Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

SPECIAL TORTS (HUMAN RELATIONS)

1. ABUSE OF RIGHTS ART.19


Velayo vs. Shell Co.
-Shell creditor of CALI
-Shell liable took advantage
art.19&21.
De Guzman vs. NLRC




UE vs.Jader
-employees of AMAL vs. AMAL
&illegal dismissal
-personal liability but not
solitarily
-art.19,21,2219(10) and 2229 CC
-time is of the essence
-Jader UE college of Law (failed
final make-up )5
-moral damages not awarded
only actual and attorneys.
2. CONTRARY TO LAW AND
MORALS
ART.20&21
Hemosisima vs. CA

Wassmer vs. Velez
-breach of promise
-no moral damages not
recoverable.
-actionable because of
cest/preparation
3. UNJUST ENRICHMENT ART.22&23
ELEMENTS






Person vs. CA

a. enrichment on the part
of the defendant
b. there is an concomitant
injury to the plaintiff
c. there is no just cause or
legal ground for the
enrichment .
-current market value ( for the 2
store apartment building)
(A546CC)
4. JUDICIAL VIGILANCE ART. 24
PLDT vs. PLDT UNION

(blind after 2 years terminated
handicapped)
5. THOUGHTLESS
EXTRAVAGANCE
Art.25
6. DISRESPECT OF PERSON ART.26
Concepcion vs. CA

7. DERILICTION OF DUTY ART.27
Javellana vs. Tayo


8. UNFAIR COMPETITION ART.28


Habana vs. Robles



-this is different from unfair
competition of RPC which is a
crime offense
9. VIOLATION OF CIVIL OR
POLITICAL RIGHTS
ART.32
a. Religion
b. Speech
c. Freedom to right for the
press
d. Freedom from arbitrary
e. Suffrage
f. Against debt of property
g. Right to just
compensation
h. Equal protection
i. Secure in ones persons
house
j. Liberty of abode
k. Privacy of
communication
l. Member of association
m. Peaceable assembly
n. Involuntary servitude
o. Excessive bail
p. Heard
q. Compelled to be
r. Excessive fines
s. Access to courts

Obra vs. CA



CLASSES OF TORTS
ARTS. 1156- 1162 CC

TORTS:
A civil wrong which the court will provide a remedy
Acts which causes damage to another person
Torts are causes which effects and manifested in damages

1. CLASSES OF ACTION
QUASI DELICT; based on negligence
BREACH OF CONTRACT; based on the existence of a contract.
TORTS IN HUMAN RELATION; based on intentional acts of torts-feasor
CRIME; based on a violation of a penal statue.


2. 2-FOLD MEANING OF DMAGES
Loss, prejudice or injury
Compensation


3. CULPA AQUILINA/CONTRACTUAL/CRIMINAL (IMSON VS. CA) (BLTB VS.CA)
CULPA AQUILIANA CULPA CONTRACTUAL CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION
OBJECT Against negligence Violation of contract of
carriage
Criminal Diligence
ACTION Damages for quasi-
delict
Breach of contract with
damages
Criminal offence + civil
liability
Art.100 RPC
AGAINST Driver , bus co. Or both Employer

Driver or Employee
QUANTUM OF
EVIDENCE
Preponderance of
evidence
Employer (reputable
presumption)
Preponderance of
evidence
Proof beyond
reasonable doubt
DEFENSES Exercise of ordinary
diligence
Diligence in selection
and supervision
(employer)
Extraordinary Diligence Principal and/ or
subsidiary liable
*conclusive


I. QUASI- DELICT:ART.2176 (FGU INSURANCE VS. CA)
Fault or Negligence
Damage
Casual connection

II. NO DOUBLE RECOVERY RULE: ART.2177 (JARANILLA VS. CA)

2 KINDS OF CIVIL LIABILITY
Civil liability for quasi- delict
Liability for crime: crime& civil liability art.100 RPC
Accident RPC 12 p4


ESSENTIAL REQUISITES FOR A QUASI DELICTUAL ACTION
1. Acts or omission constituting fault or negligence
2. Damaged caused by the said acts or omission
3. Casual relation between the damage and the acts or omission

TESTS OF NEGLIGENCE
1. Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligence act use the reasonable care and caution which
an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation.
2. Could a prudent man in the case under consideration foresee harm as a result of a course
pursued?

CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSIDER IN DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE:
1. TIME
2. PLACE
3. EMERGENCY

EMERGENCY RULE: One in danger who must act without much time to consider the best means that
maybe adopted to avoid the impending danger is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what
may appear to be a better solution.
Exception: (Valenzuela vs.CA 253 SCRA 303)
4. GRAVITY OF HARM TO BE AVOIDED
5. ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION
6. SOCIAL VALUE OR UTILITY OF ACTIVITY
7. PERSON EXPOSED TO THE RISK

*PAETER FAMILIAS (PNR VS.IAC 217 SCRA 409)

SPECIAL RULES:
1. CHILDREN: Guilty of negligence if acted with discernment
: 9 incapable but 9 but 15 disputable presumption
2. PHYSICAL DIABILITY: Guilty if only mere weakness it should be reasonable tantamount to real or
standard of conduct
3. EXPERTS AND PROFESSIONALS: Should exhibit care and skill unlike the ordinary
4. NATURE OF ACTIVITY: Requiring higher degree of diligence
5. INTOXICATION: Mere not negligence
Exception: ART.2185

A.INSANITY: BASES FOR HOLDING LIABLE
a. Where 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

A WOMEN: ACT, AGE,SEX, ( CANGCO VS. MANILA RAILROAD CO.)
G.R.NO. 12191 0CTOBER 14,1918

OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE:
A VIOLATION OF RULES AND STATUTE
1. STATUTES:
GEN.RULE: (CIPRIANO VS. CA 263 SCRA 711)
Exception:
a. Strict observance defeat the purpose of the rule
b. Expressly provides violation of a statutory duty merely establishes a presumption of
negligence.
2. ADMINISTRATIVE RULE:
-Violation of a rule is not negligence per see but may be evidence of negligence
B. PRACTICE AND CUSTOM; (YAMADA VS. MANILA RAILROAD CO.)
C.COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTES: Are not conclusive the there was no negligence.
GROSS NEGLIGENCE: want of even slight care and diligence
PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE :
GEN.RULE: (Taylor vs. Meralco 16 PHIl 8)
Quantum of proof ( RULE 133 REV. RULES OF COURT )
Exceptions:
a. Presumption of negligence
b. Res ipsa loquitor
A.PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE:
1. (art. 2184 CC ) owner
2. (art.2184 CC ) disputably presumed for repetitiveness
3. (art.2185 CC) violation of traffic rules
4. Prima facie presumption: Death or injury from possession of dangerous weapons or substance
Exceptions: indispensable to occupation (art.2185 CC)
5. General rule: Carrier- loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods in case of death or injury of
passengers.
Exception: proof of exercise of extraordinary diligence.
B.PES IPSA LIQUITUR (the thing or transaction speaks for itself)
--rule of evidence peculiar to law of negligence which recognize the prima facie negligence may
be established in the absence of direct proof, and enriches a substitute for specific proof of negligence.

REQUISITES OF RES IPSA LIQUITOR
1. Ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someones negligence
2. The instrumentality which caused the injury was under the exclusive control and management
of the person charged with negligence
3. The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part
of the person injured ; absence of explanation by the defendant
AFRICA VS. CALTEX PHIL. INC. MAR. 31, 1966
S.D. MARTINEZ, ET AL VS. WILLIAM VAN BUSKIRK