Torts

Quasi-delict-
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence,
if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
The concept covers,
said the Supreme Court in Elcano vs. Hill (77 SCRA 98),
not only acts not punishable by law but also those punishable
whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.

SEPARATE and DISTINCT
Where negligence is punishable under the Penal Code,
the responsibility for quasi-delict is separate and distinct
from the civil liability arising from the felony but the
plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act
or omission of the defendant although the incident may
give rise to two or more causes of action (Art. 2177)
in re Art 33.
Even the existence of a contract
does not necessarily militate, it has been held, against
the application of quasi-delict which can indeed be the
very act or omission that breaches the contract (see
Singson vs. Bank of P.I., 23 SCRA 1117; Air France vs.
Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155).
The test would appear to be
that where, without a pre-existing contract between two
parties, an act or omission would have constituted an
actionable tort, the mere existence of a contract will not
bar the appropriate application of tort, even as regards
such parties.

Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or
negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil
liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot
recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the
defendant. (n)




classes of torts according to manner of commission?
A:
1. Negligent torts It involves voluntary acts or omissions which results in injury to others, without
intending to cause the same.
2. Intentional torts The actor desires to cause the consequences of his act or believes the
consequences are substantially certain to result therefrom.
3. Strict liability The person is made liable independent of fault or negligence upon submission of
proof of certain facts.
4. Constitutional torts The violation of a persons rights under Article III (Bill of Rights) of the
1987 Constitution as contemplated in Article 32 constitutes constitutional tort.

SPECIAL TORTS
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of
his rights and in the performance of his duties,
act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law,
willfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the
same.
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss
or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.

Essential Elements of Quasi-Delict
1. Culpable Act or Negligence
The act referred to in the law must be culpable or
an act that is blameworthy when judged by accepted
legal standards which is thus broad enough to include
any rational conception of liability for the tortious acts
likely to be developed in any society (Daywalt vs.
Corporacion de PP Agustinos Recoletos, 39 Phil. 587).
Negligence, generally, is the failure to observe that diligence
which is expected of a good father of a family. The
test, according to the Supreme Court in Picart vs. Smith
(37 Phil. 809), is Would a prudent man, in the position
of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee
harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence
of the course about to be pursued. If so, the law
imposes precaution against its mischievous results, and
the failure to do so constitutes negligence. Reasonable
foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the admonition
born of this provision, is the constructive fact in
negligence.
Art. 2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174
are also applicable to a quasi-delict.
Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence
in the performance of every kind of obligation is also
demandable, but such liability may be regulated by
the courts, according to the circumstances. (1103)
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor
consists in the omission of that diligence which is
required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds
with the circumstances of the persons, of the
time and of the place. When negligence shows bad
faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph
2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence
which is to be observed in the performance,
that which is expected of a good father of a family
shall be required. (1104a)
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified
by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation,
or when the nature of the obligation requires
the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible
for those events which, could not be foreseen, or
which, though foreseen, were inevitable. (1105a)
2. Damage to Another
Damage is any loss or injury sustained by a person,
as well as any indemnity, recoverable under the provisions
of the Code or applicable special laws
3. Causal Relation between the Culpable Act
or Negligence and the Damage to Another
Doctrine of Proximate Cause
It is not enough that there be just some kind of
connection between fault or negligence and the loss or
injury, but that the former must be the proximate cause
of the latter.

The proximate cause is that which in natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury and without which
the result would not have occurred (38 Am. Jur. 695;
Fernando vs. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 714
Art. 2179. When the plaintiffs own negligence was
the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was
only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause
of the injury being the defendants lack of due care,
the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall
mitigate the damages to be awarded. (n)