Torts

San Beda College of Law
215
MEMORY AID IN CIVIL LAW
TORTS AND DAMAGES
I. TORTS
TORT
An unlawful violation of private
right, not created by contract, and which
gives rise to an action for damages.
It is an act or omission producing an
injury to another, without any previous
existing lawful relation of which the said
act or omission may be said to be a
natural outgrowth or incident.
NOTES:
An unborn child is NOT entitled to
damages. ut the bereaved parents may
be entitled to damages, on damages
inflicted directly upon them. !Geluz vs.
CA, 2 SCRA 802"
#efendants in tort cases can either
be natural or artificial being.
$orporations are civilly liable in the
same manner as natural persons.
Any person who has been injured by
reason of a tortious conduct can sue the
tortfeasor.
The primary purpose of a tort action
is to provide compensation to a person
who was injured by the tortious conduct
of the defendant.
%reventive remedy is available in
some cases.
Classes of Torts:
A. Negligent Torts
. Intentional Torts
$. &trict 'iability
A. NEGLIGENT TORTS
Involve voluntary acts or omissions
which result in injury to others without
intending to cause the same or because
the actor fails to exercise due care in
performing such acts or omissions.
NEGLIGENCE
The omission of that degree of
diligence which is re(uired by the nature
of the obligation and corresponding to
the circumstances of persons, time and
place. !Article 1173 Civil Code"
Kinds of Negligence:
1. Culpa Contractual !contractual
negligence"
)overned by $$ provisions on
Obligations and $ontracts, particularly
Arts. **+, to **+- of the $ivil $ode.
2. Culpa Aquiliana !quasi-delict"
)overned mainly by Art. .*+/ of the
$ivil $ode
3. Culpa Criminal !criinal negligence"
)overned by Art. 0/1 of the 2evised
%enal $ode.
NOTES:
The 0 3inds of negligence furnish
separate, distinct, and independent
bases of liability or causes of action.
A single act or omission may give rise
to two or more causes of action.
Cula Contractual Cula A!uiliana
The foundation of
the liability of the
defendant
is the contract
It is a separate
source of obligation
independent of
contract
In breach of contract
committed through
the negligence of
employee, the
employer cannot
erase his primary and
direct liability by
invo3ing exercise of
diligence of a good
father of a family in
the selection and
supervision of the
In (uasi4delict the
presumptive
responsibility for the
negligence of his
servants can be
rebutted by proof of
the exercise of due
care in their selection
and supervision.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON : Vida Bocar, Joyce Vidad EDP : Alnaia Ha!!iman, Doro"#y $ayon
S%BJECT HEADS: C#ri!"o&#er Rey 'ara!i(an )Per!on! and *amily Rela"ion!+, Ale,andro Ca!a-ar)Pro&er"y+, 'a. R#odora
*errer).ill! and Succe!!ion+, Ian Dominic Pua)O-li(a"ion! and Con"rac"!+, S#a Eli,a# Dumama)Sale! and /ea!e+, Jo#n S"e&#en
0uiam-ao)PAT+, C#ri!"o&#er Ca-i(ao)Credi" Tran!ac"ion!+, /i(aya Ali&ao)Tor"! and Dama(e!+, An"#ony Pur(anan)/TD+,
'a. Rica!ion Tu(adi )Con1lic"! o1 /a2+
216
employee.
Cula A!uiliana Cri"e
Only involves private
concern
Affect the public
interest
The $ivil $ode by
means of indem4
nification merely
repairs the damage
The 2evised %enal
$ode punishes or
corrects criminal act
Includes all acts in
which any 3ind of
fault or negligence
intervenes
%unished only if there
is a penal law clearly
covering them
'iability is direct and
primary in (uasi4
delict
'iability of the
employer of the
actor4employee is
subsidiary in crimes
#$ASI%DELICT
5hoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or
negligence is obliged to pay for the
damage done. !Article .*+/ $ivil $ode"
Essential Re!uisites for a !uasi%
delictual action:
*. Act or omission constituting fault or
negligence6
.. #amage caused by the said act or
omission6 and
0. $ausal relation between the damage
and the act or omission.
Tests of Negligence
*. #id the defendant in doing the
alleged negligent act use the
reasonable care and caution which
an ordinarily prudent person would
have used in the same situation7
If not then he is guilty of
negligence.
.. $ould a prudent man, in the case
under consideration, foresee harm as
a result of the course pursued7
If so, it was the duty of the actor to
ta3e precautions to guard against harm.
NOTES:
Negligence is a conduct 4 the
determination of the existence of
negligence is concerned with what the
defendant did or did not do
The state of mind of the actor is
not important6 good faith or use of
sound judgment is immaterial. The
existence of negligence in a given
case is not determined by reference
to the personal judgment but by the
behavior of the actor in the situation
before him. !!icart vs. Sit"#
Negligence is a conduct that creates
an undue ris3 of harm to others.
The determination of negligence is a
(uestion of foresight on the part of the
actor 8 9O2:&:AI'IT;.
:ven if a particular injury was not
foreseeable, the ris3 is still foreseeable
if possibility of injury is foreseeable.
9orseeability involves the (uestion of
%2OAI'IT;, that is, the existence of
some real li3elihood of some damage and
the li3elihood is of such appreciable
weight reasonably to induce, action to
avoid it.
Calculation of Ris&
Interests are to be balanced only in
the sense that the purposes of the actor,
the nature of his act and the harm that
may result from action or inaction are
elements to be considered.
Circu"stances to consider in
deter"ining negligence: '(EST%GA()
*. Time
.. %lace
0. :mergency
E"ergenc* rule
G$%$RA& R'&$( An individual who
suddenly finds himself in a situation
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
217
of danger and is re(uired to act
without much time to consider the
best means that may be adopted to
avoid the impending danger is not
guilty of negligence if he fails to
underta3e what subse(uently and
upon reflection may appear to be a
better solution.
$)C$!*+,%( 5hen the emergency
was brought by the individual<s own
negligence. !-alenzuela vs. CA 2.3
SCRA 303".
-. )ravity of =arm to be avoided
1. Alternative $ourse of Action
If the alternative presented to
the actor is too costly, the harm
that may result may be still be
considered unforeseeable to a
reasonable man.
/. &ocial value or utility of activity
+. %erson exposed to the ris3
GOOD +AT,ER O+ A +AMIL- 'pater
familias):
4 this is the standard of conduct used in
the %hilippines
4 a man of ordinary intelligence and
prudence or an ordinary reasonable
prudent man
a reasonable man deemed to have
3nowledge of the facts that a man should
be expected to 3now based on ordinary
human experience. /!%R vs +AC, 217
SCRA 001#
4 a prudent man who is expected to 3now
the basic laws of nature and physics, e.g.
gravity.
SPECIAL RULES
.. C/ildren
The action of the child will not
necessarily be judged according to the
standard of an adult. ut if the minor is
mature enough to understand and
appreciate the nature and conse(uence
of his actions, he will be considered
negligent if he fails to exercise due care
and precaution in the commission of such
acts.

NOTES:
The law fixes no arbitrary age at
which a minor can be said to have the
necessary capacity to understand and
appreciate the nature and conse(uence
of his acts. !*a2lor vs. 3eralco, 14 !"il
8"
Applying the provisions of the
2evised %enal $ode, >udge &angco ta3es
the view that a child who is ? or below is
conclusively presumed to be incapable of
negligence. In the other hand, if the
child is above ? years but below *1,
there is a disputable presumption of
absence of negligence.
Absence of negligence does not
necessarily mean absence of liability.
'iability without fault@ a child under
? years can still be subsidiarily liable
with his property !Art. *,,, 2%$"
Absence of negligence of the child
may not excuse the parents from their
vicarious liability under Art. .*A, N$$ or
Art. ..* 9$.
0. (/*sical Disa1ilit*
Bere wea3ness of a person will not
be an excuse in negligence cases.
=owever if defect amounts to a real
disability the standard of conduct is that
of a reasonable person under li3e
disability.
2. E3erts and rofessionals
They should exhibit the care and s3ill
of one who is ordinarily s3illed in the
particular field that he is in.
5hen a person holds himself out as
being competent to do things re(uiring
professional s3ill, he will be held liable
for negligence if he fails to exhibit the
care and s3ill of one ordinarily s3illed in
the particular wor3 which he attempts to
do.
An expert will not be judged based
on what a non4expert can foresee.
The rule regarding experts is
applicable not only to professionals who
have undergone formal education.
4. Nature of acti5it*
There are activities which by nature
impose duties to exercise a higher
degree of diligence.
$5a6les(
a. 7an8s, by the very nature of their
wor3, are expected to exercise the
highest degree of diligence in the
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
218
selection and supervision of their
employees.
b. Coon carriers are re(uired to
exercise extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over their passengers and
transported goods. !Article 1733 Civil
Code".
6. Into3ication
G$%$RA& R'&$( Bere intoxication is
not negligence, nor does the mere fact
of intoxication establish want of ordinary
care. ut it may be one of the
circumstances to be considered to prove
negligence.
$)C$!*+,%( Cnder Art. 218. o9 t"e
Civil Code, it is presumed that a person
driving a motor vehicle has been
negligent if at the time of the mishap,
he was violating any traffic regulation.
7. Insanit*
The insanity of a person does not
excuse him or his guardian from liability
based on (uasi4delict.
7ases 9or "olding an insane 6erson
lia:le 9or "is tort(
a. 5here one of two innocent persons
must suffer a loss, it should be borne by
the one who occasioned it.
b. To induce those interested in the
estate of the insane person to restrain
and control him.
c. The fear that an insanity would
lead to false claims of insanity and avoid
liability.
8. 9o"en
In determining the (uestion of
contributory negligence in performing
such act, the age, sex, and condition of
the passengers are circumstances
necessarily affecting the safety of the
passenger, and should be considered.
!Cangco vs. 3anila Railroad Co. GR
%o.12111, ,cto:er 10, 1118"
Although there is no une(uivocal
statement of the rule, -alenzuela vs. CA
2.3SCRA303 appears to re(uire a
different standard of care for women
under the circumstances indicated
therein.
=owever, #ean )uido $alabresi
believes that there should be a uniform
standard between a men and a women.
Ot/er +actors to Consider in
Deter"ining Negligence:
A. :IOLATION O+ R$LES AND
STAT$TES
*. &tatutes
G$%$RA& R'&$( Diolation of a
statutory duty is N:)'I):N$: %:2 &:
!Ci6riano vs. CA, 243SCRA711". 5hen the
'egislature has spo3en, the standard of
care re(uired is no longer what a
reasonably prudent man would do under
the circumstances but what the
'egislature has commanded.
$)C$!*+,%S(
a. 5hen unusual conditions occur and
strict observance may defeat the
purpose of the rule and may even
lead to adverse results.
b. 5hen the statute expressly
provides that violation of a
statutory duty merely establishes a
presumption of negligence.
NOTE: Rule as to 6roo9 o9 6ro5iate
cause
G$%$RA& R'&$( %laintiff must show
that the violation of the statute is the
proximate or legal cause of the injury
or that it substantially contributed
thereto. !Sanitar2 Stea &aundr2, +nc.
vs. CA 300SCRA20"
$)C$!*+,%( In cases where the
damage to the plaintiff is the damage
sought to be prevented by the statute.
In such cases, proof of violation of
statute and damage to the plaintiff
may itself establish proximate cause.
!*eague vs. ;ernandez .1SCRA181".
.. Administrative 2ule
Diolation of a rule promulgated by
administrative agencies is not negligence
per se but may be :DI#:N$: O9
N:)'I):N$:.
0. %rivate 2ules of $onduct.
Diolation of rules imposed by
private individuals !e.g. employers" is
merely a %O&&I': :DI#:N$: O9
N:)'I):N$:.
;. (RACTICE AND C$STOM
$ompliance with the practice and
custom in a community will not
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
219
automatically result in a finding that the
actor is not guilty of negligence. Non4
compliance with the practice or custom
in the community does not necessarily
mean that the actor was negligent.
In <aada vs. 3anila Railroad Co.,
the owner of an automobile struc3 by a
train while crossing the trac3s sought to
establish absence of negligence of its
driver by evidence of a custom of
automobile drivers of Banila by which
they habitually drove their cars over the
railroad crossings without slac3ening
speed. The &$ rejected the argument by
ruling that@ a practice which is
dangerous to human life cannot ripen
into custom which will protect anyone
who follows it.
C. COM(LIANCE 9IT, STAT$TES
$ompliance with a statute is not
conclusive that there was no negligence.
$5a6le( A defendant can still be
held liable for negligence even if he can
establish that he was driving below the
speed limit. $ompliance with the speed
limit is not conclusive that he was not
negligently driving his car.
Gross Negligence 4 Negligence where
there is Ewant of even slight care and
diligence.F
(ROO+ O+ NEGLIGENCE
G$%$RA& R'&$@
If the plaintiff alleged in his
complaint that he was damaged because
of the negligent acts of the defendant,
the plaintiff has the buren of pro!in"
such ne"li"ence. !*a2lor vs. 3$RA&C,
14!"il8"
The (uantum of proof re(uired is
6re6onderance o9 evidence. !Rule 133
Revised Rules o9 Court"
$)C$!*+,%S( :xceptional cases when
the rules or the law provides for cases
when negligence is presumed.
A. %resumptions of Negligence
B. 2es Ipsa 'o(uitur
A. (resu"tions of Negligence
*. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner
is presumed negligent if he was in the
vehicle and he could have used due
diligence to prevent the misfortune.
!Article 2180 Civil Code"
.. It is disputably presumed that a
driver was negligent if he had been
found guilty of rec3less driving or
violating traffic regulations at least
twice for the next preceding two
months. !Article 2180 Civil Code"
0. The driver of a motor vehicle is
presumed negligent if at the time of the
mishap, he was violating any traffic
regulation. !Article 218. Civil Code"
4. G$%$RA& R'&$( %rima facie
presumption of negligence of the
defendant arises if death or injury
results from his possession of dangerous
weapons or substance.
$)C$!*+,%( 5hen such possession or
use is indispensable to his occupation or
business. !Article 2188 Civil Code"
5. G$%$RA& R'&$( %resumption of
negligence of the common carrier arises
in case of loss, destruction or
deterioration of the goods, or in case of
death or injury of passengers.
$)C$!*+,%( Cpon proof of exercise of
extraordinary diligence.
;. Res Isa Lo!uitur
E*"e t"ing or transaction s6ea8s 9or
itsel9.F
It is a rule of evidence peculiar to
the law of negligence which recogniGes
that prima facie negligence may be
established in the absence of direct
proof, and furnishes a substitute for
specific proof of negligence.
Re!uisites of Res Isa Lo!uitor:
*. The accident was of a 3ind which
ordinarily does not occur in the
absence of someone<s negligence6
.. The instrumentality which caused
the injury was under the exclusive
control and management of the
person charged with negligence6 and
0. The injury suffered must not have
been due to any voluntary action or
contribution on the part of the
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
220
person injured6 absence of
explanation by the defendant.
In A9rica vs. Calte5 /!"il.# +nc. 3ar
31, 1144, defendant $altex was liable for
damage done to the property of its
neighbors when fire bro3e out in a $altex
service station. The gasoline station,
with all its appliances, e(uipment and
employees, was under the control of the
defendant. The persons who 3new how
the fire started were the defendant and
its employees, but they gave no
explanation whatsoever.
The doctrine is not applicable if
there is direct proof of absence or
presence of negligence. !S.=. 3artinez,
et al vs. >illia -an 7us8ir8"
A++IRMATI:E D$TIES AND
MISCELLANEO$S ACTI:ITIES:
.. Dut* to Rescue
A. #uty to the rescuer
The defendants are liable for the
injuries to persons who rescue people in
distress because of the acts or omissions
of the said defendants.
There is liability to the rescuer
and the law does not discriminate
between the rescuer oblivious to the
peril and the one who counts the costs.
The ris3 of rescue, if only not
wanton, is born of the occasion.
One who was hurt trying to
rescue another who was injured through
negligence may recover damages.
!Santiago vs. =e leon CA-GR %o.14180-R
3arc" 21, 1140"
#anger of personal injury or
death.
. #uty to rescue
G$%$RA& R'&$( There is no general
duty to rescue6 a person is not liable for
(uasi4delict even if he did not help a
person in distress.
$)C$!*+,%S( A limited duty to rescue
is imposed in certain cases@
Abandonment of persons in danger and
abandonment of one<s own victim is
considered, under certain circumstances
as a crime against security !Article 27.
R!C"6 and
No driver of a motor vehicle concerned
in a vehicular accident shall leave the
scene of the accident without aiding the
victim unless he is excused from doing
so. /Section .. RA 0134 ?&and
*rans6ortation and tra99ic Code@#
0. O<ners= (rorietors and (ossessors
of (roert*
G$%$RA& R'&$( The owner has no duty
to ta3e reasonable care towards a
trespasser for his protection or even to
protect him from concealed danger.
NOTE: #amage to any person resulting
from the exercise of any rights of
ownership is damage without injury
/=anu a:sque inAuria#
$)C$!*+,%S(
a. Disitors and tolerated possession
The owner is still liable if the
plaintiff is inside his property by
tolerance or by implied permission.
Owners of buildings or
premises owe duty of care to
visitors.
b. #octrine of Attractive Nuisance
One who maintains on his premises
dangerous instrumentalities or
appliances of a character li3ely to
attract children in play, and who
fails to exercise ordinary care to
prevent children from playing
therewith or resorting thereto, is
liable to a child of tender years who
is injured thereby, even if the child
is technically a trespasser in the
premises.
NOTE: A swimming pool or pond or
reservoir of water is NOT considered
attractive nuisance. !Bidalgo
$nter6rises vs. 7aladan 11 !"il 088"
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
221
c. &tate of Necessity
The owner of a thing has no right
to prohibit the interference of
another with the same if the
interference is necessary to avert
imminent danger and the threatened
damage, compared to the damage
arising to the owner from the
interference, is much greater.
It is also a recogniGed justifying
circumstance under the 2%$.
In both the $ivil $ode and the 2%$,
the owner may demand from the
person benefited, indemnity for the
damages.
$se of roerties t/at in>ures anot/er
An owner cannot use his property in
such a manner as to injure the rights of
others. !Article 031 Civil Code".
=ence the exercise of the right of
the owner may give rise to an action
based on (uasi4delict if the owner
negligently exercises such right to the
prejudice of another.
&ia:ilit2 o9 !ro6rietors o9 :uildings
New $ivil $ode include provisions
that apply to proprietors of a building or
structure which involve affirmative duty
of due care in maintaining the same@
Articles .*?, and .*?*.
Third persons who suffered damages
may proceed only against the engineer or
architect or contractor if the damage
referred to in Articles .*?, and
.*?*should be a result of any defect in
construction.
Nevertheless, actions for damages
can still be maintained under Article
.*+/ for damages resulting from
proprietor<s failure to exercise due care
in the maintenance of his building and
that he used his property in such a way
that he injured the property of another.
2. E"lo*ers and E"lo*ees
A. E"lo*ers
Actions for (uasi4delict can still be
maintained even if employee<s
compensation is provided for under
the 'abor $ode.
In (uasi4delictual actions against the
employer, the employee may use the
provisions of the 'abor $ode which
imposes upon the employer certain
duties with respect to the proper
maintenance of the wor3 place or
the provisions of ade(uate facilities
to ensure the safety of the
employees.
Articles *+** and *+*. of the $ivil
$ode impose liability without fault
on the part of the employers.
;. E"lo*ees
:mployees are bound to exercise due
care in the performance of their
functions for the employers6 absence
such due care, the employee may be
held liable.
4. ;an&s
The business of ban3s is one affected
by public interest. ecause of the
nature of its functions, a ban3 is under
obligation to treat the accounts of its
depositors with "eticulous care, always
having in mind the fiduciary nature of
their relationship. !!7C vs. CA ?1117@"
6. Co""on carriers
9rom the nature of their business
and for reasons of public policy, they are
bound to exercise extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over the goods
and the safety of the passengers.
The case against the common carrier
is for the enforcement of an obligation
arising from breach of contract.
The same act which breached the
contract may give rise to an action based
on (uasi delict. /Air ;rance vs
Carrascoso, &21038, Se6t. 28, 1114#
7. Doctors
A. &TAN#A2# O9 $A2:
The proper standard is whether,
the physician if a general 6ractitioner,
has exercised the degree of care and
s3ill of the average (ualified
practitioner, ta3ing into account the
advances in the profession.
A physician who holds himself out
as a s6ecialist should be held to the
standard of care and s3ill of the average
member of the profession practicing the
specialty, ta3ing into account the
advances in the profession.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
222
. T=: $A%TAIN O9 T=: &=I% #O$T2IN:
The head surgeon is made liable
for everything that goes wrong within
the four corners of the operating room.
It enunciates the liability of the
surgeon not only for the wrongful acts of
those under his physical control but also
those wherein he has extension of
control.
$. NOT 5A22ANTO2&
%hysicians are not warrantors of
cures or insurers against personal injuries
or death of the patient.
#. %2OO9
$56ert testion2 should be offered
to prove that the circumstances are
constitutive of conduct falling below the
standard of care employed by other
physicians in good standing when
performing the same operation.
Bedical malpractice can also be
established by relying on the doctrine of
res i6sa loquitor6 in which case the need
of expert testimony is dispensed with
because the injury itself provides the
proof of negligence. !Raos vs. CA, GR
%o.1203.0, =ece:er 21, 1111"
:xample@ The doctrine was applied
in a case of removal of the wrong part of
the body when another part was
intended.
#$o pron"e e!ience%
a. :vidence as to the recogniGed
standards of the medical community
in the particular 3ind of case6 and
b. A showing that the physician
departed from this standard in his
treatment.
&our elements in meical
ne"li"ence cases: duty, breach, injury
and proximate causation
:. 'IAI'IT; O9 =O&%ITA'& AN#
$ON&C'TANT&
There is no employer4employee
relationship between the hospital and a
physician admitted in the said hospital<s
medical staff as an active or visiting
consultant which would hold the
hospital liable solidarily liable for the
injury suffered by a patient under Article
.*A, of the $ivil $ode. !Raos vs. CA GR
%o 1203.0, A6ril 11, 2002"
The contract between the
consultant an the patient is separate
and distinct the contract between the
hospital an the patient. The 9irst has
for its object the rendition of medical
services by the consultant to the patient,
while the second concerns the provision
by the hospital of facilities and services
by its staff such as nurses and laboratory
personnel necessary for the proper
treatment of the patient. !Raos vs. CA
GR %o 1203.0, A6ril 11, 2002"
8. La<*ers
An attorney is not bound to exercise
extraordinary diligence but only a
reasonable degree of care and s3ill,
having reference to the business he
underta3es to do.
DE+ENSES IN NEGLIGENCE CASES
Kinds of defenses:
A. $omplete 8 completely bars
recovery
. %artial 8 mitigates liability
.. (LAINTI++S COND$CT AND
CONTRI;$TOR- NEGLIGENCE
a. Plaintiffs o$n ne"li"ence as the
pro'imate cause
5hen the plaintiffs own negligence
was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages. !Article 2171
Civil Code"
b. Contributor( ne"li"ence
$onduct on the part of the injured
party contributing as a legal cause
to the harm he has suffered which
falls below the standard to which
he is re(uired to conform for his
own protection. !-alenzuela vs. CA
2.3SCRA303"
If the plaintiffs negligence was
only contributory, the immediate
and proximate cause of the injury
being the defendant<s lac3 of due
care, the plaintiff may recover
damages but the courts shall
mitigate the damages to be
awarded !Article 2171 Civil Code".
Doctrine of Co"arati5e
Negligence
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
223
The
relative degree of negligence of
the parties is considered in
determining whether and to what
degree, either should be
responsible for his negligence
!a66ortionent o9 daages#.
This is
the doctrine being applied in our
jurisdiction wherein the
contributory negligence of the
plaintiff does not completely bar
recovery but merely results in
mitigation of liability6 it is a partial
defense.
The
court is free to determine the
extent of the mitigation of the
defendant<s liability depending
upon the circumstances.
0. IM($TED CONTRI;$TOR-
NEGLIGENCE
Negligence is imputed if the actor is
different from the person who is
being made liable.
The defendant will be subject to
mitigated liability even if the
plaintiff was not himself personally
negligent but because the negligence
of another is imputed to the
plaintiff.
It is applicable if the negligence was
on the part of the person for whom
the plaintiff is responsible, and
especially, by negligence of an
associate in the transaction where he
was injured.
2. +ORT$ITO$S E:ENTS
Essential requisites%
a. The cause of the unforeseen and
unexpected occurrence, or of the
failure of the debtor to comply
with his obligation, must be
independent of the human will6
b. It must be impossible to foresee
the event which constitutes the
Ecaso fortuito,F or if it can be
foreseen, it must be impossible to
avoid6
c. The occurrence must be such as to
render it impossible for the debtor
to fulfill his obligation in a normal
manner6 and
d. The obligor must be free from any
participation in the aggravation of
the injury resulting to the creditor.
NOTE: 5hen an act of )od concurs
with the negligence of defendant to
produce an injury, the defendant is
liable if the injury would not have
resulted but for his own negligent
conduct or omission. The whole
occurrence is humaniGed and removed
from the rules applicable to acts of
)od. !%A!,C,R vs. CA ?1113@"
G$%$RA& R'&$( It is a complete
defense and a person is not liable if
the cause of the damage is a fortuitous
event.
$)C$!*+,%( It is merely a partial
defense and the courts may mitigate
the damages if the loss would have
resulted in any event !Art. 221./0#
Civil Code".
4. ASS$M(TION O+ RISK
)olenti non fit in*uria@ One is not
legally injured if he has consented to the
act complained of or was willing that it
should occur.
It is a complete defense.
Elements(
a. The plaintiff must 3now that the
ris3 is present6
b. =e must further understand its
nature6 and that
c. =is choice to incur it is free and
voluntary.
+I,-S%
a. E3ress <ai5er of t/e rig/t to
reco5er
There is assumption of ris3 if the
plaintiff, in advance has expressly
waived his right to recover damages for
the negligent act of the defendant.
NOTE: A person cannot contract away his
right to recover damages resulting from
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
224
negligence. &uch waiver is contrary to
public policy and cannot be allowed.
=owever, the waiver contemplated by
this prohibition is the waiver of the right
to recover :e9ore the negligent act was
committed.
If waiver was made a9ter the cause
of action accrued, the waiver is valid and
may be construed as a condonation of
the obligation.
1. I"lied Assu"tions
i. =angerous Conditions
A person who, 3nowing that he
is exposed to a dangerous condition
voluntarily assumes the ris3 of such
dangerous condition may not recover
from the defendant who maintained
such dangerous conditions.
:xample@ A person who main4
tained his house near a railroad trac3
assumes the usual dangers attendant
to the opera4tion of a locomotive.
!Rodrigueza vs. 3anila Railroad Co.,
GR %o. 1.488, %ov. 11, 1121".
ii. Contractual Relations
There may be implied
assumption of ris3 if the plaintiff
entered into a contractual relation
with the defendant. y entering into
a relationship freely and voluntarily
where the negligence of the
defendant is obvious, the plaintiff
may be found to accept and consent
to it.
:HAB%':&@
a" The employees assume the
ordinary ris3s inherent in the
industry in which he is employed.
4 As to abnormal ris3s, there
must be cogent and convincing
evidence of consent.
b" 5hen a passenger boards a
common carrier, he ta3es the ris3s
incidental to the mode of travel he
has ta3en.
iii. =angerous Activities
%ersons who voluntarily
participate in dangerous activities
assume the ris3s which are usually
present in such activities.
:HAB%':@ A professional
athlete is deemed to assume the
ris3s of injury to their trade.
iv. =e9endantCs negligence
5hen the plaintiff is aware of
the ris3 created by the defendant<s
negligence, yet he voluntarily
decided to proceed to encounter it,
there is an implied admission.
:HAB%':@ If the plaintiff has
been supplied with a product which
he 3nows to be unsafe, he is deemed
to have assumed the ris3 of using
such unsafe product.
6. DEAT, O+ T,E DE+ENDANT
#eath of the defendant does not
extinguish the obligation based on (uasi4
delict.
An action survives even if the
defendant dies during the pendency of
the case if the case is an action to
recover for an injury to persons or
property by reason of tort committed by
the deceased. It is no defense at all.
7. (RESCRI(TION
An action based on (uasi4delict
prescribes in four years from the date of
the accident. !Article 1104 Civil Code"
Relations ;ac& Doctrine
An act done at one time is
considered by fiction of law to have
been done at some antecedent
period. !Allied 7an8ing Cor6 vs. CA,
1181"
:HAB%':@ A doctor negligently
transfused blood to a patient that
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
225
was contaminated with =ID. If the
effect became apparent only after
five !1" years, the four !-" year
prescriptive period should commence
only when it was discovered.
8. IN:OL$NTARINESS
It is a complete defense in (uasi4
delict cases and the defendant is
therefore not liable if force was exerted
on him. !Aquino, *orts and =aages"
:HAB%':@ 5hen the defendant was
forced to drive his vehicle by armed
men. =e was, at pain of death, forced to
drive at a very fast clip because the
armed men were escaping from the
policemen. The defendant cannot be
held liable, if a bystander is hit as a
conse(uence.
CA$SATION
(ro3i"ate Cause
That cause which in natural and
continuous se(uence, unbro3en by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, without which the result would
not have occurred.
Re"ote Cause
That cause which some independent
force merely too3 advantage of to
accomplish something not the natural
effect thereof.
Nearest Cause
That cause which is the last lin3 in
the chain of events6 the nearest in point
of time or relation.
%roximate cause is not necessarily
the nearest cause but that which is the
procuring efficient and predominant
cause.
Concurrent Causes
The actor is liable even if the active
and substantially simultaneous operation
of the effects of a third person<s
innocent, tortious or criminal act is also
a substantial factor in bringing about the
harm so long as the actor<s negligent
conduct actively and continuously
operate to bring about harm to another.
!A9rica vs. Calte5"
5here several causes producing the
injury are concurrent and each is an
efficient cause without which the injury
would not have happened, the injury
may be attributed to all or any of the
causes and recovery may be had against
any or all of the responsible persons.
5here the concurrent or successive
negligent acts or omissions of two or
more persons, although acting
independently, are in combination the
direct and proximate cause of a single
injury to a third person, and it is
impossible to determine what proportion
each contributed to the injury, either of
them is responsible for the whole injury,
even though his act alone might not have
caused the entire injury6 they become
joint tort4feasors and are solidarily liable
for the resulting damage under Article
.*?- of the $ivil $ode.
NOTE: %rimary cause remains the
proximate cause even if there is an
intervening cause which merely
cooperated with the primary cause and
which did not brea3 the chain of
causation.
Tests of (ro3i"ate Cause
*Do-6art test
*. $ause4in4fact Test
.. %olicy Test
NOTE: In determining the proximate
cause of the injury, it is first necessary
to determine if the defendant<s
negligence was the cause4in4fact of the
damage to the plaintiff. !Cause-in-9act
test"
If the
defendant<s negligence was not
the cause4in4fact, the in(uiry
stops.
If it is, the in(uiry shifts to the
(uestion of limit of the defendant<s
liability. !!olic2 test"
CA$SE%IN%+ACT TESTS:
1. .ut/&or #est
The defendant<s conduct is the
cause4in4fact if damage would not have
resulted had there been no negligence
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
226
on the part of the defendant.
$onversely, defendant<s negligent
conduct is not the cause in fact of the
plaintiff<s damage if the accident could
not have been avoided in the absence
thereof.
2. Substantial &actor test
The conduct is the cause4in4fact of
the damage if it was a su:stantial 9actor
in producing the injuries.
In order to be a substantial factor in
producing the harm, the causes set in
motion by the defendant must continue
until the moment of the damage or at
least down the setting in motion of the
final active injurious force which
immediately produced or preceded the
damage.
NOTE: If the defendant<s conduct was
already determined to be the cause in
fact of the plaintiff<s damage under the
:ut 9or test, it is necessarily the cause in
fact of the damage under the su:stantial
9actor test.

3. ,ESS #est
The candidate condition may still be
termed as a cause where it is shown to
be a necessary element in just one of
several co-6resent causal set each
independently sufficient for the effect.
T<o <a*s 1* </ic/ co%resence "a*
"anifest itself:
a. -uplicati!e causation
5hen two or more sets operate
simultaneously to produce the
effect6 the effect is over4
determined.
b. Pre/empti!e causation
5hen, though coming about first in
time, one causal set tru6s another
potential set lur3ing in the
bac3ground6 the causal potency of
the latter is frustrated.
0ultiple causation
If there are a number of candidate
conditions, which, ta3en one at a time,
would not in fact have been sufficient to
cause the accident and the accident was
a cumulative effect of all the candidate
conditions.
(olic* Tests:
*. 9oreseeability Test
.. Natural and %robable $onse(uence
Test
0. Natural and Ordinary or #irect
$onse(uence Test
-. =indsight Test
1. Orbit of 2is3 Test
/. &ubstantial 9actor Test
(olic* Tests "a* 1e di5ided into T<o
Grous:
.. +ORESIG,T (ERS(ECTI:E?
+ORESEEA;ILIT- TESTS
The defendant is not liable for the
unforeseeable conse(uences of his acts
'iability is limited within the ris3
created by defendants< negligent acts.
0. DIRECT (ERSE(ECTI:E? DIRECT
COSE#$ENCES TESTS
The defendant is liable for damages
which are beyond the ris3.
#irect conse(uences are those which
follow in se(uence from the effect of
defendants act upon conditions existing
and forces already in operation at the
time without intervention of any
external forces, which come into active
operation later.
Tests alied in t/e (/iliines:
New $ivil $ode has a chapter on
#amages which specifies the 3ind of
damage for which the defendant may be
held liable and the extent of damage to
be awarded to the plaintiff.
Cause%in%fact Tests:
*. ut4for test
.. &ubstantial 9actor test
0. N:&& test
(olic* test@ The directness approach
is being applied in this jurisdiction.
NOTE: The definition of proximate cause
which includes the element of foresight
is not consistent with the express
provision of the Article ..,. of the New
$ivil $ode6 a person may be held liable
whether the damage to the plaintiff may
be unforeseen.
Cause and Conditions
It is no longer practicable to
distinguish between cause and
condition.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
227
The defendant may be liable even if
only created conditions, if the conditions
resulted in harm to either person or
property.
:HAB%':& of =angerous Conditions(
*. Those that are inherently
dangerous
.. Those where a person places a
thing which is not dangerous in itself in a
dangerous position.
0. Those involving products and
other things which are dangerous
because they are defective.
Efficient Inter5ening Cause
One which destroys the causal
connection between the negligent act
and the injury and thereby negatives
liability.
There is NO efficient intervening
cause if the force created by the
negligent act or omission have either@
*. 2emained active itself, or
.. $reated another force which
remained active until it directly
caused the result, or
0. $reated a new active ris3 of
being acted upon by the active force
that caused the result.
:HAB%':@ The medical findings, show
that the infection of the wound by
tetanus was an efficient intervening
cause later or between the time >avier
was wounded to the time of his death.
!!eo6le vs. Rellin 77 !"il 1038"
NOTES:
A cause is not an intervening cause if
it was already in operation at the time
the negligent act is committed.
9oreseeable intervening causes
cannot be considered sufficient
intervening causes.
The intervention of unforeseen and
unexpected cause is not sufficient to
relieve the wrongdoer from
conse(uences of negligence if such
negligence directly and proximately
cooperates with the independent cause
in the resulting injury.
CONTRI;$TOR- NEGLIGENCE
A. (laintiff@s negligence is t/e cause
%laintiff<s negligence is not
contributory if it is necessary and
sufficient to produce the result.
:HAB%':&(
*. Only the plaintiff was negligent.
.. #efendant<s negligence is not a
part of the causal set which is a part of
the causal chain.
0. %laintiff<s negligence was pre4
emptive in nature.
;. Co"ound Causes
%laintiff<s negligence may have
duplicative effect, that it, it is sufficient
to bring about the effect but his
negligence occurs simultaneously with
the defendant6 the latter<s negligence is
e(ually su99icient but not necessar2 to
bring about the effect because damage
would still have resulted due to the
negligence of the plaintiff.
%laintiff<s negligence is not merely
contributory because it is a concurring
proximate cause.
No recovery can be had. !Aquino,
*orts and =aages"
C. (art of t/e sa"e causal set
Neither plaintiff<s negligence nor
defendant<s negligence alone is
sufficient to cause the injury6 the effect
would result only if both are present
together with normal bac3ground
conditions.
Negligence of the plaintiff
cooperated with the negligence of the
defendant in order to bring about the
injury6 determination of proximate cause
is only a matter of degree of
participation.
D. Defendant@s Negligence is t/e Onl*
cause
#efendant<s negligence was
su99icient AN# necessar2 to bring about
the injury.
=owever, if plaintiff<s negligence
increased or aggravated the resulting
damage or injury liability of the
defendant should also be mitigated
under contri:utor2 negligence rule or
under the doctrine o9 avoida:le
consequences.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
228
Doctrine of Last Clear C/ance or
Disco5ered (eril
The negligence of the plaintiff does
not preclude a recovery for the
negligence of the defendant where it
appears that the defendant, by
exercising reasonable care and
prudence, might have avoided injurious
conse(uences to the plaintiff
notwithstanding the plaintiff<s
negligence.
Alternati5e :ie<s:
.. (re5ailing 5ie<
#octrine is applicable in this
jurisdiction.
:ven if plaintiff was guilty of
antecedent negligence, the defendant is
still liable because he had the last clear
chance of avoiding the injury.
0. Minorit* :ie<
The historical function of the
doctrine was to mitigate the harshness of
the common law rule of contributory
negligence which prevented any recovery
at all by the plaintiff who was also
negligent even if his negligence was
relatively minor as compared with the
wrongful act or omission of the
defendant.
The doctrine has no role in this
jurisdiction where common law concept
of contributory negligence has itself
been rejected in Article .*+? of the $ivil
$ode.
2. T/ird :ie<
There can be no conflict between
the doctrine of last clear chance and
doctrine of comparative negligence if
the former is viewed as a rule or phrase
of proximate cause6
=owever, the doctrine of last clear
chance is no longer applicable if the
force created by the plaintiff<s
negligence continues until the happening
of the injurious event.
Cases </en t/e doctrine <as /eld
inalica1le '(ICCA)
*. If the laintif f was not negligent.
.. The party charged is re(uired to act
instantaneously , and if the injury cannot
be avoided by the application of all the
means at hand after the peril is or should
have been discovered.
0. If defendant<s negligence is a
c oncurrent cause and which was still in
operation up to the time the injury was
inflicted.
-. 5here the plaintiff, a passenger,
filed an action against a carrier based on
c ontract.
1. If the actor, though negligent, was
not a ware of the danger or ris3 brought
about by the prior fraud or negligent act.
;. INTENTIONAL TORTS
Include conduct where the actor
desires to cause the conse(uences of his
act or believes that the conse(uences
are substantially certain to result from
it.

They are found in $hapter . of the
%reliminary Title of the N$$ entitled
E=uman 2elationsF. Although this
chapter covers negligent acts, the torts
mentioned herein are mostly intentional
in nature or torts involving malice or bad
faith.
,$MAN RELATIONS
.. (rincile of A1use of Rig/ts
'ART..A)
Ele"ents:
a. 'egal right or duty6
b. The right or duty is exercised in
bad faith6 and
c. 9or the sole intent of prejudicing
or injuring another.
:HAB%':@ If the principal
unreasonably terminated an agency
agreement for selfish reasons.
!-alenzuela vs. CA, 110 SCRA 1"
NOTE: This rule is a departure from the
traditional view that a person is not
liable for damages resulting from the
exercise of ones right.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
229
0. Article 0B of t/e Ci5il Code
&pea3s of the general sanction for all
other provisions of law which do not
especially provide for their own
sanction.
NOTE: Article ., does not distinguish6
the act may be done willfully or
negligently.
2. Acts contra 1onus "ores 'Article 0.
Ci5il Code)
Ele"ents:
a. Act which is legal6
b. The act is contrary to morals, good
customs, public order or public policy6
and
c. The act is done with intent to injure.
NOTE: #amages are recoverable even if
no positive law was violated.
Kinds:
a. ;reac/ of ro"ise to "arr*
G$%$RA& R'&$( reach of promise to
marry by itself is not actionable.
$)C$!*+,%( In cases where there is
another act independent of the breach
of promise to marry which gives rise to
liability@
*. $ases where there was financial
damage.
.. &ocial humiliation caused to one of
the parties.
0. 5here there was moral seduction.
NOTES:
Boral seduction, although not
punishable, connotes the idea of deceit,
enticement, superior power or abuse of
confidence on the part of the seducer to
which the woman has yielded. !Gas"e
S"o8at 7a8s" vs. CA"
&exual intercourse is not by itself a
basis for recovery6 damages could only
be awarded if the sexual intercourse is
not a product of voluntariness or mutual
desire.
1. Seduction <it/out 1reac/ of
ro"ise to "arr*
&eduction, by itself, is also an act
contrary to morals, good customs and
public policy.
The defendant is liable if he
employed deceit, enticement, superior
power or abuse of confidence in
successfully having sexual intercourse
with another even if he satisfied his lust
without promising to marry the offended
party.
It may not even matter that the
plaintiff and the defendant are of the
same gender.
c. Se3ual assault
#efendant is liable for all forms of
sexual assault including crimes defined
under the 2%$ as rape, acts of
lasciviousness and seduction.
d. Desertion 1* a souse
A spouse has a legal obligation to live
with hisIher spouse.
If a spouse does not perform hisIher
duty to the other, he may be liable for
damages for such omission because the
same is contrary to law, morals, good
customs and public policy.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
230
e. Tresass and Deri5ation of
(roert*
. JIN#&@
1# *res6ass to andEor
de6rivation o9 real 6ro6ert2
'iability for damages under
the 2%$ and Article -1* of the $ivil
$ode re(uires intent or bad faith.
Article --A of the $ivil $ode
in relation to Article -1/ does not
permit action for damages where the
builder, planter, or sower acted in
good faith. The landowner is limited
to the options given to him under
article --A, that is to appropriate
whatever is built or planted or to
compel the builder or planter to
purchase the portion encroached
upon. !A(uino, Torts and #amages"
A builder in good faith who
acted negligently may be held liable
under Art. .*+/ N$$.
2# *res6ass to or de6rivation o9
6ersonal 6ro6ert2
In the field of tort, trespass
extends to all cases where a person
is deprived of his personal property
even in the absence of criminal
liability.
NOTE: It may cover cases where the
defendant was deprived of personal
property for the purpose of obtaining
possession of real property
:HAB%':@ The defendant
who was landlord, was held liable
because he deprived the plaintiffs,
his tenants, of water in order to
force them to vacate the lot they
were cultivating. !3ag:anua vs. +AC
137 SCRA 3.2"
3# =isconnection o9 electricit2
or gas service
The right to disconnect and
deprive the customer, who
unreasonably fails to pay his bills, of
electricity should be exercised in
accordance with the law and rules.
:xample@ If a company disconnects
the electricity service without prior
notice as re(uired by the rules, the
company commits a tort under
Article .* N$$.
f. A1ortion and 9rongful Deat/
#amages may be recovered by both
spouses if@
*" the abortion was caused
through the physician<s negligence, or
." was done intentionally
Dit"out t"eir consent
=usband of a woman who voluntarily
procured her abortion may recover
damages from the physician who caused
the same on account of distress and
mental anguish attendant to the loss of
the unborn child and the disappointment
of his parental expectation. !Geluz vs.
CA 2SCRA802"
g. Illegal Dis"issal
The right of the employer to dismiss
an employee should not be confused with
the manner in which the right is
exercised and the effects flowing
therefrom6
If the dismissal was done anti4
socially and oppressively, the employer
should be deemed to have violated
Article *+,* of the $ivil $ode !which
prohibits acts of oppression by either
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
231
capital or labor against the other" and
Article .* N$$.
An employer may be held liable for
damages if the manner of dismissing is
contrary to morals good customs and
public policy.
:HAB%':@ 9alse imputation of
misdeed to justify dismissal or any
similar manner of dismissal which is done
abusively.
/. Malicious (rosecution
An action for damages brought by
one against another whom a criminal
prosecution, civil suit, or other legal
proceeding has been instituted
maliciously and without probable cause,
after the termination of such
prosecution, suit or proceeding in favor
of the defendant therein.
The gist of the action is putting legal
process in force regularly, for mere
purpose of vexation or injury. !=rilon vs.
CA ?1117@"
Ele"ents:
*. The fact of the prosecution and
the further fact that the defendant was
himself the prosecutor6 and that the
action was finally terminated with an
ac(uittal6
.. That in bringing the action, the
prosecutor acted without probable
cause6
0. The prosecutor was actuated or
impelled by legal malice.
NOTES:
Balice is the inexcusable intent to
injure, oppress, vex, annoy or humiliate.
%resence of probable cause signifies
absence of malice.
Absence of malice signifies good
faith on the part of the defendant6 good
faith may even be based on mista3e of
law.
Ac(uittal presupposes that a criminal
information is filed in court and final
judgment rendered dismissing the case6
nevertheless, prior ac(uittal may include
dismissal by the prosecutor after
preliminary investigation. !Glo:e 3ac8a2
and Radio Cor6. vs. CAF 3anila Gas Cor6
vs. CA"
i. (u1lic ,u"iliation
#amages may be awarded in cases
where the plaintiff suffered humiliation
through the positive acts of the
defendant directed against the plaintiff.
:xample@ The defendant was held
liable for damages under Art. .* for
slapping the plaintiff in public. !!atricio
vs. Bon. ,scar &eviste, ?1181@"
NOTES:
Cnder Article .*, damages are
recoverable even though no positive law
was violated.
An action can only prosper when
damage, material or otherwise, was
suffered by the plaintiff. An action
based on Articles *?4.* will be dismissed
if the plaintiff merely see3s
GrecognitionH.
Cnder Articles *? and .*, the
defendant may li3ewise be guilty of a
tort even if he acted in good 9ait".
!Grand 'nion Su6erar8et vs. $s6ino"
TORTS AGAINST ,$MAN DIGNIT-
T-(ES:
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
232
.. :iolation of t/e rig/t of ri5ac*
Reasona:leness o9 a 6ersonCs
e56ectation o9 6rivac2 de6ends on a
tDo-6art test(
a" 5hether by his conduct, the
individual has exhibited an
expectation of privacy.
b" 5hether this expectation is one
that the society recogniGes as
reasonable.
NOTES:
G$%$RA& R'&$@ 2ight to privacy can
be invo3ed only by natural persons6
>uridical persons cannot invo3e such
right because the entire basis of right to
privacy is an injury to the feelings and
sensibilities of a party, a corporation
would have no such ground.
$)C$!*+,%( 2ight against unreasonable
searches and seiGure can be invo3ed by a
juridical entity.
G$%$RA& R'&$@ 2ight to privacy is
purely personal in nature, hence@
*" It can be invo3ed only by the
person whose privacy is claimed to have
been violated.
." It can be subject to waiver of the
person whose privacy is sought to be
intruded into.
0" The right ceases upon the death of
the person.
$)C$!*+,%( A privilege may be given
to the surviving relatives of a deceased
person to protect his memory but the
privilege exist for the benefit of the
living, to protect their feelings and to
prevent the violation of their own rights
in the character and memory of the
deceased.
&tandard to be
applied in determining if there was a
violation of the right is that of a 6erson
Dit" ordinar2 sensi:ilities. It is relative
to the customs of time and place and is
determined by the norm of an ordinary
person.
+our T*es of In5asion of (ri5ac*
a. Intrusio
n upon plaintiff1s seclusion or solitue
or into his pri!ate affairs
It is not limited to cases where
the defendant physically trespassed into
another<s property. It includes cases
when the defendant invades one<s
privacy by loo3ing from outside
!:xample@ Epeeping4tomF".
G$%$RA& R'&$@ There is no invasion of
right to privacy when a journalist records
photographs or writes about something
that occurs in public places.
$)C$!*+,%( 5hen the acts of the
journalist should be to such extent that
it constitutes harassment or overGealous
shadowing.
The freedom of the press has never
been construed to accord newsmen
immunity from tort or crimes committed
during the course of the newsgathering.
There is no intrusion when an
employer investigates an employee or
when the school investigates its student.
2A -.,, ma3es it illegal for any
person not authoriGed by all the parties
to any private communication to secretly
record such communication by means of
a tape recorder !2amireG vs $A, &ept.
.A, *??1"
Cse of a telephone extension for
purposes of overhearing a private
conversation without authoriGation does
not violate 2A -.,,.
NOTE: There are instances where the
school might be called upon to exercise
its power over its student for acts
committed outside the school premises
and beyond school hours in the
following@
*. In cases of violation of school
policies or regulations occurring in
connection with school sponsored
activity off4campus6 or
.. In cases where the misconduct of
the student involves his status as a
student or affects the good name
and reputation of the school.
1. Publicat
ion of Embarrassin" (ri5ate +acts
Re!uisites:
*. %ublicity is given to any private
or purely personal information about
a person6
.. 5ithout the latter<s consent6 and
0. 2egardless of whether or not
such publicity constitutes a criminal
offense, li3e libel or defamation, the
circumstance that the publication
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
233
was made with intent of gain or for
commercial and business purposes
invariably serves to aggravate the
violation of the right.
%C'I$ 9I)C2: 4 A
person, who by his accomplishments,
fame or mode of living or by adopting a
profession or calling which gives the
public a legitimate interest in his doings,
his affairs and his character.
NOTE: %ublic figures, most especially
those holding responsible positions in
government enjoy a ore liited right
to privacy compared to ordinary
individuals.
The interest sought to be
protected is the right to be free from
unwarranted publicity, from the
wrongful publiciGing of the private
affairs and activities of an individual
which are outside the realm of
legitimate public concern.
The publication of facts
derived from the records of official
proceedings which are not otherwise
declared by law as confidential,
cannot be considered a tortious
conduct.
c. Publicit
( $hich places a person in a false
li"ht in the public e(e
The interest to be protected in
this tort is the interest of the
individual in not being made to
appear before the public in an
objectionable false light or false
position.
:HAB%':@ #efendant was held liable
for damages when he published an
unauthoriGed biography of a famous
baseball player exaggerating his
feats on the baseball field,
portraying him as a war hero. !S6a"n
vs. 3essner"
If the publicity given to the
plaintiff is defamatory, hence an
action for libel is also warranted6 the
action for invasion of privacy will
afford an alternative remedy.
Bay be committed by the media
by distorting a news report.
Tort of (utting
Anot/er in +alse
Lig/t
Defa"ation
1. As to "ra!amen of claim
The gravamen of
claim is not the
reputational harm
but rather the
embarrassment of a
person being made
into some4thing he is
not
The gravamen of
claim is the reputa4
tional harm
2. As to publication
The statement should
be actually made in
public
%ublication is
satisfied if a letter is
sent to a third person
3. As to the efamator( character of the
statements
#efendant may still
be held liable even if
the statements tells
something good
about the plaintiff
5hat is published
lowers the esteem in
which the plaintiff is
held
. Commer
cial appropriation of li2eness
The unwarranted publication of a
person<s name or the unauthoriGed
use of his photograph or li3eness for
commercial purposes is an invasion
of privacy.
5ith respect to celebrities,
however, the right of publicity is
often treated as a separate right
that overlaps but is distinct from the
right of privacy. They treat their
names and li3eness as property and
they want to control and profit
therefrom.
0. Interference <it/ +a"il* and ot/er
relations
The gist of the tort is an interference
with one spouse<s mental attitude
toward the other and the conjugal
3indness of marital relations
resulting in some actual conduct
which materially affects it.
It extends to all cases of wrongful
interference in the family affairs of
others whereby one spouse is
induced to leave the other spouse or
conduct himself or herself that the
comfort of married life is destroyed.
If the interference is by the parents
of the spouse, malice must be
proven.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
234
2. Intriguing to Cause Alienation
4. :e3ation and ,u"iliation
#iscrimination against a person on
account of his physical defect, which
causes emotional distress, may result
in liability on the part of the
offending party.
&exual =arassment falls under this
category.
4 a civil action separate and distinct from
the criminal action may be
commenced under 2A +A++.
4 . types of &exual harassment@
a" (uid pro (uo cases
b" hostile environment cases
TORTS 9IT, INDE(ENDENT CI:IL
ACTIONS
.. :iolation of ci5il and olitical rig/ts
'Article 20)
Although the same normally involves
intentional acts, it can also be
committed through negligence.
%ublic officer who is a defendant
cannot escape liability under the
doctrine of state immunity6 the said
doctrine applies only if acts involved
are done by officers in the
performance of their official duty
within the ambit of their powers6
officers do not act within the ambit
of their powers if they violate the
constitutional rights of persons.
0. Defa"ation= +raud= and (/*sical
in>uries 'Article 22)
A. -efamation
#efamation is an invasion of the
interest in reputation and good
name, by communication to others
which tends to diminish the esteem
in which the plaintiff is held, or to
excite adverse feelings or opinion
against him.
Includes the crime of libel and
slander.
2%$ considers the statement
defamatory if it is an imputation of
circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit or contempt of
natural or juridical person or to
blac3en the memory of one who is
dead.
Re!uisites for one to 1e lia1le
for defa"ator* i"utations:
a. It must be defamatory
b. It must be malicious
c. It must be given publicity
d. The victim must be
identifiable
NOTES:
Test in determining the
defamatory character of the
imputation@ A charge is sufficient if
the words are calculated to induce the
hearers to suppose and understand
that the personIs against whom they
were uttered were guilty of a certain
offense, or are sufficient to impeach
their honesty, virtue, or reputation, or
to hold the personIs up to public
ridicule.
#issemination to a number of
persons is not re(uired,
communication to a single individual
is sufficient publication.
G$%$RA& R'&$( :very defamatory
imputation is presumed to be
malicious, even if it be true, if no
good intention or justifiable motive
for ma3ing it is shown.
$)C$!*+,%S(
*. A private communication
made by any person to another
in the performance of any legal,
moral or social duty6 and
.. A fair and true report, made
in good faith, without any
comments or remar3s, of any
judicial, legislative or other
official proceedings which are
not of confidential nature, or of
any statement, report, or speech
delivered in said proceedings or
of any other act performed by
public officers in the exercise of
their functions.
It is not sufficient that the
offended party recogniGed himself as
the person attac3ed or defamed, it
must be shown that at least a third
person could identify him as the
object of the libelous publication.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
235
In order to escape liability, the
defendant may claim that the
statements made are privileged.
T<o &inds of ri5ileged
co""unication:
*" Absolutely privilege 8 Those
which are not actionable even if
the author acted in bad faith.
." Kualifiedly privilege 8 not
actionable unless found to have
been made without good
intention or justifiable motive.
.. &rau
Ele"ents of deceit
*"The defendant must have made
false representation to the
plaintiff
."The representation must be one
of fact
0"The defendant must 3now that
the representation is false or be
rec3less about whether it is false
-"The defendant must have acted
on the false representation
1"The defendant must have
intended that the false
representation should be acted
on
/"The plaintiff must have suffered
damage as a result of acting on
the false representation
Bal9-trut"s are
li3ewise included6 it is actionable if
the withholding of that which is not
stated ma3es that which is stated
absolutely false.
Bisrepresentati
on upon a mere matter of opinion is
not an actionable deceit.
C. Ph(sical in*uries
attery 8 an intentional infliction
of a harmful or offensive bodily
contact6 bodily contact is offensive if
it offends a reasonable person<s
sense of dignity.
Assault 8 intentional conduct by
one person directed at another
which places the latter in
apprehension of immediate bodily
harm or offensive act.
Includes bodily injuries causing
death.
%hysical injuries which resulted
because of negligence or imprudence
is not included in Article 006 they are
already covered by Article .*+/ of
the $ivil $ode.
2. Neglect of dut* 1* olice officers
'Article 24)
&ubsidiary liability of cities and
municipalities, is imposed so that
they will exercise great care in
selecting conscientious and duly
(ualified policemen and exercise
supervision over them in the
performance of their duties.
CI:IL LIA;ILIT- ARISING +ROM DELICT
:very person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable. !Article
100 R!C"
The reason is because a crime has a
dual character@ as an offense against
the &tate and against the private
person injured by it.
#ual character of crimes applies to
cases governed by special laws.
:xample@ violation of the % ..
results in criminal and civil liability.
There is civil liability even if the
offense is a public offense, li3e in
bigamy.
%ersons liable are the principal,
accomplice and accessories.
It includes restitution, reparation of
damages and indemnification of
conse(uential damages.
The rule on proximate cause in
(uasi4delict cases is applicable to
cases involving civil liability arising
from delict. Art. ..,., N$$
Circu"stances affecting Ci5il Lia1ilit*
.. Custif*ing circu"stances
#efendant is free from civil
liability if justifying circumstances
are properly establishes.
0. E3e"ting Circu"stances
They do not erase the civil
liability.
2. Mitigating and Aggra5ating
Circu"stances
#amages to be adjudicated
may either be decreased or
increased depending on the presence
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
236
of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances.
Effect of Deat/
A. #:AT= A9T:2 9INA' >C#)B:NT@
extinguishes criminal liability of the
person liable but will not extinguish
the civil liability.
. #:AT= :9O2: 9INA' >C#)B:NT@
G$%$RA& R'&$@ The defendant is
relieved from both criminal and civil
liability arising from criminal
liability.
$)C$!*+,%( In case of libel and
physical injuries wherein the
plaintiff initially opted to claim
damages in the criminal proceeding
can file another case under Article
33 o9 t"e Civil Code.
Effect of (ardon
%ardon does not erase civil liability.
5hile pardon removes the existence of
guilt so that in the eyes of the law the
offender is deemed innocent and treated
as though he never committed the
offence, it does not operate to remove
all the effects of the previous conviction.
DE+ENDANTS IN TORT CASES
Concurrent Negligence or Acts
.. Coint Tort%feasors
All the persons who
command, instigate, promote,
encourage, advice, countenance,
cooperate in, aid, or abet the
commission of a tort, or who approve of
it after it is done, if done for their
benefit6 they are each liable as a
principal, to the same extent and in the
same manner as if they have performed
the wrongful act themselves.
The responsibility of two or more
persons liable for (uasi4delict is solidary
!Article 2110 Civil Code"6 they are not
liable pro rata, they are jointly and
severally liable for the whole amount.
0. Motor 5e/icle "is/as
The owner is solidarily liable with
the driver, if the former, who was in the
vehicle, could have, by the use of due
diligence, prevented the misfortune.
&olidary liability is imposed on the
owner not because of his imputed
liability but because his own omission is
a concurring proximate cause of the
injury.
:icarious Lia1ilit* or Doctrine of
I"uted Negligence
A person is not only liable for
torts committed by himself, but also for
torts committed by others with whom he
has a certain relation or for whom he is
responsible. !Article 2180 Civil Code"
:xercise of diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage is a
defense.
Doctrine of Responeat Superior 8
the liability is strictly imputed, the
employer is liable not because of his act
or omission but because of the act or
omission of the employee6 employer
cannot escape liability by claiming that
he exercised due diligence in the
selection or supervision of the employee.
G$%$RA& R'&$( Dicarious liability in
the %hilippines is not governed by the
doctrine of res6ondeat su6erior6
employers or parents are made liable not
only because of the negligent or
wrongful act of the person for whom
they are responsible but also because of
their own negligence@
*" 'iability is imposed on the
employer because he failed to
exercise due diligence in the
selection or supervision of the
employee
." %arents are made liable because
they failed to exercise due
diligence
$)C$!*+,%( #octrine of
res6ondeat su6erior is applicable in@
*" liability of employers under
Article *,0 of the 2%$
." liability of a partnership for the
tort committed by a partner
(ersons :icariousl* Lia1le: 'Article
2134 of the Ci!il Coe5
.. T/e +at/er= or in case of deat/ or
incaacit*= "ot/er
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
237
9or damage caused by@
a" minor children
b" living in their company
This has already been modified by
Art. ..* of the 9amily $ode to the extent
that the alternative (ualification of the
liability of the father and the mother has
been removed.
NOTES:
The basis of liability for the acts
or omissions of their minor
children is the parental authority
that they exercise over them,
except for children *A to .*.
The same foreseability test of
negligence should apply to
parents when they are sought to
be held liable under Art. .*A,,
N$$
The liability is not limited to
parents, the same is also
imposed on those exercising
substitute and special parental
authority, i.e., guardian.
The liability is present only both
under Art .*A, of the N$$ and
Art ..* of the 9amily $ode if the
child is living in his parents<
company.
%arental authority is not the sole
basis of liability. A teacher in
charge is still liable for the acts
of their students even if the
minor student reaches the age of
majority.
The parents or guardians can still
be held liable even if the minor
is already emancipated provided
that he is below .* years of age.
%arents and other persons
exercising parental authority can
escape liability by proving that
they observed all the diligence
of a good father of a family to
prevent damages. !Art. .*A,"
The burden of proof rests on the
parents and persons exercising
parental authority.
0. Guardians
9or damage caused by
a. minors or incapacitated persons
b. under their authority
c. living in their company
2. O<ners and "anagers of
esta1lis/"ents
a" their employees
b" in the service of the branches in
which they are employed, or
c" on the occasion of their
functions
4. E"lo*ers
9or damages cause by@
a" employees and household
helpers
b" acting within the scope of their
assigned tas3s
c" even if the employer is not
engaged in any business or
industry
NOTES:
'iability of the employer can be
established by proving the existence of
an employer4employee relationship with
the actor and the latter caused the
injury while performing his assigned tas3
or functions.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
238
The vicarious liability attaches only
when the tortuous conduct of the
employees relates to or is in the course
of his employment.
5hile the employer incurs no
liability when an employee<s conduct,
act or omission is beyond the range of
employment, a minor deviation from the
assigned tas3 of an employee, however
does not affect the liability of an
employer. !-alenzuela vs. CA, 2.3 SCRA
303"
It is a defense that the employer
exercised proper diligence in the
selection and supervision of negligent
employee.
6. State
a" a special agent
b" not when the damage has been
caused by the official to whom the
tas3 done properly pertains
%ublic officers who are guilty of
tortuous conduct are personally liable
for their actions.
7. Sc/ools= Teac/ers and
Ad"inistrators
a" pupils and students or
apprentices
b" in their custody
statutor2 :asis@
if student is minor 8 Art. .*?, 9$
if student is no longer a minor 8
Art. .*A,, $ivil $ode
NOTES:
Applies also to teachers of
academic institutions.
'iability attaches to the teacher4
in4charge.
The school itself is now solidarily
liable with the teacher4in4
charge.
The liability extends to acts
committed even outside the
school so long as it is an official
activity of the school.
5henever the school or teacher
is being made liable, the parents
and those exercising substitute
parental authority are not free
from liability because Art. .*? of
the 9amily $ode expressly
provides that they are
subsidiarily liable.
Art. .*A, ma3es teachers and
heads liable for acts of students
and apprentices whether the
latter are minors or not.
G$%$RA& R'&$( The teacher4in4charge
is liable for the acts of his students. The
school and administrators are not liable.
$)C$!*+,%( It is only the head of the
school, not the teacher who is held liable
where the injury is caused in a school of
arts and trade.
The liability of the teacher
subsists whether the school is
academic or non4 academic.
'iability is imposed only if the
pupil is already in the custody of
the teacher or head. The student
is in the custody of the school
authorities as longs as he is
under the control and influence
of the school and within its
premises whether the semester
had not yet begun or has already
ended.
The
victim of negligence is li3ewise
re(uired to exercise due care in
avoiding injury to himself.
Ot/er (ersons :icariousl* Lia1le:
.. Inn&eeers and ,otel&eeers
They are ci!ill( liable for crimes
committed in their establishments in
cases of violations of statutes by them,
in default of persons criminally liable.
!Article 102 Revised !enal Code"
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
239
They are subsiiaril( liable for the
restitution of goods ta3en by robbery or
theft within their houses from guests
lodging therein, or for payment of the
value thereof, provided that@
a. The inn3eeper was notified in
advance of the deposit of such goods
within the inn6 and
b. The guest shall have followed the
directions which such inn3eeper or his
representative may have given with
respect to the care and vigilance over
the goods.
0. (artners/i
%artnership or every partner is liable
for torts committed by one of the
partners acting Dit"in t"e sco6e o9 t"e
9ir :usiness, though they do not
participate in, ratify, or have 3nowledge
of such torts.
%artners are liable as joint tort4
feasors.
Dicarious liability is similar to the
common law rule on res6ondeat
su6erior.
'iability is entirely imputed and the
partnership cannot obviously invo3e
diligence in the selection and supervision
of the partner.
2. Souses
a. a:solute counit2 o9 6ro6ert2
The absolute community
property shall be for liabilities incurred
by either spouses by reason of crime or
(uasi4delict in case of absence or
insufficiency of the exclusive property of
the debtor4spouse. !Article 10 ;ail2
Code"
%ayments shall be considered
advances to be deducted from the share
of the debtor spouse upon li(uidation of
the community.
:. conAugal 6artners"i6 o9 gains
G$%$RA& R'&$( %ecuniary indemni4ties
imposed upon the husband or wife are
not chargeable against the conjugal
partnership but against the separate
properties of the wrongdoer.
$)C$!*+,%( $onjugal partnership
should be made liable@
*" 5hen the profits have inured to the
benefit of the partnership, or
." If one of the spouses committed the
tort while performing a business or if the
act was supposed to benefit the
partnership.
c. regie o9 se6aration o9 6ro6ert2
:ach spouse is responsible for
hisIher separate obligation.
C. STRICT LIA;ILIT-
5hen the person is made liable
independent of fault or negligence upon
submission of proof of certain facts
specified by law.
NOTE: &trict liability tort can be
committed even if reasonable care was
exercised and regardless of the state of
mind of the actor at that time.
T-(ES:
.. Ani"als
G$%$RA& R'&$( The possessor of an
animal or whoever may ma3e use of the
same is responsible for the damages
which it may cause although it may
escape or be lost.
$)C$!*+,%( 5hen the damage was
caused by force majeure or by the
person who suffered the damage.
NOTES:
If the acts of a third person cannot
be foreseen or prevented, then the
situation is similar to that of force
majeure and the possessor is not liable.
!;rancisco, *orts and =aages"
Art. .*A0 is applicable whether the
animal is domestic, domesticated, or
wild.
0. +alling o1>ects
The head of a family that lives in a
building or a part thereof is responsible
for damages caused by things thrown or
falling from the same. !Article 2113 Civil
Code"
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
240
The term E"ead o9 t"e 9ail2F is not
limited to the owner of the building, and
it may even include the lessee thereof.
!=ingcong vs. Ianaan, 72 !"il 10"
2. Lia1ilit* of e"lo*ers
Article *+** of the N$$ imposes an
obligation on owners of enterprises and
other employers to pay for the death or
injuries to their employees.
'iability is strict because it exists
even if the cause is purely accidental.
If the mishap was due to the
employee<s own notorious negligence, or
voluntary act or drun3enness, the
employer shall not be liable for
compensation.
5hen the employee<s lac3 of due
care contri:uted to his death or injury,
the compensation shall be e(uitably
reduced.
If the death or injury is due to the
negligence of a fellow4wor3man the
latter and the employer shall be
solidarily liable for compensation.
If a 9elloD-Dor8erCs intentional or
malicious act is the only cause of the
death or injury, the employer shall not
be answerable unless it should be shown
that the latter did not exercise due
diligence in the selection or supervision
of the plaintiff<s fellow4wor3er.
4. Nuisance
Any act, omission, establishment,
business, condition of property, or
anything else which@
a. Injures or endangers the health or
safety of others6
b. Annoys or offends the senses6
c. &hoc3s, defies or disregards decency
or morality6
d. Obstructs or interferes with the free
passage of any public highway or street,
or any body of water6 or
e. =inders or impairs the user of
property. !Article 410 Civil Code"
There is strict liability on the part of
the owner or possessor of the property
where a nuisance is found because he is
obliged to abate the same irrespective of
the presence or absence of fault or
negligence.
:very successive owner or possessor
of property who fails or refuses to abate
a nuisance in that property started by a
former owner or possessor is liable
therefore in the same manner as the one
who created it. !Article 484 Civil Code"

6. (roduct lia1ilit* 1* "anufacturers
Banufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drin3s, toilet articles and
similar goods shall be liable for death or
injuries caused by any noxious or harmful
substances used, although no contractual
relation exists. !Article 2187 Civil Code"
Ot/er cases of lia1ilit* <it/out fault:
*. %roprietor of a building or structure,
for damages resulting from its total or
partial collapse, if it should be due to
lac3 of necessary repairs. .
.. reach of implied warranties.
0. $onsumer Act !2.A. +0?-" 8 any
9ilipino or foreign manufacturer,
producer and importer, independently of
fault shall be liable for redress for
damages caused to consumers by defects
resulting from@
a. design6
b. manufacture6
c. construction6
d. assembly and erection6
e. formulas and handling and
ma3ing up6 or
f. presentation or pac3ing of their
products as well as for the
insufficient or inade(uate
information on the use and haGards
thereof.
-. :ven when an act or event causing
damage to another<s property was not
due to the fault or negligence of the
defendant, the latter shall be liable for
indemnity if through the act or event he
was benefited. !Art. 23 Civil Code"
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
241
(ROD$CT AND SER:ICE LIA;ILIT-
Alternati5e t/eories on 1asis of lia1ilit*
1. &rau or misrepresentation
Not all expression of opinion are
actionable misrepresentations if they are
established to be inaccurate.
2. 6arranties
The $onsumer Act recogniGes that
the provisions of the $ivil $ode on
conditions and warranties shall govern all
contracts of sale with conditions and
warranties.
2etailer shall be subsidiarily liable
under the warranty in case of failure of
both the manufacturer and distributor to
honor the warranty.
%rivity of contract is not necessary.
3. ,e"li"ence
In product liability law, certain
standards are already imposed by special
laws, rules and regulations of proper
government agencies6 certain acts or
omissions are expressly prohibited by the
statutes thereby ma3ing violation
thereof negligence per se.
It is negligence per se if
manufacturer manufactured products
which do not comply with the safety
standards promulgated by appropriate
government agencies.
7. -elict
The liability may be based on
criminal negli4gence under the 2%$ or
violation of any special law.
8. Strict liabilit(
Banufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drin3s, toilet articles, and
similar goods, shall be liable for death or
injuries caused by any noxious or harmful
substances used although no contractual
relation exists. !Article 2187 Civil Code"
%rivity of contract is not re(uired.
It does not preclude an action based
on negligence !(uasi4delict" for the same
act of using noxious or harmful
substances.
Article ?+ and ?? of the $onsumer
Act imposes liability on defective
products and services upon
manufacturers independent of fault.
Jnowledge of the manufacturer is
not important6 the focus is on the
condition of the product and not on the
conduct of the manufacturer or seller.
DE+ENSES:
A. The manufacturer, builder,
producer, or importer shall not be liable
when it evidences@
*" That it did not place the
product on the mar3et
." That although it did
place the product on the mar3et
such product had no defect
0" That the consumer of
third party is solely at fault. !Article
17 Consuer Act"
. The supplier of the services shall not
be held liable when it is proven@
*" That there is no defect in the
service rendered
." That the consumer of third party
is solely at fault. !Article 11 Consuer
Act"
Re!uisites: The plaintiff should
allege and prove that@
*" The product was defective6
." The product was manufactured
by the defendant6
0" The defective product was the
cause of his injury.
4 KINDS O+ DE+ECTI:E (ROD$CTS
*. manufacturing defect
.. design defect
0. presentation defect
-. absence of appropriate warning
;$SINESS TORTS
.. Interference of contracts
Elements%
a. existence of a valid contract
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
242
b. 3nowledge on the part of the third
person of the existence of the contract
c. interference of the third person
without legal justification.
The existence of a contract is
necessary and the breach must occur
because of the alleged act of
interference6 No action can be
maintained if the contract is void.
Balice is not essential.
Ele"ents of ri5ilege to interfere
*"The defendant<s purpose is a
justifiable one, and
."The actors employ no means of
fraud or deception which are
regarded as unfair.
E3tent of Lia1ilit*:
A. 2ule in #aywalt vs. 'a $orporation
0?%=I'1A+
#efendant
cannot be held liable for more than
the amount for which the
contracting party who was induced
to brea3 the contract can be held
liable.
. 2ule under Article ..,* and ..,.
$ivil $ode
*" If
in bad faith@ defendant is liable for
all natural and probable
conse(uences of his act or omission,
whether the same is forseen or
unforeseen.
." If
in good faith@ defandant is liable
only for conse(uences that can be
foreseen.
0. Interference <it/ rosecti5e
ad5antage
It is a tort committed when there is
no contract yet and the defendant is
only being sued for inducing another not
to enter into a contract.
2. $nfair co"etition.
Cnfair $ompetition in agricultural,
commercial, or industrial enterprises, or
in labor, through the use of force,
intimidation , deceit, machination or any
unjust or oppressive or highhanded
method shall give rise to a right of action
by a person who thereby suffers damage.
$A&:& IN$'C#:#:
a. passing off and disparagement of
products
b. interference
c. misappropriation
d. monopolies and predatory pricing
4. Securities Related Torts
Kinds
a. 9raudulent Transactions
b. Bisstatements or Omission of
statement of a material fact
re(uired to be stated
#efendants are free from liability if
they can prove that at the time of the
ac(uisition the plaintiff 3new of the
untrue statement or if he was aware of
the falsity.
E3tent of Da"ages: Not exceeding
triple the amount of the transaction.
(rescriti5e (eriod: Action must be
brought within . years after discovery of
facts constituting the cause of action and
within 1 yrs after such cause of action
accrued.
II. DAMAGES
DAMAGE
The detriment, injury or loss which
are occasioned by reason of fault of
another in the property or person.
DAMAGES
The pecuniary compensation,
recompense or satisfaction for an injury
sustained or as otherwise expressed, the
pecuniary conse(uences which the law
imposes for the breach of some duty or
violation of some rights.
DAMN$M A;S#$E INC$RIA /=aage
>it"out +nAur2#
A person may have suffered physical
hurt or injury, but for as long as no legal
injury or wrong has been done, there is
no liability.
There is no liability even if there is
damage because there was no injury.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
243
There can be damage without injury.
In order that a plaintiff may maintain
an action for the injuries of which he
complains, he must establish that such
injuries resulted from a breach of duty
which the defendant owed to the
plaintiff.
In>ur* Da"age Da"ages
'egal
invasion of
a legal
right
'oss, hurt
or harm
which
results
from the
injury
The recom4
pense or
compensation
awarded for
the damage
suffered
NOTES:
A complaint for damages is a
personal action. !7aritua vs. CA, 247
SCRA 331"
%roof of pecuniary loss is necessary
to successfully recover actual
damages from the defendant. No
proof of pecuniary loss is necessary
in case of moral, nominal,
temperate, li(uidated or exemplary
damages.
The assessment of such damages,
except li(uidated ones, is left to the
discretion of the court according to
the circumstances of each case.
Kinds of da"ages 'MANTLE)
*. A ctual or $ompensatory
.. M oral
0. N ominal
-. T emperate or moderate
1. L i(uidated
/. E xemplary or corrective
A. ACT$AL OR COM(ENSATOR-
DAMAGES
$omprehends not only the value of
the loss suffered but also that of the
profits which the obligee failed to
obtain.
Classification:
*. =ano eergente 8 loss of what a
person already possesses
.. &ucro cessante 8 failure to
receive as a benefit that would
have pertained to him
NOTE: The latter type includes@
*. 'oss or impairment of
earning capacity in cases of
temporary or permanent
personal injury.
.. Injury to the plaintiff<s
business standing or commercial
credit.
In crimes and (uasi4delict, the
defendant shall be liable for all
damages which are the natural and
probable conse(uences of the act
and omission complained of. It is not
necessary that such damages have
been foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen by the
defendant. !Article 2202 Civil Code"
The amount should be that which
would put plaintiff in the same
position as he would have been if he
had not sustained the wrong for
which he is now getting his
compensation or reparation.
To recover damages, the amount of
loss must not only be capable of
proof but must actually be proven.
Cncertainty as to the precise amount
is not necessarily fatal.
LOSS O+ EARNING CA(ACIT-:
-aria:les considered are(
*. life expectancy
.. net incomeIearnings
+or"ula@
L.I0 x !A,8age of death"M x mo. :arnings x *.
.
NOTE:
'ife expectancy is computed as
follows@
D 0?2 3 'EB%age at deat/) F
Net earnings is the total of the
earnings less expenses necessary for
the creation of such earnings and
less living or other incidental
expenses.
Loss of rofits
Bay be determined by considering
the average profit for the preceding
years multiplied by the number of
years during which the business was
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
244
affected by the wrongful act or
breach.
Attorne*@s fees
They are actual damages. It is due to
the plaintiff and not to the counsel.
%laintiff must allege the basis of his
claim for attorney<s fees in the
complaint6 the basis should be one of
the ** cases specified in Article 2208
o9 t"e Civil Code.
Interests
Award of interest in the concept of
actual and compensatory damages
actual damages.
The rate of interest, as well as the
accrual thereof is imposed as
follows@
*. 5hen the obligation is breached
and it consist of payment of sum
of money, i.e., a loan or
forbearance of money@
a. The interest due should be
that which may have been
stipulated in writing6
furthermore, the interest
due shall itself earn legal
interest from the time it is
judicially demanded.
b. In the absence of stipulation,
the rate of interest shall be
*.N per annum to be
computed from default, i.e.,
from judicial or extra4
judicial demand under and
subject to the provisions of
Article **/? of the $ivil
$ode.
.. 5hen the obligation, not
constituting a loan or
forbearance or money, is
breached@
An interest on the amount of
damages to be awarded may
be imposed at the discretion
of the court at the rate of /N
per annum.
No interest shall be adjudged
on unli(uidated claims or
damages, except when or
until demand can be
established with reasonable
certainty.
5here the demand is
established with reasonable
certainty, the interest shall
begin to run from the time
the claim is made judicially
or extrajudicially.
0. 5hen the judgment of the court
awarding the sum of money
becomes final and executory, the
rate of legal interest shall be *.N
per annum from such finality
until its satisfaction.
Doctrine of A5oida1le Conse!uences
A party cannot recover damages
flowing from conse(uences which
the party could reasonably have
avoided.
It has a reasonable corollary@ a
person who reasonably attempts to
minimiGe his damages can recover
the expenses that he incurred.
Doctrine of
A5oida1le
Conse!uences
Contri1utor*
Negligence
Acts of the
plaintiff occur
after the act or
omission of the
defendant
%laintiff<s act or
omission occurs
before or at the
time of the act or
omission of the
defendant
;. MORAL DAMAGES
Includes physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shoc3, social
humiliation, and similar injury.
No proof of pecuniary loss is
necessary.
G$%$RA& R'&$( The plaintiff must
allege and prove@
*. The factual basis for moral
damages6 and
.. Its causal relation to the
defendant<s act
$)C$!*+,%( Boral damages may be
awarded to the victim in criminal
proceedings without the need for
pleading of proof of the basis thereof.
Re!uisites for a<ard of "oral da"ages:
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
245
*. There must be an injury whether
physical, mental or psychological,
clearly sustained by the claimant6
.. There must be a culpable act or
omission.6
0. &uch act or omission is the proximate
cause of the injury6
-. The damages is predicated on the
cases cited in Art...*?.
NOTE: The award of moral damages
cannot be granted in favor of a
corporation because, being an artificial
person, it has no feelings, no emotions,
no senses. It cannot therefore
experience physical suffering and mental
anguish which can be experienced only
by one having a nervous system.
C. NOMINAL DAMAGES
Nominal damages are adjudicated in
order that a right of the plaintiff,
which has been violated or invaded
by the defendant, may be vindicated
or recogniGed, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff
for any loss suffered by him.
!Article...* $ivil $ode"
&mall sums fixed by the court
without regard to the extent of the
harm done to the injured party.
'aw presumes damage although
actual or compensatory damages are
not proven.
They are damages in name only and
are allowed simply in recognition of
a technical injury based on a
violation of a legal right.
Nominal damages cannot co4exist
with actual or compensatory
damages.
D. TEM(ERATE OR
MODERATE DAMAGES
These are damages, which are more
than nominal but less than
compensatory, and may be
recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot be
proved with certainty. !Article 2220
Civil Code"
In cases where the resulting injury
might be continuing and possible
future complications directly arising
from the injury, while certain to
occur are difficult to predict,
temperate damages can and should
be awarded on top of actual or
compensatory damages6 in such
cases there is no incompatibility
between actual and temperate
damages.
E. LI#$IDATED DAMAGES
Those agreed upon by the parties in
a contract, to be paid in case of
breach thereof.
+. EGEM(LAR- OR CORRECTI:E
DAMAGES
Imposed by way of example or
correction for the public good, in
addition to the moral, temperate,
li(uidated or compensatory damages.
Re!uisites for t/e a<ard of
e3e"lar* da"ages:
*. They are imposed by way of example
in addition to compensatory damages
and Imposed only after the claimants
right to them has been established6
.. They cannot be recovered as a
matter of right, their determination
depending upon the amount of
compensatory damages that may be
awarded6
0. The act must be accompanied by bad
faith or done in wanton, fraudulent,
oppressive or malevolent manner.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE

Torts

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

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

San Beda College of Law

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen