n)
17
Art. 0-D-. 'hoe(er )ays for the da$age caused by his de)endents or e$)loyees $ay
reco(er fro$ the latter what he has )aid or deli(ered in satisfaction of the clai$. (-./1)
4EL0: @5. The fact that Abad was a $anager and dri(ing a co$)any*issued (ehicle is not sufficient to charge Castile+ with liability. Ee was wor#ing beyond office hours and was co$ing fro$ a )lace where he had snac#s. The Court cited )rinci)les in A$erican
18 The act of the agent is the act of the )rinci)al.

'hatAs the rule if we co$bine 0-D/ (1) and (K) as regards the liability of e$)loyer for the acts or o$issions of e$)loyeesJ 7e,uisites to hold the e$)loyer liable for torts under 0-D/< -. 97*99 relationshi) 0. 9$)loyee $ust be acting within the sco)e of his assigned tas# A$erican Curis)rudence< F situations ("eneral 7ule< 9$)loyer @5T liable= 9+ce)tion< 9$)loyer LIA;L9 when he deri(es s)ecial business benefit) 6OIN6 TO AN0 +ROM MEALS "eneral rule< 97 is not liable. Exception- ;enefit to the 97 6OIN6 TO AN0 +ROM 2OR> "eneral rule< 97 not liable O5TSI0E RE65LAR 2OR>IN6 4O5RS S,-er1ision includes< -. for$ulation of suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of its e$)loyers= and 0. the issuance of )ro)er instructions intended for the )rotection of the )ublic and )ersons with who$ the e$)loyer has relations through his e$)loyees. NOTE: Sir thin#s this is a dangerous doctrine because e(en if the acti(ity is far re$o(ed fro$ the businessHinstitution the e$)loyer $ay be held liable if it is in furtherance of the latterAs interests. H: is there an 97*99 relationshi) between the school and the student wor#ing )art*ti$e in the schoolJ
20
0. e$)loyee $ust be acting within the sco)e of his assigned tas# NOTE: In 2ila$er Labor Code )ro(isions do not a))ly e(en n the deter$ination of an e$)loyer*e$)loyee relationshi). Sir says there is a )olicy considerations. The Court tries to utiliLe doctrine to su))ort their cause.
&LASS NOTES )ar1 and K of 0-D/ @CC a))lies% LC not strictly a))lied !ust used to deter$ine the e+istence of 997
. 2. A.
+ila(er 1. IA& August -..0

+A&TS: 2untecha is a )art*ti$e !anitor and scholar of 2ila$er. Ea(ing a dri(erAs license he re,uested Masa dri(er and son of school )resident to let hi$ dri(e the$ ho$e where 2untecha also li(es. Masa yielded and on the way they hit a )edestrian 6a)unan because 2untecha swer(ed right to a(oid a fast*$o(ing truc#. It a))ears that Agustin Masa school )resident #new of the license. ISS5E: '5@ 2ila$er is liable 4EL0: B9S. The clause E8ithin the s'o-e of their b) assi/ned tas<sL for the )ur)ose of raising the )resu$)tion of liability of an e$)loyer includes A@B ACT
45@9 ;B TE9 9MPL5B99 I@ 2?7TE97A@C9 52 TE9 I@T979STS 52 TE9 9MPL5B97 57 257 TE9 ACC5?@T 52 TE9 9MPL5B97 AT TE9 TIM9 52 TE9 I@2LICTI5@ 52 TE9 I@C?7B.
LRT 1. Na1idad 2ebruary 0//F

+A&TS: @icanor was drun# when he entered the L7T station after buying a to#en. Ee got into a fistfight with 9scartin a security guard and he fell unto the trac#s. The train hit hi$ and he died instantly. @icanorAs widow and children sued 9scartin 7o$an (the train dri(er) L7TA Metro Transit and Prudent (security agency). L7TA and 7o$an filed counterclai$s and Prudent denied liability a(erring it e+ercised due diligence in the selection and su)er(ision of its e$)loyees. ISS5E: '5@ L7TA is liable 4EL0: B9S. The )resu$)tion of liability was o(erco$e. Co$$on carriers by the nature of its business and reasons of )ublic )olicy is burdened with the duty of e+ercising ut$ost diligence. This duty is not only during the course of the tri) but for as long as the )assengers are within the )re$ises and where they ought to be in )ursuance of the contract of carriage. PROVISIONS
O+ LA2 REN0ER A &OMMON &ARRIER LIABLE +OR 0EAT4 AN0 IN*5RY O+ PASSEN6ERS<
&LASS NOTE Labor Code )ro(ision that there is an 97*99 relationshi) is not a))licable
NP& 1. &A August -..D

+A&TS: A du$) truc# dri(en by Ilu$ba and owned by @PC collided with a Toyota Ta$araw resulting in the death of F )ersons in the Ta$araw and in!uries to -3 )assengers. PE9SC5 su))lied Ilu$ba as a dri(er to @PC. @PC and PE9SC5 are )ointing fingers each clai$ing Ilu$ba is the e$)loyee of the other. ISS5E: 'ho is the e$)loyer of Ilu$ba and therefore liable with hi$ 4EL0: @PC. PE9SC5 is a labor*only contractor because it does not carry on an inde)endent business and does not ha(e substantial ca)ital. It is $erely an agent of @PC. The Ci(il Code and @5T the Labor Code a))lies to deter$ine @PCAs liability because the action here is based on the reco(ery of da$ages as a result of O4. The Labor Code a))lies only to liability caused by non*co$)liance with substanti(e labor standards on wor#ing conditions etc. Re;,isites to hold the e(-lo)er liable for torts ,nder 2 #@: -. there $ust e+ist an 97*99 relationshi)
TEAT
IS APPLICA;L9 9G9@ I2 TE9
9MPL5B99 497IG9S S5M9 ;9@92IT 275M TE9 ACT.
In this case 2untecha dro(e the !ee) not for his en!oy$ent but for the ser(ice of 2ila$er. The fact that he was not the school dri(er is insignificant. ;esides 2ila$er did not e+ercise the diligence of a good father of the fa$ily. Pres,(-ti1e liabilit) of e(-lo)er (when e$)loyee is dri(ing a co$)any (ehicle) is deter$ined by answering this O< '5@ the ser(ant was at the ti$e of the accident )erfor$ing any act in furtherance of his $asterAs business.
Through negligence or willful acts of its e$)loyees 5n account of willful acts or negligence of other )assengers or of strangers if the co$$on carrierAs e$)loyees through the e+ercise of due diligence could ha(e )re(ented the act or o$ission In the discharge of its co$$it$ent to ensure the safety of )assengers it $ay hire its own e$)loyees or a(ail of

the ser(ices of a contractor. In either case the carrier is not relie(ed of its res)onsibility under the contract of carriage. E(-lo)er=s liabilit) ,nder 2 #@: 1. establish -st e$)loyeeAs fault or negligence 2. )resu$)tion juris tantum that e$)loyer failed to e+ercise the diligence of a good father of the fa$ily in selection and su)er(ision 3. PRIMARY LIABILITY*but can be negated by due diligence in selection and su)er(ision (allegedly drun#). The car of the latter was registered to Ale+ander Co$$ercial. She had lost her left leg (only so$e s#in and $uscle connected to the rest of her body) and had to be fitted with a )rosthetic leg. ISS5E: '5@ Ale+ander was liable 4EL0: B9S. The relationshi) between Li and Ale+ander is ,ater familias not #espondeat superior, in which the ulti$ate liability falls u)on the e$)loyer. In this case the Court a(erred the )ri(ilege of using a co$)any car ser(es 0 )ur)oses< -. I$age of success 0. Practical and utilitarian reasons (to reach clients con(eniently) Thus the use of the car )rinci)ally ser(es the business the )ri(ate )ur)oses and the goodwill of the co$)any and only incidentally the )ri(ate )ur)oses of the e$)loyee who uses the car. Li an Asst. Mngr of the co$)any uses the car to facilitate $eetings with clients. At the ti$e of the accident he ca$e fro$ a co* e$)loyeeAs )lace in ;2 Eo$es P,ue. The )resu$)tion is they ca$e fro$ a co$)any function or discussed wor#*related $atters.
21
!uridical )erson ca)able of ac,uiring rights and contracting obligations)
&LASS NOTE Gery useful )ro(ision in our day and age
Merritt 1. 6o1ern(ent March -.->

+A&TS: Plaintiff Merritt suffered se(ere in!uries as his $otorcycle collided with a P"E a$bulance due to the negligence of the latterAs (ehicleAs dri(er. The "o(ern$ent )assed an Act authoriLing Merritt to sue the "o(ern$ent. ISS5E: '5@ the State is liable for da$ages 4EL0: @5. Though the State wai(ed its i$$unity fro$ suit it did not concede liability to Merritt. The State is not liable for torts e+ce)t when it acts through a s)ecial agent. In this case the dri(er is not a s)ecial agent within the conte$)lation of the law. Although the accident was caused by a go(ern$ent e$)loyee the State did not underta#e to guarantee to third )ersons the acts of all its e$)loyees for that would sub!ect the State to countless suits which is sub(ersi(e to )ublic interest. The State is not res)onsible for the da$ages suffered by )ri(ate indi(iduals in conse,uence of the acts )erfor$ed by its e$)loyees )ertaining to their office because neither fa,lt nor ne/li/en'e 'an be -res,(ed on the -art of the State in the or/aniFation of bran'hes of -,bli' ser1i'e and a--oint(ent of its a/ents.
M'>ee 1. IA& Culy -..0

+A&TS: A head*on collision between a cargo truc# dri(en by "alang and a 2ord 9scort dri(en by Cose 6ho resulting in the death of F and in!uries to F others all )assengers of the 2ord. The accident was caused by 0 boys who darted into the street causing 6ho dri(er of the 2ord to swer(e into the truc#As lane. ISS5E: '5@ the e$)loyer of "alang is liable 4EL0: B9S. There is a )resu$)tion of negligence on the )art of the e$)loyer. The only defense is due diligence of a good father of a fa$ily. They did not inter)ose nor )ro(e this defense. @ote< 'hy is there a )resu$)tionJ Sir says it is because it is difficult to )ro(e the e$)loyer did not e+ercise due diligence in the selection and su)er(ision of the e$)loyee.
&LASS NOTES not liable si$)ly because of co$)any car but because of bonus )ater fa$ilias standard in A0-D/ & did not )ro(e diligence and under 0nd instance discussed in Castile+ juris tantum )resu$)tion (rebuttable) (s. juris et jure (conclusi(e) cf with Castile+< co$)are the )lace where Abad and Li ca$e fro$ along with the nature of LiAs !ob which re,uired hi$ to ha(e a car. This case is $ore of a ro(ing co$$ision GalenLuela case says that A0-D/ was $odified by 2C. ta#e note of discussion on )ractice of co$)anies in issuing co$)any cars
&LASS NOTES )resu$)tion that they are negligent flows fro$ the negligence of their e$)loyee liability< )ri$ary direct and solidary
&LASS NOTES This case defined actually defined s)ecial agent (although sir didnAt see$ to re$e$ber)< recei(es a definite and fi+ed order or co$$ission foreign to the e+ercise of duties of his office if he is a s)ecial officer So in this case the chauffeur still was acting within his duty as a dri(er when he hit Merritt Merritt was one of the best constructors of wooden buildings at that ti$e%
ValenF,ela 1. &A 2ebruary -..>

+A&TS: GalenLuela had a flat tire and had to )ar# her midnight blue Mitsubishi lancer on the side of the road. 'hile standing on the left rear side of the car watching so$eone changed her tire she was bu$)ed by Li
". State
*not liable for acts of its officers agents and e$)loyees (unless s)ecial agent= and e+ce)t when state acts as a

Rosete 1. A,ditor 6eneral August -.1D
+A&TS: 9$)loyees of the 9$ergency Control Ad$inistration had gasoline stored in their warehouse. Such storage was contrary to a Manila ordinance. 2rayno negligently lit a cigarette K $eters fro$ a gas dru$. 7oseteAs building were da$aged. ISS5E: '5@ the "o(ern$ent should )ay da$ages 4EL0: @5. There is no showing that whate(er negligence $ay be i$)uted to the 9CA or its officers was not done by any s)ecial agent because the officers of the said institution did not act as s)ecial agents within the conte$)lation of Art -./F in storing gasoline in the warehouse. In a case for da$ages the res)onsibility of the State is li$ited to that which it contracts through A SP9CIAL A"9@T 4?LB 9MP5'9794 ;B
492I@IT9 57497 57 C5MMISSI5@ T5 P97257M A@ ACT 57 CEA7"94 'ITE A 492I@IT9 P?7P5S9 'EICE "IG9S 7IS9 T5 TE9 CLAIM @5T 'E979 TE9 CLAIM IS ;AS94 5@ ACTS 57 5MISSI5@S IMP?TA;L9 T5 A P?;LIC 522ICIAL CEA7"94 'ITE A@ A4MI@IST7ATIG9 57 T9CE@ICAL 522IC9 'E5 CA@ ;9 E9L4 T5 TE9 P75P97 79SP5@SI;ILITB I@ A MA@@97 LAI4 45'@ ;B TE9 LA' 5@ CIGIL 79SP5@SI;ILITB.
22
+A&TS: This is an action for da$ages against the indi(idual $e$bers of the $unici)al council of Gillasis Pangasinan. The council re(o#ed a lease for an e+clusi(e ferry )ri(ilege which was awarded to MendoLa and ga(e it to so$eone else. ISS5E: '5@ the indi(idual $e$bers of the council are liable 4EL0: B9S. There is no !ustifiable reason for re(o#ing the lease awarded to MendoLa. The $unici)ality has 0 functions< go(ern$ental and )ro)rietaryHcor)orate. The award of the lease was a )ro)rietary function. In such a case the tortfeasors $ay be sued in ca)acities such as those in )ri(ate cor)orations. #espondeat superior a))lies.
&LASS NOTES added s)ecial agent< aside fro$ s)ecial co$$ission C5MMISSI5@ EAS T5 ;9 2579I"@ 275M ITS 2?@CTI5@S (but this was already in the definition gi(en in Merritt so ewan #o #ay sir #ung ano bago dito%)
Art. 2 #$. Pro(inces cities and $unici)alities shall be liable for da$ages for the death of or in!uries suffered by any )erson by reason of the defecti(e condition of roads streets bridges )ublic buildings and other )ublic wor#s under their control or su)er(ision. (n)
&it) of Manila 1. Teoti'o Canuary -.>D

+A&TS: Teotico was waiting a !ee)ney. As he was about to board one he fell into an unco(ered and unlighted $anholeHcatchbasin. Ee hit his head on the ri$ bro#e his glasses and the )ieces of which )ierced his eyelid. Ee also got contusions and abrasions on other )arts of his body. Ee filed a suit for da$ages against the City of Manila $ayor city engineer city health officer city treasurer and chief of )olice. ISS5E: 'hich a))lies< Sec 1 of 7A 1/. (Charter of the City of Manila) or the Ci(il Code 4EL0: CIGIL C549. It a))lies because it is ore s)ecific. 'hereas S9C 1 7A 1/. 79297S T5 LIA;ILITB A7ISI@" 275M @9"LI"9@C9 I@ "9@97AL A7T 0-D. "5G97@S LIA;ILITB 4?9 T5 84929CTIG9 ST799TS: I@ PA7TIC?LA7. ManilaAs assertion that it did not own the street is of no $o$ent. The fa't that it is ,nder their 'ontrol or s,-er1ision is eno,/h to (a<e the( liable.
&LASS NOTES when state acts in their )ro)rietary function they can be suedRindi(idual $e$bers of $unici)al council can be sued 4oes A0-D/ a))ly to $unici)alitiesJ Bes delegation of )owers
R5LE: O++I&IALS: co$)rises all officials and e$)loyees of the go(ern$ent who e+ercise duties of their res)ecti(e )ublic officers SPE&IAL A6ENTS: all others who are acting by co$$ission of the go(ern$ent whether indi(idual or !uridical bodies.
+ontanilla 1. Malia(an 2ebruary -..+A&TS: @ational Irrigation Ad$inistration was created for the )ur)ose of constructing i$)ro(ing rehabilitating and ad$inistering all national irrigation syste$s of the Phili))ines. @IAAs dri(er caused the death of 2ontanilla due to the fault andHor negligence. Eis )arets fled a suit for da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ @IA is liable 4EL0: B9S. @IAAs functions are basically )ro)rietary and incidentally go(ern$ental. 7A F>/- and P4 KK0 )ro(ide that @IA is a body cor)orate in(ested with a cor)orate )ersonality and distinct fro$ the go(ern$ent. So it $ay be sued. At the ti$e the dri(er was an agent. 'here a )ri(ate indi(idual is co$$issioned to do a s)ecial tas# he $ay be considered a s)ecial agent within the conte$)lation of the )ro(ision.
&LASS NOTE 4ifferentiated s)ecial agent fro$ officials The case used MerrittAs definition of s)ecial agent Perfecto dissented saying 9CA s)ecial agent as o))osed to ordinary go(ern$ent officials who were also agents
&LASS NOTES co$$ent ni sir< charter is su))osed to be $ore s)ecific since it only a))lies to city of $anila but ci(il code is $ore s)ecific in deter$ining liability for defecti(e streetsR Bou can argue either way. Court always $a#es so$eone liable. ItAs all about allocating ris#s.
MendoFa 1. 0e Leon 2ebruary -.->

&. Others . Pro-rietor of B,ildin/s
Art. 2 $@. The )ro)rietor of a building or structure is res)onsible for the da$ages resulting fro$ its total or )artial colla)se if it should be due to the lac# of necessary re)airs. (-./3) Art. 2 $ . Pro)rietors shall also be res)onsible for da$ages caused< (-) ;y the e+)losion of $achinery which has not been ta#en care of with due diligence and the infla$$ation of e+)losi(e substances which ha(e not been #e)t in a safe and ade,uate )lace= (0) ;y e+cessi(e s$o#e which $ay be har$ful to )ersons or )ro)erty= (F) ;y the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes if not caused by force $a!eure= (1) ;y e$anations fro$ tubes canals sewers or de)osits of infectious $atter constructed without )recautions suitable to the )lace. (-./D) Taylor fro$ co$)any funds (signed by Gicente and Luis Araneta). Araneta disco(ered the arrange$ent and sued 4e Coya. ISS5E: '5@ 4e Coya is liable 4EL0: B9S. Gicente and Luis were infor$ed about TaylorAs tri) and ga(e their a))ro(al. All threeAs acts $ade the$ liable for the unauthoriLed disburse$ent of co$)any funds. They were !oint tortfeasors and ha(e solidary liability under Art 0-.1. AranetaAs defense of good faith falls on its face when he didnAt testify to )ro(e it. Ee re$ained )assi(e and e(en a))ro(ed the )ayroll thrice. The e+istence of a contract between )arties is not a bar to the co$$ission of a tort by one against the other and conse,uent reco(ery of da$ages.
23
. (iability of engineer or architect.-The engineer or architect who drew u) the )lans and s)ecifications shall be liable for da$ages if< a. The colla)se too# )lace within -K years fro$ the co$)letion of the structure b. it too# )lace by reason of a defect in the )lans and s)ecifications or due to defects in the ground= and c. the action for da$ages is brought within -/ years following the colla)se 2. (iability of contractor.-if a. the edifice falls within the sa$e )eriod b. the colla)se too# )lace on account of defects in the construction or the use of $aterials of inferior ,uality furnished by hi$ or due to any (iolation of the ter$s of the contract= and c. the action for da$ages is brought within -/ years following the colla)se A. Solidary liability*In case the engineer or the architect su)er(ised or directed the construction he shall be solidarily liable (see Arts. -0/3-. -0->0/) with the contractor. Art. -30F s)ea#s of a building that should 'olla-se or edifice that falls hence it does not a))ly to $inor defects. A Frd )erson suffering da$age as a result of any defect in the construction $ay )roceed against the engineer or architect or contractor. %. Effect of acceptance of or.* "en. 7ule in a contract for a )iece of wor# is that acce)tance of
19 Art. -0/3. The concurrence of two or $ore creditors or of two or $ore debtors in one and the
sa$e obligation does not i$)ly that each one of the for$er has a right to de$and or that each one of the latter is bound to render entire co$)liance with the )restation. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation e+)ressly so states or when the law or the nature of the
&LASS NOTES Rele1an'e: A2 !" in this 'ase 8as ,sed to sho8 a liabilit) of a fello8 e(-lo)ee
A. En/ineerPAr'hite't
Art. !2A. The engineer or architect who drew u) the )lans and s)ecifications for a building is liable for da$ages if within fifteen years fro$ the co$)letion of the structure the sa$e should colla)se by reason of a defect in those )lans and s)ecifications or due to the defects in the ground. The contractor is li#ewise res)onsible for the da$ages if the edifice falls within the sa$e )eriod on account of defects in the construction or the use of $aterials of inferior ,uality furnished by hi$ or due to any (iolation of the ter$s of the contract. If the engineer or architect su)er(ises the construction he shall be solidarily liable with the contractor. Acce)tance of the building after co$)letion does not i$)ly wai(er of any of the cause of action by reason of any defect $entioned in the )receding )aragra)h. The action $ust be brought within ten years following the colla)se of the building. (n)
&LASS NOTES
*under Lease Contract< the lessor is res)onsible for necessary re)airs%
2. E(-lo)ees
&LASS NOTES A0-3> to $a#e fellow e$)loyee liable Sir< ta#e note of -30F (interesting )ro(ision)
Araneta 1. *o)a May -.31

+A&TS: 4e Coya general $anager )ro)osed to Ace Manage$ent to send Taylor to the ?S for further studies. 4e Coya sent Taylor des)ite the ;oardAs disa))ro(al. Tra(el e+)enses and salaries were )aid to
0e Leon %BB9%B" Liabilit) of en/ineer or ar'hite'tP'ontra'tor for 'olla-se of b,ildin/ 'onstr,'ted<
obligation re,uires solidarity. (--F3a)
20 Art. -0->. The creditor $ay )roceed against any one of the solidary debtors or so$e or all of
the$ si$ultaneously. The de$and $ade against one of the$ shall not be an obstacle to those which $ay subse,uently be directed against the others so long as the debt has not been fully collected. (--11a)

the wor# by the e$)loyer relie(es the contractor of liability for any defect in the wor#.0- ;ut $ere acce)tance of the building after co$)letion does not i$)ly wai(er of any of the causes of action arising fro$ any defect in the construction. VII. TORTS 2P IN0EPEN0ENT &IVIL A&TION A. Violation of &i1il and Politi'al Ri/hts
Art. A2. Any )ublic officer or e$)loyee or any )ri(ate indi(idual who directly or indirectly obstructs defeats (iolates or in any $anner i$)edes or i$)airs any of the following rights and liberties of another )erson shall be liable to the latter for da$ages< (-) 2reedo$ of religion= (0) 2reedo$ of s)eech= (F) 2reedo$ to write for the )ress or to $aintain a )eriodical )ublication= (1) 2reedo$ fro$ arbitrary or illegal detention= (K) 2reedo$ of suffrage= (>) The right against de)ri(ation of )ro)erty without due )rocess of law= (3) The right to a !ust co$)ensation when )ri(ate )ro)erty is ta#en for )ublic use= (D) The right to the e,ual )rotection of the laws= (.) The right to be secure in oneMs )erson house )a)ers and effects against unreasonable searches and seiLures= (-/) The liberty of abode and of changing the sa$e= (--) The )ri(acy of co$$unication and corres)ondence= (-0) The right to beco$e a $e$ber of associations or societies for )ur)oses not contrary to law= (-F) The right to ta#e )art in a )eaceable asse$bly to )etition the go(ern$ent for redress of grie(ances= (-1) The right to be free fro$ in(oluntary ser(itude in any for$=
21 Art. -3-.. Acce)tance of the wor# by the e$)loyer relie(es the contractor of liability for any
defect in the wor# unless< (-) The defect is hidden and the e$)loyer is not by his s)ecial #nowledge e+)ected to recogniLe the sa$e= or (0) The e$)loyer e+)ressly reser(es his rights against the contractor by reason of the defect. (n)
24
(-K) The right of the accused against e+cessi(e bail= (->) The right of the accused to be heard by hi$self and counsel to be infor$ed of the nature and cause of the accusation against hi$ to ha(e a s)eedy and )ublic trial to $eet the witnesses face to face and to ha(e co$)ulsory )rocess to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf= (-3) 2reedo$ fro$ being co$)elled to be a witness against oneMs self or fro$ being forced to confess guilt or fro$ being induced by a )ro$ise of i$$unity or reward to $a#e such confession e+ce)t when the )erson confessing beco$es a State witness= (-D) 2reedo$ fro$ e+cessi(e fines or cruel and unusual )unish$ent unless the sa$e is i$)osed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been !udicially declared unconstitutional= and (-.) 2reedo$ of access to the courts. In any of the cases referred to in this article whether or not the defendantMs act or o$ission constitutes a cri$inal offense the aggrie(ed )arty has a right to co$$ence an entirely se)arate and distinct ci(il action for da$ages and for other relief. Such ci(il action shall )roceed inde)endently of any cri$inal )rosecution (if the latter be instituted) and $at be )ro(ed by a )re)onderance of e(idence. The inde$nity shall include $oral da$ages. 9+e$)lary da$ages $ay also be ad!udicated. The res)onsibility herein set forth is not de$andable fro$ a !udge unless his act or o$ission constitutes a (iolation of the Penal Code or other )enal statute.
+A&TS: Ci#il Taha sold Ti$bangcaya a $otor launch. Taha forcibly too# the launch bac# so Ti$bangcaya filed a co$)laint. 2iscal Ponce de Leon filed an info against Taha. After disco(ering where the launch was Ponce ordered Pro(incial Co$$ander of Palawan Maddela to i$)ound the (ehicle e(en though it had already been sold to a third )arty Li$. After initial hesitation Maddela seiLed the launch so Li$ filed this case. ISS5E: '5@ Ponce de Leon $ay seiLe the launch without warrant 4EL0: @5. The right against unreasonable searches and seiLures is )rotected by the Constitution. There is no law which authoriLes the fiscal to seiLe the corpus delicti of the cri$e. 5nly !udges $ay issue warrants for seiLure not fiscals. Ponce de Leon clai$ed there was no ti$e to get a warrant but records show there was a$)le ti$e. Ee ne+t clai$s good faith but this does not $atter because A7T F0 459S @5T 79O?I79 A SE5'I@" 52 "554 2AITEH;A4 2AITE. IT IS 9@5?"E TE979 'AS A GI5LATI5@ 52 C5@STIT?TI5@AL 7I"ETS. (A;S5L?T9 P75EI;ITI5@)
&LASS NOTES 'ho can contestJ 5nly the )arties whose rights ha(e been i$)aired 'hy is good faith not a defenseJ It will be contrary to )ur)ose of the law. Subordinate officer not liable illogical because Court already said that good faith is not a defense. Pro(incial co$$ander @5T LIA;L9 because of chain of co$$and & Subordinate !ust follow orders & but "2 not needed
&LASS NOTES Art. F0 is the basis for a ci(il action for (iolation of ci(il liberties. S)ecial rule< Cudges are not co(ered unless done in e+cess of !urisdiction. Ta#e note< Art. F0 says 4I79CTLB or I@4I79CTLB Pri(ate )ersons $ay be sued under this%
Aber'a 1. Ver A)ril -.DD

+A&TS: Tas# 2orce Ma#abansa intelligence units of the A2P conducted )re*e$)ti(e stri#es against 8#nown co$$unist*terrorist underground houses:. It conducted raids with defecti(e search warrants where )ersonal ite$s were confiscated )eo)le were arrested without warrant and interrogated without )ro)er )rocedures. The (iolations of the )laintiffsA rights were geared towards obtaining e(idence to incri$inate the$. The
Li( 1. Pon'e de Leon August -.3K

defendants filed a $otion to dis$iss on the ground that the writ of habeas cor)us was sus)ended and that they were only )erfor$ing their official duties. ISS5E: '5@ the sus)ension of the writ of habeas cor)us bars the ci(il action for da$ages. 4EL0: @5. The sus)ension does not destroy the right or cause of action for illegal arrest and other (iolations of constitutional rights. 'hat is $erely sus)ended is the right to see# release through the writ as a s)eedy $eans of obtaining liberty. A7T F0 79@497S TE9 4929@4A@TS
LIA;L9 I@CL?4I@" TE9I7 S?P97I57S AS TE9 P75GISI5@ I@CL?49S @5T 5@LB TE5S9 4I79CTLB ;?T ALS5 I@4I79CTLB 79SP5@SI;L9.
25
&LASS NOTE Ta#e note< e(en )ri(ate )ersons who )artici)ate can be held liable under Article F0
distinct fro$ the cri$inal action $ay be brought by the in!ured )arty. Such ci(il action shall )roceed inde)endently of the cri$inal )rosecution and shall re,uire only a )re)onderance of e(idence. *the nature of ci(il action for da$ages which Art. FF allows to be instituted is ex delicto. &cri$inal in nature hence not negligence.
San/'o 22#92BB C $$AD

* Code Co$$ission< The creation of an absolutely se)arate and inde)endent ci(il action for the (iolation of ci(il li(erties is essential to the effecti(e $aintenance of de$ocracy for these reasons< (-) In $ost case the threat to freedo$ originates fro$ abuse of )ower by go(ern$ent officials and )eace officers. (0) The re,uire$ent of )roof beyond reasonable doubt often )re(ented the a))ro)riate )unish$ent. (F) 4irect and o)en (iolations of the Penal code tra$)ling u)on the freedo$s na$ed are not so fre,uent as those subtle cle(er and indirect ways which do not co$e within the )ale of )enal law. * A (iolation of any of the indi(idual rights and liberties enu$erated in Art. F0 $ay or $ay not constitute a cri$inal offense. * If act constitutes a cri$inal offense the (icti$ $ay o)t between a ci(il action under Art. -// of the 7PC and an inde)endent ci(il action under Art. F0. * If act is not a cri$inal offense the ci(il action to enforce liability for da$ages is go(erned by the )ro(isions of the Ci(il Code according to Art. -->0 thereof and the 7ules on Ci(il Procedure. * The right to institute an inde)endent ci(il action under Arts. F0 FF F1 and 0-3> of the Ci(il Code is a substanti(e right intended as an e+ce)tion to and held as an a$end$ent of the general rule in Sec. - of 7ule -/3 of the -.1/ 7ules of Court ( Sec. - 7ule --- of the -.>1 7e(ised rules of Court) * These inde)endent actions should not be dee$ed instituted with the cri$inal action and the right to institute the$ should not be $ade sub!ect to their )rior reser(ation.
Re1ised Penal &ode

Title Thirteen9&RIMES A6AINST 4ONOR &ha-ter One9LIBEL Se'tion Q 0efinitions: for(s: and -,nish(ent of this 'ri(e.
TTT
The in(ocation of state i$$unity is $is)laced because there is no blan#et license to transgress u)on rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
&LASS NOTE May su)eriors be liableJ Bes because they are indirectly res)onsible 'ritAs effect< sus)ension i$$aterial 7es)ondeat su)erior< liable I@4I79CTLB res)onsible (AF0) because
Art. ABA. 0efinition of libel. I A libel is )ublic and $alicious i$)utation of a cri$e or of a (ice or defect real or i$aginary or any act o$ission condition status or circu$stance tending to cause the dishonor discredit or conte$)t of a natural or !uridical )erson or to blac#en the $e$ory of one who is dead. Art. AB%. Re;,ire(ent for -,bli'it). I 9(ery defa$atory i$)utation is )resu$ed to be $alicious e(en if it be true if no good intention and !ustifiable $oti(e for $a#ing it is shown e+ce)t in the following cases< (-) A )ri(ate co$$unication $ade by any )erson to another in the )erfor$ance of any legal $oral or social duty= and (0) A fair and true re)ort $ade in good faith without any co$$ents or re$ar#s of any !udicial legislati(e or other official )roceedings which are not of confidential nature or of any state$ent re)ort or s)eech deli(ered in said )roceedings or of any other act )erfor$ed by )ublic officers in the e+ercise of their functions. Art. ABB. Libel (eans b) 8ritin/s or si(ilar (eans. I A libel co$$itted by $eans of writing )rinting lithogra)hy engra(ing radio )honogra)h )ainting theatrical e+hibition cine$atogra)hic e+hibition or any si$ilar $eans shall be )unished by )rision correccional in its $ini$u$ and $ediu$ )eriods or a fine ranging fro$ 0// to > /// )esos or both in addition to the ci(il action which $ay be brought by the offended )arty.
M4P 6ar(ents 1. &A Se)te$ber -..1

+A&TS: MEP was awarded the e+clusi(e franchise to sell and distribute official unifor$s and su))lies of the ;oy Scouts of the Phili))ines. They were infor$ed that CruL Lugati$an and "onLales were selling ;SP unifor$s without authority. They sought the aid of the Phili))ine Constabulary. Constabulary $en and 4e "uL$an re)resentati(e of MEP went to the stalls seiLed the goods and caused a co$$otion all without warrant. ISS5E: '5@ MEP and 4e "uL$an $ay be held liable 4EL0: B9S. The Constitution )rotects )eo)le against unreasonable searches and seiLures. The e(idence )resented did not !ustify the treat$ent of the res)ondents. MEP was indirectly in(ol(ed. They instigated the raid which was conducted with the acti(e )artici)ation of 4e "uL$an. The )ro)er $ethod would ha(e been to re)ort the $atter and secure a warrant.
B. 0efa(ation: +ra,d and Ph)si'al In3,ries

Art. AA. In cases of defa$ation fraud and )hysical in!uries a ci(il action for da$ages entirely se)arate and

Art. AB". Threatenin/ to -,blish and offer to -resent s,'h -,bli'ation for a 'o(-ensation. I The )enalty of arresto $ayor or a fine fro$ 0// to 0 /// )esos or both shall be i$)osed u)on any )erson who threatens another to )ublish a libel concerning hi$ or the )arents s)ouse child or other $e$bers of the fa$ily of the latter or u)on anyone who shall offer to )re(ent the )ublication of such libel for a co$)ensation or $oney consideration. Art. AB!. Prohibited -,bli'ation of a'ts referred to in the 'o,rse of offi'ial -ro'eedin/s. I The )enalty of arresto $ayor or a fine of fro$ 0/ to 0 /// )esos or both shall be i$)osed u)on any re)orter editor or $anager or a news)a)er daily or $agaLine who shall )ublish facts connected with the )ri(ate life of another and offensi(e to the honor (irtue and re)utation of said )erson e(en though said )ublication be $ade in connection with or under the )rete+t that it is necessary in the narration of any !udicial or ad$inistrati(e )roceedings wherein such facts ha(e been $entioned. Art. AB#. Slander. I 5ral defa$ation shall be )unished by arresto $ayor in its $a+i$u$ )eriod to )rision correccional in its $ini$u$ )eriod if it is of a serious and insulting nature= otherwise the )enalty shall be arresto $enor or a fine not e+ceeding 0// )esos. Art. AB$. Slander b) deed. I The )enalty of arresto $ayor in its $a+i$u$ )eriod to )rision correccional in its $ini$u$ )eriod or a fine ranging fro$ 0// to - /// )esos shall be i$)osed u)on any )erson who shall )erfor$ any act not included and )unished in this title which shall cast dishonor discredit or conte$)t u)on another )erson. If said act is not of a serious nature the )enalty shall be arresto $enor or a fine not e+ceeding 0// )esos. accident. Eeirs of Marcia instituted this se)arate ci(il action for da$ages. Trial court dis$issed. ISS5E< 'on the ac,uittal of the accused ser(es as a bar to the ci(il action for da$ages 4EL0< The charge against Pa!e was not for ho$icide and )hysical in!uries but for rec#less i$)rudence or cri$inal negligence resulting in ho$icide and )hysical in!uries They are not one of the three cri$es $entioned in Article FF of the Ci(il Code and therefore no ci(il action shall )roceed inde)endently of the cri$inal )rosecution.
26
+A&TS: 4es)uig filed a co$)laint against Arafiles for forcible abduction with ra)e and forcible abduction with atte$)ted ra)e. She e+ecuted a sworn state$ent to that effect witnessed by Morales. The latter inter(iewed the for$er and wrote an article about the incident. Arafiles filed a co$)laint for da$ages against Morales his editor and the )resident of the )ublisher saying his re)utation was ruined by the story. ISS5E: '5@ the accused were liable for da$ages 4EL0: @5. In actions for libel the )ublished wor# $ust be e+a$ined and (iewed as a whole. It de)ends on the sco)e s)irit and $oti(e of the )iece. It $ust be read in the sense readers to who$ it is addressed would ordinarily understand it. Morales could ha(e used better words but he did state that his story was based on the account of 4es)uig at the station. Note: According to Sir the )oint of this case is that one $ay file a cri$inal co$)laint and a ci(il one in one court and both could )roceed inde)endently of each other. *Cri$ case and ci(il case (for the sa$e act) $ay )roceed inde)endently of each other
&LASS NOTE 7ec#less I$)rudence is not included in Art. FF no inde)endent ci(il action Article FF construed strictly
Made3a 1 &aro 4ece$ber -.DF

+A&TS: A cri$inal action was filed against 4r. Ca)Lon for the death of Made!a after an a))endecto$y. Pending the cri$inal case his widow filed a ci(il action for da$ages alleging gross negligence but this was dis$issed. ISS5E: '5@ Cudge Caro erred in dis$issing the ci(il action 4EL0: B9S. ?nder the 7ules of Court and Art FF a se)arate ci(il action $ay be instituted. The ci(il action is e+*delicto and ai$ed to allow the offended )arty to enforce his rights in a )ri(ate action. Physical in!uries is used in the generic sense $eaning bodily in!ury not the cri$e in the 7PC. To be liable under Art FF the da$age should arise fro$ a cri$e. This case also says Cor)us ( Pa!e saying rec#ess i$)rudence is not included in Art FF is not authoritati(e. @ote< Made!a ( Caro is a di(ision case. It cannot o(erturn an en banc decision.
&LASS NOTE Art FF does not affect in any way the cri$inal action.
. 0efa(ation MVRS 1. Isla(i' Canuary 0//F

+A&TS: An issue of ;ulgar wrote an article stating that Musli$s donAt eat )igs because they treat the$ as "ods. Isla$ic 4aAwah Council of the Phili))ines and indi(idual Musli$s filed a co$)laint for da$ages alleging the story was a )roduct of sheer ignorance but with the intent to hurt the feelings cast insult and dis)arage Musli$s of the world. ISS5E: '5@ MG7S $ay be held liable 4EL0: @5. The libel suit will not )ros)er because
@5T I49@TI2B SP9CI2ICALLB @57 79297 T5 A@B I@4IGI4?ALS T5 ;9 TE9 S?;C9CT 52 TE9 P?;LICATI5@. IT 4I4
Mar'ia 1 &A Canuary 03 -.DF

+A&TS: Gictory Liner bus dri(en by Pa!e collided with a !ee) dri(en by Marcia. Marcia died and 0 other were seriously in!ured. An info for ho$icide and double serious )hysical in!uries through rec#less i$)rudence was filed against Pa!e. Eeirs of Marcia reser(ed the right to file a ci(il action se)arately and later did. CA ac,uitted Pa!e stating that the case was a )ure
Arafiles 1. Phil. *o,rnalists March 0//1
PA7TIC?LA7
They cannot

be held liable !ust because the words were insulting or offensi(e. According to Puno there are )rere,uisites to reco(ery< -. )ublished state$ent 0. which is defa$atory F. of and concerning the )laintiff If the article refers to a grou) for a $e$ber to ha(e a cause of action he $ust )ro(e that the article )articularly )ertains to hi$. NOTE: cf 'orcester
27
&LASS NOTES fra,d here is not si(-l) estafa. S8indlin/ is 3,st a s-e'ie of an offense 'o((itted b) (eans of fra,d.
Pr,dential Ban< 1. IA& 4ece$ber -..0

+A&TS: Phili))ine 7ayon enetered into a contract with @issho for the i$)ortation of te+tile $achineries under a K*year deferred*)ay$ent )lan. 7ayon a))lied for a co$$ercial letter of credit with Prudential in fa(or of @issho. A trust recei)t was signed in fa(or of Prudential. The letter of credit and trust recei)t re$ained un)aid. The $achinery was sold and the )roceeds #e)t. Prudential filed an action for da$ages against 7ayon and its )resident. ISS5E: '5@ 7ayon is liable 4EL0< B9S. There is a fiduciary relationshi) between 7ayon and Prudential. 7ayon sold the $achinery without turning o(er the )roceeds to Prudential as agreed u)on so it (iolated the agree$ent. 7ayon wilfully and fraudulently $isa))lied or con(erted the $oney for their own use. There is no obstacle for the filing of a se)arate co$)laint for da$ages e(en if there is already a cri$inal co$)laint for (iolation of Sec F of the Trust 7ecei)ts Law. Sec -F of the sa$e law considers the (iolation as 9stafa. 9STA2A C5M9S ?@497 27A?4 A@4 S5 A@ ACTI5@ ?@497 A7T. FF MAB ;9 ;75?"ET.
+A&TS: A Pe)si deli(ery truc# dri(en by 9lordi collided with a )ri(ate car dri(en by Ca)uno. Ca)uno and his )assengers ;uan s)ouses died. 9lordi was charged with tri)le ho$icide through rec#less i$)rudence. 'hile the case was )ending the estate and heirs of the ;uan s)ouses filed a se)arate co$)laint for da$ages against Pe)si and 9lordi. The )arties in the latter case co$)ro$ised so the case was dis$issed. Later Ca)uno heirs filed a si$ilar co$)laint. ISS5E: '5@ the action is barred by the Statute of Li$itations 4EL0: B9S. TE9 CAS9 257 79C5G97B ?@497 O4 M?ST ;9 I@STIT?T94 'ITEI@ 1 B9A7S 275M TE9 ACC7?AL 52 TE9 7I"ET 52 ACTI5@. Contrary to the Ca)unoAs assertion the )rescri)tion )eriod was not interru)ted by the filing of the cri$inal action inas$uch as they ne(er wai(ed nor reser(ed to file the ci(il action se)arately. Anent Art. AA The Court said that it included bodily in!ury resulting in death.
&LASS NOTES i$)ortant< definition of defa$ation what is the relation to libel and slander (big circle)< 4efinition of defa$ation broader than slanderHlibel you ha(e to )ro(e s)ecific da$age to you and that there was an intent to da$age or hurt you.
2. +ra,d Salta 1. Ve)ra Se)te$ber -.D0

+A&TS: Salta was an e$)loyee of P@;. As a $anager he indiscri$inately granted so$e loans in a $anner characteriLed by negligence fraud $anifest )artiality and u)on securities not co$$ensurate to the loan. The cri$inal case was dis$issed but 0 ci(il cases were filed. Salta filed $otions to dis$iss based on the ac,uittal. Cudge de Geyra denied one MT4 but Cudge Purisi$a granted the other. Ac,uittal was based on insufficiency of e(idence. ISS5E: '5@ the MT4 should be granted 4EL0: @5. TE9 ACO?ITTAL I@ TE9 C7IMI@AL CAS9 'ILL @5T ;9 A@
5;STACL9 257 TE9 CIGIL CAS9 T5 P75SP97 ?@L9SS TE979 IS A 2I@4I@" I@ TE9 C7IMI@AL CAS9 TEAT 9G9@ CIGILLB TE9 ACC?S94 IS @5T LIA;L9.
&LASS NOTE
This case de$onstrates a literal reading of AFF The action filed was based on AF- and AFF 5@ AFF< ci(il action for da$ages could ha(e been co$$enced by Ca)unos i$$ediately u)on death of Ci)riano Ca)uno
&or-,s 1. Pa3e Culy -.>.

+A&TS: Gictory Liner bus dri(en by Pa!e collided with a !ee) dri(en by Marcia. Marcia died and 0 other were seriously in!ured. An info for ho$icide and double serious )hysical in!uries through rec#less i$)rudence was filed against Pa!e. Eeirs of Maria reser(ed the right to file a ci(il action se)arately and later did. ISS5E: '5@ the ac,uittal of Pa!e in the cri$inal case bars the ci(il action 4EL0: B9S. The ac,uittal was based on the ground that the rec#less i$)rudence or cri$inal negligence charged did not e+ist and the collision was )ure accident. C7IMI@AL @9"LI"9@C9 TEAT IS 79C6L9SS IMP7?49@C9
&LASS NOTES 1iolation of a tr,st re'ei-t is a 1iolation ,nder Arti'le AA Sin'e there is +RA50: 'an file inde-endent and distin't 'i1il a'tion based on Arti'le AA
There is no such finding in this case. Art FF a))lies there being an allegation of fraud and negligence.
A. Ph)si'al In3,ries &a-,no 1. Pe-si A)ril -.>K

IS @5T 5@9 52 TE9
28
C7IM9S M9@TI5@94 I@
A7T FF
'EICE
A?TE57IU9S TE9 I@STIT?TI5@ 52 A@ I@49P9@49@T CIGIL ACTI5@.
&LASS NOTES
Law )unishes the negligent act. Action has also already )rescribed. According to Sangco rec#less i$)rudence is included in AF>K. 7ule< 7I not included in Art. FF hence the effect< @5 inde)endent ci(il actionIArt. -// will a))ly with res)ect to ci(il liability In Cri$inal negligence act )unished negligentHcareless act not the result
+A&TS: A cri$inal action was filed against 4r. Ca)Lon for the death of Made!a after an a))endecto$y. Pending the cri$inal case his widow filed a ci(il action for da$ages alleging gross negligence but this was dis$issed. (reasoned that Instant ci(il action $ay be instituted 5@LB A2T97 2I@AL C?4"M9@T in cri$inal action) ISS5E: '5@ Cudge Caro erred in dis$issing the ci(il action 4EL0: B9S. ?nder the 7ules of Court and Art FF a se)arate ci(il action $ay be instituted. The ci(il action is e+*delicto and ai$ed to allow the offended )arty to enforce his rights in a )ri(ate action. PEBSICAL I@C?7I9S IS
?S94 I@ TE9 "9@97IC S9@S9 M9A@I@" ;54ILB I@C?7B @5T TE9 C7IM9
0,la) 1. &A A)ril -..K

+A&TS: TorLuela a security guard shot Atty. 4ulay while he was on duty at the 8;ig ;ang sa Alabang: due to so$e altercation. 4ulayAs widow filed an action for da$ages against TorLuela Su)erguard and Safeguard (both co$)anies belie(ed to be TorLuelaAs e$)loyers). ISS5E: '5@ an inde)endent ci(il action $ay )roceed 4EL0: B9S. The act of the 4ulays of instituting a se)arate ci(il action under Art FF is allowed. The ter$ )hysical in!uries has been held (in Made!a (s. Caro) to include consu$$ated atte$)ted and frustrated ho$icide. SC loo#ing at Art --- of the 75C said that the ci(il action is i$)liedly instituted with the cri$inal action unless the offended )arty (Ci(il action dee$ed instituted)< -. wai(es the ci(il action 0. reser(es the right to institute it se)arately F. institutes it )rior to the cri$inal action This case differs fro$ Marcia ( CA in that here the cri$e is ho$icide not rec#less i$)rudence so a se)arate ci(il action $ay be filed.
A7T FF TE9 4AMA"9 SE5?L4 This case also says Cor)us ( Pa!e saying rec#ess i$)rudence is not included in Art FF is not authoritati(e because no sufficient nu$ber of (otes). @ote< Made!a ( Caro is a di(ision case. It cannot o(erturn an en banc decision.
I@ TE9 ;9 LIA;L9 ?@497 A7IS9 275M A C7IM9.
7PC. T5
* Meaning and sco)e of )hysical in!uries< Li#e that )ro(ided in Art. F0 the inde)endent ci(il action conte$)lated in Art. FF is for da$ages caused by defa$ation fraud or )hysical in!uries which $ay or $ay not constitute cri$inal offenses. * 5n Corpus and Marcia< This is an a))arent $isconce)tion of the inde)endent ci(il action conte$)lated in Art. FF and of rec#less i$)rudence being the cri$e itself and not its results. 87ec#less i$)rudence is not a cri$e in itself. It is si$)ly a way of co$$itting it and $erely deter$ines a lower degree of cri$inal liability.: (Peo)le ( 2eller) * 'here the )hysical in!uries results fro$ a negligent act or o$ission the in!ured )arty will ha(e three causes of action to choose fro$ and bring a ci(il action for na$ely< (-) a ci(il action for da$ages resulting fro$ rec#less i$)rudence under Art. -// in relation to Art. F>K of the 7PC= (0) a ci(il action for )hysical in!uries arising fro$ a ,uasi*delict under Art. 0-3> of the Ci(il Code= (F) a ci(il action for )hysical in!uries under Art. FF also of the Ci(il Code.
&. Ne/le't of 0,t)

&LASS NOTES Art. A%. 'hen a $e$ber of a city or $unici)al )olice force refuses or fails to render aid or )rotection to any )erson in case of danger to life or )ro)erty such )eace officer shall be )ri$arily liable for da$ages and the city or $unici)ality shall be subsidiarily res)onsible therefor. The ci(il action herein recogniLed shall be inde)endent of any cri$inal )roceedings and a )re)onderance of e(idence shall suffice to su))ort such action.
Art. FF< e+*delicto acts acts should constitute a cri$e. In Cor)us ( Pa!e only . !ustices too# )art 1 of which $erely concurred with the result. Eowe(er based on the Constitution a di(ision case cannot o(erturn an en banc decision. Sir does not thin# that 8)hysical in!uries: should be li$ited to the cri$e with the sa$e na$e. 0 things to re$e$ber about AFF CC< -. Physical in!ury refers to bodily in!ury and is not the sa$e as )hysical in!ury as defined in the 7PC. 0. Ci(il action is e+*delicto
San/'o AA%9AAB C $$AD

The basic function of go(ern$ent is the protection of life and property and it is also the main /ustification for the existence and maintenance of its police force. 2or this $e$bers of the force are directly and )ersonally liable for da$ages caused by their refusal or failure to render this basic ser(ice. Since )olice$en are usually insol(ent the law secures )ay$ent by holding the City or $unici)ality subsidiarily liable. This is clearly an e?'e-tion to its non9s,abilit) as a -oliti'al s,bdi1ision of the State. This is analogous but not identical to that )ro(ided in Art -/0
San/'o 2BB92#2 C $$AD

* According to the Code Co$$ission this article 8creates an inde)endent ci(il action in case of defa$ation fraud or )hysical in!uries. This se)arate ci(il action is si$ilar to the action in Tort for libel or slander deceit and assault and battery under A$erican law.:
Made3a 1. &aro 4ece$ber -.DF

and -/F of the 7PC because the 'on1i'tion of the defendant -oli'e(en is absol,tel) i((aterial and irrele1ant to the 'it)=s or (,ni'i-alit)=s liabilit). The dire't and -ersonal liabilit) for nonfeasance contained in Art 03 is general and does not constitute a cri$inal act nor )ro(ide for subsidiary liability of the locality. Art F1 s)ecifically a))lies onl) to (e(bers of the -oli'e for'e of the 'it) or (,ni'i-alit). 6ey ele$ents of a ci(il action for da$ages under Art F1< 1. The defendant is a (e(ber of the city or $unici)ality -oli'e for'e. 2. The )laintiff either so,/ht -oli'e assistan'e or -rote'tion against danger to his life or )ro)erty or defendant was aware of )laintiffAs need for such assistance or )rotection but the latter refused or failed to render the sa$e. 3. As a conse,uence of such refusal or failure to render assistance or )rotection the )laintiff suffered da(a/es. 1. The ci(il action for da$ages $ay be instituted inde)endently of the institution or )endency of any cri$inal )roceedings arising fro$ the sa$e dereliction and regardless of the result thereof and $ay be )ro(ed by )re)onderance of e(idence. ci(il action shall be sus)ended until the ter$ination of the cri$inal )roceedings. catch all )ro(ision whatAs )unished in F>K 7PC is the negligence and the resulting da$age Ta#e note of thisInot a (ery often used )ro(ision
29
San/'o AAB9AA# C $$AD

* In all cases not co(ered by Arts. F0 FF F1 and 0-3> of the Ci(il Code or by a s)ecial law any )erson who belie(es that he is the (icti$ of a cri$inal offense* but the !udge or the )rosecuting attorney finds no reasonable ground to belie(e that a cri$e has been co$$itted and the latter refuses or fails to institute cri$inal )roceedings* $ay bring a ci(il action for da$ages under Art. FK. * I$)licit are the ff )ro)ositions of fact and law< -. Aggrie(ed )art has o)ted not only to reco(er his da$ages in a ci(il action therefore under Art. -// of the 7PC but also to institute such ci(il action ahead of and se)arately fro$ the cri$inal action to enforce defendantAs cri$inal liability 0. Aggrie(ed )arty belie(es that the act or o$ission which cause the in!ury constitutes a cri$inal offense F. Ci(il Code or any s)ecial law does not grant hi$ the right to institute a ci(il action for da$ages inde)endently of the cri$inal action 1. Ee is granted the right to institute such ci(il action for da$ages '5@ the cri$inal action u)on which it is based is filed= )rosecute it to final !udg$ent and )ro(e the sa$e by a )re)onderance of e(idence if no cri$inal action is filed during its )endency. K. If the cri$inal action is filed during its )endency such ci(il action shall be sus)ended until final !udg$ent in the cri$inal case which $ay or $ay not affect it is rendered. It $ay also be consolidated with the cri$inal action. because it is based on ci(il liability arising fro$ a cri$inal offense >. 'here no cri$inal action is instituted because a )ri$a facie case cannot be established )laintiff $ay file a bond to inde$nify the defendant in case the co$)laint should be found to be $alicious. there is a bond because of the high )robability that the suit $ay be $alicious
3. 'here a cri$inal action is subse,uently instituted )resu$ably no inde$nity bond $ay be sought or re,uired since there is no a))arent !ustification for it. * 4istinguished fro$ Art. F/< ?nder Art. F/ )laintiff is not re,uired to file an inde$nity bond because there is no )ossibility that it was $aliciously instituted. ;ut this $ust be further ,ualified. ?nder Art. FK there is no need to file an inde$nity bond where a cri$e has indubitably been co$$itted or such a cri$inal action is subse,uently instituted. * An aggrie(ed )arty need not be the (icti$ of a cri$inal or )unishable act or o$ission to be entitled to da$ages. So long as the act or o$ission co$)lained of '5@ it is )unishable is alleged and shown to be the )ro+i$ate cause of the da$age or in!ury he sustained he is entitled to bring a ci(il action therefor and obtain a !udg$ent on the basis thereof.
VIII. INTENTIONAL TORTS

Art. $ 9 )rinci)le of abuse of rights Art. 2@ 9 general sanction for all other )ro(isions of law which do not essentially )ro(ide for their own sanction Art. 2 9 deals with acts contra bonus mores Casis< real catch*all= co(ers e(erything
0. A'tion for 0a(a/es 8here no inde-endent 'i1il a'tion is -ro1ided

Art. AB. 'hen a )erson clai$ing to be in!ured by a cri$inal offense charges another with the sa$e for which no inde)endent ci(il action is granted in this Code or any s)ecial law but the !ustice of the )eace finds no reasonable grounds to belie(e that a cri$e has been co$$itted or the )rosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute cri$inal )roceedings the co$)laint $ay bring a ci(il action for da$ages against the alleged offender. Such ci(il action $ay be su))orted by a )re)onderance of e(idence. ?)on the defendantMs $otion the court $ay re,uire the )laintiff to file a bond to inde$nify the defendant in case the co$)laint should be found to be $alicious. If during the )endency of the ci(il action an infor$ation should be )resented by the )rosecuting attorney the
A. Ab,se Of Ri/hts
Art. $. 9(ery )erson $ust in the e+ercise of his rights and in the )erfor$ance of his duties act with !ustice gi(e e(eryone his due and obser(e honest and good faith.
Vela)o: et'. 1. Shell &o. of the Phils: et al. 5ctober F- -.K>

+A&TS: CALI infor$ed its )rinci)al creditors that it was in a state of insol(ency and had to sto) o)erations. The creditors agreed to for$ a co$$ittee that would ta#e charge of the distribution of assets. 2itLgerald an e$)loyee of Shell was a))ointed a $e$ber of the co$$ittee. After the co$$ittee $et Shell $ade a transfer of credit against CALI to A$erican Shell 5il Co$)any. A$erican Shell 5il filed a co$)laint against

CALI and a writ of attach$ent was issued on CALIAs C* K1 )lane. ISS5E: '5@ Shell can be held for da$ages. B9S 4EL0: E1en tho,/h Arts. $: 2 : and 2A onl) 'a(e into effe't after the in'ident: the) are still a--li'able. Shell had no (ested right to betray the confidence of the insol(ent CALI or of its creditors. ShellAs act of ta#ing ad(antage of his #nowledge of the )lane showed bad faith and betrayed the confidence and trust of the other creditors. Standards: 1. A9 to act with !ustice e$)loyer that it was routinary. She was shoc#ed when she was sentenced to be i$)risoned for adultery going to disco and socialiLing with $ale crew in (iolation of Isla$ic laws and was sentenced to be lashed. Ee e$)loyer refused to hel) her. ISS5E: Morada had cause of action. B9S 4EL0: Arti'le $ (erel) de'lares a -rin'i-le of la8 and Arti'le 2 /i1es flesh to its -ro1isions. Phili))ine Law a))lied because it is where Saudi Arabian decei(ed Morada. According to her she honestly belie(ed that her e$)loyer would act with !ustice and gi(e her what is due. Instead her e$)loyer failed to )rotect her.
30
4EL0: There is no ri/id test to deter(ine 8hen Art. $ has been 1iolatedK this is to be deter(ined ,-on the ,ni;,e 'ir',(stan'es of ea'h 'ase. ?)on the facts of the )resent case it is clear that the )etitioners abused the right that they in(o#e & right to dis$iss an e$)loyee. Although an e$)loyer who sus)ects an e$)loyee to be dishonest $ay dis$iss the latter the e$)loyer $ay not do so in an abusi(e $anner. R5LE: O of '5@ the )rinci)le of abuse of rights has been (iolated resulting in da$ages under Art. 0/ or 0or other a))licable )ro(isions de-ends on the 'ir',(stan'es of ea'h 'ase.
2. 3.
6* to gi(e e(eryone his due O *to obser(e honesty and "2 &LASS NOTES
&LASS NOTES In the conte+t of international law this case is actually wrong< If the conce)t of Le+ Loci delicti co$$isi would be followed the )lace where $ost of the cri$es was co$$itted would deter$ine what law should be a))lied. In this case $ost of the (iolation of rights were co$$itted in SA?4I% ;?T C5?7T E9L4 TEAT 7P LA'S SE5?L4 ;9 APPLI94< no unnecessary difficulties and incon(enience shown by either )arties if 7P P Saudi already sub$itted to the !urisdiction of OC 7TC This case de$onstrates the broad a))lication of A-. and A0-. A -. 0/ 0- are not conflicts of law )ro(isions but were a))lied in a conflicts of law case.
&LASS NOTES 7ight to dis$iss should not be confused with the $anner in which the right is e+ercised< there was na$e*calling threats 8Bou 2ili)inos cannot be trusted%: A-.< Princi)le of abuse of rights= set certain standards which $ust be obser(ed not only in the e+ercise of oneAs rights but also in )erfor$ance of oneAs dutiesR Rto act with !ustice Rto gi(e e(eryone his due Rto obser(e honesty and good faith
A-. is a $ere declaration of )rinci)le which )ro(ides for the standard of conduct. A0- i$)le$ents A-. by )ro(iding for a conse,uence which is not found in A-.. A-.As 8lofty: ideal is to 8G5?CESA29 A49O?AT9 L9"AL
79M94B 257 TEAT ?@T5L4 @?M;97S 52 M57AL '75@"S 'EICE IS IMP5SSI;L9 257 E?MA@ 2579SI"ET T5 P75GI49 257 SP9CIALLB I@ TE9 STAT?T9S:
CATCE ALL
'hat constitutes the abuse of rightJ @ot the transfer of credit )er se but Mr. 2itLgerald was already a))ointed as - of the $e$bers in the wor#ing co$$ittee tas#ed to deter$ine the di(ision of assets. The wor#ing co$$ittee was for$ed s)ecifically for the creditors to not sue CALI The court used A00KF and A00K1 @CC to rule u)on the issue
Albenson 1. &A Canuary -- -..F

+A&TS: "uaranteed issued Albenson a chec# as )ay$ent for the $ild steel )lates it ordered. The chec# bounced. Albenson found out that the chec# belonged to 9ugenio ;altao. It filed a co$)laint for (iolation of ;P 00 against 9ugenio S. ;altao. Eowe(er it a))ears that the res)ondent had a na$esa#e his son 9ugenio ;altao III. The elder ;altao then filed a suit for da$ages against Albenson. ISS5E: '5@ Albenson was liable for da$ages. @5 4EL0: 'hen a right is e+ercised in a $anner which does not confor$ with the nor$s of Article -. and results in da$age to another a LE6AL 2RON6 is co$$itted for which the wrongdoer $ust be held res)onsible.
6lobe Ma'<a) 1. &A August 0K -.D.

+A&TS: Tobias was e$)loyed by "lobe Mac#ay as a )urchasing agent. Ee unco(ered certain fraudulent transactions. Eowe(er Eendry an 9GP accused hi$ of being a croo# and a swindler. Tobias was charged with estafa. The cases against hi$ were dis$issed. 4es)ite this Tobias was fired. Eendry then sent a letter to TobiasA )otential e$)loyer alleging his dishonesty. Tobias filed an action for da$ages against Eendry and "lobe. ISS5E: '5@ Tobias was entitled to da$ages. B9S
Sa,di Arabian Airlines 1. &A 5ctober D -..D

+A&TS: Morada was e$)loyed by Saudi Arabian Airlines as a flight attendant. Eer two co*wor#ers tried to ra)e her. She filed a case against the$. Eowe(er she was )ressured to dro) the case while her e$)loyerAs Chief Legal 5fficer stood by. She then attended a hearing after being assured by her

The ele(ents of an ab,se of ri/ht ,nder Arti'le $ are: 1. There is a le/al ri/ht or d,t) 4EL0: 9(en though A$onoyAs actions were legally !ustified at the start their continuation e(en after the T75 was issued a$ounted to an abuse of his right. The e?er'ise of a ri/ht ends 8hen the ri/ht disa--ears: and it disa--ears 8hen it is ab,sed: es-e'iall) to the -re3,di'e of others. A$onoyAs acts constituted not only an abuse of a right but an in(alid e+ercise of a right that was sus)ended.
31
ad(antage of another e(en though the for$s and technicalities of the law together with the absence of all infor$ation or belief of facts would render the transaction unconscientious. On Art. $<*intended to e+)and the conce)t of torts by granting ade,uate legal re$edy for the untold $oral wrongs which is i$)ossible for hu$an foresight to )ro(ide s)ecifically in statutory law. *the ulti$ate thing in the theory of liability is !ustifiable reliance under conditions of ci(iliLed society *A )erson should be )rotected only when he acts with )ro(idence and in "2 but not when he acts with negligence or abuse NOTES: *does not adhere strictly to the F ele$ents *see$s to say that Art. -. can be co$$itted (ia negligence * abuse of duty is not a right
2. 3.
'hich is e+ercised in bad faith 2or the sole intent of )re!udicing or in!uring another.
In this case AlbensonAs co$)laint was a sincere atte$)t to find the best )ossible $eans to collect the $oney due to the$. The law does not i$)ose a )enalty on the right to litigate. Arts. $92 *e+)and the sco)e of our law on ci(il wrongs &o((on ele(ent ,nder intentional $ and 2 : act $ust be
&LASS NOTES 7ule< Action which was originally legal can beco$e illegal if e+ercised abusi(ely. The legal )rinci)le a))lied in this case is da$nu$ abs,ue in!uria. 'hat we ha(e here is an illegal act. There was no $ore right for hi$ to abuse% This is not a case of abuse of right. A-. )resu))oses an e+isting right= 'hat A$onoy did was conte$)t of court Proble$< relied u)on Testi$ony solely of "uitierreL (when it is self*ser(ing)
&LASS NOTE Ouestion< 'hy did this case enu$erate the ele$ents of an abuse of right under Art. -. when there is su))osedly no 8hard and fast ruleJ: Art -. and 0-* intentional acts= Art 0/* intentional or negligent acts (does not distinguish) Albenson clai$s that MP should ha(e been filed not a ci(il case based on A-. ;altao did not clarify that there were F of the$
&LASS NOTES 8Schools and )rofessors cannot !ust ta#e students for granted and be indifferent to the$ for without the latter the for$er are useless.: Petitioner (uni(ersity) cannot !ust gi(e out its students grades at any ti$eR Can you sue )rofessor for not gi(ing grades on ti$eJ @o. Should be the school.
5E 1. *ader 2ebruary -3 0///

+A&TS: Cader was a law student at the ?ni(ersity of the 9ast. Ee failed to ta#e the regular e+a$ for Practice Court I so he was gi(en an inco$)lete grade. Ee too# the re$o(als but he was gi(en a grade of fi(e. Cader attended the graduation and )re)ared for the bar. Ee later learned of his deficiency. Cader sued ?9 for da$ages. ?9As defense was that Cader should ha(e (erified grade% ISS5E: '5@ ?9 was liable for da$ages. B9S 4EL0: ?9 had the 'ontra't,al obli/ation to infor( its st,dents as to 8hether or not all the re;,ire(ents for the 'onfer(ent of a de/ree ha1e been (et. It also showed bad faith in belatedly infor$ing Cader of the result of his re$o(als )articularly when he was already )re)aring for the bar. ABSEN&E O+ 6OO0 +AIT4 M5ST BE S5++I&IENTLY ESTABLIS4E0 +OR A
S5&&ESS+5L PROSE&5TION BY T4E A66RIEVE0 PARTY IN A S5IT +OR AB5SE O+ RI64T 5N0ER
6ar'iano 1. &A August -/ -..0

+A&TS: "arciano a teacher at the I$$aculate Conce)cion Institute was granted an indefinite lea(e of absence to go to Austria. She was later sent a letter infor$ing that 2r. 'iertLAs the schoolAs founder decided to ter$inate her ser(ices (;?T 5@LB ;oard of 4irectors has the )ower to ter$inate her ser(ices). The ;oard of 4irectors reinstated her. The ICI faculty has reacted 8acidly: her reinstate$ent. "arciano then filed a co$)laint for da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ res)ondents were liable for da$ages. @5 4EL0: 'hate(er loss "arciano $ay ha(e incurred in the for$ of lost earnings was self9infli'ted. ./olenti non fit injuria0. "arciano failed to re)ort bac# in ti$e
A(ono) 1. 6,tierreF 2ebruary -K 0//+A&TS: The lot on which the "utierreL s)ouses built their house was bought by A$onoy in an auction sale. A$onoy was granted an order for the de$olition of the house. Eowe(er a te$)orary restraining order was granted en!oining the de$olition. The SC then $ade the T75 )er$anent. Eowe(er by the ti$e the decision was rendered the house was already destroyed. The "utierreL s)ouses then filed a suit for da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ A$onoy was liable for da$ages. B9S
honest
intention
ARTI&LE $. "ood faith connotes an to abstain fro$ ta#ing undue

indefinite L5A refused to sign written e$)loy$ent contact did not re)ort for wor#. Eer clai$ for $oral da$ages under Art 0- also fails. The -ro1ision: bein/ based on e;,it): it (a) onl) be in1o<ed b) so(eone 8ho 'o(es to 'o,rt 8ith 'lean hands. In this case "arciano was also at fault. She did not co$)ly with the order to return to wor#. Test of Ab,se of Ri/ht: $odern !uris)rudence does not )er$it an act although lawful is anti*social. An ab,se of ri/ht e?ists 8hen it is e?er'ised for the ONLY P5RPOSE of -re3,di'in/ or in3,rin/ another Acts which without legiti$ate )ur)ose cause da$age to another (iolate the conce)t of social solidarity which considers law as rational and !ust. 9(ery abnor$al e+ercise of a right contrary to its socio*econo$ic )ur)ose is an abuse which will gi(e rise to liability. The e+ercise of a right $ust be in accordance with the )ur)ose for which it has established and $ust not be e+cessi(e or unduly harsh= there $ust be @5 I@T9@TI5@ T5 I@C?79 A@5TE97.
32
-. The ter(s and 'onditions of the 'ontra't 8ere 'learQauto$atic sus)ension for failure to )ay outstanding balance after F/ days fro$ original bill. Qauto$atic cancellation after >/ days 0. Marasigan was not able to co$)ly with their agree$ent. Ee issued a -ostdated 'he'<. Settled do'trine: chec# is not a substitute for $oney. F. Ele(ents of Art. $< -. there is a legal right or duty 0. which is e+ercised in bad faith F. for the sole intent of )re!udicing or in!uring another ;2 (on ;PIAs )art) was not )ro(en. "2 )resu$ed. ;PI did not 'a-ri'io,sl) and arbitraril) 'an'eled the ,se of the 'ard. It ga(e Marasigan a chance to settle his account. There is no need for ;PI to notify Marasigan of the sus)ension or cancellation. Their contract )ro(ides for auto$atic sus)ension or cancellation.
The ,nderl)in/ basis for the a8ard of tort da(a/es is the -re(ise that an indi1id,al 8as in3,red in 'onte(-lation of the la8.
&LASS NOTE 7es)ondents did not )hysically )re(ent her fro$ wor#ing Teachers were si$)ly e+ercising 7ight to s)eech right to dissent fro$ boardAs decision ;oard ordered her to re)ort to wor#%
Barons Mar<etin/ &or-. 1. &A 2ebruary . -..D

+A&TS: Phel)s 4odge a))ointed ;arons as one of its dealers of electrical wires and cables. ;arons )urchased ite$s on credit which it sold to M97ALC5. ;arons as#ed if it can )ay its outstanding account in $onthly install$ents but Phel)s declined. Phel)s filed a co$)laint to reco(er the a$ount. In its answer ;arons ad$itted )urchasing the ite$s but denied the a$ount. It also stated that it suffered in!ury to its re)utation. (da$ages as result of 8creditorAs abuse:= E5' A;?S9J 7e!ection considering relationshi) of the )arties) ISS5E: '5@ ;arons was entitled to da$ages. @5 4EL0: Phel)s had legiti$ate reasons for re!ecting ;aronsA offer and instituting the action for collection. A -erson 8ho: in e?er'isin/ his ri/hts: does not a't in an ab,si1e (anner is not dee(ed to ha1e a'ted in a (anner 'ontrar) to (orals: /ood ',sto(s: or -,bli' -oli') as to 1iolate Arti'le 2 . In this case it is )lain to see that itAs a $ere e+ercise of rights and not an abuse thereof. Art. -. )rescribes a )ri$ordial li$itation on all rights by setting certain standards that $ust be obser(ed in the e+ercise thereof. &itin/ Tolentino:
&LASS NOTE Giolate conce)t of social solidarity ;2 not )ro(en (that Phel)s !ust wanted to directly deal with Meralco)= 7e!ection of offer of )ay$ent is not an abuse of right
BPI 1. &A +A&TS: Atty. MarasiganAs credit card was denied at CafV Adriatico after he failed to )ay his outstanding balance. 5ne of his guests had to )ay the bill. Ee sued ;PI for da$ages clai$ing that he had an agree$ent with ;PI and that he sent a chec# to ;PI to co(er the balance and future bills in e+change for non*sus)ension of his credit card. T&: in fa(or of Marasigan. ;PI abused its right to sus)end or cancel the card because it did not $ention to Marasigan that his card will be sus)ended des)ite se(eral co$$unciations. &A: Affir$ed ISS5E: '5@ ;PI abused its right to sus)end the card. 4EL0: @o.
&LASS NOTE There was no arbitrariness on the )art of ;PI. 4a$nu$ abs,ue in!uria= there was da$age but no in!ury (Custodio (s. CA)
B. A'ts &ontra Mores

Art. 2 . Any )erson who willfully causes loss or in!ury to another in a $anner that is contrary to $orals good custo$s or )ublic )olicy shall co$)ensate the latter for the da$age.
&LASS NOTE

Art. 0- is the actual catch*all )ro(ision according to Sangco.
33
. Ele(ents R,iF 1. Se'retar) of National 0efense 4ece$ber 0D -.>F

+A&TS: A contract was e+ecuted between Allied Technologies and the 7e)ublic of the Phili))ines to build the Geterans Me$orial Eos)ital. The construction of the hos)ital was ter$inated. 7uiL and Eerrera together with Panlillo were the architects of the building but only Panlillo was recogniLed. 7uiL and Eerrera citing Article 0- sued to be recogniLed as the architects of the hos)ital. ISS5E: '5@ Article 0- was a))licable. @5 4EL0: Arti'le 2 'onte(-lates a sit,ation 8here a -erson has a le/al ri/ht and s,'h ri/ht is 1iolated b) another in a (anner 'ontrar) to (orals: /ood ',sto(s: or -,bli' -oli'). It -res,--oses losses or in3,r): (aterial or other8ise: 8hi'h one (a) s,ffer as a res,lt of said 1iolation. A !udicial declaration of )rofessional )restige is unnecessary because a brilliant )rofessional is res)ected e(en without a court declaration. Art. 2 *8in3,r): refers not only to any indeter$inate right or )ro)erty but also to honor or credit. Was cited in TolentinoX
2. E?a(-les a. Brea'h of Pro(ise to Marr): Sed,'tion: and Se?,al Assa,lt
)regnant. To a(oid e$barrass$ent Santos resigned fro$ her !ob. Santos then sued Tan!anco for da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ Tan!anco was liable for da$ages. @5 4EL0: To constitute seduction there $ust in all cases be so$e sufficient )ro$ise or induce$ent and the wo$an $ust yield because of the )ro$ise or other induce$ent. If she consents $erely fro$ 'arnal l,st and the intercourse is fro$ (,t,al desire there is no sed,'tion. In this case Santos was of a/e. Also she $aintained se+ual relations with each other for one year. Such conduct is in'o(-atible 8ith the idea of sed,'tion.
&LASS NOTES 'ho is AgonciilaJ ?n$arried wo$an of chaste character Seduction of Agoncilla* actionable under A 0cri$e if under -D years old $oral wrong @o seduction if )ro$ise ca$e after Agoncilla beca$e )regnant
2ass(er 1. VeleF 4ece$ber 0> -.>1

+A&TS: 'ass$er and GeleL were about to get $arried. Eowe(er two days before the wedding GeleL wrote a note stating that they would ha(e to )ost)one the wedding because his $other was o))osed to it. A day before the wedding he wired 'ass$er a note saying that he would return soon. Ee ne(er showed u) again. 'ass$er sued for da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ GeleL can be held liable for da$ages. 4EL0: B9S. This is not a case of $ere breach of )ro$ise to $arry. MERE BREA&4 O+ PROMISE TO MARRY IS NOT AN A&TIONABLE 2RON6. ;ut to for$ally set a wedding and go through all the abo(e*described )re)aration and )ublicity only to wal# out of it when the $atri$ony is about to be sole$niLed is ,uite different. This is PALPA;LB A@4 ?@C?STI2IA;LB C5@T7A7B T5 "554 C?ST5MS for which GeleL $ust be held answerable in da$ages in accordance with Article 0-.
&LASS NOTES Issue of deceit< 4eceit can co$e in $any for$s and can result in attraction (so there is no $oral seduction.) Criti,ue of Tan!anco< 8Seduction: in this case only co(ers the initial se+ual contact. 7ule in 1uenaventura< 2or seduction to be actionable there $ust be dece)tion and the wo$an $ust ha(e yielded because of the induce$ent. There is no seduction when there is $utual desire and the o))ortunity was $erely afforded to the wo$an.
Albenson 1. &A: s,-ra.

+A&TS: ;altao case. ISS5E: '5@ there was a (iolation of Article 0-. 4EL0: @o. The ,uestion of whether or not there was abuse of rights resulting in da$ages under Article 0/ and 0- or other a))licable )ro(ision of law de)ends on the circu$stances of each case. The ele(ents of Arti'le 2 are: -. There is an act which is legal 0. ;ut which is contrary to $orals good custo$ )ublic order or )ublic )olicy F. And it is done with intent to in!ure
Code co$$ission da$ages for seduction CA $isa))lied the e+a$)le. Seduction< -. induce$ent by deceit 0. yield because of that Sir< as if seduction can be ratified if court ta#es into consideration ti$e and fre,uency and subse,uent se+ual acts
Tan3an'o 1. &A 4ece$ber -3 -.>>

+A&TS: Tan!anco courted the Santos both being of adult age. In consideration of Tan!ancoMs )ro$ise of $arriage Santos consented to se+ual intercourse. Tan!anco succeeded in ha(ing carnal access with Santos until 4ec. -.K.. As a result Santos got
Ba<sh 1. &A 2ebruary -. -..F

+A&TS: ;a#sh an Iranian courted "onLales. She acce)ted his lo(e on the condition that they would get $arried. 'hen ;a#sh (isited her ho$e "onLalesA )arents allowed the$ to slee) together. ;a#sh then forced her to li(e with hi$. Ee beat her. "onLales later

found out that ;a#sh was already $arried. "onLales sued for da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ ;a#sh was liable for da$ages. B9S 4EL0: If a $anMs )ro$ise to $arry is the -ro?i(ate 'a,se of the gi(ing of herself unto hi$ in a se+ual congress )roof that he had in reality no intention of $arrying her and that the )ro$ise was only a )loy to obtain her consent to the se+ual act could !ustify the award of da$ages )ursuant to Article 0-. This is not because of such )ro$ise to $arry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful in!ury to her honor and re)utation that followed. It is essential that s,'h in3,r) sho,ld ha1e been 'o((itted in a (anner 'ontrar) to (orals: /ood ',sto(s or -,bli' -oli'). In this case "onLales was a (icti$ of $oral seduction. On Art. 2 < designed to e+)and the conce)t of torts or O4 in this !urisdiction by granting ade,uate legal re$edy for the untold nu$ber of $oral wrongs which is i$)ossible for hu$an foresight to s)ecifically enu$erate and )unish in the statue of torts. 4EL0: A breach of )ro$ise to $arry )er se is not actionable e+ce)t where the )laintiff has actually incurred e+)enses for the wedding and the necessary incidents thereof. 4o8e1er: the a8ard of (oral da(a/es is allo8ed in 'ases s-e'ified in or analo/o,s to those -ro1ided in Arti'le 22 $. &orrelati1el): ,nder Arti'le 2 : an) -erson 8ho 8illf,ll) 'a,ses loss or in3,r) to another in a (anner that is 'ontrar) to (orals: /ood ',sto(s: or -,bli' -oli') shall 'o(-ensate the latter for (oral da(a/es. In this case ;unagAs actions constitute acts contrary to $orals and good custo$s. R5LE: "enerally a breach of )ro$ise to $arry is @5T P97 S9 actionable EG&EPT 'E979 PLAI@TI22 EAS ACT?ALLB
I@C?7794 9NP9@S9S 257 TE9 '944I@" A@4 TE9 @9C9SSA7B I@CI49@TS TE97952

ATT7ACT94 T5
34
M9@49U. Their re)eated se+ual intercourse indicates that )assion and not the alleged )ro$ise of $arriage was the $o(ing force that $ade her sub$it herself to MendeL.
&LASS NOTE This case is si$ilar to say Tan!anco. 9(en if there is deceit but the deceit resulted in attraction of the wo$an to the $an then there will be no $ore seduction.
H,i(i/,in/ 1. I'ao Culy F- -.3/

+A&TS: Oui$iguing and Icao a $arried $an were neighbors. Icao succeeded in ha(ing carnal intercourse with Oui$iguing se(eral ti$es through force and inti$idation. She beca$e )regnant. Oui$iguing sued for da$ages and su))ort. ISS5E: '5@ Oui$iguing had cause of action. B9S 4EL0: Inde)endently of the right to su))ort the child she was carrying Oui$iguing herself had a cause of action for da$ages. A 1i'ti( of ra-e (a) re'o1er (oral da(a/es ,nder Arti'le 2 of the &i1il &ode. It is also s,--orted b) Arti'le 22 $.
&LASS NOTE Co$)are this case with Tan!anco In this case ;unag !ust wanted to $arry Cirilo to 9SCAP9 LIA;ILITB (so )ro$ise to $arry ;?T @5 I@T9@T T5 MA77B so actionable)
&LASS NOTES Cudicial notice that the cherished )ossession of e(ery single 2ili)ina is her (irginity If the $an ne(er intended to $arry the wo$an ;?T STILL )ro$ised to $arry her it would be e,ui(alent to induce$ent and he would be liable under A0-
&onstantino 1. MendeF May -1 -..0

+A&TS: Constantino and MendeL $et at TonyAs 7estaurant where she was a waitress. MendeL )rofessed his lo(e during their first date. Through a )ro$ise of $arriage he succeeded in ha(ing se+ual intercourse with Constantino. MendeL then confessed that he was $arried. 4es)ite this they had re)eated se+ual contact. Constantino got )regnant. She then sued for recognition of her unborn child and da$ages for breach of )ro$ise to $arry. ISS5E: '5@ MendeL was liable for da$ages. @5 4EL0: Mere se+ual intercourse is not by itself a basis for reco(ery. 0a(a/es sho,ld onl) be a8arded if se?,al inter'o,rse is NOT A PRO05&T O+ VOL5NTARINESS AN0 M5T5AL 0ESIRE. In this case Constantino was already 0D years old. More i$)ortantly she ad$itted that SE9 'AS
B,na/: *r. 1. &A Culy -/ -..0

+A&TS: ;unag brought Uenaida Cirilo to a $otel where he ra)ed her. Ee then brought her to his grand$otherAs house where they li(ed together as husband and wife for 0- days. ;unag and Cirilo then filed for a $arriage license. ;unag then withdrew his a))lication. Cirilo filed for a co$)laint for da$ages for breach of )ro$ise to $arry. ISS5E: '5@ ;unag was liable for da$ages. B9S
&LASS NOTE Se+ual assault Q ra)e There was a cri$inal action for ra)e in this case
Pe 1. Pe May F/ -.>0
+A&TS: Alfonso Pe a $arried $an and a collateral relati(e fre,uented LolitaAs house on the )rete+t that he wanted her to teach hi$ how to )ray the rosary. Alfonso and Lolita then fell in lo(e. LolitaMs )arents heard about the affair (e+change of notes 8trysts: in different barrios) so they refused to let the$ see each

other. Lolita left the house and disa))eared. LolitaAs relati(es filed an action for da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ Alfonso was liable for da$ages. B9S 4EL0: Alfonso a $arried $an seduced Lolita through tric#ery to the e+tent that she fell in lo(e with hi$. Alfonso 'o((itted an IN*5RY TO LOLITARS +AMILY IN A MANNER &ONTRARY TO MORALS: 6OO0 &5STOMS AN0 P5BLI& POLI&Y AS &ONTEMPLATE0 IN ARTI&LE 2 of the ne8 &i1il &ode. 6eneral R,le: one cannot be held liable in da$ages for $aliciously instituting a )rosecution where he acted with Probable &a,se. In other words a suit will lie only in cases where a legal )rosecution has been carried on without )robable cause. If the charge although false was (ade 8ith an honest belief in its tr,th and 3,sti'e and there were reasonable grounds on which such a belief could be founded the accusation could not be held to ha(e been false in the legal sense. To constitute MP there $ust be )roof that the )rosecution was )ro$)ted by a sinister design to (e+ and hu$iliate a )erson that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant #nowing that his charges were false and groundless. Concededly the $ere act of sub$itting a case to the authorities for )rosecution does not $a#e one liable for MP.
CIGIL S?IT MALICI5?SLB

7MEMORINEO MALI&IO5S PROSE&5TION: A@
35
257
ACTI5@
4AMA"9S ;75?"ET ;B 5@9 A"AI@ST 'E5M A C7IMI@AL P75S9C?TI5@ 57 5TE97 L9"AL P75C994I@" EAS ;99@ I@STIT?T94 A@4 'ITE5?T P75;A;L9 CA?S9 A2T97 TE9
T97MI@ATI5@ 52 S?CE P75S9C?TI5@ S?IT 57 5TE97 P75C994I@" I@ 2AG57 52 TE9 4929@4A@T TE979I@. P5RPOSE O+ VEGATION OR IN*5RY.
T4E 6IST O+ T4E A&TION O+ T4E
P5LLIN6 O+ LE6AL PRO&ESS IN +OR&E: RE65LARLY: +OR T4E MERE
T5
C5@STIT?T9
MP
TE979 M?ST ;9 P7552 TEAT TE9
P75S9C?TI5@ 'AS P75MPT94 ;B A SI@IST97 49SI"@ T5 G9N A@4 E?MILIAT9 A P97S5@ "75?@4L9SS. 257 A@4 TEAT IT 'AS I@ITIAT94 49LI;97AT9LB ;B TE9 M979 ACT 52 S?;MITTI@" A CAS9 TE9 4929@4A@T 6@5'I@" TEAT EIS CEA7"9S '979 2ALS9 A@4
&LASS NOTE The lower court )resented a $ore ro$antic (ersion of the lo(e story ;oth Alfonso and Lolita were of age
C5@C9494LB
T5 TE9 A?TE57ITI9S 257 P75S9C?TI5@ 459S @5T MA69 5@9 LIA;L9
MP.
A ELEMENTS O+ MP: -. TE9 2ACT 52 TE9
P75S9C?TI5@
A@4 TE9 2?7TE97 2ACT TEAT
b. Mali'io,s Prose',tion H,e 1. IA& Canuary -F -.D.

+A&TS: Oue filed a co$)laint for estafa against @icolas because of the chec#s the latter issued as )ay$ent for can(ass strollers were dishonored. @icolas allegedly did not continue )ay$ent because of the defecti(e can(ass strollers which he ne(er returned to Oue. The charge was dis$issed in the fiscal le(el. @icolas filed a co$)laint for $alicious )rosecution. ISS5E: '5@ Oue was guilty of $alicious )rosecution. @5. 4EL0: @either of the$ is "?ILTB 52 MALIC9. To constitute $alicious )rosecution there $ust be -roof that the )rosecution was< 1. Pro$)ted by a sinister design to (e+ and hu$iliate a )erson 2. Initiated deliberately by the defendant 6nowing that his charges were false and groundless. The )resence of )robable cause signifies as a legal conse,uence the absence of $alice. ONE &ANNOT
BE 4EL0 LIABLE +OR 0AMA6ES +OR MALI&IO5SLY INSTIT5TIN6 A PROSE&5TION 24ERE 4E A&TE0 2IT4 PROBABLE &A5SE.
TE9 4929@4A@T 'AS EIMS9L2 TE9 P75S9C?T57 A@4 TEAT TE9 ACTI5@ 2I@ALLB T97MI@AT94 'ITE A@ ACO?ITTAL.
&LASS NOTE 4is$issal of the case does not auto$atically gi(e rise to a cause of action for $alicious )rosecution If there is )robable cause there is no $alice
0. F.
TEAT I@ ;7I@"I@" TE9 ACTI5@
TE9 P75S9C?T57 ACT94
'ITE5?T P75;A;L9 CA?S9 TEAT TE9 P75S9C?T57 'AS ACT?AT94 57 IMP9LL94 ;B A
L9"AL MALIC9 TEAT IS ;B IMP75P97 57 SI@IST97 M5TIG9
0rilon 1. &A A)ril 0/ 0//+A&TS< A letter co$)laint sent to 4rilon resulted in an order to in(estigate se(eral indi(iduals including AdaLa for their )artici)ation in the failed 4ec. AD. cou). The )reli$inary in(estigation stated that there was )robable cause to hold res)ondents for the cri$e of rebellion with $urder and frustrated $urder. AdaLa filed a co$)laint for da$ages against 4rilon for $alicious )rosecution. ISS5E: '5@ 4rilon et al was guilty of $alicious )rosecution. @5. 4EL0: There is no $alicious )rosecution in this case because the )resence of )robable cause signifies the absence of $alice.
5nce cannot be held liable for $aliciously instituting a )rosecution where one has acted with )robable cause. 24Y. coL it would be a (ery great discourage$ent to )ublic !ustice if )rosecutors who had tolerable ground of sus)icion were liable to be sued at law when their indict$ent $iscarried. A s,it for MP 8ill lie onl) in 'ases 8here a le/al -rose',tion has been 'arried on 8itho,t -robable 'a,se.
&LASS NOTES 7e$inder< $e$oriLe the definition of $alicious )rosecution. There is no $alicious )rosecution because none of the three ele$ents were )resent (not ter$inated with an ac,uittal 4rilon acted with )robable cause as found in PI no sinister $oti(e could be i$)uted).
3.

If there is )robable cause there is no $alice. Ta#e note of the statutory basis of $alicious )rosecution. 2ernande3 case ruling< * If doubtful or difficult ,uestion of law is a))lied & the law always accords to )ublic officials the )resu$)tion of good faith 9 This is not a))licable if the doctrine is clear enough. Cited Manila "as definition of Malicious )rosecution
36
co$)laint for ,ualified theft was filed against 5ngsi) but it was later dis$issed. 5ngsi) then filed a co$)laint for da$ages ISS5E: '5@ there was $alicious )rosecution. B9S 4EL0: To constitute $alicious )rosecution there $ust be )roof that the )rosecution was )ro$)ted by a sinister design to (e+ and hu$iliate a )erson that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant #nowing that his charges were false and groundless. T4E MERE A&T O+
S5BMITTIN6 A &ASE TO T4E A5T4ORITIES +OR PROSE&5TION 0OES NOT MA>E ONE LIABLE +OR MALI&IO5S PROSE&5TION.
Albenson 1. &A: s,-ra

+A&TS: the F ;altao case where funds for chec# was de$anded by the co$)any fro$ the father ;altaoR ISS5E: '5@ there was $alicious )rosecution. @5 4EL0: The M979 ACT S?;MITTI@" a case to the authorities for )rosecution (only fiscal le(el) 0OES NOT MA>E ONE LIABLE +OR MALI&IO5S PROSE&5TION. The ele(ents of (ali'io,s -rose',tion are: . The fa't that the -rose',tion and the f,rther fa't that the defendant 8as hi(self the -rose',tor: and that the a'tion 8as finall) ter(inated 8ith an a';,ittal 2. That in brin/in/ the a'tion: the -rose',tor a'ted 8itho,t -robable 'a,se A. The -rose',tor 8as a't,ated or i(-elled b) le/al (ali'e.
6lobe Ma'<a) 1. &A: s,-ra

+A&TS: Tobias was alleged to be the Y- sus)ect for the fraudulent transactions he allegedly unco(ered. Ee was illegally dis$issed and Eendry filed > cri$inal co$)laints against hi$ although the findings of the Police Chief 4ocu$ent 9+a$iner absol(ed hi$ fro$ guilt. All the co$)laints were dis$issed in the fiscal le(el. ISS5E: '5@ there was $alicious )rosecution. B9S 4EL0: The (ere dis(issal b) the fis'al of the 'ri(inal 'o(-laint is not a /ro,nd for an a8ard of da(a/es for (ali'io,s -rose',tion if there is no 'o(-etent e1iden'e to sho8 that the 'o(-lainant a'ted in bad faith. CE1en if still in the fis'al le1el: if a'ted 8ith B+ then liable for da(a/esD Eowe(er in this case there was a $alicious intent as shown by the facts< 1. The co$)laints were filed during the )endency of the illegal dis$issal case (0 of which were refilled with Cudge Ad(ocate "eneralAs office of the A2P to sub!ect Tobias to $ilitary courts) 2. The threat of further suits by Eendry (that theyAll be willing to file hundreds of suits against hi$ !ust to find hi$ liable) F. The filing of the cases des)ite the )olice re)orts e+cul)ating Tobias 1. The e(entual dis$issal of the cases
Eowe(er in this case the circu$stances of the case showed that there was $alicious intent in the filing of the co$)laint for ,ualified theft.
&LASS NOTE 4is$issal of ,ualified theft case in fiscal le(el only still )ossible to file MP. If the case only reached fiscal le(elR "9@ 7?L9< no MP 9NC9PTI5@< if ;2 with Malicious intent
&LASS NOTE "ross negligence can )ro(e bad faith. ;ad faith Q gross negligence. @o gross negligence in this case. It was an innocent $ista#e. Cited Manila "as definition of $alicious )rosecution and Oue for )robable cause
'. P,bli' 4,(iliation Patri'io 1. Le1iste A)ril 0> -.D.

+A&TS: Le(iste s$ashed a beer bottle on the table causing his hand to bleed. Ee then a))roached Patricio a Catholic )riest and sla))ed hi$. Patricio filed a co$)laint for slander by deed which was dis$issed. Ee then filed for da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ Le(iste was liable for da$ages. B9S. 4EL0: Arti'le 22 $ a--lies. The act of sla))ing was contrary to $orals and good custo$s and caused Patricio $ental anguish $oral shoc# wounded feelings and social hu$iliation.
Manila 6as 1. &A 5ctober F/ -.D/

+A&TS: Manila "as installed additional a))liances and gas ser(ice connections in 5ngsi)As co$)ound. Since no gas consu$)tion was registered in the $eter Manila "as issued instructions to change the gas $eter. Coronal then went to the co$)ound and changed the $eter without infor$ing 5ngsi). Coronal returned in the afternoon and too# )ictures. 'hen 5ngsi) as#ed about it he was told to !ust go to the office. In the office he was told of the e+istence of a !u$)er and was threatened with de)ortation. A
&LASS NOTE Co$)etent )roof of bad faith in filing the suit is essential.

On Moral 0a(a/es: The fact that no A4 or C4 was )ro(en before the TC does not ad(ersely affect the )etitionerAs right to reco(er M4. M4 $ay be awarded in a))ro)riate cases referred to in the cha)ter on hu$an relations of the CC (Arts. -.*F>) without need of proof that the wrongful act complained of has caused any physical injury upon the complainant. TE9 REASON 5N0ERLYIN6 T4E A2AR0 O+ 0AMA6ES 5N0ER ART. 2 IS T5 C5MP9@SAT9 TE9 I@C?794 PA7TB 257 TE9 MORAL IN*5RY CA?S94 ?P5@ EIS P97S5@. (from report of the code0
S97G9 T5 ALL9GIAT9 TE9 M57AL S?2297I@" E9 EAS ?@497"5@9 ;B 79AS5@ 52 TE9 4929@4A@TAS C?LPA;L9 ACTI5@.
37
2ron/ 8itho,t da(a/e: or da(a/e 8itho,t 8ron/: does not 'onstit,te a 'a,se of a'tion. Arts. 0/ S 0- )ro(ide the legal bedroc# for the award of da$ages. M4 not awarded to )enaliLe defendant or to enrich co$)lainant but to enable the latter to obtain $eans di(ersions or a$use$ents that will ser(e to alle(iate the $oral suffering he has undergone by reason of defendantAs cul)able action. In any case award of M4 $ust be )ro)ortionate to the sufferings inflicted.
I@ 5TE97 79ST57ATI5@
'574S<
TE9 A'A74
52
M4
IS
AIM94
AT
'ITEI@ TE9 LIMITS 52 TE9 P5SSI;L9
52 TE9
SPI7IT?AL STAT?S O?5 A@T9 TE9 S?2297I@" I@2LICT94.
A@4 IT M?ST ;9 P75P57TI5@AT9 T5
P5RPOSE
O+
E0
OR &ORRE&TIVE 0AMA6ES: IMP5S94 ;B 'AB 52
9NAMPL9 57 C5779CTI5@ 257 TE9 P?;LIC "554 I@ A44ITI5@ T5 TE9
(A7T. 000.). CA@@5T ;9 79C5G9794 AS A MATT97 52 7I"ET= TE9 C5?7T 'ILL 49CI49 '5@ TE9B C5?L4 ;9 A4C?4ICAT94. C5@SI497I@" TEAT TE9B A79 A'A7494 257 'A@T5@ ACTS TEAT
M57AL T9MP97AT9 LIO?I4AT94 57 C5MP9@SAT57B 4AMA"9S TE9B A79 P9@AL I@ CEA7ACT97 "7A@T94 @5T ;B 'AB 52 C5MP9@SATI5@ ;?T AS A P?@ISEM9@T T5 TE9 5229@497 A@4 AS A 'A7@I@" T5 5TE97S AS A S57T 52 49T9779@T.
&LASS NOTE Art 0- a))lies to e(en a sla) in the face
&LASS NOTE Manner of attac#ing without any a$ount of )roof* contrary to $orals and good custo$s.
6rand 5nion 1. Es-ino 4ece$ber 0D -.3.

+A&TS< Cose 9s)ino forgot to )ay for a cylindrical rat tail file when he left "rand ?nion Su)er$ar#et. Ee was a))roached by the guard and $ade to file an incident re)ort. 9s)ino offered to )ay for the file but instead his $oney was ta#en as an incenti(e to the guards for a))rehending )ilferers. A lot of )eo)le witnessed the incident. ISS5E: 2ON Es-ino 'an 'lai( da(a/es. YES. 4EL0: 9s)ino was falsely accused of sho)lifting. 4efendants willfully caused loss or in!ury to the )laintiff in a $anner contrary to $orals good custo$s or )ublic )olicy $a#ing the$ a$enable to da$ages under Arts. -. and 0- in relation to Art. 00-. of the Ci(il Code. It is against $orals "C and )ublic )olicy to hu$iliate e$barrass and degrade the dignity of a )erson. 9(eryone $ust res)ect the dignity )ersonality )ri(acy and )eace of $ind of his neighbors and other )ersons. (Art. 0>). And one $ust act with !ustice gi(e e(eryone his due and obser(e honesty and "2 (Art. -.). P5RPOSE
O+
&ar-io 1s. Val(onte Se)te$ber . 0//1

+A&TS: Gal$onte a wedding coordinator was )ublicly accused by the brideAs aunt Car)io of stealing her !ewelry. She was searched and ,uestioned by the guard and the )olice. Car)io refused to a)ologiLe so Gal$onte filed a suit for da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ Gal$onte should be awarded da$ages. B9S 4EL0: Car)io willfully caused Gal$onte in!ury in a $anner contrary to $orals and good custo$s. Although Car)io had the right to #now the identity of the thief she should not ha(e o)enly accused Gal$onte without further )roof. Moral da$ages are awarded whene(er the defendantAs wrongful act or o$ission is the )ro+i$ate cause of the )laintiffAs )hysical suffering $ental anguish fright serious an+iety bes$irched re)utation wounded feelings $oral shoc# social hu$iliation and si$ilar in!ury s)ecified or analogous to those )ro(ided in Article 00-. of the Ci(il Code. To warrant reco(ery of da$ages there $ust be both a right of action for a wrong inflicted by the defendant and the da$age resulting therefro$ to the )laintiff.
d. 5n3,stified 0is(issal H,isaba 1. Sta. IneF A,/,st A@: $!%

+A&TS: Ouisaba an internal auditor of Sta. Ines was ordered by 7obert Eyde the GP to )urchase logs for the co$)anyAs )lant. Ouisaba refused because it wasnAt )art of his !ob. As a result he was de$oted. Ouisaba filed a co$)laint for da$ages ter$ination )ay and attorneyAs fees. Sta. Ines said that the @L7C had !urisdiction. ISS5E: '5@ the regular courts had !urisdiction. B9S 4EL0: OuisabaAs co$)laint was grounded not on his dis$issal but rather 5@ TE9 MA@@97 52 EIS 4ISMISSAL A@4 ITS C5@S9O?9@T 9229CTS. I+ T4E 0ISMISSAL 2AS 0ONE ANTI9SO&IALLY OR OPPRESSIVELY: T4EN T4E RESPON0ENTS VIOLATE0 ARTI&LE !@ which )rohibits acts of o))ression by either ca)ital or labor against the other and Article 0- which $a#es a )erson liable for da$ages if he willfully causes loss or in!ury to another in a $anner that is contrary to $orals good custo$s or )ublic )olicy.
M0:
9SS9@TIALLB I@49M@ITB 57 79PA7ATI5@
;5TE
P5NIS4MENT OR &ORRE&TION
@5T I@T9@494
T5 9@7ICE A C5MPLAI@A@T AT TE9 9NP9@S9 52 A 4IG97SI5@ 57 AM?S9M9@TS TEAT 'ILL
4929@4A@T= TE9B A79 A'A7494 5@LB T5 9@A;L9 TE9 I@C?794 PA7TB T5 5;TAI@ M9A@S
&LASS NOTE

Standard of dis$issal laid down in this case< dis$issal was done 8anti*socially or o))ressi(ely.: Ele(ents: (-) $aterial or $oral loss (0) )ublic ser(antAs refusal or neglect to )erfor$ duty (F) without !ust cause
38
Medina 1. &astro9Bartolo(e Se)te$ber -- -.D0

+A&TS: Cos$e de AboitiL President and C95 of Pe)si shouted and cursed at the )laintiffs in front of their subordinate e$)loyees. The )etitioners filed a case of oral defa$ation against de AboitiL. It was dis$issed since the !urisdiction of clai$s was transferred fro$ the C2I to the Labor Arbiters. ISS5E: '5@ the Labor Code a))lies. @5 4EL0: The )laintiffs did not allege any unfair labor )ractice. It 8as an a'tion for da(a/es for tortio,s a'ts alle/edl) 'o((itted b) the defendants. Such being the case the go(erning statute is the Ci(il Code and not the Labor Code.
A(aro 1. S,(a/,it Culy F- -.>0

+A&TS: Cose A$aro was assaulted and shot near the city go(ern$ent building. The following day he along with his father and witnesses went to the Chief of Police to see# assistance but were not rendered assistance. The city attorney was about to file an infor$ation for illegal discharge of firear$s against the assailant. Eowe(er the Chief of Police started to harass the A$aros coercing the$ to sign an affida(it absol(ing the )olice officers of any liability. The A$aros then filed a suit for da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ the A$arosA action under Article 0andHor 03 would )ros)er. B9S 4EL0: The A$arosA clai$ for relief was based on the Chief of PoliceAs refusal to gi(e assistance which was his duty to do as an officer of the law. 2hat is re;,ired ,nder Art. 2! is that the ref,sal (,st be 8itho,t 3,st 'a,se.
though they $ay not constitute a cri$inal offense shall )roduce a cause of action for da$ages )re(ention and other relief< (-) Prying into the )ri(acy of anotherAs residence= (0) Meddling with or disturbing the )ri(ate life or fa$ily relations of another= (F) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated fro$ his friends= (1) Ge+ing or hu$iliating another on account of his religious beliefs lowly station in life )lace of birth )hysical defect or other )ersonal condition.
St. Lo,is 1. &A @o(e$ber -1 -.D1

+A&TS< St. Louis 7ealty caused to be )ublished an ad de)icting the Arcadio 2a$ily in front of 4r. Ara$ilAs residence $a#ing it a))ear that the house was owned by the Arcadios. Ara$il )rotested. Plaintiff sto))ed )ublication but did not rectify. Ara$il e+tra !udicially de$anded da$ages. This is when St Louis 7ealty )ublished a new ad showing the Arcadios in their real ho$e. Ara$il filed co$)laint for da$ages clai$ing $ental anguish and reduction in inco$e. TC awarded actual and $oral da$ages. CA affir$ed. ISS5E< '5@ acts and o$issions of the fir$ fall under Art. 0> 4EL0< Bes. St. Louis 7ealty was grossly negligent in $i+ing u) the residences. It ne(er $ade any written a)ology and e+)lanation of the $i+*u). Persons who #now 4r. Ara$il were confused by the distorted lingering i$)ression that he was renting his residence. Eis )ri(ate life was $ista#enly and unnecessarily e+)osed. Ee suffered di$inution of inco$e and $ental anguish. 4a$ages fi+ed by TC are sanctioned by Arts. 00// 00/D and 00-. of the Ci(il Code. Art. 00-. allows $oral da$ages for acts and actions $entioned in Art. 0>.
B. 5nfair &o(-etition
Art. 2#. ?nfair co$)etition in agricultural or industrial enter)rises or in labor through the use of force inti$idation deceit $achination or any other un!ust o))ressi(e or highhanded $ethod shall gi(e rise to aright of action by the )erson who thereby suffers da$age.
IG. OT4ER TORTS A. 0ereli'tion of 0,t)

Art. 2!. Any )erson suffering $aterial or $oral loss because a )ublic ser(ant or e$)loyee refuses or neglects without !ust cause to )erfor$ his official duty $ay file an action for da$ages and other relief against the latter without )re!udice to any disci)linary ad$inistrati(e action that $ay be ta#en.
&LASS NOTE ?nfair co$)etition< designed to )lace your )roducts in a better light. Should be in the conte+t of gi(ing ad(antage to one )arty (eg. derogatory co$$ercials)
&. Violation of 4,(an 0i/nit)

Art. 2". 9(ery )erson shall res)ect the dignity )ersonality )ri(acy and )eace of $ind of his neighbor and other )ersons. The following and si$ilar acts
&LASS NOTE This is an action for da$ages for wrongful ad(ertise$ent shows that Art 0> is (ery broad.
&LASS NOTE

&on'e-'ion 1. &A Canuary F- 0///
+A&TS< 2lorence Conce)cion lessor of the @icolas s)ouses !oined @estor @icolasA business (enture by contributing ca)ital. 7odrigo 2lorenceAs brother*in*law angrily accosted @estor at the latterAs a)art$ent and accused hi$ of conducting an adulterous relationshi) with 2lorence. As a result @estor felt e+tre$e e$barrass$ent. Ee could not face his neighbors any$ore. 2lorence also bac#ed out of the (enture so that the business declined. @estorAs wife started to doubt his fidelity and e(en threatened to lea(e hi$. The s)ouses filed a ci(il suit against 7odrigo for da$ages. ISS5E< '5@ s)ouses can reco(er da$ages 4EL0< Bes. 9+a$)les $entioned in Art. 00-. and 0> are not e+clusi(e but are $erely e+a$)les and do not )reclude other si$ilar or analogous acts. 4a$ages therefore are allowable for actions against a )ersonAs dignity. ?nder Art. 00-3 $oral da$ages $ay be reco(ered if they are the )ro+i$ate result of the defendantAs wrongful act or o$ission. 7Philoso-h) behind Art. 2"< TE9
SBST9M 52 LA' C5?@T7B IS E5' 2A7 IT 4I"@I2I9S MA@. T5?CEST5@9 52 9G97B ?@497 TEIS A7TICL9 P97S5@ALITB
39
Art. 2 $B. The )ro(isions of this Title shall be res)ecti(ely a))licable to all obligations $entioned in Article --K3. Art. 2 $!. 4a$ages $ay be< (-) Actual or co$)ensatory= (0) Moral= (F) @o$inal= (1) Te$)erate or $oderate= (K) Li,uidated= or (>) 9+e$)lary or correcti(e.
&LASS NOTES I$)ortant for the distinction between da$age in!ury and da$ages Mere fact that )laintiffs suffer da$age doesnAt $ean that thereAs right of action To warrant reco(ery of da$ages< *Legal right on the )art of )laintiff *In!ury caused to )laintiff
Peo-le 1. Ballesteros
+A&TS: Murder through gunshot wounds ,uestion a$t of da$ages awarded 70AMA6ES
C5MP9@SATI5@ S?STAI@94 57
II. >inds of 0a(a/es A. A't,al or 'o(-ensator)

Art. 22 ". @o )roof of )ecuniary loss is necessary in order that $oral no$inal te$)erate li,uidated or e+e$)lary da$ages $ay be ad!udicated. The assess$ent of such da$ages e+ce)t li,uidated ones is left to the discretion of the court according to the circu$stances of each case. Art. 2 $$. 9+ce)t as )ro(ided by law or by sti)ulation one is entitled to an ade,uate co$)ensation only for such )ecuniary loss suffered by hi$ as he has duly )ro(ed. Such co$)ensation is referred to as actual or co$)ensatory da$ages. Art. 22@@. Inde$nification for da$ages shall co$)rehend not only the (alue of the loss suffered but also that of the )rofits which the obligee failed to obtain. Art. 22@B. 4a$ages $ay be reco(ered< (-) 2or loss or i$)air$ent of earning ca)acity in cases of te$)orary or )er$anent )ersonal in!ury= (0) 2or in!ury to the )laintiffMs business standing or co$$ercial credit.
$ay
AS
be
defined
as
TE9 TE9
P9C?@IA7B P9C?@IA7B
79C5MP9@S9
57 SATIS2ACTI5@ 257 A@ I@C?7B 9NP79SS94
5TE97'IS9
C5@S9O?9@C9S 'EICE TE9 LA' IMP5S9S 257 TE9 ;79ACE 52 S5M9 4?TB 57 TE9 GI5LATI5@ 52 S5M9 7I"ET.
52 TE9 C?LT?79 A@4 CIGILIUATI5@ 52 9G97B
TE?S
TE9 7I"ETS 52 P97S5@S A79 AMPLB P9729CT94 A@4 4AMA"9S A79 P75GI494 257 GI5LATI5@S 52 A P97S5@AS 4I"@ITB P7IGACB A@4 P9AC9 52 MI@4.
A't,al or 'o(-ensator) da(a/es are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained whereas (oral da(a/es may be invo4ed when the complainant has experienced mental anguish, serious anxiety, physical suffering, moral shoc4, and so forth, and had furthermore shown that these were the proximate result of the offender s wrongful act or omission.
Eu$an )ersonality $ust be e+alted. Sacredness of hu$an )ersonality is the conco$itant consideration of e(ery )lan for Eu$an A$elioration.
&LASS NOTES I$)ortant for the definition of da$ages 2or actual da$ages the )arty $a#ing clai$ $ust )resent best e(idence.
G. 0AMA6ES
&,stodio 1. &A
&LASS NOTE 0a(a/es is not li(ited to ;,asi9deli'ts Calso in'l,des 'ontra'ts: ;,asi9'ontra'ts and deli'tsD. +A&TS: built Adobe fence on the right of way There is a $aterial distinction between da$ages and in!ury. IN*5RY is the ILL9"AL I@GASI5@ 52 A L9"AL 7I"ET= 0AMA6E is the L5SS E?7T 57 EA7M 'EICE 79S?LTS 275M TE9 I@C?7B= and 0AMA6ES are the 79C5MP9@S9 57 C5MP9@SATI5@ A'A7494 257 TE9 4AMA"9S S?229794.
&LASS NOTES It is e+)ressly )ro(ided for in Art. 0-.. that there should be )roof of )ecuniary da$ages for A4 or C4 Ta#e note of what inde$nity is included in Art. 00//
I. 0efinition and &on'e-t

Art. 00/K )ro(ides for the #inds of A4 which the )laintiff $ay reco(er Loss of )rofits of an established business which was yielding fairly steady returns at the ti$e of its interru)tion by defendantAs wrongful act is not so s)eculati(e or contingent that a court of !ustice $ay refuse to allow the )laintiff any da$ages at all.
40
O4s or in e(ery case where )ro)erty right has been in(aded. @4 are da$ages in NAME only and NOT IN +A&T. 'here these are allowed they are not treated as an e,ui(alent of a wrong inflicted but si$)ly in recognition of the e+istence of a technical in!ury. The a$ount to be awarded as @4 shall be e,ual or at least co$$ensurate to the in!ury sustained considering the conce)t and )ur)ose of such da$ages.
Al/arra 1. Sande3as
+A&TS: Plaintiff Algarra recei(ed )ersonal in!uries fro$ a collision with the defendant Salde!asA auto$obile due to the negligence of the defendant who was dri(ing the car. Plaintiff sold the )roducts of a distillery as a co$$ission agent and had about twenty regular custo$ers who )urchased his wares in s$all ,uantities necessitating regular and fre,uent deli(eries. ;eing unable to attend to their wants during their wants during the two $onths he was inca)acitated due to the accident his regular custo$ers turned their trade to other co$)eting agents. 4EL0: ?nder both the S)anish Ci(il Code and A$erican law of da$ages actual da$ages for a negligent act or o$ission are confined to those which 8were foreseen or $ight ha(e been foreseen: or those which were 8the natural and )robable conse,uences: or 8the direct and i$$ediate conse,uences: of the act or o$ission. In this !urisdiction the author of a negligent act or o$ission which causes da$age to another is obliged to re)air the da$age done. @o distinction is $ade between da$age caused $aliciously and intentionally and da$ages caused through $ere negligence in so far as ci(il liability is concerned. @or is the defendant re,uired to do $ore than re)air the da$age done or to )ut the )laintiff in the sa$e )osition that he would ha(e been in had the da$age not been inflicted. This is )ractically e,ui(alent to co$)ensatory or actual da$ages as those ter$s are used in A$erican law. *TE9
P?7P5S9 52 TE9 LA' I@ A'A74I@" ACT?AL 4AMA"9S IS T5
. >inds PNO& 1. &A

+A&TS: The MHG Ma. 9figenia NG owned by res)ondent Ma. 9figenia 2ishing Cor). collided with the (essel Petro)arcel which at the ti$e was owned by the LuLon Ste(edoring Co. The ;oard of Marine In,uiry rendered a decision finding the Petro)arcel at fault and thus the res)ondent filed an action for da$ages against LuLon Ste(edoring and the Petro)arcelAs ca)tain. 4uring the )endency of the case )etitioner P@5C ac,uired the Petro)arcel and was substituted in )lace of LuLon Ste(edoring in the co$)laint. 4EL0: A&T5AL
IN*5RY S5STAINE0. OR &OMPENSATORY 0AMA6ES ARE T4OSE A2AR0E0 IN SATIS+A&TION O+: OR IN RE&OMPENSE +OR LOSS OR
&LASS NOTES The basic rule in reco(ering A4< it is sufficient that da$ages are ca)able of )roof in order to reco(er (A4) There should be a record to ser(e as )roof )resented before the Court There are cases which say that )ro(iding a list of e+)enses is not enoughIthere has to be recei)ts etc.IP7552 SE5?L4 ;9 G97B 2ACT?AL Proof re,uired< reasonable certainty u)on co$)etent )roof Two (0) #inds of A4 or C4< 4ano e$ergente*actual Lucro cesante*loss of )rofit
T4EY
PRO&EE0 +ROM A SENSE O+ NAT5RAL
-. 0.
*5STI&E AN0 ARE 0ESI6NE0 TO REPAIR T4E 2RON6 T4AT 4AS BEEN 0ONE: TO &OMPENSATE +OR T4E IN*5RY IN+LI&TE0 AN0 NOT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY.
In a'tions based on H0*A4 include all the natural and )robable conse,uences of the act or o$ission co$)lained of. 2 <inds of A0 or &0: -. The loss of what a )erson already )ossesses (daZo e$ergente) 0. the failure to recei(e as a benefit that which would ha(e )ertained to hi$ (lucro cesante) On No(inal 0a(a/es< 2hen a8arded< in the absence of co$)etent )roof on the A4 suffered*entitled to @4 which the law says is ad!udicated in order that a right of the )laintiff which has been (iolated or in(aded by the defendant $ay be (indicated and recogniLed and not for the )ur)ose of inde$nifying the )laintiff for any loss suffered. *awarded in e(ery obligation arising fro$ law contracts ,uasi*contracts acts or o$issions )unished by law and
Inte/rated Pa'<in/ 1. &A

Petitioner Integrated Pac#ing Cor)oration (IPC) and res)ondent 2il*Anchor Pa)er entered into an agree$ent whereby 2il*Anchor bound itself to deli(er F 1K/ rea$s of )rinting )a)er to IPC to be )aid within F/ to ./ days fro$ deli(ery. Later IPC entered into a contract with the Phili))ine A))liance Cor)oration (Philacor) to )rint three (olu$es of 8Philacor Cultural ;oo#s.: Eowe(er IPC encountered )roble$s )aying 2il*Anchor and beca$e hea(ily indebted to the latter. This led to 2il*Anchor sus)ending deli(eries of )a)er to IPC. Thus out of the agreed u)on F 1K/ rea$s only -/.3 were deli(ered. des)ite de$and by IPC for 2il*Anchor to deli(er the balance.
79PAI7 TE9 '75@" TEAT EAS ;99@ 45@9 T5 C5MP9@SAT9 257 TE9 I@C?7B I@2LICT94 A@4 @5T T5 IMP5S9 P9@ALTB.
Pain or suffering whether )hysical or $ental are not ele$ents of actual or co$)ensatory da$ages in this !urisdiction. Aside fro$ this e+ce)tion the $easure of da$ages in this country and in the ?S is arri(ed at by the sa$e e(idence.

Meanwhile IPC entered into an additional )rinting contract with Philacor. ?nfortunately IPC failed to fully co$)ly with its contract for the )rinting of PhilacorAs boo#s and thus Philacor de$anded co$)ensation for delay and da$age suffered. ;ecause IPC also not able to fully settle itAs indebtedness to 2il*Anchor the latter filed a collection suit against it. In its counterclai$ IPC alleged that because 2il*Anchor was only able to deli(er -/.3 rea$s of )a)er it was unable to fulfill its contract with Philacor and thus failed to realiLe e+)ected )rofits. Inde$nification for da$ages co$)rehends not only the loss s,ffered: that is to sa) a't,al da(a/es Cda(n,( e(er/ensD but also -rofits 8hi'h the obli/ee failed to obtain Cl,'r,( 'essansD. da$ages ha(e been foreseen or could ha(e reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.
41
&LASS
NOTES Art. 00/- lays down the distinction between good faith and bad faith (in bad faithI whate(er da$age ha))ens) Last sentence of Art. 00/0 )roble$aticIso$e cases use forseeability as an ele$ent of O4 2orseeability< In ele$ents< $ay be re,uired In da$ages< not re,uired 7easonable certainty re,uired< allege s)ecific facts Present best e(idence Ouantu$ of e(idence re,uired< )re)onderance of e(idence
being e,ual the )erson who has $ore )ieces of e(idence wins 'hat should be the basis< ad$issibility issue aside< nu$ber and ,uality of e(idence )resented and this is what $a#es it )re)onderant you should also )ro(e your allegations though not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt
0BP 1. &A
Lydia Cuba was the grantee of a fish)ond lease agree$ent with the go(ern$ent the rights to which she assigned to 4;P as security for loans the latter e+tended to her. After Cuba failed to $eet the ter$s of )ay$ent on the loans the 4;P without foreclosure )roceedings of any #ind a))ro)riated CubaAs leasehold rights o(er the fish)ond. Subse,uently 4;P e+ecuted a deed of conditional sale in fa(or of Cuba o(er the sa$e fish)ond. Eowe(er Cuba once again was unable to $eet the a$ortiLations sti)ulated which led to 4;P rescinding the deed of conditional sale and ta#ing )ossession of not only the fish)ond but also a house Cuba had built ne+t to it as well along with all the )ersonal belongings $achineries e,ui)$ent and tools therein which subse,uently it was clai$ed went $issing. 4;P allegedly also )re(ented Cuba and her re)resentati(es fro$ feeding the fish already in the fish)ond which led to their loss. As to the losses Cuba allegedly suffered when 4;P too# )ossession of the fish)ond the court said< Actual or co$)ensatory da$ages cannot be )resu$ed but $ust be )ro(ed with reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on s)eculation con!ectures or guesswor# as to the fact and a$ount of da$ages but $ust de)end u)on co$)etent )roof that they ha(e been suffered by the in!ured )arty and on the best obtainable e(idence of the actual a$ount thereof. It $ust )oint to s)ecific facts which could afford a basis for $easuring whate(er co$)ensatory or actual da$ages are borne.
&LASS NOTES The Court here ga(e the two #inds C4Idano e$ergente and lucro cesante Proble$ with the e(idence )resentedI$ere esti$ates Court disallowed $ere esti$ates because they are highly s)eculati(e and $anifestly hy)othetical C4 here was strictly construed
A. &ertaint)
*)ossible that the e+act (alue ()eso) is not #nown.
PNO& 1. &A
+A&TS: Collision of 0 (essels &ertaint): to enable an in!ured )arty to reco(er A4 or C4 he is re,uired to )ro(e the actual a$ount of loss with reasonable de/ree of 'ertaint) )re$ised u)on co$)etent )roof and on the best e1iden'e a(ailable. B,rden of Proof< on the )arty who would be defeated if no e(idence would be )resented on either side. E1iden'e Re;,ired< Ee $ust establish his e(idence by PREPON0ERAN&E O+ EVI0EN&E: which $eans that the e(idence as a whole adduced by one side is su)erior to that of the other. 0a(a/es are not -res,(ed< da$ages cannot be )resu$ed and courts in $a#ing an award $ust )oint out s)ecific facts that could afford a basis for $easuring whate(er C4 or A4 are borne.
2. E?tent
Art. 22@ : && 9 In contracts and ,uasi*contracts the da$ages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and )robable conse,uences of the breach of the obligation and which the )arties ha(e foreseen or could ha(e reasonably foreseen at the ti$e the obligation was constituted. In case of fraud bad faith $alice or wanton attitude the obligor shall be res)onsible for all da$ages which $ay be reasonably attributed to the non*)erfor$ance of the obligation. Art. 22@2: && 9 In cri$es and ,uasi*delicts the defendant shall be liable for all da$ages which are the natural and )robable conse,uences of the act or o$ission co$)lained of. It is not necessary that such
&LASS NOTES Proble$ here with )re)onderance of e(idence is that it beca$e C5MPA7ATIG9Iall things

&A: reduced it to -M
42
&LASS NOTES 4;PAs ac,uisition of the leasehold rights wasnAt (alid Proble$ with A4 here< Court said A4 was s)eculati(e because actual ocular ins)ection was done after the filing of the co$)laint and that they should ha(e $ade an in(entory Sir< Cust because certain da$ages were found out after the filing of the co$)liant doesnAt $a#e the da$ages s)eculati(e. ;esides who in the )ro(inces $a#es an in(entory of bangus etc. This case shows that you should be ready with docu$ents
5f the e+)enses alleged to ha(e been incurred the Court can only gi(e credence to those su))orted by recei)ts and which a))ear to ha(e been genuinely e+)ended in connection with the death of the (icti$.
ISS5E: '5@ the e+tent of the unrealiLed )rofits suffered by the )laintiffs were )ro(en with the certainty re,uired by law. 4EL0: Bes. The rule is that da$ages consisting of unrealiLed )rofits fre,uently referred to as ganancias frustradas or lucru$ cessans are not granted on the basis of $ere s)eculation con!ecture or sur$ise but rather by reference to so$e reasonably definite standard such as $ar#et (alue established e+)erience or direct inference fro$ #nown circu$stances. 5n'ertaint) as to whether or not a clai$ant suffered unrealiLed )rofits at all i.e. uncertainty as to the very fact of injury, will, of course, preclude recovery of this species of damages. 'here howe(er it is reasonably certain that in!ury consisting of the failure to realiLe otherwise reasonably e+)ected )rofits had been incurred uncertainty as to the )recise a$ount of such unrealiLed )rofits will not )re(ent reco(ery or the award of da$ages. The )roble$ then would be ascertain$ent. In the instant case )laintiffAs co$)utations as to the a$ount of unrealiLed )rofit were based on fairly definite standards utiliLed by the go(ern$ental agency ha(ing rele(ant ad$inistrati(e !urisdiction o(er the sub!ect $atter and accounting standards widely e$)loyed in the world of business and co$$erce. Co$bined with credible testi$ony these )ro(ide sufficient basis for a reasonable esti$ate of the unrealiLed net inco$e or )rofit sustained by )laintiffs.
&LASS NOTES This case de$onstrates how i$)ortant the ,uality of your e(idence is (i.e. testi$ony for da$ages by so$eone who is an interested )arty is wea#)
Talisa)9Sila) 1. Assosia'ion August -K -..K

+A&TS: 5n the -Kth of 2ebruary -.>> the Talisay* Silay Milling Co. (TSMC) and the Talisay*Silay Industrial Coo)erati(e Association Inc. (TSICA) instituted an action for da$ages against defendants Asociacion de Agricultores de Talisay*Silay Inc. (AATSI) 2irst 2ar$ers Milling Co. Inc. (22MCI) 4o$inador Agra(ante and other indi(idual sugar )lanters. And 7a$on @olan in his )ersonal and official ca)acity as ad$inistrator of the Sugar Ouota ad$inistration alleging an illegal transfer of sugar ,uota allot$ent or )roduction allowance fro$ TSMC to 22MCI. In short what ha))ened was that instead of ha(ing the sugar for$ing their e+)ort ,uota $illed by TSMC as they had always done in the )ast the defendants had their sugar $illed at 22MCI instead in (iolation of Section 1 of 7A -D0K 8An Act to Pro(ide for the Allocation 7e*allocation and ad$inistration of Absolute Ouota on Sugar : which )ro(ides certain re,uire$ents that need to be $et before a sugar )lanterAs sugar ,uota allot$ent can be transferred fro$ one $ill to another. This started nearly thirty years of litigation between the )arties. In the end the Su)re$e Court ruled that the transfer of their e+)ort sugar ,uota by AATSI and certain indi(idual )lanters fro$ TSMC to 22MCI was illegal and in(alid and found the defendants liable to the )laintiffs for da$ages. T&< -K.1 M
+,entes: *r. 1. &A

Culieto Malas)ina was at a benefit dance when Ale!andro 2uentes Cr. )ut his ar$ on the for$erAs shoulder saying 8;efore I saw you with long hair but now you ha(e a short hair : whereu)on 2uentes stabbed Malas)ina in the abdo$en with a hunting #nife and fled. Subse,uently 2uentes was con(icted of $urder. 4uring the trail Malas)inaAs sister testified that she incurred e+)ensed of PD F// in connection with his death and the trial court awarded this a$ount as actual da$ages. Eowe(er the Su)re$e Court held that the trial court was in error to ha(e awarded the PD F// as actual da$ages on the basis of $ere testi$ony of the (icti$As sister without any tangible docu$ent to su))ort such clai$. In cri$es and ,uasi*delicts the defendant is liable for all da$ages which are the natural and )robable conse,uences of the act or o$ission co$)lained of. To see# reco(ery for actual da$ages it is essential that the in!ured )arty )ro(es the actual a$ount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty )re$ised u)on co$)etent )roof and on the best e(idence a(ailable. Courts cannot si$)ly rely on s)eculation con!ecture or guesswor# in deter$ining the fact and a$ount of da$ages.
o o
&LASS NOTES 2inancias PostradasJ Lost )rofits Standard re,uired by the Court for this< accounting standards )ricing of Sugar Ouota Ad$inistration 'hen a )ro)erty is da$aged and you clai$ A4 P@5C case )ro(ides for guidelines on how to deter$ine (alue of )ro)erty (at what )oint do you count) Court here said< (alue AT TIM9 52 L5SS. If this ta#es into account )rofitsQ2MG

;otto$ line if 2MG*but this can be construed in a Y of ways 'hy 2MG< Assessed (alue is lower (thatAs why this is being used as basis for ta+) The co$)any in P@5C did differentIit too# into account inflation F. If fair $ar#et (alue already includes the )ossible contracts then that is the (alue to be used.
43
+A&TS: under a co$a because of wrongful intubation TC< D# )er $onth fro$ ti$e when $o(ed fro$ hos)ital to the ti$e of trial (the D# was an esti$ate of the e+)enses incurred and )ro(en before ti$e of trial) CA< re(ersed 7a$os )ay for hos)ital bills
%. 0a(a/e to -ro-ert) PNO& 1. &A

'here goods are destroyed by the wrongful act of the defendant the )laintiff is entitled to their (alue at the ti$e of destruction that is nor$ally the su$ of $oney which he would ha(e to )ay in the $ar#et for identical or essentially si$ilar goods )lus in a )ro)er case da$ages for the loss of use during the )eriod before re)lace$ent. In other words in the case of )rofit*earning chattel s what has to be assessed is the (alue of the chattel to its owner as a going concern at the ti$e and )lace of the loss and this $eans at least in the case of shi)s that regard $ust be had to e+isting and )ending engage$ents. In the instant case the )ieces of docu$entary e(idence )roffered by )ri(ate res)ondent with res)ect to the ite$s and e,ui)$ent lost show si$ilar ite$s and e,ui)$ent with corres)onding )rices a))ro+i$ately ten years after the collision. NOTES: 7ule< a$ount at the ti$e of the loss. cf "atchalian (. 4eli$ (where the girl was gi(en -K# for )lastic surgery)
4EL0:
B. Personal In3,r) and 0eath

Art. 22@". The a$ount of da$ages for death caused by a cri$e or ,uasi*delict shall be at least three thousand )esos e(en though there $ay ha(e been $itigating circu$stances. In addition< (-) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning ca)acity of the deceased and the inde$nity shall be )aid to the heirs of the latter= such inde$nity shall in e(ery case be assessed and awarded by the court unless the deceased on account of )er$anent )hysical disability not caused by the defendant had no earning ca)acity at the ti$e of his death= (0) If the deceased was obliged to gi(e su))ort according to the )ro(isions of Article 0.- the reci)ient who is not an heir called to the decedentMs inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession $ay de$and su))ort fro$ the )erson causing the death for a )eriod not e+ceeding fi(e years the e+act duration to be fi+ed by the court= (F) The s)ouse legiti$ate and illegiti$ate descendants and ascendants of the deceased $ay de$and $oral da$ages for $ental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
A(o,nt of A0 re'o1erable in s,its arisin/ fro( ne/li/en'e< should at least reflect TE9 C5779CT MI@IM?M C5ST 52 P75P97 CA79 (SA CAS9 5PTIMAL CA79 257 TE9I7 L5G94 5@9 I@ A 2ACILITB 'EICE "9@97ALLB SP9CIALIU9S I@ S?CE CA79) not the cost of the care the fa$ily is usually co$)elled to underta#e at ho$e to a(oid ban#ru)tcy (but the CC )resents us with difficulties) 2ell9settled r,le< that A4 which $ay be clai$ed by the )laintiff are those suffered by hi$ as he has duly )ro(ed. ()roble$ & @AT?79 of A4< only award for A4 )ro(en u) to the ti$e of trial) &ontin,in/ in3,r)< if the a$ount of da$ages has not yet been co$)letely li,uidated because the resulting in!ury is E'ontin,in/:L then the a$ount of da$ages which should be awarded if they are to ade,uately corres)ond to the in!ury caused should be one which co$)ensates for the )ecuniary loss incurred and )ro(ed u) to the ti$e of the trial= and one which would $eet )ecuniary loss certain to be suffered but which could not fro$ the nature of the case be $ade with certainty. In other words te(-erate da(a/es can and should be awarded on to) of actual or co$)ensatory da$ages in instances where the in!ury is chronic and continuing (There is no inco$)atibility when both A4 and T4 are )ro(ided for).
&LASS NOTES P@5C gi(es guidance as to how actual da$ages are co$)uted< -. Price (fair $ar#et (alue) at the ti$e of loss not what the )rice is at the ti$e of the ruling 0. In P@5C inflation was ta#en into account.
&LASS NOTES Art. 00/> )ro(ides for earning ca)acity which is @5T e,ual to actual inco$e
&LASS NOTES According to the Court the standard is the correct $ini$u$ cost of )ro)er care and not what they actually s)ent in order not to )re!udice those who are )oor SC is li$ited to D#H$onth because of the @AT?79 52 A4< $ust be )ro(en
Ra(os 1. &A 4ece$ber 0. -...

7a$os case is i$)ortant because AC is not !ust those u) to the ti$e of trial but also those certain to be suffered Lesson here< dra$atiLe )light of your client If o))osition< $ini$iLe )light of (icti$
I@T9"7ITB "IGI@" 7IS9 T5 A L9"ITIMAT9 CLAIM 257 79ST57ATI5@ T5 E97 C5@4ITI5@ A@T9.
44
o(er the sale of a handgun ensued and ending with "estalaAs death fro$ three gunshot wounds. 4uring the trial an aunt of the (icti$ was )resented and testified $ainly on the e+)enses their fa$ily incurred as a result of the death of the (icti$. After trial Mangahas was found guilty sentenced to reclusion )er)etua. P-1 .K/ was also awarded for funeral and burial e+)enses as well as P0D D./ for food during the (igil .th day 1/th day and -st year anni(ersaries of the death of the (icti$. ISS5E: '5@ the award of da$ages for funeral burial and food e+)enses was )ro)er. 4EL0: @ot entirely. 5f the e+)enses allegedly incurred the Court can only gi(e credence to those su))orted by recei)t and which a))ear to ha(e been genuinely incurred in connection with the death wa#e or burial of the (icti$. Thus the Court cannot ta#e account of recei)ts showing e+)enses incurred before the date of the slaying of the (icti$= those incurred after a &ONSI0ERABLE LAPSE O+ TIME +ROM T4E B5RIAL and which do not ha(e any relation to the death wa#e or burial of the (icti$= or those incurred for )urely aesthetic or social )ur)oses such as the lining of the to$b.
&LASS NOTES This case is always cited to su))ort that -lasti' s,r/er) 'an be the s,b3e't of A0. @ature of action here< breach of contract of co$$on carrier Sir< is there a health ris# if you ha(e a scarJ So )urely aestheticJ 'hat was the )roof offered for the scarJ 9+)ert testi$ony< alleged cost of K*-/# Bet SC granted -K# based on a )resu$)tion that )lastic surgery would cost $ore after se(eral years (S5 A4 beca$e s)eculati(e A@4 @5T P75G9@). Sir< technology $a#es things chea)er but SC here ga(e a )resu$)tion Most intriguing is the language of the CourtI the longer the scar has been the $ore difficult it is to re$o(e "atchalian ruling is 56 but the reasoning is funny This is still law so wo$en can ta#e ad(antage of this The case also cited Araneta vs. Areglado where a young boy sued for costs of surgery for re$o(al of his scar on his face which caused a degenerati(e )rocess and inferiority co$)le+ to the boy. Therefore since in this case it was !ust a boy it was easier to re$o(e the scar. In 7eynaldaAs case she was older so SC ASS?M94 that re$o(ing scar would be harder S#ewed in fa(or of the beautiful 7ele(ance nung 8sna))ing sound: accdg to sir< ba#a na$an $ay turtle #aya nag*turn turtle ung bus%
6at'halian 1. 0eli( 5ctober 0- -..+A&TS: 7eynalda "atchalian boarded as a )aying )assenger a $inibus owned by the 4eli$ s)ouses res)ondents in this case. She was allegedly on her way to confer with the district su)er(isor of )ublic schools for a substitute teacherAs !ob. Later while the bus was running along the highway a sna))ing sound was suddenly heard and shortly thereafter the (ehicle bu$)ed a ce$ent flower )ot on the side of the road went off the road turned turtle and fell into a ditch. Se(eral )assengers including "atchalian were in!ured and were )ro$)tly ta#en to a hos)ital for $edical treat$ent. The afore$entioned e(ents led "atchalian to file an action e+tra contractu to reco(er co$)ensatory and $oral da$ages. She alleged in her co$)laint that her in!uries had left her with a cons)icuous white scar on her forehead generating $ental suffering and feeling of inferiority on her )art. She also alleged that the scar di$inished her facial beauty and de)ri(ed her of o))ortunities for e$)loy$ent. ISS5E: '5@ the 4eli$s are liable for the cost of )lastic surgery to re$o(e the scar on "atchalianAs forehead. 4EL0: Bes. A
A&T5AL IN*5RY PERSON IS ENTITLE0 TO T4E P4YSI&AL INTE6RITY IS S5++ERE0 +OR 24I&4 A&T5AL AN0 O+ 4IS OR 4ER BO0YK I+ T4AT INTE6RITY IS VIOLATE0 OR 0IMINIS4E0: &OMPENSATORY 0AMA6ES ARE 05E AN0 ASSESSABLE.
&LASS NOTES
SC*re$o(ed fro$ AC what it thought was e+tra(agant
Vi'tor) Liner: In'. 1s. 4eirs of Andres Male'dan 4ece$ber 03 0//0

+A&TS: 'hile Andres Malecdan a 3K year*old far$er was crossing the @ational Eighway on his way ho$e fro$ the for$ a 4alin Liner bus sto))ed to allow hi$ and his carabao to )ass. Eowe(er as Malecdan was crossing the highway a bus of )etitioner Gictory Liner by)assed the 4alin bus and in doing so hit the old $an and his carabao e(entually #illing both of the$.
Petitioner "atchalian is entitled to be )laced as nearly as )ossible in the condition that she was in before the $isha). A
SCA7 9SP9CIALLB 5@9 5@ TE9 2AC9 52 A '5MA@ 79S?LTI@"
Peo-le 1. Man/ahas *,l) 2#: $$$

+A&TS: The accused 7ufino Mangahas and the late 7ufino "estala were drin#ing at a store near the latterAs house when an altercation between the two allegedly
275M TE9 I@2LICTI5@ 52 I@C?7B ?P5@ E97 IS A GI5LATI5@ 52 ;54ILB

The trial court found both the dri(er and Gictory Liner Inc. guilty of gross negligence and awarded a$ong others actual da$ages a$ounting to PDD FF.. ISS5E: '5@ the award of PDD FF. in actual da$ages is )ro)er. 4EL0: @o it is not. To !ustify an award for actual da$ages there should be )roof of the actual a$ount of loss incurred in connection with the death wa#e or burial of the (icti$. The Court cannot ta#e into account recei)ts showing e+)enses incurred so$e ti$e after the burial of the (icti$ such as e+)enses relating to the .th day 1/th day and -st year death anni(ersaries. In the instant case the trial court awarded PDD FF. as actual da$ages. 'hile these are duly su))orted by recei)ts these included the a$ount of PK ./ the cost of one )ig which had been butchered for the .th day death anni(ersary. This ite$ cannot be allowed PRIMARY Res-onsibilit) of e(-lo)ers< for the negligence of their e$)loyees in the )erfor$ance of their duties therefore the in!ured )arty $ay reco(er fro$ the e$)loyers 4I79CTLB regardless of the sol(ency of their e$)loyees. On E?e(-lar) 0a(a/es< i$)osed not to enrich one )arty or i$)o(erish another but to ser(e as a deterrent against or as a negati(e incenti(e to curb socially deleterious actions. (0) 'hen the defendantMs act or o$ission has co$)elled the )laintiff to litigate with third )ersons or to incur e+)enses to )rotect his interest= (F) In cri$inal cases of $alicious )rosecution against the )laintiff= (1) In case of a clearly unfounded ci(il action or )roceeding against the )laintiff= (K) 'here the defendant acted in gross and e(ident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the )laintiffMs )lainly (alid !ust and de$andable clai$= (>) In actions for legal su))ort= (3) In actions for the reco(ery of wages of household hel)ers laborers and s#illed wor#ers= (D) In actions for inde$nity under wor#$enMs co$)ensation and e$)loyerMs liability laws= (.) In a se)arate ci(il action to reco(er ci(il liability arising fro$ a cri$e= (-/) 'hen at least double !udicial costs are awarded= (--) In any other case where the court dee$s it !ust and e,uitable that attorneyMs fees and e+)enses of litigation should be reco(ered. In all cases the attorneyMs fees and e+)enses of litigation $ust be reasonable.
45
interest and for 8at least double !udicial costs: the )erson $ust ha(e done so$ething really bad A@4 be liable for a greater degree 'hy 94 onlyJ 'hy not for other da$ages as wellJ 'hat is the rationale for the enu$erationJ 8A )erson is free to litigate.: (9+ce)t 00/D)
H,irante 1. Inter(ediate A--ellate &o,rt Canuary F- -.D.

+A&TS: 4r. Indalecio Casasola had a contract with a building contractor na$ed @or$an "uerrero. The Phili))ine A$erican "eneral Assurance Co. Inc. (PEILAM"9@) acted as bonds$an for "uerrero. In (iew of "uerreroAs failure to )erfor$ his )art of the contract within the )eriod s)ecified 4r. Casasola through his counsel Atty. Cohn Ouirante sued both "uerrero and PEILAM"9@. The trial court found for 4r. Casasola and aside fro$ awards of actual $oral and e+e$)lary da$ages ordered PEILAM"9@ to )ay the )laintiff the a$ount of the surety bond e,ui(alent to P-0/ ///. PEILAM"9@ filed a notice of a))eal but the sa$e was not gi(en due course because it was su))osedly filed out of ti$e. The trial court thereafter issued a writ of e+ecution. A )etition was filed before the IAC to co$)el the trial court to gi(e due course to the a))eal. Eowe(er the )etition was dis$issed and so the case was ele(ated to the Su)re$e Court. In the $eanti$e 4r. Casasola died lea(ing his widow and se(eral children. After CasasolaAs death Ouirante filed a $otion in the trial court for the confir$ation of his attorneyAs fees alleging that there was an oral agree$ent between hi$ and the late 4r. Casasola with regard to the said fees and allegedly confir$ed by his widow in writing. The trial court granted the $otion des)ite o))osition thereto hence the instant )etition before the Su)re$e Court.
&LASS NOTES The Court cherry*)ic#ed% S)ecifically deleted an ite$ which was too e+tra(agant.
&LASS NOTES AttorneyAs fees are in the for$ of da$ages (nasa title on da$ages) Also in the for$ of A4 M9M57IU9 TEIS A7TICL9% Bou canAt reco(er outside the listing of 0//D unless there is a sti)ulation AS regards the gen rule and e+ce)tion sir said it can be ;5TE 'hy $ay one reco(er attorneyAs fees under those listedJ &)erson is forced to )rotect his
B.
Attorne)=s +ees
Art. 22@#. In the absence of sti)ulation attorneyMs fees and e+)enses of litigation other than !udicial costs cannot be reco(ered e+ce)t< (-) 'hen e+e$)lary da$ages are awarded=

ISS5E: '5@ the attorneyAs fees being clai$ed are the sa$e attorneyAs fees conte$)lated in article 00/D of the Ci(il Code. 4EL0: @o. 'hat is being clai$ed here as attorneyAs fees is different fro$ attorneyAs fees as an ite$ of da$ages )ro(ided under Article 00/D of the Ci(il Code wherein the award is $ade in fa(or of the litigant not of his counsel and the litigant not his counsel is the !udg$ent creditor who $ay enforce the !udg$ent for attorneyAs fees by e+ecution. Eere the )etitionerAs clai$s are based on an alleged contract for )rofessional ser(ices with the$ as the creditors and the )ri(ate res)ondents as the debtors.

March . -...
46
. R,les on Interest In 9astern Shi))ing Lines Inc. (. Court of A))eals the Court ga(e the following guidelines for the a))lication of the )ro)er interest rates< 'ith regard )articularly to an award of interest in the conce)t of actual and co$)ensatory da$ages the rate of interest as well as the accrual thereof is i$)osed as follows< 'hen the obligation is breached and it consists in the )ay$ent of a su$ of $oney i.e. a loan or forbearance of $oney the interest due should be that which $ay ha(e been sti)ulated in writing. 2urther$ore the interest due shall itself earn legal interest fro$ the ti$e it is !udicially de$anded. In the absence of sti)ulation the rate of interest shall be -0[ )er annu$ to be co$)uted fro$ default i.e. fro$ !udicial or e+tra!udicial de$and under and sub!ect to the )ro(isions of Article -->. of the Ci(il Code. 2. 'hen an obligation not constituting a loan or forbearance of $oney is breached an interest on the a$ount of da$ages awarded $ay be i$)osed at the discretion of the court at the rate of >[ )er annu$. @o interest howe(er shall be ad!udged on unli,uidated clai$s or da$ages e+ce)t when or until the de$and can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly where the de$and is established with reasonable certainty the interest shall begin to run fro$ the ti$e the clai$ is $ade !udicially or e+tra!udicially but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the ti$e the de$and is $ade the interest shall begin to run only fro$ the date the !udg$ent of the court is $ade (at which ti$e the ,uantification of da$ages $ay be dee$ed to ha(e been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the co$)utation of legal interest shall in any case be +++ the a$ount finally ad!udged. A. 'hen the !udg$ent of the court awarding a su$ of $oney beco$es final and e+ecutory the rate of legal interest whether the case falls under )aragra)h - or
)aragra)h 0 abo(e shall be -0[ )er annu$ fro$ such finality until its satisfaction this interi$ )eriod being dee$ed to be by then an e,ui(alent to a forbearance of credit. In 6eng Eua Pa)er Products Co. Inc. (. CA we also ruled that the $onetary award shall earn interest at twel(e )ercent (-0[) )er annu$ fro$ the date of the finality of the !udg$ent until its satisfaction regardless of whether or not the case in(ol(es a loan or forbearance of $oney. The interi$ )eriod is dee$ed to be e,ui(alent to a forbearance of credit. R,le< -. 0. F. sti)ulation= if none< loan or forbearance*-0[ not loan or forbearance*>[
&LASS NOTES AttorneyAs fees referred to by Ouirante not the sa$e as attorneyAs fees in 00/D 'hat the differenceJIAttyAs fees in 00/D are a for$ of A4 and hence need to be )ro(en. This is not so$ething that goes to the attorney but to the litigant
+orbearan'e of (one): contractual obligation of lender or creditor to refrain during a gi(en )eriod of ti$e fro$ re,uiring the borrower or debtor to re)ay a loan or debt then due or )ayable.
!. Interest
Art. 22@$. If the obligation consists in the -a)(ent of a s,( of (one) and the debtor incurs in delay the inde$nity for da$ages there being no sti)ulation to the contrary shall be the )ay$ent of the interest agreed u)on and in the absence of sti)ulation the legal interest which is si? -er 'ent -er ann,(. Art. 22 @. Interest $ay in the discretion of the court be allowed u)on da$ages awarded for breach of contract. Art. 22 . In cri$es and ,uasi*delicts interest as a )art of the da$ages $ay in a )ro)er case be ad!udicated in the discretion of the court. Art. 22 2. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is /udicially demanded although the obligation $ay be silent u)on this )oint. Art. 22 A. Interest cannot be recovered upon unli5uidated claims or damages e+ce)t when the de$and can be established with reasonably certainty.
&LASS NOTES -0[ fro$ C; Circular 1->*for loan and forbearance of $oney= as o))osed to >[ which was i$)osed by A00/. 2orbearance of $oney< basically a loan a credit but loan has a s)ecific legal definition under the Ci(il Code Me$oriLe rules laid down in 9astern Shi))ing Lines Inc. (. CA Ta#e note of co$)lications li#e co$)ounding of interest 'hen would interest accrueJ 2ro$ ti$e of !udicial de$and
#. Miti/ation of Liabilit)
0o'trine of A1oidable &onse;,en'es< *if the )laintiff does not try to reduce da$ages he $ight not be able to reco(er *)laintiff $ust try to a(oid further da$age
&ris(ina 6ar(ents 1. &A

Art. 22@A. The )arty suffering loss or in!ury $ust e+ercise the diligence of a good father of a family to (ini(iFe the da(a/es resulting fro$ the act or o$ission in ,uestion. Art. 22@%. In 'ri(es the da$ages to be ad!udicated $ay be res)ecti(ely increased or lessened according to the aggra(ating or $itigating circu$stances. Art. 22 %. In ;,asi9deli'ts the contributory negligence of the )laintiff shall reduce the da$ages that he $ay reco(er. Art. 22 B. In 'ontra'ts: ;,asi9'ontra'ts: and ;,asi9 deli'ts the court $ay e,uitably $itigate the da$ages under circu$stances other than the case referred to in the )receding article as in the following instances< (-) That the )laintiff hi$self has contra(ened the ter$s of the contract= (0) That the )laintiff has deri(ed so$e benefit as a result of the contract= (F) In cases where e+e$)lary da$ages are to be awarded that the defendant acted u)on the ad(ice of counsel= (1) That the loss would ha(e resulted in any e(ent= (K) That since the filing of the action the defendant has done his best to lessen the )laintiffMs loss or in!ury.
47
&errano 1. Tan &h,'o August - -.-D

+A&TS: The defendant Tan Chuco who was then the owner of casco @o. -/FF rented it to the )laintiff Gi(encio Cerrano at a $onthly rental of P3/. There was no e+)ress agree$ent as regards the duration of the contract the rent being )ayable at the end of each $onth. So$e ti$e during the $onth of May -.-> the defendant notified the )laintiff that the following $onth it would be necessary to send the casco off for re)airs. Plaintiff then infor$ed defendant that he would li#e to rent the casco again after the re)airs had been co$)leted to which the defendant indicated that he was willing but that the rent would be increased to PD/. About one wee# before the end of the re)air )eriod the defendant sold the casco to Siy Cong ;ieng and Co. Santos the $an who had been e$)loyed by the )laintiff as the )atron of the casco went to the office of Siy Cong ;ieng and was hired by the latter in the sa$e ca)acity. ?)on the arri(al of the casco in Manila howe(er the )laintiff clai$ing that he was entitled to the )ossession of the casco under his contract with the defendant induced Santos to refuse to ta#e orders fro$ the new owners. After trial the lower court found defendant liable to the )laintiff for da$ages resulting fro$ breach of contract. ISS5E: '5@ the )laintiffAs right is li$ited to the reco(ery of the difference between the contract )rice at which the casco was hired by hi$ and such higher rate as he $ight ha(e been co$)elled to )ay for the hire of a si$ilar casco in the o)en $ar#et. 4EL0: @o. 70O&TRINE O+ AVOI0ABLE &ONSEH5EN&ES: IT
79C5G97A;L9. '9LL*
B,rden of Proof< rests on the defendant that the PLAI@TI22 MI"ET EAG9 (C5?L4 EAG9) 794?C94 TE9 4AMA"9. In the instant case the defendant $ade no effort whatsoe(er to show that any other si$ilar cascos were in fact a(ailable to the )laintiff or the )rice he would ha(e been able to obtain the use of one. In the absence of e(idence it will not be )resu$ed that )laintiff could ha(e secured another casco at the sa$e )rice had he loo#ed for one.
&LASS NOTES 'hatAs the connection of this case with the 4octrine of A(oidable Conse,uencesJ 4efendant says that liability is $itigated because )laintiff could ha(e found another casco at the sa$e )rice SC*no $itigation of liability 4a$age Q )rofit which he would ha(e $ade had the contract been )erfor$ed CASC5< a barge PAT75@< the ca)tain of the barge
B. Moral . &on'e-t
Art. 22 !. Moral da$ages include )hysical suffering $ental anguish fright serious an+iety bes$irched re)utation wounded feelings $oral shoc# social hu$iliation and si$ilar in!ury. Though inca)able of )ecuniary co$)utation $oral da$ages $ay be reco(ered if they are the )ro+i$ate result of the defendantMs wrongful act for o$ission.
&LASS NOTES 00/F is #nown as the 4octrine of A(oidable Conse,uences which is different fro$ the 4octrine of Contributory @egligence 45CT7I@9 52 AG5I4A;L9 C5@S9O?9@C9S the )arty has to $ini$iLe the da$ages= in C5@T7I;?T57B @9"LI"9@C9 the da$ages to be )aid would be di$inished if you contributed to the da$age incurred% There is an obligation on the )art of the )arty suffering to $itigate the loss.
&LASS NOTES
IS
79C5"@IU94 P7I@CIPL9 52 LA' TEAT 4AMA"9S 79S?LTI@" 275M AG5I4A;L9 C5@S9O?9@C9S 52 TE9 ;79ACE 52 A C5@T7ACT A79 @5T
IT
IS TE9 4?TB 52 5@9 I@C?794 ;B TE9 ACT 52
If the )rofessor allowed you to stand for three (F) hours you canAt clai$ $oral da$ages because there was an inter(ening causeIyour inability to answer the ,uestions
A@5TE97 T5 TA69 S?CE M9AS?79S AS P7?49@T M9@ ?S?ALLB TA69 ?@497 S?CE CI7C?MSTA@C9S T5 794?C9 TE9 4AMA"9 AS M?CE AS P5SSI;L9.
>ier,lf 1. &A March -F -..3

+A&TS: 5ne of PantrancoAs buses was tra(eling along 94SA when the dri(er lost control of the bus causing it to swer(e to the left and then to fly o(er the center island ending u) on the wrong side of the road. The front of the bus bu$)ed the front )ortion of an IsuLu )ic#u) dri(en Porfirio Legas)i causing da$age to both (ehicles and in!uries to both Legas)i and his )assenger Lucila 6ierulf wife of Gictor 6ierulf owner of the )ic#u) and e$)loyer of Legas)i. As a conse,uence of the incident Lucila suffered in!uries which re,uired $a!or surgery and )rolonged treat$ent by s)ecialists. ;oth the trial court and the Court of A))eals found for Legas)i and the 6ierulfs. The s)ouses 6ierulf howe(er a(erred that the disfigure$ent of LucilaAs )hysical a))earance due to the accident could not but affect their $arital right of consortiu$ and as#ed that the $oral da$ages awarded be increased fro$ P-// /// to one $illion )esos not only for Lucila but also for her husband. They also a(erred that the social and financial standing of Lucila should also be considered in fi+ing the award of $oral da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ an increase in the a$ount awarded as $oral da$ages is warranted gi(en the circu$stances. 4EL0: The Court increased the $oral da$ages awarded but ruled against awarding $oral da$ages based on loss of consortiu$ or considerations of social and financial standing. In order that $oral da$ages $ay be awarded there $ust be )leading and )roof of $oral suffering $ental anguish fright and the li#e. 'hile no )roof of )ecuniary loss is necessary in order that $oral da$ages $ay be awarded it is ne(ertheless essential that TE9 CLAIMA@T
SE5' TE9 9NIST9@C9 52 TE9 +A&T5AL BASIS 257 4AMA"9S A@4 ITS &A5SAL &ONNE&TION T5 TE9 4929@4A@TAS ACTS.
48
wounded feelings and an+iety $oral da$ages cannot be awarded. In Cocoland 4e(elo)$ent Cor)oration (s. @ational Labor 7elations Co$$ission the Court held that \additional facts $ust be )leaded and )ro(en to warrant the grant of $oral da$ages under the Ci(il Code these being + + + social hu$iliation wounded feelings gra(e an+iety etc. that resulted therefro$.\ *M57AL
4AMA"9S A79 A'A7494 T5 9@A;L9 TE9 I@C?794 PA7TB T5 4IG97SI5@S 57 AM?S9M9@TS TEAT 'ILL S97G9 T5 S?2297I@" E9HSE9 EAS ?@497"5@9 ;B TE9 M57AL
Eowe(er GictorMs clai$ for de)ri(ation of his right to consortiu$ although argued before 7es)ondent Court was not su))orted by the e(idence on record. Eis wife $ight ha(e been badly disfigured but he had not testified that in conse,uence thereof his right to $arital consortiu$ was affected. Clearly Gictor (and for that $atter Lucila) had failed to $a#e out a case for loss of consortiu$ unli#e the 7odrigueL s)ouse. The social and financial standing of Lucila cannot be considered in awarding $oral da$ages. The factual circu$stances )rior to the accident show that no \rude and rough\ rece)tion no \$enacing attitude \ no \su)ercilious $anner \ no \abusi(e language and highly scornful reference\ was gi(en her. The social and financial standing of a clai$ant of $oral da$ages $ay be considered in awarding $oral da$ages only if he or she was sub!ected to conte$)tuous conduct des)ite the offenderMs #nowledge of his or her social and financial standing. ;e that as it $ay it is still )ro)er to award $oral da$ages to Petitioner Lucila for her )hysical sufferings $ental anguish fright serious an+iety and wounded feelings. She sustained $ulti)le in!uries on the scal) li$bs and ribs. She lost all her teeth. She had to undergo se(eral correcti(e o)erations and treat$ents. 4es)ite treat$ent and surgery her chin was still nu$b and thic#. She felt that she has not fully reco(ered fro$ her in!uries. She e(en had to undergo a second o)eration on her gu$s for her dentures to fit. She suffered slee)less nights and shoc# as a conse,uence of the (ehicular accident. R5LES: 2hen so'ial I finan'ial standin/ (a) be 'onsidered in a8ardin/ M0< only if he or she was sub!ected to conte$)tuous conduct des)ite the offenderAs #nowledge of his or her social and financial standing. On E?e(-lar) 0a(a/es< *designed to )er$it the courts to $ould beha(ior that has socially deleterious conse,uences and its i$)osition is re,uired by )ublic )olicy to su))ress the wanton acts of an offender. Eowe(er it cannot be
5;TAI@ M9A@S ALL9GIAT9
79AS5@ 52 TE9 4929@4A@TMS C?LPA;L9 ACTI5@.
ITS
A'A74 IS AIM94 AT 79ST57ATI5@
AS M?CE AS P5SSI;L9
52
TE9 SPI7IT?AL STAT?S O?5 A@T9= TE?S IT M?ST ;9 P75P57TI5@AT9 T5 TE9 S?2297I@" I@2LICT94.
SI@C9
9ACE CAS9 M?ST ;9 "5G97@94
;B ITS 5'@ P9C?LIA7 CI7C?MSTA@C9S TE979 IS @5 EA74 A@4 2AST 7?L9 I@ 49T97MI@I@" TE9 P75P97 AM5?@T.
The yardstic# should be that the a$ount awarded should not be so )al)ably and scandalously e+cessi(e as to indicate that it was the result of )assion )re!udice or corru)tion on the )art of the trial !udge. @either should it be so little or so )altry that it rubs salt to the in!ury already inflicted on )laintiffs. In the instant )etition a California case 7odrigueL (. ;ethlehe$ was cited as authority for the clai$ of da$ages based on loss of $arital consortiu$. The Court noted that the 7odrigueL case clearly re(ersed the original co$$on law (iew first enunciated in the case of 4eshotel (s. Atchison that a wife could not reco(er for the loss of her husbandMs ser(ices by the act of a third )arty. 7odrigueL ruled that when a )erson is in!ured to the e+tent that heHshe is no longer ca)able of gi(ing lo(e affection co$fort and se+ual relations to his or her s)ouse that s)ouse has suffered a direct and real )ersonal loss. The loss is i$$ediate and conse,uential rather than re$ote and unforeseeable= it is )ersonal to the s)ouse and se)arate and distinct fro$ that of the in!ured )erson.
In 0rancisco vs. 1S*S the Court held that there $ust be clear testi$ony on the anguish and other for$s of $ental suffering. Thus if the )laintiff fails to ta#e the witness stand and testify as to hisHher social hu$iliation

reco(ered as a $atter of rightIit is based entirely on the discretion of the court. Re2uirements before E3 may be a arded4 -. by way of e+a$)le or correction in addition to C4 2. clai$ant $ust -st establish his right to $oral te$)erate li,uidated or co$)ensatory da$ages= S F. the wrongful act $ust be acco$)anied by ;2 and the award would be allowed only if the guilty )arty acted in a wanton fraudulent o))ressi(e or $ale(olent $anner. On Moral 0a(a/es< *M4 though inca)able of )ecuniary esti$ation are in the category of an award designed to co$)ensate the clai$ant at the e+)ense of the defendant. *awarded to enable the in!ured )arty to obtain $eans di(ersity or a$use$ent that will ser(e to alle(iate the $oral suffering heHshe has undergone by reason of the defendantAs cul)able action. Its award is ai(ed at restoration as $uch as )ossible of the s-irit,al stat,s ;,o ante= thus it $ust be )ro)ortionate to the suffering inflicted. There is no hard and fast rule in deter$ining the )ro)er a$ount since each case $ust be go(erned by its own )eculiar circu$stances.

MA@@97.
49
I@ A 'A@T5@ 27A?4?L9@T 79C6L9SS 5PP79SSIG9 57 MAL9G5L9@T
Visa)an Sa8(ill &o. In'. 1. &A March F -..F

+A&TS: Plaintiff 7CE Trading. and defendant Gisayan Saw$ill Co. entered into a sale in(ol(ing scra) iron located at the stoc#yard of defendant cor)oration sub!ect to the condition of )laintiff o)ening a letter of credit in the a$ount of P2B@: @@@ in fa(or of defendant on or before Ma) B: $#A. 5n $ay -3 -.DF )laintiffAs e$)loyees started to gather scra) iron at the defendantAs )re$ises until May F/ when defendant allegedly directed )laintiffAs e$)loyees to desist fro$ )ursuing the wor#. 4efendant alleged that it sent a telegra$ to )laintiff canceling the sale because of the failure of the latter to obtain a letter of credit in its fa(or. 5n May 01 )laintiff infor$ed defendant that a letter of credit had been o)ened with ;PI but that the trans$ittal of the sa$e was delayed. 5n May 0> defendants recei(ed a letter of ad(ice fro$ ;PI infor$ing the$ that a letter of credit had been o)ened in their fa(or. 5n Culy -. the )laintiff sent a series of telegra$s to the defendant de$anding that the latter co$)ly with the deed of sale. Eowe(er the defendant infor$ed the$ that they were unwilling to continue with the sale due to failure by the )laintiffs to co$)ly with the essential )reconditions of the contract. The )laintiff filed a )etition for )reli$inary attach$ent but it was returned unser(ed because the scra) iron as well as other )ieces of $achinery could no longer be found on the defendantAs )re$ises. ISS5E: '5@ the $oral da$ages awarded in fa(or of 7CE trading were )ro)er. 4EL0: @o. The Court noted the palpably excessive and unconscionable $oral and e+e$)lary da$ages awarded by the trial court to the )ri(ate res)ondent des-ite a 'lear absen'e of an) le/al and fa't,al basis therefore. In contracts
4929@4A@TS
Moral da$ages are e$)hatically not intended to enrich a co$)lainant at the e+)ense of the defendant. They are awarded only to enable the in!ured )arty to obtain $eans di(ersion or a$use$ents that will ser(e to ob(iate the $oral suffering he has undergone by reason of the defendantAs cul)able action. Its award is ai$ed at the restoration within the li$its of the )ossible of the s)iritual status ,uo ante and it $ust be )ro)ortional to the suffering inflicted.
&LASS NOTES
'hat to )ro(e in breach of contract< 4efendants acted fraudulently and in bad faith Pur)ose of M4 reiterated in this case *SC held that Gisayan Saw$ill 4I4 @5T EAG9 A@B 5;LI"ATI5@ to sell because 7CE breached agree$ent on F counts (did not co$)ly with sus)ensi(e conditions)
&LASS NOTES 7odrigueL case*different fro$ what ha))ened to Lucila (there was nothing wrong with )ossible )erfor$ance. 89,ui)$ent was not da$aged.:) Sir< what #ind of e(idence will you )resent without e$barrassing yourself to )ro(e loss of consortiu$J This case can be used in the futureIe(en if reason is only lac# of (isual sti$ulation Another factor to deter$ine a$ount of $oral da$ages< social and financial standing (but wouldnAt it be discri$inating since you only award da$ages to those who are richJ) 9)ilogue by )onente< there should be< 2actual basis of $ental anguish etc. Causal connection between factual basis and defendantAs wrongful act or o$ission
2. Proof and Pro?i(ate &a,se &o(-ania Mariti(a 1. Allied +ree 2or<ers 5nion May 01 -.33
+A&TS: The Co$)ania Mariti$a and the Allied 2ree 'or#ers ?nion entered into a written contract whereby the ?nion agreed to )erfor$ arrastre and ste(edoring wor# for the co$)anyAs (essels at Iligan City. It was sti)ulated that the $anage$ent could re(o#e the contract before the e+)iration of the ter$ if the union failed to render )ro)er ser(ice. The contract itself could be renewed by agree$ent of the )arties. The ?nion found out later that the contract was to be o))ressi(e and unduly fa(orable to the co$)any.
MORAL 0AMA6ES
27A?4?L9@TLB
MAB I@
;9 ;A4
79C5G9794 2AITE
I2
ACT94
A@4
while
EGEMPLARY 0AMA6ES MAB 5@LB ;9 A'A7494 I2 4929@4A@TS ACT94

This was because while he shi))ers and consignees )aid the ?nion only for the arrastre wor# clai$ing that the co$)any was the one obligated to )ay for the ste(edoring ser(ices the co$)any itself also refused to )ay for the ste(edoring ser(ices because the contract e+)licitly )ro(ided that the co$)ensation for both arrastre and ste(edoring would be )aid by the shi))ers and consignees. Thus the ?nion was only co$)ensated for arrastre wor# )erfor$ed and not for ste(edoring. This led to a labor dis)ute and a stri#e by the wor#ers of the ?nion. 4uring the litigation the co$)any clai$ed actual and $oral da$ages resulting fro$ the stri#e. The court howe(er found that their clai$ for actual da$ages was baseless. ISS5E: '5@ the co$)any is entitled to $oral da$ages. 4EL0: @o. Considering that the co$)anyAs clai$ for $oral da$ages was ;AS94 5@ TE9 SAM9 2ACTS 5@ 'EICE IT
P794ICAT94 ITS CLAIM 257 ACT?AL 4AMA"9S 'EICE 'AS 25?@4 T5 ;9 "75?@4L9SS
50
Miranda9Riba)a 1. Ba,tista Canuary 0D -.D/

+A&TS: Mrs. @iceta Miranda*7ibaya was in the )awnsho) business and in the business of buying and selling !ewelry. So$eti$e in -.>D she was infor$ed by one of her agents that a wealthy logger by the na$e of Marino ;autista was interested in buying so$e of her !ewelry. Acco$)anied by her agent she (isited ;autista in his "reenhills ho$e and was i$)ressed by the siLe of his residence. She subse,uently sold hi$ se(eral )ieces of !ewelry )aid for with )ostdated chec#s issued by ;autista. 'hen the $aturity of the chec#s gi(en in )ay$ent arri(ed all of the$ were dishonored for the reason that the accounts of ;autista were closed. Much to chagrin Miranda*7ibaya later disco(ered that $ost of the !ewelry she had sold to ;autista had been )ledged to (arious )awnsho)s. She was howe(er able to confront ;autista and obtain with great difficulty the )awnsho) tic#ets for the !ewelry she had sold hi$ which she used at her own e+)ense to redee$ the sa$e fro$ the )awnsho)s where they had been )ledged. ISS5E: '5@ Miranda*7ibaya is entitled to an award of $oral da$ages. 4EL0: Bes. The Court differentiated the instant case fro$ 2rancisco (. "SIS because in 2rancisco therein Plaintiff failed to ta#e the witness stand and defendantAs breach of contract was held to be not $alicious and fraudulent. In the instant case the )etitioner too# the witness stand and established by uncontradicted testi$ony that due to defendantAs deceitful and $ale(olent acts of defraudation she had suffered e+tre$e anguish and could not slee) for three $onths. The Court did not share the a))ellate courtAs narrow (iew that )etitionerAs failure to use in her testi$ony the )recise legal ter$s or 8sacra$ental )hrases: of 8$ental anguish fright serious an+iety wounded feelings or
$oral shoc#: and the li#e !ustified the denial of the clai$ for da$ages. It was held to be sufficient that these e+act ter$s were )leaded in the co$)laint and e(idence was adduced a$)ly su))orting the sa$e. R5LE: 2AIL?79 T5 M9@TI5@ I@ T9STIM5@B TE9 SAC7AM9@TAL PE7AS9S IS NOT ENO564 TO 0ENY &LAIM +OR 0AMA6ES.
0el Rosario 1. &A Canuary 0. -..3

+A&TS: I$)ressed by the defendantAs ad(ertising the s)ouses 4el 7osario )urchased a ,uantity of the defendant Metal 2or$ing Cor)orationAs ;anawe roofing shingles for use in their house. Eowe(er during a stor$ )ortions of the roof were blown away by strong winds which also led to the interior of the house being da$aged as well. ISS5E: '5@ the 4el 7osario s)ouses are entitled to $oral da$ages. 4EL0: Bes. It was found that M2C 0I0 IN TR5T4 A&T 2IT4 BA0 +AIT4: IN +LA6RANT BREA&4 O+ ITS EGPRESS 2ARRANTIES MA0E
TO T4E 6ENERAL P5BLI& AN0 IN 2ANTON 0ISRE6AR0 O+ T4E RI64TS
(@5
SAL9S TE9
I@G5IC9S
P79S9@T94 A?4IT57:
C?ST EI794
S9L2* 'AS
S97GI@"
T9STIM5@I9S=
8I@49P9@49@T
ACT?ALLB A 27I9@4 52 TE9 ;7A@CE MA@A"97R)
it follows that the 'o(-an): a 3,ridi'al -erson: is not entitled to (oral da(a/es. Also the &OMPANY 0I0 NOT PLEA0 AN0 PROVE $oral da$ages. It MERELY &LAIME0 MORAL 0AMA6ES in the )rayer of its co$)laint. This was not held to be sufficient. R5LE: In order to reco(er M4 one $ust )lead and )ro(e
0EL ROSARIOS 24O RELIE0 ON T4OSE 2ARRANTIES is ade,uately de$onstrated by the recorded )roofs.
O+ T4E
&LASS NOTES
@ature of contract was for arrastre and ste(edoring ser(ices ARRASTRE: hauling of cargo handling of cargo on the wharf or between the establish$ent of the consignee or shi))er and the shi)As tac#le STEVE0ORIN6: handling of cargo in the holds of the (essel or between the shi)As tac#le and the holds of the (essel
The law e+)licitly authoriLes the award of $oral da$ages \in breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.\ There being $oreo(er satisfactory e(idence of the )sychological and $ental trau$a actually suffered by the 4el 7osarios the grant to the$ of $oral da$ages is warranted. 5(er a )eriod of about a $onth they e+)erienced \feelings of shoc# hel)lessness fear e$barrass$ent and anger.\ *IT
IS 9SS9@TIAL I@ TE9 A'A74 52 4AMA"9S TEAT TE9 CLAIMA@T EAG9 SATIS2ACT57ILB P75G9@ 4?7I@" TE9 T7IAL TE9
M?ST
9NIST9@C9 52 TE9 2ACT?AL ;ASIS 52 TE9 4AMA"9S A@4 ITS CA?SAL C5@@9CTI5@ T5 4929@4A@TMS ACTS.
TEIS
IS S5 ;9CA?S9 M57AL
4AMA"9S TE5?"E I@CAPA;L9 52 P9C?@IA7B 9STIMATI5@ A79 I@ TE9 CAT9"57B 52 A@ A'A74 49SI"@94 T5 C5MP9@SAT9 TE9 CLAIMA@T 257 ACT?AL I@C?7B S?229794 A@4 @5T T5 IMP5S9 A P9@ALTB 5@

TE9 '75@"4597 A@4 A79 ALL5'A;L9 5@LB 'E9@ SP9CI2ICALLB P7AB94 257 I@ TE9 C5MPLAI@T.
51
Raa/as 1. Tra)a 2ebruary 03 -.>D

+A&TS: 4efendant ;ien(enido Carciller while 8rec#lessly: dri(ing a truc# owned by his co*defendant 5cta(io Traya ran o(er the three year old son of )laintiff s)ouses Mel,uiades and Adela 7aagas causing the childAs instantaneous death. The lower court rendered a !udg$ent on the )leadings conde$ning the defendants to )ay to the )laintiffs a$ong others the su$ of P0 /// for $oral da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ $oral da$ages were )ro)erly awarded des)ite there being a !udg$ent on the )leadings. 4EL0: The court reaffir$ed the rule that although an alle/ation is not necessary in order that $oral da$ages $ay be awarded it is ne(ertheless ESSENTIAL
T4AT T4E &LAIMANT SATIS+A&TORILY PROVE T4E EGISTEN&E O+ T4E 2ACT?AL ;ASIS O+ T4E 0AMA6E AN0 ITS CA?SAL C5@@9CTI5@ TO 0E+EN0ANT=S A&TS.
4efendants filed their answer stating a$ong other things that the )laintiff had no cause of action against the$ as his father was still ali(e and it was not true that he was the only son of Ciriaco 9ner(ida and that the sale did not ta#e )lace within the )rohibited )eriod. 7uling in fa(or of the defendant the Court found the )laintiffAs ci(il action to be entirely unfounded. ISS5E: '5@ the defendant s)ouses are entitled to $oral da$ages by reason of the unfounded ci(il action filed against the$. 4EL0: @o. The Su)re$e Court ruled that< 8with res)ect to $oral da$ages we are inclined to agree with )etitioner that these da$ages are not reco(erable herein notwithstanding the finding of the trial court and the Court of A))eals that his co$)laint against res)ondents were clearly unfounded or unreasonable. It will be obser(ed that unli#e co$)ensatory or actual da$ages which are generally reco(erable in tort cases as long as there is satisfactory )roof thereof (Art. 00/0) the Code has chosen to enu$erate the cases in which $oral da$ages $ay be reco(ered (Art. 00-.). A li#e enu$eration is $ade in regard to the reco(ery of attorneyMs fees as an ite$ of da$age (Art. 00/D). ;ut the two enu$erations differ in the case of a clearly unfounded suit which is e+)ressly $entioned in Art. 00/D ()ar. 1) as !ustifying an award of attorneyMs fees but is not included in the enu$eration of Art. 00-. in res)ect to $oral da$ages. It is true that Art. 00-. also )ro(ides that $oral da$ages $ay be awarded in \analogous cases\ to those enu$erated but we do not thin# the Code intended\ a clearly unfounded ci(il action or )roceedings\ to be one of these analogous cases wherein $oral da$ages $ay be reco(ered or it would ha(e e+)ressly $entioned it in Art. 00-. as it did in Art. 00/D= or else incor)orated Art. 00/D by reference in Art. 00-.. ;esides Art. 00-. S)ecifically $entions \,uasi*delicts causing )hysical in!uries\ as an instance when $oral da$ages $ay be allowed thereby i$)lying that all
other ,uasi*delicts not resulting in )hysical in!uries are e+cluded e+ce)ting of course the s)ecial torts referred to in Art. F/. )ar. . Art. 00-. and in Arts. 00> 03 0D 0. F/ F0 and F1 FK on the cha)ter on hu$an relations ()ar. -/ Art. 00-.). 2urther$ore while no )roof of )ecuniary loss is necessary IN OR0ER T4AT MORAL 0AMA6ES MAY BE A2AR0E0:
T4E AMO5NT O+ IN0EMNITY BEIN6 LE+T TO T4E 0IS&RETION O+ T4E &O5RT
(Art. 00->) it is ne(ertheless essential that the CART. 22 !D

AN0 ITS &A5SAL RELATION TO
&LAIMANT SATIS+A&TORILY PROVE T4E EGISTEN&E O+ T4E +A&T5AL BASIS O+ T4E 0AMA6E 0E+EN0ANTRS A&TS.
This is so because $oral da$ages though inca)able of )ecuniary esti$ation are in the category of an award designed to co$)ensate the clai$ant for actual in!ury suffered and not to i$)ose a )enalty on the wrongdoer. The trial court and the Court of A))eals both see$ to be of the o)inion that the $ere fact that res)ondent were sued without any legal foundation entitled the$ to an award of $oral da$ages hence they $ade no definite finding as to what the su))osed $oral da$ages suffered consist of. Such a conclusion would $a#e of $oral da$ages a )enalty which they are not rather than a co$)ensation for actual in!ury suffered which they are intended to be. Moral da$ages in other words are not correcti(e or e+e$)lary da$ages.: R5LE: ?nfounded suit*not a basis of M4 for it is not )art of 00-.
&LASS NOTES 'hatAs wrong with Cudg$ent on the )leadings in the granting of M4J the rule on AC as regards )ro(ing cannot be done with a !udg$ent on the )leadings Cudg$ent on the )leadings*)ri$ary sub$ission only (nothing to su))ort)
Ener1ida 1. 0e La Torre Canuary 0D -.31

+A&TS: Petitioner 7o,ue 9ner(ida filed a co$)laint against the defendant*s)ouses Lauro and 7osa de la Torre )raying that the deed of sale e+ecuted by his deceased father Ciriaco 9ner(ida o(er a )arcel of land co(ered by a ho$estead )atent be declared null and (oid for ha(ing been e+ecuted within the )rohibited )eriod of fi(e years. Ee further )rayed that he be allowed to re)urchase the said )arcel for being the legiti$ate son and sole heir of his deceased father.
&LASS NOTES Motion for su$$ary !udg$ent (thereAs no $ore contro(ersy if itAs su$$ary !udg$ent) Eere M4 was not awarded not because of )roof but because unfounded suits do not warrant M4
Peo-le 1. B,/a)on/ 4ece$ber 0 -..D

+A&TS: 7odelio ;ugayong alias 8;oy: was con(icted of ra)ing and co$$itting acts of lasci(iousness against Arlene Cauan his ele(en year old ste)daughter. ISS5E: '5@ the (icti$ is entitled to $oral da$ages. 4EL0: Bes. The Court held that ;ugayong should also be ordered to )ay the (icti$ the additional a$ount of PK/ /// as $oral da$ages. In Peo)le (. Prades the Court ruled that $oral da$ages $ay additionally be awarded to the (icti$ in the cri$inal )roceeding in such a$ount as the Courts dee$s !ust without the need for )leading or )roof of the basis thereof as had heretofore been the )ractice. The s)ouse descendants ascendants and brothers and sisters $ay bring the action $entioned in @o. . of this article in the order na$ed. Art. 222@: && 9 'illful in!ury to )ro)erty $ay be a legal ground for awarding $oral da$ages if the court should find that under the circu$stances such da$ages are !ustly due. The sa$e rule a))lies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
52
4EL0: @o.There was no error in the a))ealed decision in denying $oral da$ages not only on account of )laintiffAs +AIL5RE TO TA>E T4E 2ITNESS STAN0 and TESTI+Y TO 4ER SO&IAL 45MILIATION: 2O5N0E0 +EELIN6S: ET&. as the decision holds but )ri$arily because a ;79ACE 52 C5@T7ACT LI69 TEAT P2 TE9 4929@4A@TAS @5T ;9I@" MALICI5?S 57 27A?4?L9@T 459S @5T 'A77A@T TE9 A'A74 52 M57AL 4AMA"9S.
+ran'is'o 1. 6SIS March F/ -.>F

+A&TS: Plaintiff Trinidad 2rancisco in consideration of a loan $ortgaged in fa(or of the defendant "SIS a )arcel of land #nown as the Gic*Mari Co$)ound in OueLon City )ayable within -/ years in $onthly install$ents. So$e ti$e later the "SIS e+tra!udicially foreclosed the $ortgage on the ground that u) to that date the )laintiff was in arrears on her $onthly install$ents. The "SIS was itself the buyer of the )ro)erty in the foreclosure sale. The )laintiffAs father Atty. Gicente 2rancisco sent a letter to the general $anager of the defendant cor)oration 7odolfo Andal )ro)osing to )artially )ay off his daughterAs indebtedness and to co(er the balance to allow the "SIS to $anage the )ro)erty and collect the install$ents due on the un)aid houses and lots thereon until the debt was fully )aid. In e+change the foreclosure on the )ro)erty would be set aside. "SIS a))eared a$enable to the )ro)osal and the (arious su$s therein were )aid by the )laintiff and her father to the defendant. This continued until the "SIS sent the )laintiff and her father three letters as#ing for a )ro)osal for the )ay$ent of her indebtedness since according to the "SIS the one*year )eriod of rede$)tion had e+)ired. This led to litigation as to the nature of the agree$ent in which the )laintiff e(entually )re(ailed. ISS5E: '5@ )laintiff is entitled to $oral da$ages by reason of defendantAs breach of contract.
E?-ertra1el and To,rs: In'. 1. &A Cune 0K -...

+A&TS: 9+)ertra(el issued to res)ondent 7icardo Lo (7ic#y Lo% ShowbiL%) four round*tri) )lane tic#ets to Eong 6ong together with hotel acco$$odations and transfers for a total cost of PF. >33.0/. Alleging that Lo had failed to )ay the a$ount due 9+)ertra(el caused se(eral de$ands to be $ade. Since the de$ands were ignored by Lo 9+)ertra(el filed a co$)laint for reco(ery of the a$ount. 7es)ondent Lo answered that his account with 9+)ertra(el had already been fully )aid. The account had been re$itted to 9+)ertra(el through its then Chair)erson Ma. 7ocio de Gega who was theretofore authoriLed to deal with the res)ondentAs clients. The trial court found for the res)ondent and held that the a$ount clai$ed by 9+)ertra(el had already been )aid. ISS5E: '5@ da$ages can be reco(ered by reason of a clearly unfounded suit. 4EL0: Although the institution of a 'learl) ,nfo,nded 'i1il s,it can at ti$es be a legal !ustification for an award of attorneyMs fees (Enervida vs. 6ela )orre) such filing howe(er has al$ost in(ariably been held not to be a ground for an award of $oral da$ages. 7Rationale for the r,le< TE9 LA' C5?L4 @5T EAG9 M9A@T T5 IMP5S9 A P9@ALTB 5@ TE9 7I"ET T5 LITI"AT9. TE9 A@"?ISE
S?229794 ;B A P97S5@ 257 EAGI@" ;99@ MA49 A 4929@4A@T I@ A CIGIL S?IT '5?L4 ;9 @5 4I22979@T 275M TE9 ?S?AL '577B A@4 A@NI9TB S?229794 ;B A@B5@9 'E5 IS EAL94 T5 C5?7T A SIT?ATI5@ TEAT CA@@5T ;B ITS9L2 ;9 A C5"9@T 79AS5@ 257 TE9 A'A74 52 M57AL 4AMA"9S.
&LASS NOTES 2or 7a)e Seduction Abduction Acts of Lasci(iousness and Physical in!uries< @5 @994 to )ro(e M4. 4a$age auto$atically co$es fro$ being a (icti$ of such cri$es and it is assu$ed that the (icti$ suffered $entally e$otionally... PK/# awarded as inde$nity e+ delicto P PK/# as M4
A. &ases 8here allo8ed CMEMORINEOD

Art. 22 $. Moral da$ages $ay be reco(ered in the following and analogous cases< (-) A cri$inal offense resulting in )hysical in!uries= (0) Ouasi*delicts causing )hysical in!uries= (F) Seduction abduction ra)e or other lasci(ious acts= (1) Adultery or concubinage= (K) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest= (>) Illegal search= (3) Libel slander or any other for$ of defa$ation= (D) Malicious )rosecution= (.) Acts $entioned in Article F/.= (-/) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 0- 0> 03 0D 0. F/ F0 F1 and FK. The )arents of the fe$ale seduced abducted ra)ed or abused referred to in @o. F of this article $ay also reco(er $oral da$ages.

If the rule were otherwise then $oral da$ages $ust e(ery ti$e be awarded in fa(or of the )re(ailing defendant against an unsuccessful )laintiff. Nat,re of M0< not )uniti(e but are designed to co$)ensate and alle(iate in so$e way the )hysical suffering $ental anguish fright serious an+iety bes$irched re)utation wounded feelings $oral shoc# social hu$iliation and si$ilar in!ury un!ustly caused to a )erson. A(o,nt of M0< though inca)able of )ecuniary esti$ation $ust be P75P57TI5@AL T5 A@4 I@ APP75NIMATI5@ 52 TE9 S?2297I@" I@2LICT94. 7REH5ISITES O+ M0< %.
'E9TE97 PEBSICAL M9@TAL
53
3.
1. 2. 3. 4.
TE979 M?ST ;9 A@ IN*5RY 57 PSBCE5L5"ICAL
5.
TE979 M?ST ;9 A &5LPABLE A&T OR OMISSION +A&T5ALLY ESTABLIS4E0 TE9 2RON6+5L A&T OR OMISSION IS TE9 PROGIMATE &A5SE 52 TE9 I@C?7B TE9 A'A74 52 4AMA"9S IS P794ICAT94 5@ ANY O+ T4E &ASES STATE0 IN
where the defendant is guilty of an intentional tort (casis< Arts. -. 0/ 00>*hu$a relations torts) *also a))lies to contracts when breached by tort In &,l-a &ri(inal< when accused is found guilty of a. PI b. Lasci(ious acts c. Adultery or concubinage d. Illegal detention e. Illegal arrest f. Illegal search= or g. 4efa$ation Malicious Prosecution The ter$ 8analo/o,s 'a,ses: in Art. 00-. following the ejusdem generis rule $ust be held si$ilar to those e+)ressly enu$erated by the law.
b.
ISS5E: '5@ Moral da$ages should be awarded to the Mi!ares s)ouses. 4EL0: @o. Mi!ares s)ouses
C5LL9CTI5@. 2AIL94 T5 SE5' TEAT
MM4
'AS M5TIGAT94 ;B ;A4 2AITE 'E9@ IT I@STIT?T94 TE9 ACTI5@ 257
It is $erely an unfounded suit not Malicious Prosecution. 7ELEMENTS O+ MP: (-) MALIC9= (0) A;S9@C9 52 P75;A;L9 CA?S9. 0O&TRINE: Moral 4a$ages cannot be reco(ered fro$ a )erson who has filed a co$)laint against another in good faith or without $alice or bad faith.
&LASS NOTES Court a))lied sa$e ele$ents for MP and unfounded suits Sir< this should not ha(e been the case because it lu$)s together the two (0) #inds of action The enu$eration of the ele$ents was )robably a $ista#e because $alicious )rosecution is not e,ui(alent to unfounded suits.
a. 5nfo,nded S,its
?nfounded suits Malicious )rosecution
ART. 22 $ (CASIS< P9@4I@" ISS?9)
2hen M0 allo8ed< $ust be the )ro+i$ate result of a wrongful act or o$ission the factual basis for which is satisfactorily established by the aggrie(ed )arty. 1. ?nder &,l-a 'ontra't,al or brea'h of 'ontra't< when the defendant acted in< a. ;2= or b. was guilty of gross negligence (a$ounting to ;2)= or c. in wanton disregard of his contractual obligation= S exceptionally4 d. when the act of breach of contract itself is constituti(e of torts resulting in )hysical in!uries (PI). special rule4 e. in Art. -31> in relation to Art. 00/>< when death results fro$ a breach of carriage
*. Mar<etin/ &or-. 1. Sia: *r.

+A&TS: C Mar#eting disco(ered that a $otorcycle was $issing fro$ its bodega. Motorcycle was traced to Sia. 8CAs: re)resentati(e e+a$ined the chassis and $otor nu$bers of the $otorcycle and found the$ ta$)ered. ?)on confrontation Sia refused to return the $otorcycle and dared the re)resentati(e to file a case in court. 8C: filed a co$)laint for re)le(in against Sia. 7TC and CA dis$issed the co$)laint and awarded $oral and e+e$)lary da$ages and attorneyAs fees in fa(or of Sia. ISS5E: '5@ the award of Moral 4a$ages is )ro)er. 4EL0: @o. A
P97S5@AS 7I"ET T5 LITI"AT9 SE5?L4 @5T ;9
Mi3ares 1. &A
+A&TS: Metro Manila 4rug su))lied )har$aceutical )roducts to the Mi!ares s)ousesA drugstore and to the 5s)ital ng Maynila Consu$ers Coo)erati(e 4rugstore which is also o)erated by 9ditha Mi!ares as an officer of the Co*o). The Co*o) was dissol(ed and ceased o)erations in -.D> and its s)ace was leased out to Solo$on Sil(erio who also )ut u) a drugstore. MM4 $ade deli(eries to Sil(erioAs store for al$ost a year a$ounting to F06. Sil(erio issued a chec# for )artial )ay$ent under the account na$e of his store which was dishonored. MM4 filed a co$)laint to collect fro$ 9ditha des)ite ha(ing been infor$ed that they no longer did business in 5s)ital. Court found suit to be unfounded.
2.
in &,l-a A;,iliana or H0< a. when an act or o$ission causes P
P9@ALIU94 ;B E5L4I@" EIM LIA;L9 257 4AMA"9S 9SP9CIALLB 'E9@ E9 ;9LI9G9S E9 EAS A 7I"ET2?L CLAIM A"AI@ST A@5TE97 ALTE5?"E 25?@4 T5 ;9 9775@95?S.
8C: filed the co$)laint based on

SiaAs own challenge for the$ to sue hi$ so 8C: could not be dee$ed to ha(e done so with bad faith. 0O&TRINE: The ad(erse result of an action does not $a#e a co$)lainant sub!ect to )ay $oral da$ages. @o da$ages can be charged on those who $ay e+ercise their right to litigate in good faith e(en if done erroneously. +A&TS: A F*auto$obile collision in(ol(ing a bus a !ee) and a car. The bus bu$)ed the !ee) that was )ar#ed at the shoulder to fi+ a tire and the bus went on to hit the car. The owner of the car (Morales) and the insurance co$)any filed a co$)laint for da$ages against the bus co$)any its dri(er and the !ee)As dri(er and owner (Ligorio and Pablo ;ondad). The ;ondads denied any res)onsibility or liability to IIC and Morales. TC and CA< e+cul)ated the ;ondads. 5rdered IIC to )ay the$ $oral da$ages for rec#lessly and baselessly i$)leading the$ in s)ite of the clear language in the Traffic In(estigation re)ort that they were not res)onsible in any way for the accident. ISS5E: '5@ the award of Moral and e+e$)lary da$ages and attorneyAs fees was )ro)er. 4EL0: Bes. The award of Moral 4a$ages is !ustified. IIC was RE&>LESS 24EN IT IMPLEA0E0 T4E BON0A0S IN SPITE O+
&LEAR EVI0EN&E T4AT T4EY 2ERE NOT LIABLE +OR T4E 0AMA6E TO
54
Tri-le Ei/ht Inte/rated Ser1i'es 1. NLR&

+A&TS: 9rlinda 5sdana was recruited by Tri)le D as a food ser(er in Saudi Arabia. ;ad wor#ing conditions $ade her ill and she had to be confined in a hos)ital. She was transferred se(eral ti$es but she again beca$e ill and re,uired 0 surgeries. After this she was no longer gi(en any assign$ents e(en if she was willing and able to do light wor#. She was dismissed from wor4 and not given any separation pay. Tri)le D refused to hel) her so she filed an illegal dis$issal case. LA and @L7C both ruled in her fa(or and awarded her damages. ISS5E: '5@ the award of $oral and e+e$)lary da$ages was !ustified. 4EL0: Bes. The award of da$ages was )ro)er. 0O&TRINE: Moral da(a/es are re'o1erable where the dis$issal of the e$)loyee was attended by bad faith or fraud or constituted an act o))ressi(e to labor or was done in a $anner contrary to $orals good custo$s or )ublic )olicy.
&o(eta 1. &A
+A&TS: SITI (Co$eta< )resident) e+tended loans to "I4C ("ue(ara< )resident) which the latter failed to )ay. SITI foreclosed the $ortgages and was the highest bidder in the foreclosure sale. Co$eta filed a falsification case against "ue(ara which was dis$issed by the )rosecutor for lac# of )robable cause. 45C Secretary re(ersed )rosecutorAs finding but the 7TC e(entually dis$issed the case. "ue(ara filed a co$)laint for $alicious )rosecution against Co$eta. ISS5E: '5@ the case for $alicious )rosecution states a cause of action and warrants a full blown trial on the $erits. 4EL0: Bes. All the re,uire$ents for a (alid cause of action were )resent. 0O&TRINE: 'hat $ust be alleged in a co$)laint for $alicious )rosecution so that there is a (alid cause of action< (-) defendant hi$self instigated the )rosecution= (0) )rosecution ter$inated in the )laintiffAs ac,uittal= (F) )rosecutor acted without )robable cause= (1) the )rosecutor was actuated by $alice. NOTE: SC did not e,uate $) with an unfounded suit
MORALES= &AR. II& A&TE0 IN BA0 +AIT4 24EN IT &OMPELLE0 T4E BON0A0S TO TRAVEL +ROM LA65NA TO MA>ATI TO LITI6ATE AN 5N+O5N0E0 &LAIM. The effects of this was that Ligorio could not wor# and Pablo beca$e sic# and e(en suffered a $ild stro#e. 0O&TRINE: 7e,uire$ents to sustain an award of $oral da$ages< (-) Clai$ant suffered in!ury= (0) In!ury s)rung fro$ any of the cases listed in Art. 00-. or 000/ (CC)= (F) @ecessary that such acts be shown to ha(e been tainted with bad faith or ill*will. It is not enough that the clai$ant alleges $ental anguish serious an+iety wounded feelings social hu$iliation etc. as a result of the other )artyAs acts.
&LASS NOTES Moral da(a/es are not 3,st a8arded be'a,se of 1iolations of the Labor &ode. The 'ase fo',sed (ore on ho8 Osdana 8as treated 8hen she 8or<ed in Sa,di Arabia.
ii. &ri(inal Ta<in/ Of Life Peo-le 1. Pira(e
&LASS NOTES Pur)ose of re,uire$ents< to te$)er the filing of suits in order to get da$ages. Sue so$eone who could readily be i$)leaded (based on legal basis) +A&TS: Pira$e et al were found guilty of murdering Pedro Torrenue(a. ISS5E: '5@ the award of $oral and e+e$)lary da$ages were !ustified. 4EL0: @o. Torrenue(aAs widow
3*3 '&, ,ES,*05 ON 4AVIN6
&LASS NOTES Lesson here as o))osed to earlier discussion to sue as $any as you can< donAt i$)lead )eo)le without any reason or a suit will also be filed against you MP was filed against SITI and Co$eta not unfounded suit
S5++ERE0 ANY MENTAL AN65IS4 OR EMOTIONAL 0ISTRESS +ROM T4E
i. Labor &ases
0EAT4 O+ 4ER 45SBAN0.
Ind,strial Ins,ran'e &o(-an) 1. Bondad
The absence of any generic aggra(ating circu$stance )recludes the award of e+e$)lary da$ages.

0O&TRINE: Proof of suffering $ust be attested to !ustify the award of $oral da$ages. NOTE: cf Arcona (. CA the trial that the ban# was negligent of its duties. The Su)re$e Court reduced the award of -M to -//# as $oral da$ages. 2lores filed this M27 contending that the award was too s$all. ISS5E: '5@ the award of $oral da$ages should be increased. 4EL0: Bes. SC increased the award to 0//6. SC too# into account the following< that des)ite the fact that Mr. 2loresA character and )ersonality are irrele(ant to the issues in the case P@; without )roofs attac#ed his character by alleging that he was a #nown ga$bler and big ti$e casino )layer. The ban# also alleged that the )roceeds of the chec#s were used by 2lores in ga$bling. 2ro$ this it is ob(ious that P@; bes$irched 2loresA re)utation causing hi$ undue hu$iliation. 2lores also testified in court regarding his woes when P@; refused to honor his chec#s= that this had caused hi$ his integrity and de)endability as a business$an in ;aguio. That because of the incident whene(er he tries to $a#e a deal )eo)le doubt his ca)acity to )ay. &asis &o((entar): SC reduced the award considered -M in Moral 4a$ages to be e+cessi(e because (-) 2lores did not )ro(e that he lost the ;aguio Eouse= (0) -M in Moral 4a$ages is grossly dis)ro)ortionate to the -//6 in actual da$ages.
55
&arlos Ar'ona ) Moban 1. &A

+A&TS: Carlos Arcona was con(icted of ho$icide and was ordered to )ay -/6 as $oral da$ages. Ee a))ealed clai$ing self*defense. ISS5E: '5@ the award of $oral da$ages was correct. 4EL0: Bes. Moral da$ages should be increased to K/6. AS ;57@9 5?T ;B E?MA@ 9NP97I9@C9 A GI5L9@T 49ATE
I@GA7IA;LB A@4 @9C9SSA7ILB ;7I@"S A;5?T 9M5TI5@AL PAI@ A@4 A@"?ISE 5@ TE9 PA7T 52 TE9 GICTIMAS 2AMILB. E?MA@ T5 S?2297 S5775' T57M9@T
4EL0: Bes. The case is analogous to $alicious )rosecution under Art. 00-. (D) as shown by 2uleAs wanton bad faith and his filing of a $alicious and unfounded case against CruL S ;elar$ino. Pre)onderance of e(idence suggests that the cause of action in this case was contri(ed by 2ule hi$self. 0O&TRINE: 2actors 'onsidered in deter(inin/ a(o,nt< (-) CruL S ;elar$ino are 8ell9<no8n: res-e'ted: and held in hi/h estee( in San Pablo a s$all city= (0) ;oth are near the t8ili/ht of their li1es after $aintaining and nurturing their good re)utation in the co$$unity only to be stunned with a court case= (F) Since the filing of the case they were li1in/ ,nder a -all of do,bt 8hi'h s,rel) affe'ted not onl) their earnin/ 'a-a'it): b,t also bes(ir'hed their re-,tations= (1) The len/th of ti(e the 'ase has dra//ed on during which their re)utations were tarnished and their na$es $aligned. R5LE: M0 does not need a't,al -roof. that dis-la)s 8anton bad faith. Eno,/h
IT
IS I@E979@TLB
PAI@ A@4 A@"97 'E9@ A
L5G94 5@9 ;9C5M9S TE9 GICTIM 52 A GI5L9@T 57 ;7?TAL 6ILLI@".
S?CE
;7?TAL 49ATE @5T 5@LB ST9ALS 275M TE9 2AMILB 52 TE9
49C9AS94 EIS LI29 L5G9 S?PP57T A@4 A229CTI5@ ;?T ALS5 L9AG9S TE9M 'ITE A "@A'I@" 299LI@" TEAT A@ I@C?STIC9 EAS ;99@ 45@9 T5 TE9M.
+or this reason: (oral da(a/e (,st be a8arded e1en in the absen'e of an) alle/ation and -roof of the heirs= e(otional s,fferin/s.
&LASS NOTES This see(s to be in 'onfli't 8ith the Pira(e 'ase. &r,F -resents a -ossible distin'tion bet8een Ar'ona and Pira(e: the (anner of death 8as ta<en into a''o,nt C1iolent nat,re of the deathD 8hi'h Prof. &asis does not see( to a/ree 8ith.
NOTES: H: why A@AL5"5?S T5 MP only and not MPJ A: canAt be MP coL no )rior case that ended or was ,ualified as MP
&LASS NOTES See$s to consider M4 si$ilar to A4
&LASS NOTES
+,le 1. &A
+A&TS: 2ule a ban#erH!eweler bartered his -/ ha. Pro)erty for a )air of dia$ond earrings fro$ 4r. CruL under a 4eed of Absolute Sale with Atty. ;elar$ino. 2ule was able to e+a$ine the !ewelry and acce)ted the$ (he had already e+a$ined the$ before and e(en $ade a s#etch). 0 hours later he co$)lained that the earrings were fa#e. Ee filed a case against CruL and ;elar$ino see#ing the nullification of the 4eed on the ground of fraud and deceit. TC S CA dis$issed the co$)laint and ordered hi$ to )ay CruL F//6 and ;elar$ino 0K/6 as $oral da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ the award of da$ages is )ro)er.
This is the sales case on ;A7T97%
PAL 1. &A
+A&TS: Pante!o the City 2iscal of Surigao too# a PAL flight fro$ Manila to Surigao. 4ue to a ty)hoon the flight to Surigao was cancelled while on a sto)o(er in Cebu. PAL ga(e out cash assistance to its stranded )assengers. Pante!o re,uested that he be billeted at a hotel at PALAs e+)ense because he wasnAt carrying cash but PAL refused. Ee had to share a roo$ with another )assenger who$ he )ro$ised to re)ay in Surigao. 5n the flight he learned that the hotel e+)enses of so$e )assengers were rei$bursed. Pante!o sued PAL for da$ages for discri$inating
b. +a'tors in 0eter(inin/ A(o,nt PNB 1. &A

+A&TS: Car$elo 2lores a )ro$inent business$an in ;aguio engaged in the real estate business of buying and selling house and lots bought fro$ P@; 0 $anagerAs chec#s worth K//# each. Eowe(er PNB later ref,sed to honor the 'he'<s be'a,se of alle/ed shorta/e in his -a)(ent. It was found during

against hi$. TC awarded hi$ actual (F//6) $oral (-K/6) and e+e$)lary (-//6) da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ the award of da$ages is )ro)er. 4EL0: Bes. PAL acted in bad faith in disregarding its duties as a co$$on carrier to its )assengers and in discri$inating against Pante!o. It was PALAs standard )olicy to e+tend cash assistance or hotel acco$$odations to stranded )assengers. The refund of hotel e+)enses was discri$inatorily $ade since it was not $ade #nown to all its )assengers. 0O&TRINE: 2actors< Pante!o was e+)osed to hu$iliation and e$barrass$ent es)ecially because of his 6OVERNMENT POSITION and SO&IAL PROMINEN&E which altogether necessarily sub!ected hi$ to ridicule sha$e and anguish. S)BS,A',*A( 3AMA1ES 3& '&, ,RA'S(A,E *',&
E6CESS*+E 3AMA1ES
56
ISS5E: '5@ the a$ount of da$ages was )ro)er. &LASS NOTES &asis &o((entar): GalenLuela $ust ha(e been really beautiful. Per$anent nature of da$age 4EL0: SC raised the a$ount to 0//6 to be di(ided a$ong Senator Lo)eL (-//6) his wife (K/6) his daughter (0K6) and his son*in*law (0K6). The Lo)eLes suffered social hu$iliation wounded feelings serious an+iety and $ental anguish as a result of Pan*A$As breach in bad faith of their contracts. Although it is not hu$iliating to tra(el as tourist )assengers IT IS 45MILIATIN6 ,& BE C&M"E((E3 TO 0O SO . Senator Lo)eL was the Senate President Pro Te$)ore and a for Gice* President of the Phili))ines. Considering the )restige of his ran# and )osition the a$ount awarded is a))ro)riate. As to the $e$bers of his fa$ily they share his )restige and therefore his hu$iliation. The da$ages awarded to each of the$ are reasonable. NOTES: his stat,re de$anded that he be gi(en M4. Eis fa$ily too coL they shared in his -resti/e and h,(iliation.
S,(al-on/ 1. &A
+A&TS: Su$al)ong shot twice at 7a$os but $issed. They gra))led for the gun and in doing so he bit 7a$osA ar$ and left ear $utilating the latter. Ee was con(icted of atte$)ted ho$icide and was $ade to ser(e sentence and ordered to inde$nify 7a$os for loss of cro)s hos)italiLation e+)enses and Moral 4a$ages (K6). CA $odified the award of da$ages increasing Moral 4a$ages to -/6. ISS5E: '5@ the increase in the a$ount of Moral 4a$ages was )ro)er. 4EL0: Bes. The CA has in $any cases increased the da$ages awarded by the TC although the offended )arty had not a))ealed fro$ said award. The SC finds the -/6 award of Moral 4a$ages !ustified under the circu$stances. The nature of the in!uries and the degree of )hysical suffering endured by 7a$os warrants it. The incident caused the $utilation of 7a$osA ear and a )er$anent scar on his ar$. These in!uries ha(e left indelible $ar#s on his body and will ser(e as a constant re$inder of his trau$atic e+)erience. 0O&TRINE: The a$ount of $oral da$ages awarded 49P9@4S 5@ TE9 @AT?79 A@4 9NT9@T 52 TE9 PEBSICAL I@C?7I9S.
ValenF,ela 1. &A
+A&TS: Lourdes GalenLuela was fi+ing a flat tire on the roadside when she was hit by Ale+ander Li who was dri(ing a co$)any car. Eer left leg was se(ered S she had to get a )rosthetic leg. GalenLuela filed a case clai$ing da$ages< -M ($oral) -//6 (e+e$)lary) -D/6 ($edical e+)enses P loss of earnings). Li and his e$)loyer were found !ointly and se(erally liable. TC awarded but CA reduced $oral da$ages to K//6. ISS5E: '5@ the reduction of the award of $oral da$ages was !ustified. 4EL0: @o. GalenLuelaAs left leg was a$)utated. The da$age done was )er$anent and lasting the artificial leg would ha(e to be ad!usted to the )hysiologic changes her body would nor$ally undergo through the years. The a$ount of da$age which goes with the
S?449@ S9G97I@" 52 A GITAL P57TI5@ 52 TE9 E?MA@ ;54B A@4 TE9 79S?LTA@T A@NI9TB SL99PL9SS@9SS PSBCE5L5"ICAL I@C?7B A@4 M9@TAL A@4 PEBSICAL PAI@ IS I@9STIMA;L9.
Prod,'er=s Ban< 1. &A

+A&TS: The Chuas had substantial sa(ings and current de)osits with the ;acolod ;ranch of Producers ;an#. They obtained a P0M loan secured by a real estate $ortgage. The Chuas de)osited .>/6 but the a$ount was not credited to their account because the ;ranch Manager absconded with the $oney of the ban#As de)ositors. The ban# dishonored chec#s drawn out by the Chuas on the ground of insufficient funds des)ite their ha(ing o(er -M in sa(ings. The Chuas re,uested to see the ledgers of their account but the ban# refused. They filed an action for da$ages against the ban# who in turn filed a )etition for e+tra!udicial foreclosure of the $ortgage. The Chuas filed a co$)laint for in!unction and da$ages. The TC awarded the$ 0M in $oral da$ages. CA reduced it to K//6. ISS5E: '5@ the award of $oral da$ages is )ro)er. 4EL0: SC reduced $oral da$ages to F//6. The dishonor of the ChuasA chec#s and the foreclosure initiated by the ban# A++E&TE0 T4E &RE0IT STAN0IN6 AN0 T4E B5SINESS 0EALIN6S O+ T4E &45AS as their su))liers discontinued credit lines resulting in the colla)se of their businesses. The da$age to their REP5TATION AN0 SO&IAL
Lo-eF 1. Pan A(eri'an

+A&TS: Senate President Pro Te$)ore 2ernando Lo)eL reser(ed first class tic#ets with Pan*A$ for hi$ his wife his daughter and her husband. The tic#ets were issued and )aid for but on the day of the flight they were infor$ed that they could not be acco$$odated as first class )assengers because first class was already fully boo#ed. They were constrained to ta#e the flight as tourist )assengers 8under )rotest.: Lo)eL filed a suit for da$ages alleging breach of contracts in bad faith and as#ed for K//6 as actual and $oral da$ages. C2I awarded -K/6 in $oral da$ages.
P-M in $oral
da$ages is )ro)er. 0O&TRINE: The award should be S?2297I@" I@2LICT94.

C5MM9@S?7AT9 T5 TE9

entitles the$ to $oral da$ages. The ban# caused the$ serious an+iety e$barrass$ent and hu$iliation.
STAN0IN6
57
NOTES: one cannot be awarded M4 for the suffering one did not endure (sy$)athy) cf Art. 00-. last )aragra)h.
*Inde$nification shall co$)rehend< -. (alue of he loss suffered 0. (alue of the )rofits that the oblige failed to obtain In &ontra't and H,asi9&ontra'ts< the da$ages which $ay be awarded are de)endent on whether the obligor acted in "2 or otherwise *n case of 10< da$ages reco(erable are those which are the @AT?7AL A@4 P75;A;L9 C5@S9O?9@C9S of the breach of the obligation which the )arties ha(e 2579S99@ or C5?L4 EAG9 79AS5@A;LB 2579S99@ at the ti$e of the constitution of the obligation *n case of 0raud! B0! malice or anton attitude4 actor shall be res)onsible for all da$ages which $ay be reasonable attributed to the non* )erfor$ance of the obligation. (C2< P95PL9 GS. MA@975) In &ri(es and H0s< defendant shall be liable for all da$ages which are the @AT?7AL A@4 P75;A;L9 C5@S9O?9@C9S of the act or o$ission co$)lained of 8hether or not such da$ages could ha(e been reasonably foreseen by the defendant. *A4 $ay also be reco(ered for loss or i$)air$ent of earning ca)acity in cases of te$)orary or )er$anent )ersonal in!ury or for in!ury to the )laintiffAs business standing or co$$ercial credit. On Att)=s fees< *in the absence of sti)ulation attyAs fees $ay be reco(ered as A4 or C4 under any of the circu$stances in Art. 00/D 6eneral R,le: attyAs fees cannot be reco(ered as )art of da$ages because of the )olicy that no )re$iu$ should be )laced on the right to litigate. They are not awarded e(eryti$e a )arty wins a suit. *The )ower of the court to award attyAs fees under Art. 00/D de$ands fa't,al: le/al I e;,itable 3,stifi'ation. On Moral 0a(a/es< Art. 22 !* defines what are included in M4 Art. 22 $* enu$erates the cases where M4 $ay be reco(ered Art. 222@* )ro(ides that M4 $ay be reco(ered in breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in ;2
0O&TRINE: The financial credit of a business$an is a )riLed and (aluable asset it being a significant )art of the foundation of his business. Any ad(erse reflection thereon constitutes so$e financial loss to hi$.
&LASS NOTES Cf< Lo)eL & wife shared in 8)restige: of hubby (goes into the a$ount of M4) 'hat about Strebel and son*in*lawJ Sufferering suffered by (icarious relationsJ
&LASS NOTES 7ule on 4a$ages is !uris)rudential< a$ounts do not change but basis for fi+ing da$ages are changed%
ABS9&BN 1. &A
+A&TS: A;S and Gi(a e+ecuted a 2il$ 9+hibition Agree$ent whereby Gi(a ga(e A;S an e+clusi(e right to e+hibit so$e Gi(a fil$s. A;S was gi(en a right of first refusal to 01 fil$s. Gi(aAs agent ga(e A;S (through Charo Santos) a list of F> fil$s to choose 01 fro$. Santos only li#ed -/ (including 8Maging Sino 6a Man:) and did not acce)t it. According to Lo)eL of A;S there was a 8na)#in agree$ent: for Gi(a to sell -1 fil$s for PF>M. Gi(aAs agent denied such agree$ent. 4eals with A;S failed so then Gi(a $ade a deal with 7;S granting the latter the e+clusi(e right to -/1 fil$ including the -1 fil$s in the 8na)#in agree$ent.: 7;S $ade )rint ads of the antici)ated airing of 8Maging Sino 6a Man.: A;S filed a co$)laint for s)ecific )erfor$ance wH a )rayer for in!unction. Co$)laint was dis$issed and $oral da$ages were awarded to 7;S for ha(ing its re)utation debased by the filing of the co$)laint. ISS5E: '5@ the award of da$ages to 7;S was )ro)er. 4EL0: @o. The award of $oral da$ages cannot be granted in fa(or of a cor)oration being an artificial )erson and ha(ing e+istence only in legal conte$)lation it has no feelings no e$otions no senses. It therefore cannot e+)erience )hysical suffering and $ental anguish which can be e+)erienced only by one ha(ing a ner(ous syste$. On A't,al 0a(a/es< *5ne is entitled to co$)ensation for A4 only for such )ecuniary loss suffered by hi$ as he has duly )ro(ed (e+ce)t as )ro(ided by law or by sti)ulation)
'. 2ho Ma) Re'o1er Strebel 1. +i/,eras: et al

+A&TS: Strebel a Mobilgas station owner sued Acting Labor Secretary 2igueras 4irector of Labor Cose and Assistant City 2iscal 7u)erto. In one of his causes action he cited the incident of the transfer of his son*in* law (EernandeL) fro$ the ;5I to the ;ureau of Prisons. Ee clai$s that 2igueras influenced the 45C Secretary to effect such transfer and is see#ing $oral and actual da$ages. ISS5E: Can Strebel reco(er da$ages incon(enient transfer of EernandeLJ for the
4EL0: @o. The transfer was within the )ower of the 45C Secretary. Assu$ing that such act a$ounted to any wrong the right of action would accrue in fa(or of EernandeL. 0O&TRINES: (-) The 7I"ET 52 79C5G97B 257 M9@TAL S?2297I@" 79S?LTI@" 275M ;54ILB I@C?7I9S is restricted to the person ho has suffered the bodily hurt! and there can be no reco(ery for distress caused by sy$)athy for anotherAs suffering or for fright due to a wrong against a third )erson. (0) MENTAL AN65IS4 is restricted to such $ental )ain or suffering as arises fro$ an in!ury or wrong to the )erson hi$self as distinguished fro$ that for$ of MENTAL S5++ERIN6 which is the acco$)ani$ent of sy$)athy or sorrow for anotherAs suffering or which arises fro$ a conte$)lation of wrongs co$$itted on the )erson of another.

M0 ai(ed at restoration within the li$its of the )ossible of the s)iritual status ,uo ante and should be )ro)ortionate to the suffering inflicted. No M0 for 'or-orations< The award of M4 cannot be granted in fa(or of a cor)oration because being an artificial )erson and ha(ing e+istence only in legal conte$)lation it has no feelings no e$otions no senses. It cannot therefore e+)erience )hysical suffering and $ental anguish which can be e+)erienced only by ha(ing a ner(ous syste$. On E?e(-lar) 0a(a/es< *i$)osed by way of e+a$)le or correction for the )ublic good in addition to $oral te$)erate li,uidated or co$)ensatory da$ages. In 'ri(inal 'ases< reco(erable as )art of the ci(il liability when the cri$e was co$$itted with one or $ore aggra(ating circu$stance In H0< when defendant acted with gross negligence In 'ontra'ts and ;,asi9'ontra'ts< if the defendant acted in a wanton fraudulent rec#less o))ressi(e or $ale(olent $anner. (-) there was no bad faith and (0) as a general rule $oral da$ages are not awarded to cor)orations. 0O&TRINE: ;es$irched re)utation cannot cause $ental anguish to a cor)oration unli#e in the case of a natural )erson for A C57P57ATI5@ EAS @5 79P?TATI5@ I@ TE9 S9@S9 A@ I@4IGI4?AL 459S. It is inherently i$)ossible for a cor)oration to suffer $ental anguish. * A C57P57ATI5@ ;9I@" A@ A7TI2ICIAL P97S5@ A@4 EAGI@"
9NIST9@C9 5@LB I@ L9"AL C5@T9MPLATI5@ S?2297I@" A@4 M9@TAL A@"?ISE. EAS @5 299LI@"S @5 9M5TI5@S @5 S9@S9S= TE9792579 IT CA@@5T 9NP97I9@C9 PEBSICAL
58
4EL0: @o. The da$ages awarded are )ro)er. Assess$ent of @o$inal 4a$ages is left to the discretion of the court according to the circu$stances of the case. Considering that no$inal da$ages are not for the inde$nification of loss suffered but for the 1indi'ation or re'o/nition of a ri/ht 1iolated or in1aded and that the )erfection of the a))eal was no assurance that Gentanilla would succeed in his first action for reco(ery the a$ount that he see#s to reco(er here as no$inal da$ages is e+cessi(e. 0O&TRINE: @o$inal da$ages are not inde$nification of loss suffered but for the (indication or recognition of a right (iolated or in(aded.
&LASS NOTES Code lists all #inds of suffering but M9@TAL A@"?ISE should be in(ol(ed & o)en ,uestion
&LASS NOTES @4 s$all but o# according to SC because it is not su))osed to account for anything @4 only sy$bollic
&. No(inal
Art. 222 . @o$inal da$ages are ad!udicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recogni3ed and not for the )ur)ose of inde$nifying the )laintiff for any loss suffered by hi$. Art. 2222. The court $ay award no$inal da$ages in every obligation arising fro$ any source enu$erated in Article --K3 or in e(ery case where any property right has been in(aded. Art. 222A. The ad!udication of no$inal da$ages shall preclude further contest upon the right involved and all accessory 5uestions as between the )arties to the suit or their res)ecti(e heirs and assigns.
Robes9+ran'is'o Realt) &or-. 1. &+I

+A&TS: Lolita Millan bought a lot fro$ the )etitioner in May -.>0 and was able to fully pay her installments on 4ec. 00 $! . The deed of absolute sale howe(er was only e+ecuted in her fa(or in $!A. @early F years after her last )ay$ent )etitioner still has not gi(en her the TCT of the lot. Millan filed a co$)laint for s)ecific )erfor$ance. TC awarded her P0/6 in no$inal da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ the award of no$inal da$ages was )ro)er. 4EL0: Bes. The right of the vendee to ac5uire title to the lot she bought was (iolated by the )etitioner and this entitles her at the (ery least to no$inal da$ages. The a$ount howe(er should be red,'ed since there was no showing of bad faith on the )art of the )etitioner. 0O&TRINE: @o$inal da$ages are reco(erable where so$e in!ury has been done the a$ount of which the e(idence fails to show the assess$ent of da$ages is left to the discretion of the court according to the circu$stances of the case.
NAPO&OR 1. P4IBROS
+A&TS: @AP5C57 issued in(itations to bid for the su))ly and deli(ery of i$)orted coal. PEI;75As bid was acce)ted. PEI;75 was not able to deli(er so @AP5C57 ad(ertised again for bidding of the sa$e )roducts. PEI;75 )artici)ated in the bidding again but @AP5C57 disa))ro(ed their a))lication. PEI;75 filed an action for da$ages on the ground that @AP5C57As act of dis,ualifying the$ was tainted with $alice and bad faith. Lower courts ruled in fa(or of PEI;75 and awarded actual $oral and e+e$)lary da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ PEI;75 is entitled to da$ages. 4EL0: @o. @AP5C57 did not act in bad faith in disa))ro(ing PEI;75As a))lication for )re,ualification to bid. It $erely e+ercised its reser(ed right to re!ect bid a))licants who )re(iously failed to )erfor$ )ro)erly. Moral 0a(a/es not -ro-er<
Ventanilla 1. &enteno
+A&TS: Gentanilla hired Atty. Centeno to re)resent hi$ in an action for reco(ery with da$ages. Centeno screwed u) the filing of a))eal. Gentanilla now see#s to reco(er da$ages against Centeno. TC< awarded hi$ P0// as no$inal da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ the TC erred in awarding only P0// instead of P0/// as no$inal and other da$ages.
59
&LASS NOTES 0/6 award of @4 by TC e+cessi(e Penal clause issue< no )enal clause because e(en if without it Millan still entitled to legal interest $ore than 1[ ).a. (could be wrong because SC see$ed to e,uate )enal clause with li,uidated da$ages)
@'A refused to gi(e the$ co$)ensatory da$ages for breach of contract of air*trans)ort carriage. RT& a8arded da(a/es (4r.< actual< P-F// $oral< K//6 e+e$)lary< K//6 no$inal< -//6= Mrs.< $oral< F//6 e+e$)lary< F//6 no$inal< K/6= daughter< $oral< F//6 e+e$)lary< F//6 no$inal< K/6). &A (odified< sustained award of actual da$ages deleted moral and nominal damages. ISS5E: '5@ the deletion of no$inal da$ages was )ro)er. 4EL0: Bes. @o$inal da$ages should not be awarded when actual da$ages were. Assess$ent of @4 is left to the discretion of the court according to the circu$stances of the case. 70O&TRINE: @5MI@AL 4AMA"9S.
4AMA"9S CA@@5T C59NIST 'ITE ACT?AL
4EL0: @o. Eowe(er NOMINAL 0AMA6ES ARE PROPER. Petitioners ga(e la$e e+cuses for the delay in the deli(ery of the ca#e. Their )re(arication $ade the$ liable for no$inal da$ages for insensitivity, inadvertence or inattention to their customer s anxiety and need of the hour. 0O&TRINE: @o$inal da$ages are reco(erable where (-) a legal right is technically (iolated and $ust be (indicated against an in(asion that has )roduced no actual )resent loss of any #ind or (0) where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial in!ury or actual da$ages ha(e been or can be shown.
Peo-le 1. 6o-io
+A&TS: "o)io ra)ed and $olested Princess Millano a $inor. Ee was con(icted of statutory ra)e and ordered to inde$nify the (icti$ through da$ages (actualQ PF303 $oralQ PF/6) ISS5E: '5@ the award of da$ages is )ro)er. 4EL0: Actual da$ages should be deleted as no )roof was )resented to show the actual a$ount of )ecuniary loss. Eowe(er @o$inal 4a$ages (P06) should be awarded in order that the right of the (icti$ (iolated by the accused $ay be (indicated or recogniLed. This is not for the purpose of indemnifying any loss suffered. 70O&TRINE: 'E9@9G97
ASC97TAI@94 IS P75P97. L9"AL 7I"ET TE979 EAS ;99@ A GI5LATI5@ 52 A@ ALTE5?"E @5 ACT?AL 4AMA"9S TE9 A'A74 52 @5MI@AL 4AMA"9S
0. Te(-erate
Sir: awarded when there is no basis for A4 Art. 222%. Te$)erate or $oderate da$ages which are $ore than no$inal but less than co$)ensatory da$ages $ay be reco(ered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not! from the nature of the case! be provided ith certainty. Art. 222B. Te$)erate da$ages $ust be reasonable under the circu$stances.
&LASS NOTES 'hy @4 canAt coe+ist with A4J Sir says that award of A4 already )resu))oses in(asion of right so awarding @4 would lead to do,ble re'o1er)
+ran'is'o 1. +errer
+A&TS: 7ebecca Lo and her daughter Anette 2errer ordered a F*layer wedding ca#e fro$ 2ountainhead ;a#esho). 5n the wedding day at around >)$ the ca#e was not there. They $ade a follow*u) call and were assured that it was on its way but was delayed by traffic. They were later infor$ed that there would be no ca#e because the order sli) got lost. 2errer was co$)elled to buy a sans ri(al ca#e instead. The wedding ca#e arri(ed at -/)$ but they refused to acce)t it because it only had 0 layers. 2rancisco (owner of 2ountainhead) sent a letter of a)ology and K6 which was denied for being dee$ed inade,uate. 2errer and Lo filed a case against 2rancisco for breach of contract wH da$ages. T& and &A awarded moral and exemplary damages. ISS5E: '5@ $oral and e+e$)lary da$ages should ha(e been awarded.
79S?LT94 57 @5@9 A79 SE5'@
&LASS NOTES
Ar(o1it 1. &A
+A&TS: 4r. Ar$o(it and his fa$ily decided to s)end Christ$as in the Phili))ines and bought F round*tri) ?S*Manila tic#ets fro$ @orthwest Airlines. 5n the return tri) (Manila*?S) they were rudely infor$ed that they cannot be acco$$odated because their su))osed flight was already ta#ing off and the ti$e on their tic#ets was wrong. 4r. Ar$o(it was unable to #ee) his a))oint$ents with his ?S )atients he and his fa$ily suffered anguish wounded feelings and serious an+iety until they were finally able to fly bac# to the ?S. They filed an action for da$ages in the Manila 7TC after
7e$e$ber 7a$os (s. CA where te$)erate da$ages were awarded for continuing in!ury
Pleno 1. &A
+A&TS: A red 2ord cargo truc# hit a blue Gol#swagen #o$bi dri(en by Pleno causing it to hit a cargo truc# )ar#ed along the shoulder hitting its dri(er who was urinating in front of it. Pleno was seriously in!ured and was confined for K $onths in Ma#ati Med and had to undergo K surgeries. Pleno filed a co$)laint for da$ages against the owner of the red truc# and its dri(er. C2I ruled in fa(or of Pleno. CA reduced the

a$ount of da$ages for being e+cessi(e (Te$)erate< 0//6 & -//6 $oral< 0//6 & -//6). ISS5E: '5@ the reduction of da$ages was )ro)er. 4EL0: @o. The lower courtAs award of da$ages are $ore in consonance with the factual circu$stances of the case. 9ach ite$ of da$ages is ade,uately su))orted by e(idence. )emperate damages were based on the impairment of income of actual capacity .since the actual income of ,leno as president of Mayon Ceramics company was not proven0. 0O&TRINE: Te$)erate da$ages $ay be ]awarded in cases where definite )roof of )ecuniary loss cannot be offered but the court is con(inced that there was an in!ury or loss.
60
&LASS NOTES
2act of loss established but A4 cannot be )ro(ed
Art. 222#. 'hen the breach of the contract co$$itted by the defendant is not the one conte$)lated by the )arties in agreeing u)on the li,uidated da$ages the law shall deter$ine the $easure of da$ages and not the sti)ulation.
Peo-le 1. PlaFo
+A&TS: 9dison PlaLo bo+ed and stabbed 7o$eo 2abula. PlaLo was con(icted of $urder. ISS5E: '5@ te$)erate da$ages should be awarded. 4EL0: Bes. Te$)erate da$ages under Art. 0001 $ay be reco(ered where it has been shown that the (icti$As fa$ily suffered so$e )ecuniary loss but the a$ount thereof cannot be )ro(ed with certainty. -K6 as te$)erate da$ages was awarded.
+. E?e(-lar) or &orre'ti1e
Art. 222$. 9+e$)lary or correcti(e da$ages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good in addition to the $oral te$)erate li,uidated or co$)ensatory da$ages. Art. 22A@. In criminal offenses e+e$)lary da$ages as a )art of the ci(il liability $ay be i$)osed when the cri$e was co$$itted with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such da$ages are se)arate and distinct fro$ fines and shall be )aid to the offended )arty. Art. 22A . In ,uasi*delicts e+e$)lary da$ages $ay be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. Art. 22A2. In contracts and ,uasi*contracts the court $ay award e+e$)lary da$ages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, rec4less, oppressive, or malevolent manner. Art. 22AA. 9+e$)lary da$ages cannot be recovered as a matter of right= the court will decide whether or not they should be ad!udicated. Art. 22A%. 'hile the a$ount of the e+e$)lary da$ages need not be )ro(ed the )laintiff must show that he is entitled to $oral te$)erate or co$)ensatory da$ages before the court $ay consider the ,uestion of whether or not e+e$)lary da$ages should be awarded. In case li,uidated da$ages ha(e been agreed u)on although no )roof of loss is necessary in order that such li,uidated da$ages $ay be reco(ered ne(ertheless before the court $ay consider the ,uestion of granting e+e$)lary in addition to the li,uidated da$ages the )laintiff $ust show that he would be entitled to $oral te$)erate or co$)ensatory da$ages were it not for the sti)ulation for li,uidated da$ages. Art. 22AB. A sti)ulation whereby e+e$)lary da$ages are renounced in ad(ance shall be null and (oid.
&LASS NOTES
E. Li;,idated
Casis< Frd )arties are not bound by the sti)ulation of L4 in the contract. *2or L4< )ro(e breach *2or M4 on to) of L4< )ro(e breach P ;2 Art. 222". Li,uidated da$ages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract to be )aid in case of breach thereof. Art. 222!. Li,uidated da$ages whether intended as an I@49M@ITB 57 A P9@ALTB shall be e5uitably reduced if they are ini5uitous or unconscionable.
Can A4 and T4 be warded at the sa$e ti$eJ B9S in 7a$os (s. CA & but sir says itAs an aberration since T4 is awarded when there is no basis for A4
Peo-le 1. Sin/h
+A&TS: 4al(ir et al ganged u) on Surinder #illing hi$. 4ilbag who was cleaning his $otorbi#e nearby tried to sto) the attac# but he too was stabbed. The accused were con(icted of $urder and frustrated $urder. Lower courts awarded hos)italiLation and $edical e+)enses actual da$ages ci(il inde$nity $oral da$ages attorneyAs fees and co$)ensation for loss of earning ca)acity. ISS5E: '5@ da$ages should be awarded. 4EL0: Bes although award for loss of earning ca)acity should be deleted. Such A'A74S PA7TA69 52 4AMA"9S 'EICE
M?ST ;9 P75G9@ @5T 5@LB ;B C794I;L9 A@4 SATIS2ACT57B
&LASS NOTES L4 intended as inde$nity or )enalty Curis< L4 (s. Penal clause *intent behind L4 )enalty is deterrent *L4 is $easure of da$age which does not $atter in )enalty *L4 is )ercei(ed loss if other )arty does not co$)ly with his obligation because A4 would be difficult to deter$ine ;ut in A0003< 8inde$nity or )enalty:
(Such as inco$e ta+ re)orts). ;are allegation is insufficient. @e(ertheless considering that the 0E+INITE PROO+ O+ PE&5NIARY LOSS
9GI49@C9 ;?T ALS5 ;B ?@;IAS94 P7552 &ANNOT BE O++ERE0 AN0 T4E +A&T T4AT LOSS 4AS BEEN
a))ellants should )ay the heirs of the (icti$ te$)erate da$ages.

ESTABLIS4E0
61
&LASS NOTES
94 and @4< @4 (indicates right ^ declaratory relief 94 is )enalty*li#e
PNB 1. &A A)ril 0 -..>

+A&TS: Tan owned a )arcel of land which was e+)ro)riated by the go(ern$ent. Ee filed a $otion wH the TC re,uesting that it issue an order for the )ay$ent of PF06 as e+)ro)riation )rice. P@; was ordered to )ay Tan the a$ount. P@; issued and deli(ered a $anagerAs chec# to Sonia "onLaga who had a S)ecial Power of Attorny su))osedly e+ecuted by Tan in her fa(or. "onLaga too# the $oney for herself. Tan de$anded )ay$ent which was refused by P@; ha(ing already )aid the a$ount to TanAs 8agent:. Tan file a $otion with the court re,uiring P@; to )ay. TC< ruled in fa(or of Tan and ordered P@; to )ay the a$ount and e+e$)lary da$ages. CA< affir$ed but deleted the award of e+e$)lary da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ e+e$)lary da$ages should be awarded to Tan. 4EL0: @o. 9+e$)lary da$ages $ay be awarded if a )arty acted in a wanton fraudulent rec#less o))ressi(e or $ale(olent $anner. It cannot be reco(ered as a $atter of right but left to the discretion of the court. Although there was a breach of P@;As obligation to Tan there is no basis for the award of e+e$)lary da$ages. 7CMEMORINED 0O&TRINE: 79O?I79M9@TS 257 TE9 A'A74 9N9MPLA7B 4AMA"9S< (-) TE9B MAB ;9 IMP5S94 ;B 'AB
TE9 CLAIMA@TAS 7I"ET T5 TE9M EAS ;99@ 9STA;LISE94. CA@@5T ;9 79C5G9794 AS A MATT97 52 52 52
+A&TS: The s)s. 4el 7osario bought roofing $aterials fro$ M2C which ad(ertised the $aterials as durable and sturdy. Less than 0 $onths after installation )ortions of the roof were blown off by a ty)hoon. M2C re)laced and re)aired the$ free of charge because of a warranty. The 4el 7osarios hired an ad!uster to deter$ine the cause of the destruction. The ad!usters found that M2C did not attach the tiles )ro)erly and the )ro!ect was hastily done. The 4el 7osarios filed a co$)laint with the 4TI and another with the 7TC to reco(er da$ages. ISS5E: '5@ the award of da$ages is !ustified. 4EL0: Bes. The awards of $oral and e+e$)lary da$ages are !ustified. M2C acted in bad faith when it flagrantly breached its e+)ress warranties $ade to the general )ublic. 0O&TRINE: 9+e$)lary da$ages $ay be i$)osed by way of e+a$)le or correction for the )ublic good. &ASIS: i$)lies that 94 is attached to M4
&LASS NOTES Eow did court arri(e at final a$ountJ Co$)are with other cases
9NAMPL9 I@ A44ITI5@ T5 C5MP9@SAT57B 4AMA"9S A@4 5@LB A2T97
(0)
TE9B TE9I7
7I"ET
49T97MI@ATI5@ 49P9@4I@" ?P5@ TE9 AM5?@T 52 C5MP9@SAT57B 4AMA"9S TEAT MAB ;9 A'A7494 T5 TE9 CLAIMA@T. 27A?4?L9@T 5PP79SSIG9 57 MAL9G5L9@T MA@@97.
(F)
TE9 ACT
M?ST ;9 ACC5MPA@I94 ;B ;A4 2AITE 57 45@9 I@ A 'A@T5@
0el Rosario 1. &A Canunary 0. -..3

Torts Magic Notes

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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 Magic Notes

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 200"

Prof. Casis _S.Y. 200 !

VI. PERSONS LIABLE A. The Tortfeasor

2or'ester 1. O'a(-o 2ebruary 03 -.-0

&ha-(an 1. 5nder8ood March 0D -.-1