Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2008
PRELIMINARY MATTERS:
*Those in SMALL CAPS (and underlined) were highlighted by Sir
Casis during the class. If none are found, just refer to those in
bold letters and those in the Notes. Good luck classmates!
torts magic notes team
CLASS NOTES
There can be more than one tortfeasor and
they are called JOINT TORTFEASORS
Are you suppose to sue all of them? NO
because you can get relief from one of
them.
Do they have to act in concert? NO
Worcester v. Ocampo
February 27, 1912
FACTS: Dean Worcester filed an action to recover
damages resulting from an alleged libelous publication
against Martin Ocampo, Teodoro M. Kalaw, Lope K.
Santos, Fidel A. Reyes, Faustino Aguilar, et al, as the
owners, directors, writers, editors and administrators of
the daily newspaper El Renacimiento (Spanish
version) and Muling Pagsilang (tagalong version).
Worcester alleged that the defendants have been
maliciously persecuting and attacking him in the
newspapers for a long time and they published an
editorial entitled Birds of Prey with the malicious intent
CLASS NOTES
Sir highlighted that Tort is in its nature a
separate act of each individual so no need
to sue all of the tortfeasors!
Chapman v. Underwood
March 28, 1914
FACTS: J.H. Chapman was trying to board a San
Marcelino car trough the rear platform when he was
struck by Mr. James Underwoords automobile, which
was at that time driven by his chauffer.
Underwoods driver was guilty of negligence
because he was passing an oncoming car upon the
wrong side when he ran over Chapman. Chapman, was
not obliged for his own protection to observe whether a
car was coming upon him from where he was because
according to the law, no automobile or other vehicle
OF
TIME
AS
TO
GIVE
THE
OWNER
REASONABLE
CLASS NOTES
CLASS NOTE
In this section, a person is held liable for
acts not his own but because of the
existence of a relationship.
RA 9344
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
April 23, 2006
Sec. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal responsibility- A
child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the
commission of the offense shall be exempt from
CLASS NOTE
12180 now: The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or
DISSENT: Reyes
He wants TC affirmed (relieving Delfin of liability): There
is no sound reason for limiting Art. 1903 to teachers of
arts and trades and not to academic institutions.
The phrase teachers or heads of establishments of
arts and trades does not qualify teachers but only
heads of establishments.
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages
RULES:
Majority:
Liability of teachers or directors are limited to
institutions of arts and trades.
Dissent:
CLASS NOTE
In this case, the liability of father was
deemed to be subsidiary.
Fuellas v. Cadano
October 31, 1961
FACTS: Pepito Cadano and Rico Fuellas, both 13,
were classmates at St. Marys High School. While
Pepito was studying, Rico took a classmates pencil
and put it in Pepitos pocket. When the classmate
asked Rico for the pencil, it was Pepito who returned it.
This angered Rico, thus he held Pepito by the neck and
pushed him to the floor. A teacher broke up the fight
and sent them home.
Pepito has just gone down from the school
house when he was met by a still angry Rico. A
classmate asked them to shake hands but instead of
shaking Pepitos extended hand, Rico held him by the
neck, put him off-balance which caused Pepito to land
on his right side, breaking his arm. Rico just got up and
ran away.
Up to the last day of the hearing of the case,
Pepitos forearm was seen to be shorter than his left
and cannot be fully used.
2 separate actions were instituted:
1. Criminal case against Rico for Serious
Physical Injuries
2. Civil case for damages against Agapito
Fuellas, Ricos father.
Criminal case:
TC: Rico guilty. Civil liability to be determined in the
civil case
Civil case:
TC: Agapito liable under 2180 for medicine, MD, ED
and attys fees.
CA: Reduced MD
ISSUE: WON Agapito Fuellas, Ricos father is liable for
damages.
HELD: Yes. Agapito is liable for damages. CA affirmed
1. Agapito contends that he cannot be liable under
2180 in connection with 2176 there being no fault or
negligence but deliberate intent to cause injury.
SC: Jurisprudence proves him wrong.
Araneta v. Arreglado-(the Arreglados-father,
mother and son were held liable for damages) civil
law liability under 2180 is not respondeat superior
but pater familias, which bases the liability of the
father ultimately on his own negligence and not on that
of his minor son, and that if an injury is caused by the
fault or negligence of his minor son, the law presumes
that there was negligence on the part of his father.
Exconde v. Capuno-(the father was held solidarily
liable with his son for damages) The civil liability of the
father is a necessary consequence of the parental
authority he exercises. Only defense is proof of
diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the
damage.
Manresa: Children and wards do not have the capacity
to govern themselves so parents and guardians have
the duty to exercise special vigilance. If they fail to
comply with this duty, they should suffer the
consequences of their abandonment or negligence by
repairing the damage caused.
2. Agapito claims that he could only be liable if the
action was based on the subsidiary liability of the
parents under the RPC. And since Rico acted with
discernment, the provisions do not cover the case.
SC: Case law is against him again.
CLASS NOTES
In this case, parental liability was primary.
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez
September 23, 1931
Note: The injured and the accused have the same surname.
Rodriguez-Luna v. IAC
February 28, 1985
FACTS: Roberto Luna, driving a go-kart and Luis dela
Rosa, driving a Toyota collided in the go-kart practice
area in Greenhills. Roberto died. At that time, Luis was
only 13 and had no drivers license. The heirs of
Roberto (will be referred to as the Lunas) sued for
damages.
TC: Jose dela Rosa (father) and Luis dela Rosa are
jointly and severally liable.
Other issues:
1. CAs reduction of life expectancy: SC said go-kart
not dangerous.
Libi v. IAC
2 Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardian, the minor
or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a
guardian ad litem shall be appointed. (n)
CLASS NOTES
Tamargo v. CA
June 3, 1992
FACTS: Adelberto Bundoc, 10 years old, shot Jennifer
Tamargo with an air rifle, causing injuries which
resulted in her death. Adelbertos natural parents for
damages. Adelberto was living with his natural parents
at the time of the accident but a petition for his adoption
has already been filed by the Rapisura spouses. This
petition was granted after the shooting of Jennifer.
The Tamargos filed:
1.
criminal complaint for homicide
through reckless imprudence but Adelberto
was acquitted and exempted from criminal
Action
for
Civil action
for
damages
(father and
son
impleaded)
Salen and
Salbanera
vs. Balce
(son above
15 but
below 18
killed 18 yr
old)
Criminal
case with
civil liability
arising
from it
Fuellas vs.
Cadano
(stole
pencil and
had the
nerve to be
mad by
breaking
classmates
arm!)
Criminal
action vs.
Rico for
Serious
Physical
Injuries
Civil action
vs Agapito
(the father)
only
Who held
liable
TC: only son
liable
SC: Pa and
son jointly
and severally
liable
-not the
school
because not
a school of
arts and
trades
SC: Father
liable
subsidiarily
-child above
15, below 18
SC: Pa liable
Basis for
liability
A1903 (now
2180): FATHER
liable for acts of
MINOR SON
-civil liability is a
necessary
consequence of
parental
authority they
exercise over
their MINOR
children
A101 RPC
incomplete so
resort to A2180
of NCC (apply
Exclusio Unus,
Exclucio
Ulterus)
MINOR son
LIVING in their
company
A2176 an
A2180 (not
based on RPC)
-even if son
caused injuries
with deliberate
intent (and not
merely
negligence)
-note: not
subsidiary liable
Guitierrez
vs.
Guitierrez
(bus
collision,
family
except pa
in the car
driven by
minor)
RodriguezLuna vs.
IAC
(go-cart vs.
Toyota)
Civil action
vs. Manuel
Guitierrez
(the father)
only (+ bus
driver and
owner)
SC: The
father, bus
driver and
owner jointly
and severally
liable
Civil action
vs. pa and
son
Libi vs.
IAC
(Suicide or
homicide?)
Civil action
vs. parents
SC: Pa made
primarily
liable for the
injury caused
by son (son
already of
age, said to
be insolvent
but in
Madrid!)
SC: Libis are
primarily and
directly liable
as mentioned
under Libi vs.
IAC
A2180,
common law,
master and
servant (not
paterfamilias)
ma not liable
even if present
during time of
incident
A2180, strict
law
-dont apply
Elcano v. Hill
where court
allowed only
subsidiary
liability because
it will not serve
ends of justice
Art 221, FC; Art
2180, NCC; Art
101, RPC
Why primarily
liable:
1. If liability of
the parents for
crimes or QDs
of their minor
children is
subsidiary, then
they can neither
invoke nor be
absolved of civil
liability on the
defense that
they acted with
the diligence of
a good father of
a family to
prevent
damages.
2. The liability of
parents for
felonies is
likewise Primary
and not
subsidiary under
A101 of RPC:
minor only liable
if parents are
insolvent (A101
Criminal
complaint
Civil
complaint
vs. Natural
parents of
child
SC: Bundocs
(natural
parents) are
indispensable
parties
-the adopting
parents had
no actual
custody yet
par3)
Art. 2176,
parental
authority
coupled with
presumed
parental
dereliction in
the discharge
of duties
accompanying
such authority,
doctrine of
vicarious
liability as
explained in
CANGCO VS.
MANILA RAILROAD
*IMPORTANT:
PARENTS MUST
HAVE ACTUAL OR
PHYSICAL CUSTODY
OVER THE MINOR TO
BE HELD LIABLE
2. Guardians
Family Code
Art. 216. In default of parents or a judicially appointed
guardian, the following person shall exercise substitute
parental authority over the child in the order indicated:
(1)The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 2144;
(2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one years
of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and
(3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one years
of age, unless unfit or disqualified.
Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over
the property of the child becomes necessary, the same
order of preference shall be observed. (349a, 351a,
354a)
4 Art. 214. In case of death, absence or unsuitability of the parents, substitute parental authority
CLASS NOTE
10
shall be exercised by the surviving grandparent. In case several survive, the one designated by
the court, taking into account the same consideration mentioned in the preceding article, shall
Mercado v. CA, et al
May 30, 1960
FACTS: Augusto, 9 years old, lent his pitogo to
Benedicto who lent it to Renato. When Augusto tried to
retrieve his pitogo, Manuel Jr, thinking it was
Benedictos, interfered and told Augusto not to get it
from Renato as Renato was better at putting the chain
into the holes of the pitogo. Augusto resented this
remark and aggressively poushed him. A fight ensued
and Augusto wounded Manuel Jr. on the right cheek
with a piece of razor.
The doctor who testified did not declare the amount he
collected as fees and Manuel Jr. was not hospitalized.
TC: dismissed the complaint filed by Manuel Jr. and
his father
CA: Ordered Ciriaco Mercado (the father) to pay for the
medical expenses and MD, but no MD for the parents.
11
1.
no criminal action for physical injuries
has been presented
2. even if this is a QD within the meaning of Art. Art. 2219, par 26, the facts show that Augustos act was
occasioned by the fact that Manuel Jr. tired to intervene
or interfere with Augustos attempt to recover his pitogo.
Hence, the proximate cause of Manuel Jrs injury is his
own fault or negligence for having interfered.
Hence, no MD coz the cases in Art. 2219 were not
shown to exist.
RULE:
1.
Palisoc v. Brillantes
October 4, 1971
FACTS: Dominador Palisoc, 16 years old and Virgilio
Daffon, of age, were classmates at the Manila
Technical Institute. During recess, while working on a
machine, Daffon made a remark that Palisoc was like a
foreman because he was merely watching them. Irked,
Palisoc bitch-slapped Daffon. In retaliation, Daffon gave
6Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
5 The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages
caused by the minor children who live in their company.
7 Although later cases say this is a mere obiter because the issue was won the father had civil
liability
IN
THE
SCHOOL,
INCLUDING
RECESS
TIME.
(MEMORIZE)
NOTHING
12
Dissent: Makalintal
Wants Mercado sustained. Its unfair to hold teachers
and/or administrative heads responsible for tortuous
acts of their students considering the high number of
enrollment. It would demand responsibility without the
commensurate authority.
Moreover, since the responsibility stems from loco
parentis, then it follows that
1. custody= live in company (like for parents
and guardians) and
2. responsibility limited to minors only (like for
parents and guardians)
Concurring: Reyes
Concurs with majority but dissents with the dissent.
Makalintals interpretation not in accord with the law.
1. Only the guardians and parents are exempt
once the child reaches majority
2. The authority and custodial supervision (of the
teachers and heads) over the pupil exists
regardless of the pupils age.
RULE:
1. Mercado doctrine abandoned/overturned
2. Wants to overturn Exconde (to include academic
institutions in the scope of 2180) but has no chance
because MTI is anon-academic institution.
3. Definition of custody= the protective and
supervisory custody that the school and its heads and
teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as
long as they are at attendance in the school, including
recess time. (MEMORIZE)
Amadora v. CA
April 15, 1988
FACTS: Alfredo Amadora, 17 yrs old, was shot by his
classmate Pablito Daffon, 3 days before his high school
graduation, while he was at the auditorium of the
Colegio de San Jose-Recolectos either to finish a
Physics experiment or to submit a Physics report.
Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless
imprudence. The Amadoras sued for damages against
the School (Colegio), the dean of boys and, the physics
teacher and Daffon.
TC: defendants are liable for damages
13
8 Referring each to each; referring each phrase or expression to its appropriate object or let each
be put in its proper place, i.e. the words should be taken distributively
9 This disparity no longer exist in view of the increase in enrollment. But thats a task for the
legislature.
CLASS NOTE
facts: in Academic school, by student of the
school, after sem ends
A2180 applies to both ACADEMIC and
NONACADEMIC schools
Academic: teacher-in-charge:: Institute of Arts
and Trades: Heads
Custody does not connote INFLUENCE
exerted on the child and the DISCIPLINE
instilled in him as a result of such influence
pupil is not required to be a minor for the
teacher to be liable! (A2180 doesnt require
minority)
Applicability to academic institutions WAS an
issue prior to this casesee Exconde
DISSENT:
Sarmiento
Par 510 of 2180 may be construed as the basis of
liability of the school as the employer for the failure of
its teachers or heads to perform their mandatory legal
duties as substitute parents.
Melencio-Herrera
Joins Sarmiento in his dissent. School may exculpate
itself by proving diligence of a good father of a family.
QUESTION: Would the school be held liable after the
Family Code?
ANSWER: Yes! School can be held liable under 218,
FC11
10 Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
14
CLASS NOTE
business or industry.
11
Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution
engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child
while under their supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether
inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. (349a)
OF
Qualifying custody
In line with Palisoc, RECESS IS A TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT
EMBRACED IN THE CONCEPT OF AT ATTENDANCE IN THE SCHOOL. IT
IS A SITUATION WHERE THE STUDENT STILL REMAINS WITHIN THE CALL
OF HIS MENTOR AND IS NOT PERMITTED TO LEAVE THE SCHOOL
PREMISES OR THE AREA WITHIN WHICH THE SCHOOL ACTIVITY IS
CONDUCTED.
CLASS NOTE
School: ACAD + Institute of Arts and Trade
time: dismissal, where: in parking lot of school,
against who: student of University of Baguio
Memorize: recess and custody
Amadora: legitimate student objectiveVictim
is own student
Salvosa: applied Palisoc, definition of
custodyVictim is student of another school
Ponente forgot Amadoradecided 6 months
earlier. So to reconcile both cases: If victim is
a student of schoolAmadora; If victim is NOT
a student of school-Salvosa
PROTECTIVE AND
TIME.
Salvos v. IAC
October 5, 1988
CLASS NOTE
15
PSBA vs. CA
February 4, 1992
FACTS: Carlos Bautista was stabbed to death by
outsiders within PSBAs premises. The Bautistas sued
PSBA and its corporate officers for damages. PSBA
16
CLASS NOTE
12
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for
damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are
employed or on the occasion of their functions.
CLASS NOTES
A2180 not applicable to nonstudents, to nonemployees
This case should have used the provisions
from the Family Code.
Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution
engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child
or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages
17
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the
14 Art. 349. The following persons shall exercise substitute parental authority:
Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be
principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the
unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute
Art. 350. The persons named in the preceding article shall exercise reasonable supervision over
proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances.
CLASS NOTE
school liable if Proximate Cause of the injury
is their negligence
special parental authority applies as long as
the activity was approved by an office of the
school
government regulations and those of each school or institution. In no case shall corporal
punishment be countenanced. The teacher or professor shall cultivate the best potentialities of
All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions
Who liable
FC
A218: school, its
NCC
A2180, par7:
For
damages
caused by
Liability
administrators and
teachers, or the
individual, entity or
institution engaged
in child
have special
parental authority
and responsibility
to all authorized
activities whether
inside or outside
the premises of the
school, entity or
institution
Minor child while
under their
supervision,
instruction or
custody
A219:
unemancipated
minor
Principally and
solidarily liable
schools
Subsidiarily liable
parents, judicial
guardians, persons
exercising
substitute parental
authority
teachers or heads
of establishments
of arts and trades
*In St. Francis
Case, activity
should be inside
school premises
custody
4.
Owners
Establishments
and
Managers
of
18
(DEPENDIENTE)
OF THE
CORPORATION.
Philtranco v. CA
June 1997
FACTS: A Philtranco bus, driven by Manhilig was being
pushed and jumpstarted along a perpendicular street. It
started suddenly and ran over Acuesta, a biker. The
driver didnt stop, but was forced to by a cop who saw
the accident and boarded the bus.
Acuestas heirs sued Manhilig and Philtranco for QD.
Philtranco argues it exercised due diligence in the
selection and supervision of its employees, saying
Manhilig had an excellent record and exercised the
diligence of a very cautious person.
ISSUE: WON Philtranco may be held liable for the act
of Manhilig
5th par
Employers, in general,
WON engaged in a
business or industry
Encompasses negligent
acts of employees as long
as they were acting within
the
scope
of
their
assigned tasks
CLASS NOTE
Employers liable because of paterfamilias
Castilex v. Vasquez
December 1999
NOTE: Sir says this case has the implication that par 4
is superfluous because par 5 encompasses everything.
16 Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.
(n)
17
Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may
recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904)
19
in
CLASS NOTES
1.
2.
3.
Filamer v. IAC
August 1992
FACTS: Funtecha is a part-time janitor and scholar of
Filamer. Having a drivers license, he requested Masa,
driver and son of school president, to let him drive them
home where Funtecha also lives. Masa yielded and on
the way they hit a pedestrian, Kapunan, because
Funtecha swerved right to avoid a fast-moving truck. It
appears that Agustin Masa, school president, knew of
the license.
ISSUE: WON Filamer is liable
HELD: YES. The clause within the scope of their by
assigned tasks for the purpose of raising the
presumption of liability of an employer includes ANY ACT
DONE BY THE EMPLOYEE, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE INTERESTS OF THE
EMPLOYER OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYER AT THE TIME OF
THE INFLICTION OF THE INJURY.
THAT
In this case,
Funtecha drove the jeep not for his enjoyment but for
the service of Filamer. The fact that he was not the
school driver is insignificant. Besides, Filamer did not
exercise the diligence of a good father of the family.
Presumptive liability of employer (when employee is
driving a company vehicle) is determined by answering
this Q: WON the servant was at the time of the accident
performing any act in furtherance of his masters
business.
CLASS NOTE
Labor Code provision that there is an ER-EE
relationship is not applicable
NPC v. CA
August 1998
FACTS: A dump truck driven by Ilumba and owned by
NPC collided with a Toyota Tamaraw, resulting in the
death of 3 persons in the Tamaraw and injuries to 17
passengers. PHESCO supplied Ilumba as a driver to
NPC. NPC and PHESCO are pointing fingers, each
claiming Ilumba is the employee of the other.
ISSUE: Who is the employer of Ilumba, and therefore,
liable with him
HELD: NPC. PHESCO is a labor-only contractor
because it does not carry on an independent business
and does not have substantial capital. It is merely an
agent of NPC. The Civil Code and NOT the Labor Code
applies to determine NPCs liability because the action
here is based on the recovery of damages as a result of
QD. The Labor Code applies only to liability caused by
non-compliance with substantive labor standards on
working conditions, etc.
Requisites to hold the employer liable for torts
under 2180:
1. there must exist an ER-EE relationship
20
2.
employee must be acting within the
scope of his assigned task
NOTE: In Filamer, Labor Code provisions do not apply
even n the determination of an employer-employee
relationship. Sir says there is a policy considerations.
The Court tries to utilize doctrine to support their cause.
CLASS NOTES
par4 and 5 of 2180, NCC applies! LC not
strictly applied, just used to determine the
existence of EER
LRT v. Navidad
February 2003
FACTS: Nicanor was drunk when he entered the LRT
station after buying a token. He got into a fistfight with
Escartin, a security guard and he fell unto the tracks.
The train hit him and he died instantly. Nicanors widow
and children sued Escartin, Roman (the train driver),
LRTA, Metro Transit and Prudent (security agency).
LRTA and Roman filed counterclaims and Prudent
denied liability, averring it exercised due diligence in the
selection and supervision of its employees.
ISSUE: WON LRTA is liable
HELD: YES. The presumption of liability was overcome.
Common carriers, by the nature of its business and
reasons of public policy, is burdened with the duty of
exercising utmost diligence. This duty is not only during
the course of the trip but for as long as the passengers
are within the premises and where they ought to be in
pursuance of the contract of carriage.
PROVISIONS
McKee v. IAC
July 1992
FACTS: A head-on collision between a cargo truck
driven by Galang and a Ford Escort driven by Jose
Kho, resulting in the death of 3 and injuries to 3 others,
all passengers of the Ford. The accident was caused by
2 boys who darted into the street causing Kho, driver of
the Ford, to swerve into the trucks lane.
ISSUE: WON the employer of Galang is liable
HELD: YES. There is a presumption of negligence on
the part of the employer. The only defense is due
diligence of a good father of a family. They did not
interpose nor prove this defense.
Note: Why is there a presumption? Sir says it is
because it is difficult to prove the employer did not
exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision
of the employee.
CLASS NOTES
presumption that they are negligent flows from
the negligence of their employee
liability: primary, direct and solidary
Valenzuela v. CA
February 1996
FACTS: Valenzuela had a flat tire and had to park her
midnight blue Mitsubishi lancer on the side of the road.
While standing on the left rear side of the car, watching
someone changed her tire, she was bumped by Li
CLASS NOTES
6. State
-not liable for acts of its officers, agents and employees
(unless special agent; and except when state acts as a
21
CLASS NOTE
Very useful provision in our day and age
Merritt v. Government
March 1916
FACTS: Plaintiff Merritt suffered severe injuries as his
motorcycle collided with a PGH ambulance due to the
negligence of the latters vehicles driver. The
Government passed an Act authorizing Merritt to sue
the Government.
ISSUE: WON the State is liable for damages
HELD: NO. Though the State waived its immunity from
suit, it did not concede liability to Merritt. The State is
not liable for torts, except when it acts through a special
agent. In this case, the driver is not a special agent
within the contemplation of the law. Although the
accident was caused by a government employee, the
State did not undertake to guarantee to third persons
the acts of all its employees for that would subject the
State to countless suits, which is subversive to public
interest. The State is not responsible for the damages
suffered by private individuals in consequence of the
acts performed by its employees pertaining to their
office because neither fault nor negligence can be
presumed on the part of the State in the
organization of branches of public service and
appointment of its agents.
CLASS NOTES
This case defined actually defined special
agent (although sir didnt seem to remember):
receives a definite and fixed order or
commission, foreign to the exercise of duties
of his office if he is a special officer
So in this case the chauffeur still was acting
within his duty as a driver when he hit Merritt
Merritt was one of the best constructors of
wooden buildings at that time!
RULE:
OFFICIALS: comprises all officials and employees of
the government who exercise duties of their respective
public officers
SPECIAL AGENTS: all others who are acting by
commission of the government, whether individual or
juridical bodies.
CLASS NOTE
Differentiated special agent from officials
The case used Merritts definition of special
agent
Perfecto dissented, saying ECA special agent,
as opposed to ordinary government officials
who were also agents
Mendoza v. De Leon
February 1916
CLASS NOTES
Fontanilla v. Maliaman
February 1991
FACTS: National Irrigation Administration was created
for the purpose of constructing, improving, rehabilitating
and administering all national irrigation systems of the
Philippines. NIAs driver caused the death of Fontanilla
due to the fault and/or negligence. His parets fled a suit
for damages.
ISSUE: WON NIA is liable
HELD: YES. NIAs functions are basically proprietary
and incidentally governmental. RA 3601 and PD 552
provide that NIA is a body corporate invested with a
corporate personality and distinct from the government.
So, it may be sued. At the time, the driver was an
agent. Where a private individual is commissioned to do
a special task, he may be considered a special agent
within the contemplation of the provision.
22
CLASS NOTES
added special agent: aside from special
commission, COMMISSION HAS TO BE FOREIGN
FROM ITS FUNCTIONS (but this was already in the
definition given in Merritt so ewan ko kay sir
kung ano bago dito!)
CLASS NOTES
comment ni sir: charter is supposed to be
more specific since it only applies to city of
manila but civil code is more specific in
determining liability for defective streets
You can argue either way. Court always
makes someone liable. Its all about allocating
risks.
CLASS NOTES
2. Employees
CLASS NOTES
A2176 to make fellow employee liable
Sir: take note of 1723 (interesting provision)
Araneta v. Joya
May 1974
FACTS: De Joya, general manager, proposed to Ace
Management to send Taylor to the US for further
studies. De Joya sent Taylor despite the Boards
disapproval. Travel expenses and salaries were paid to
CLASS NOTES
Relevance: A2176 in this case was used to
show a liability of a fellow employee
3. Engineer/Architect
Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the
plans and specifications for a building is liable for
damages if within fifteen years from the completion of
the structure, the same should collapse by reason of a
defect in those plans and specifications, or due to the
defects in the ground. The contractor is likewise
responsible for the damages if the edifice falls, within
the same period, on account of defects in the
construction or the use of materials of inferior quality
furnished by him, or due to any violation of the terms of
the contract. If the engineer or architect supervises the
construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the
contractor.
Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not
imply waiver of any of the cause of action by reason of
any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
The action must be brought within ten years following
the collapse of the building. (n)
23
De Leon 455-456
Liability of engineer or architect/contractor for
collapse of building constructed:
20 Art. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of
them simultaneously. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those
which may subsequently be directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been fully
collected. (1144a)
CLASS NOTES
Art. 32 is the basis for a civil action for violation
of civil liberties.
Special rule: Judges are not covered unless
done in excess of jurisdiction.
Take note: Art. 32 says DIRECTLY or
INDIRECTLY
Private persons may be sued under this!
24
CLASS NOTES
Who can contest? Only the parties whose
rights have been impaired
Why is good faith not a defense? It will be
contrary to purpose of the law.
Subordinate officer not liable illogical
because Court already said that good faith is
not a defense.
Provincial commander NOT LIABLE because
of chain of command Subordinate, just follow
orders but GF not needed
Aberca v. Ver
April 1988
FACTS: Task Force Makabansa, intelligence units of
the AFP, conducted pre-emptive strikes against known
communist-terrorist underground houses. It conducted
raids with defective search warrants where personal
items were confiscated, people were arrested without
warrant and interrogated without proper procedures.
The violations of the plaintiffs rights were geared
towards obtaining evidence to incriminate them. The
CLASS NOTE
because
MHP Garments v. CA
September 1994
FACTS: MHP was awarded the exclusive franchise to
sell and distribute official uniforms and supplies of the
Boy Scouts of the Philippines. They were informed that
Cruz, Lugatiman and Gonzales were selling BSP
uniforms without authority. They sought the aid of the
Philippine Constabulary. Constabulary men and De
Guzman, representative of MHP, went to the stalls,
seized the goods and caused a commotion, all without
warrant.
ISSUE: WON MHP and De Guzman may be held liable
HELD: YES. The Constitution protects people against
unreasonable searches and seizures. The evidence
presented did not justify the treatment of the
respondents. MHP was indirectly involved. They
instigated the raid which was conducted with the active
participation of De Guzman. The proper method would
have been to report the matter and secure a warrant.
CLASS NOTE
Take note: even private persons who
participate can be held liable under Article 32
25
Marcia v CA
January 27, 1983
FACTS: Victory Liner bus driven by Paje collided with a
jeep driven by Marcia. Marcia died and 2 other were
seriously injured. An info for homicide and double
serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence
was filed against Paje. Heirs of Marcia reserved the
right to file a civil action separately and later did. CA
acquitted Paje stating that the case was a pure
CLASS NOTE
Madeja v Caro
December 1983
FACTS: A criminal action was filed against Dr. Japzon
for the death of Madeja after an appendectomy.
Pending the criminal case, his widow filed a civil action
for damages, alleging gross negligence, but this was
dismissed.
CLASS NOTE
Art 33 does not affect in any way the criminal
action.
1. Defamation
26
MVRS v. Islamic
January 2003
FACTS: An issue of Bulgar wrote an article stating that
Muslims dont eat pigs because they treat them as
Gods. Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines and
individual Muslims filed a complaint for damages,
alleging the story was a product of sheer ignorance but
with the intent to hurt the feelings, cast insult and
disparage Muslims of the world.
ISSUE: WON MVRS may be held liable
HELD: NO. The libel suit will not prosper because
NOT
IDENTIFY
SPECIFICALLY
NOR
REFER
TO
ANY
IT DID
PARTICULAR
They cannot
CLASS NOTES
important: definition of defamation, what is the
relation to libel and slander (big circle):
Definition of defamation broader than
slander/libel
you have to prove specific damage to you and
that there was an intent to damage or hurt you.
2. Fraud
Salta v. Veyra
September 1982
FACTS: Salta was an employee of PNB. As a manager,
he indiscriminately granted some loans in a manner
characterized by negligence fraud, manifest partiality
and upon securities not commensurate to the loan. The
criminal case was dismissed, but 2 civil cases were
filed. Salta filed motions to dismiss based on the
acquittal. Judge de Veyra denied one MTD, but Judge
Purisima granted the other. Acquittal was based on
insufficiency of evidence.
ISSUE: WON the MTD should be granted
HELD: NO. THE ACQUITTAL IN THE CRIMINAL CASE WILL NOT BE AN
CLASS NOTES
fraud here is not simply estafa. Swindling
is just a specie of an offense committed by
means of fraud.
CLASS NOTES
violation of a trust receipt is a violation
under Article 33
Since there is FRAUD, can file independent
and distinct civil action based on Article 33
3. Physical Injuries
Capuno v. Pepsi
April 1965
27
CLASS NOTE
Corpus v. Paje
July 1969
FACTS: Victory Liner bus driven by Paje collided with a
jeep driven by Marcia. Marcia died and 2 other were
seriously injured. An info for homicide and double
serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence
was filed against Paje. Heirs of Maria reserved the right
to file a civil action separately and later did.
ISSUE: WON the acquittal of Paje in the criminal case
bars the civil action
HELD: YES. The acquittal was based on the ground
that the reckless imprudence or criminal negligence
charged did not exist and the collision was pure
accident. CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, THAT IS RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE,
CRIMES MENTIONED IN
ART 33
WHICH
CLASS NOTES
Dulay v. CA
April 1995
FACTS: Torzuela, a security guard, shot Atty. Dulay
while he was on duty at the Big Bang sa Alabang due
to some altercation. Dulays widow filed an action for
damages against Torzuela, Superguard and Safeguard
(both companies believed to be Torzuelas employers).
ISSUE: WON an independent civil action may proceed
HELD: YES. The act of the Dulays of instituting a
separate civil action under Art 33 is allowed. The term
physical injuries has been held (in Madeja vs. Caro) to
include consummated, attempted and frustrated
homicide. SC, looking at Art 111 of the ROC, said that
the civil action is impliedly instituted with the criminal
action unless the offended party (Civil action deemed
instituted):
1. waives the civil action
2. reserves the right to institute it separately
3. institutes it prior to the criminal action
This case differs from Marcia v CA, in that, here, the
crime is homicide not reckless imprudence so a
separate civil action may be filed.
Madeja v. Caro
December 1983
28
C. Neglect of Duty
CLASS NOTES
29
A. Abuse Of Rights
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 honest and good
faith.
2.
3.
CLASS NOTES
CATCH ALL
CLASS NOTES
In the context of international law, this case is
actually wrong: If the concept of Lex Loci
delicti commisi would be followed, the place
where most of the crimes was committed
would determine what law should be applied.
In this case, most of the violation of rights were
committed in SAUDI!
BUT COURT HELD THAT RP LAWS
SHOULD BE APPLIED: no unnecessary
difficulties and inconvenience shown by either
parties if RP + Saudi already submitted to the
jurisdiction of QC RTC
This case demonstrates the broad application
of A19 and A21.
A 19, 20, 21 are not conflicts of law provisions
but were applied in a conflicts of law case.
Globe Mackay v. CA
August 25, 1989
FACTS: Tobias was employed by Globe Mackay as a
purchasing agent. He uncovered certain fraudulent
transactions. However, Hendry, an EVP, accused him
of being a crook and a swindler. Tobias was charged
with estafa. The cases against him were dismissed.
Despite this, Tobias was fired. Hendry then sent a
letter to Tobias potential employer alleging his
dishonesty. Tobias filed an action for damages against
Hendry and Globe.
ISSUE: WON Tobias was entitled to damages. YES
30
CLASS NOTES
Right to dismiss should not be confused with
the manner in which the right is exercised:
there was name-calling, threats, You Filipinos
cannot be trusted!
A19: Principle of abuse of rights; set certain
standards which must be observed not only in
the exercise of ones rights but also in
performance of ones duties
to act with justice
to give everyone his due
to observe honesty and good faith
Albenson v. CA
January 11, 1993
FACTS: Guaranteed issued Albenson a check as
payment for the mild steel plates it ordered. The check
bounced. Albenson found out that the check belonged
to Eugenio Baltao. It filed a complaint for violation of
BP 22 against Eugenio S. Baltao. However, it appears
that the respondent had a namesake, his son Eugenio
Baltao III. The elder Baltao then filed a suit for
damages against Albenson.
ISSUE: WON Albenson was liable for damages. NO
HELD: When a right is exercised in a manner which
does not conform with the norms of Article 19 and
results in damage to another, a LEGAL WRONG is
committed for which the wrongdoer must be held
responsible.
2.
3.
CLASS NOTE
Amonoy v. Gutierrez
February 15, 2001
CLASS NOTES
Rule: Action which was originally legal can
become illegal if exercised abusively.
The legal principle applied in this case is
damnum absque injuria.
What we have here is an illegal act. There was
no more right for him to abuse! This is not a
case of abuse of right.
A19 presupposes an existing right; What
Amonoy did was contempt of court
Problem: relied upon Testimony solely of
Guitierrez (when it is self-serving)
UE v. Jader
February 17, 2000
FACTS: Jader was a law student at the University of
the East. He failed to take the regular exam for
Practice Court I so he was given an incomplete grade.
He took the removals but he was given a grade of five.
Jader attended the graduation and prepared for the bar.
He later learned of his deficiency. Jader sued UE for
damages. UEs defense was that Jader should have
verified grade!
ISSUE: WON UE was liable for damages. YES
honest
intention
31
CLASS NOTES
Schools and professors cannot just take
students for granted and be indifferent to them,
for without the latter, the former are useless.
Petitioner (university) cannot just give out its
students grades at any time
Can you sue professor for not giving grades on
time? No. Should be the school.
Garciano v. CA
August 10, 1992
FACTS:
Garciano, a teacher at the Immaculate
Concepcion Institute was granted an indefinite leave of
absence to go to Austria. She was later sent a letter
informing that Fr. Wiertzs, the schools founder,
decided to terminate her services (BUT ONLY Board of
Directors has the power to terminate her services). The
Board of Directors reinstated her. The ICI faculty has
reacted acidly her reinstatement. Garciano then filed
a complaint for damages.
ISSUE: WON respondents were liable for damages.
NO
HELD: Whatever loss Garciano may have incurred in
the form of lost earnings was self-inflicted. (Volenti
non fit injuria). Garciano failed to report back in time,
CLASS NOTE
Respondents did not physically prevent her
from working
Teachers were simply exercising Right to
speech, right to dissent from boards decision
Board ordered her to report to work!
CLASS NOTE
Violate concept of social solidarity
BF not proven (that Phelps just wanted to
directly deal with Meralco); Rejection of offer of
payment is not an abuse of right
BPI v. CA
FACTS: Atty. Marasigans credit card was denied
at Caf Adriatico after he failed to pay his
outstanding balance. One of his guests had to pay
the bill. He sued BPI for damages claiming that he
had an agreement with BPI and that he sent a
check to BPI to cover the balance and future bills
in exchange for non-suspension of his credit card.
TC: in favor of Marasigan. BPI abused its right to
suspend or cancel the card because it did not
mention to Marasigan that his card will be
suspended despite several communciations.
CA: Affirmed
ISSUE: WON BPI abused its right to suspend the
card.
HELD: No.
32
CLASS NOTE
There was no arbitrariness on the part of BPI.
Damnum absque injuria; there was damage
but no injury (Custodio vs. CA)
CLASS NOTE
1. Elements
Ruiz v. Secretary of National Defense
December 28, 1963
FACTS: A contract was executed between Allied
Technologies and the Republic of the Philippines to
build the Veterans Memorial Hospital. The construction
of the hospital was terminated. Ruiz and Herrera,
together with Panlillo, were the architects of the building
but only Panlillo was recognized. Ruiz and Herrera
citing Article 21, sued to be recognized as the architects
of the hospital.
ISSUE: WON Article 21 was applicable. NO
2. Examples
a.
Breach of Promise to
Marry,
Seduction,
and
Sexual
Assault
CLASS NOTES
Who is Agonciila? Unmarried woman of chaste
character
Seduction of Agoncilla- actionable under A 21,
crime if under 18 years old, moral wrong
No seduction if promise came after Agoncilla
became pregnant
Wassmer v. Velez
December 26, 1964
Tanjanco v. CA
December 17, 1966
FACTS: Tanjanco, courted the Santos, both being of
adult age. In consideration of Tanjanco's promise of
marriage, Santos consented to sexual intercourse.
Tanjanco succeeded in having carnal access with
Santos until Dec. 1959. As a result, Santos got
33
CLASS NOTES
Issue of deceit: Deceit can come in many
forms and can result in attraction (so there is
no moral seduction.)
Critique of Tanjanco: Seduction in this case
only covers the initial sexual contact.
Rule in Buenaventura: For seduction to be
actionable, there must be deception and the
woman must have yielded because of the
inducement.
There is no seduction when there is mutual
desire and the opportunity was merely
afforded to the woman.
Baksh v. CA
February 19, 1993
FACTS: Baksh, an Iranian, courted Gonzales. She
accepted his love on the condition that they would get
married. When Baksh visited her home, Gonzales
parents allowed them to sleep together. Baksh then
forced her to live with him. He beat her. Gonzales later
CLASS NOTES
Bunag, Jr. v. CA
July 10, 1992
FACTS: Bunag brought Zenaida Cirilo to a motel
where he raped her. He then brought her to his
grandmothers house where they lived together as
husband and wife for 21 days. Bunag and Cirilo then
filed for a marriage license. Bunag then withdrew his
application. Cirilo filed for a complaint for damages for
breach of promise to marry.
ISSUE: WON Bunag was liable for damages. YES
CLASS NOTE
This case is similar to say Tanjanco.
Even if there is deceit but the deceit resulted in
attraction of the woman to the man, then there
will be no more seduction.
EXPENSES
FOR
THE
WEDDING
AND
THE
Quimiguing v. Icao
July 31, 1970
NECESSARY
INCIDENTS THEREOF
34
CLASS NOTE
Compare this case with Tanjanco
In this case, Bunag just wanted to marry Cirilo
to ESCAPE LIABILITY (so promise to marry
BUT NO INTENT TO MARRY so actionable)
Constantino v. Mendez
May 14, 1992
FACTS: Constantino and Mendez met at Tonys
Restaurant, where she was a waitress.
Mendez
professed his love during their first date. Through a
promise of marriage, he succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with Constantino. Mendez then confessed
that he was married. Despite this, they had repeated
sexual contact. Constantino got pregnant. She then
sued for recognition of her unborn child and damages
for breach of promise to marry.
ISSUE: WON Mendez was liable for damages. NO
HELD: Mere sexual intercourse is not by itself a basis
for recovery. Damages should only be awarded if
sexual intercourse is NOT A PRODUCT OF VOLUNTARINESS AND
MUTUAL DESIRE. In this case, Constantino was already 28
years old. More importantly, she admitted that SHE WAS
CLASS NOTE
Sexual assault = rape
There was a criminal action for rape in this
case
Pe v. Pe
May 30, 1962
FACTS: Alfonso Pe, a married man and a collateral
relative, frequented Lolitas house on the pretext that he
wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary.
Alfonso and Lolita then fell in love. Lolita's parents
heard about the affair (exchange of notes, trysts in
different barrios) so they refused to let them see each
35
ACTION
FOR
AND
WITHOUT
PROBABLE
CAUSE,
AFTER
THE
TO
CONSTITUTE
MP,
CLASS NOTE
The lower court presented a more romantic
version of the love story
Both Alfonso and Lolita were of age
b. Malicious Prosecution
Que v. IAC
January 13, 1989
FACTS: Que filed a complaint for estafa against
Nicolas because of the checks the latter issued as
payment for canvass strollers were dishonored. Nicolas
allegedly did not continue payment because of the
defective canvass strollers which he never returned to
Que. The charge was dismissed in the fiscal level.
Nicolas filed a complaint for malicious prosecution.
ISSUE: WON Que was guilty of malicious prosecution.
NO.
HELD: Neither of them is GUILTY OF MALICE. To constitute
malicious prosecution, there must be proof that the
prosecution was:
1. Prompted by a sinister design to vex and
humiliate a person
2. Initiated deliberately by the defendant
3.
GROUNDLESS.
CONCEDEDLY,
MP.
3 ELEMENTS OF MP:
1. THE FACT OF THE
PROSECUTION
CLASS NOTE
Dismissal of the case does not automatically
give rise to a cause of action for malicious
prosecution
If there is probable cause, there is no malice
Drilon v. CA
April 20, 2001
FACTS: A letter complaint sent to Drilon resulted in an
order to investigate several individuals, including
Adaza, for their participation in the failed Dec. 89 coup.
The preliminary investigation stated that there was
probable cause to hold respondents for the crime of
rebellion with murder and frustrated murder. Adaza
filed a complaint for damages against Drilon for
malicious prosecution.
ISSUE: WON Drilon et al was guilty of malicious
prosecution. NO.
HELD: There is no malicious prosecution in this case
because the presence of probable cause signifies the
absence of malice.
2.
3.
CLASS NOTES
Reminder: memorize the definition of malicious
prosecution.
There is no malicious prosecution because
none of the three elements were present (not
terminated with an acquittal, Drilon acted with
probable cause as found in PI, no sinister
motive could be imputed).
CLASS NOTE
Competent proof of bad faith in filing the suit is
essential.
36
However, in
this case, the circumstances of the case showed that
there was malicious intent in the filing of the complaint
for qualified theft.
CLASS NOTE
Dismissal of qualified theft case in fiscal level
only still possible to file MP.
If the case only reached fiscal level
GEN RULE: no MP
EXCEPTION: if BF, with Malicious intent
CLASS NOTE
Gross negligence can prove bad faith.
Bad faith = gross negligence. No gross
negligence in this case. It was an innocent
mistake.
Cited Manila Gas definition of malicious
prosecution and Que for probable cause
Manila Gas v. CA
October 30, 1980
FACTS: Manila Gas installed additional appliances and
gas service connections in Ongsips compound. Since
no gas consumption was registered in the meter,
Manila Gas issued instructions to change the gas
meter. Coronal then went to the compound and
changed the meter without informing Ongsip. Coronal
returned in the afternoon and took pictures. When
Ongsip asked about it, he was told to just go to the
office. In the office, he was told of the existence of a
jumper and was threatened with deportation.
A
c. Public Humiliation
Patricio v. Leviste
April 26, 1989
FACTS: Leviste smashed a beer bottle on the table
causing his hand to bleed. He then approached
Patricio, a Catholic priest, and slapped him. Patricio
filed a complaint for slander by deed which was
dismissed. He then filed for damages.
ISSUE: WON Leviste was liable for damages. YES.
HELD: Article 2219 applies. The act of slapping was
contrary to morals and good customs and caused
Patricio mental anguish, moral shock, wounded feelings
and social humiliation.
IN OTHER
RESTORATION
WORDS:
THE AWARD
OF
MD
IS
AIMED
PURPOSE
OF
ED
(ART.
2229).
CANNOT BE RECOVERED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT; THE COURT WILL
DECIDE WON THEY COULD BE ADJUDICATED.
CONSIDERING THAT THEY ARE AWARDED FOR WANTON ACTS, THAT
ARE
PENAL
IN
CHARACTER
GRANTED
NOT
BY
WAY
OF
PURPOSE
OF
MD:
PUNISHMENT OR CORRECTION
NOT INTENDED
THEY
CLASS NOTE
AT
37
CLASS NOTE
Manner of attacking without any amount of
proof- contrary to morals and good customs.
d. Unjustified Dismissal
Quisaba v. Sta. Inez
August 30, 1974
FACTS: Quisaba, an internal auditor of Sta. Ines, was
ordered by Robert Hyde, the VP, to purchase logs for
the companys plant. Quisaba refused because it
wasnt part of his job. As a result, he was demoted.
Quisaba filed a complaint for damages, termination pay,
and attorneys fees. Sta. Ines said that the NLRC had
jurisdiction.
ISSUE: WON the regular courts had jurisdiction. YES
HELD: Quisabas complaint was grounded not on his
dismissal but rather ON THE MANNER OF HIS DISMISSAL AND ITS
CONSEQUENT EFFECTS. IF THE DISMISSAL WAS DONE ANTI-SOCIALLY
OR OPPRESSIVELY, THEN THE RESPONDENTS VIOLATED ARTICLE
1701, which prohibits acts of oppression by either
capital or labor against the other, and Article 21, which
makes a person liable for damages if he willfully causes
loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals, good customs, or public policy.
CLASS NOTE
Elements:
(1) material or moral loss
(2) public servants refusal or neglect to perform duty
(3) without just cause
Medina v. Castro-Bartolome
September 11, 1982
FACTS: Cosme de Aboitiz, President and CEO of
Pepsi, shouted and cursed at the plaintiffs in front of
their subordinate employees. The petitioners filed a
case of oral defamation against de Aboitiz. It was
dismissed since the jurisdiction of claims was
transferred from the CFI to the Labor Arbiters.
ISSUE: WON the Labor Code applies. NO
HELD: The plaintiffs did not allege any unfair labor
practice. It was an action for damages for tortious
acts allegedly committed by the defendants. Such
being the case, the governing statute is the Civil Code
and not the Labor Code.
Amaro v. Sumaguit
July 31, 1962
FACTS: Jose Amaro was assaulted and shot near the
city government building. The following day, he along
with his father and witnesses, went to the Chief of
Police to seek assistance but were not rendered
assistance. The city attorney was about to file an
information for illegal discharge of firearms against the
assailant. However, the Chief of Police started to
harass the Amaros, coercing them to sign an affidavit
absolving the police officers of any liability. The Amaros
then filed a suit for damages.
ISSUE: WON the Amaros action under Article 21
and/or 27 would prosper. YES
HELD: The Amaros claim for relief was based on the
Chief of Polices refusal to give assistance, which was
his duty to do as an officer of the law. What is
required under Art. 27 is that the refusal must be
without just cause.
B. Unfair Competition
Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural or industrial
enterprises or in labor through the use of force,
intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust,
oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to
aright of action by the person who thereby suffers
damage.
CLASS NOTE
CLASS NOTE
Unfair competition: designed to place your
products in a better light.
Should be in the context of giving advantage
to one party (eg. derogatory commercials)
38
St. Louis v. CA
November 14, 1984
FACTS: St. Louis Realty caused to be published an ad
depicting the Arcadio Family in front of Dr. Aramils
residence, making it appear that the house was owned
by the Arcadios. Aramil protested. Plaintiff stopped
publication, but did not rectify. Aramil extra judicially
demanded damages. This is when St Louis Realty
published a new ad showing the Arcadios in their real
home. Aramil filed complaint for damages claiming
mental anguish and reduction in income. TC awarded
actual and moral damages. CA affirmed.
ISSUE: WON acts and omissions of the firm fall under
Art. 26
HELD: Yes. St. Louis Realty was grossly negligent in
mixing up the residences. It never made any written
apology and explanation of the mix-up. Persons who
know Dr. Aramil were confused by the distorted
lingering impression that he was renting his residence.
His private life was mistakenly and unnecessarily
exposed. He suffered diminution of income and mental
anguish.
Damages fixed by TC are sanctioned by Arts. 2200,
2208 and 2219 of the Civil Code. Art. 2219 allows moral
damages for acts and actions mentioned in Art. 26.
CLASS NOTE
This is an action for damages for wrongful
advertisement shows that Art 26 is very
broad.
39
CLASS NOTES
Important for the distinction between damage,
injury and damages
Mere fact that plaintiffs suffer damage doesnt
mean that theres right of action
To warrant recovery of damages:
-Legal right on the part of plaintiff
-Injury caused to plaintiff
People v. Ballesteros
FACTS: Murder, through gunshot wounds, question
amt of damages awarded
*DAMAGES may be defined as
COMPENSATION, RECOMPENSE, OR SATISFACTION
SUSTAINED, OR AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSED,
THE
PECUNIARY
FOR AN INJURY
THE
PECUNIARY
CLASS NOTES
Important for the definition of damages
For actual damages, the party making claim
must present best evidence.
X. DAMAGES
Custodio v. CA
CLASS NOTE
Damages is not limited to quasi-delicts
(also includes contracts, quasi-contracts
and delicts).
CLASS NOTES
It is expressly provided for in Art. 2199 that
there should be proof of pecuniary damages
for AD or CD
Take note of what indemnity is included in Art.
2200
Algarra v. Sandejas
FACTS: Plaintiff Algarra received personal injuries from
a collision with the defendant Saldejas automobile due
to the negligence of the defendant, who was driving the
car. Plaintiff sold the products of a distillery as a
commission agent and had about twenty regular
customers, who purchased his wares in small
quantities, necessitating regular and frequent deliveries.
Being unable to attend to their wants during their wants
during the two months he was incapacitated due to the
accident, his regular customers turned their trade to
other competing agents.
HELD: Under both the Spanish Civil Code and
American law of damages, actual damages for a
negligent act or omission are confined to those which
were foreseen or might have been foreseen or those
which were the natural and probable consequences or
the direct and immediate consequences of the act or
omission.
In this jurisdiction, the author of a negligent act or
omission which causes damage to another is obliged to
repair the damage done. No distinction is made
between damage caused maliciously and intentionally
and damages caused through mere negligence in so far
as civil liability is concerned. Nor is the defendant
required to do more than repair the damage done or to
put the plaintiff in the same position that he would have
been in had the damage not been inflicted.
This is practically equivalent to compensatory or actual
damages as those terms are used in American law.
*THE
REPAIR THE WRONG THAT HAS BEEN DONE, TO COMPENSATE FOR THE
INJURY INFLICTED, AND NOT TO IMPOSE PENALTY.
1. Kinds
PNOC v. CA
FACTS: The M/V Ma. Efigenia XV, owned by
respondent Ma. Efigenia Fishing Corp. collided with the
vessel Petroparcel which at the time was owned by the
Luzon Stevedoring Co. The Board of Marine Inquiry
rendered a decision finding the Petroparcel at fault and
thus the respondent filed an action for damages against
Luzon Stevedoring and the Petroparcels captain.
During the pendency of the case, petitioner PNOC
acquired the Petroparcel and was substituted in place
of Luzon Stevedoring in the complaint.
HELD: ACTUAL
OR
COMPENSATORY
DAMAGES
ARE
THOSE
THEY
JUSTICE AND ARE DESIGNED TO REPAIR THE WRONG THAT HAS BEEN
DONE, TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INJURY INFLICTED AND NOT TO
IMPOSE A PENALTY.
40
1.
2.
CLASS NOTES
The basic rule in recovering AD: it is sufficient
that damages are capable of proof in order to
recover (AD)
There should be a record to serve as proof
presented before the Court
There are cases which say that providing a list
of expenses is not enoughthere has to be
receipts, etc.PROOF SHOULD BE VERY
FACTUAL
Proof required: reasonable certainty upon
competent proof
Two (2) kinds of AD or CD:
Dano emergente-actual
Lucro cesante-loss of profit
Integrated Packing v. CA
Petitioner Integrated Packing Corporation (IPC) and
respondent Fil-Anchor Paper entered into an
agreement whereby Fil-Anchor bound itself to deliver
3,450 reams of printing paper to IPC, to be paid within
30 to 90 days from delivery. Later, IPC entered into a
contract with the Philippine Appliance Corporation
(Philacor) to print three volumes of Philacor Cultural
Books.
However, IPC encountered problems paying Fil-Anchor
and became heavily indebted to the latter. This led to
Fil-Anchor suspending deliveries of paper to IPC. Thus,
out of the agreed upon 3,450 reams, only 1097 were
delivered., despite demand by IPC for Fil-Anchor to
deliver the balance.
CLASS NOTES
The Court here gave the two kinds CDdano
emergente and lucro cesante
Problem with the evidence presentedmere
estimates
Court disallowed mere estimates because they
are highly speculative and manifestly
hypothetical
CD here was strictly construed
2. Extent
CLASS
NOTES
Art. 2201 lays down the distinction between
good faith and bad faith (in bad faith
whatever damage happens)
Last sentence of Art. 2202 problematicsome
cases use forseeability as an element of QD
Forseeability:
In elements: may be required
In damages: not required
Reasonable certainty required: allege specific
facts, Present best evidence
Quantum of evidence required: preponderance
of evidence
3. Certainty
-possible that the exact value (peso) is not known.
PNOC v. CA
FACTS: Collision of 2 vessels
Certainty: to enable an injured party to recover AD or
CD, he is required to prove the actual amount of loss
with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon
competent proof and on the best evidence available.
CLASS NOTES
Problem here with preponderance of evidence
is that it became COMPARATIVEall things
41
DBP v. CA
Lydia Cuba was the grantee of a fishpond lease
agreement with the government, the rights to which she
assigned to DBP as security for loans the latter
extended to her. After Cuba failed to meet the terms of
payment on the loans, the DBP, without foreclosure
proceedings of any kind, appropriated Cubas leasehold
rights over the fishpond.
Subsequently, DBP executed a deed of conditional sale
in favor of Cuba over the same fishpond. However,
Cuba once again was unable to meet the amortizations
stipulated which led to DBP rescinding the deed of
conditional sale and taking possession of not only the
fishpond but also a house Cuba had built next to it as
well, along with all the personal belongings,
machineries, equipment, and tools therein, which
subsequently, it was claimed, went missing.
DBP allegedly also prevented Cuba and her
representatives from feeding the fish already in the
fishpond which led to their loss.
As to the losses Cuba allegedly suffered when DBP
took possession of the fishpond, the court said: Actual
or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but
must be proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A
court cannot rely on speculation, conjectures, or
guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but
must depend upon competent proof that they have
been suffered by the injured party and on the best
obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof. It
must point to specific facts which could afford a basis
for measuring whatever compensatory or actual
damages are borne.
42
CA: reduced it to 1M
CLASS NOTES
DBPs acquisition of the leasehold rights
wasnt valid
Problem with AD here: Court said AD was
speculative because actual ocular inspection
was done after the filing of the complaint and
that they should have made an inventory
Sir: Just because certain damages were found
out after the filing of the compliant doesnt
make the damages speculative. Besides who
in the provinces makes an inventory of
bangus, etc.
This case shows that you should be ready with
documents
Fuentes, Jr. v. CA
Julieto Malaspina was at a benefit dance when
Alejandro Fuentes, Jr. put his arm on the formers
shoulder saying Before, I saw you with long hair but
now you have a short hair, whereupon Fuentes
stabbed Malaspina in the abdomen with a hunting knife
and fled.
Subsequently, Fuentes was convicted of murder.
During the trail, Malaspinas sister testified that she
incurred expensed of P8,300 in connection with his
death and the trial court awarded this amount as actual
damages.
However, the Supreme Court held that the trial court
was in error to have awarded the P8,300 as actual
damages on the basis of mere testimony of the victims
sister, without any tangible document to support such
claim.
In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant is liable for
all damages which are the natural and probable
consequences of the act or omission complained of. To
seek recovery for actual damages it is essential that the
injured party proves the actual amount of loss with
reasonable degree of certainty premised upon
competent proof and on the best evidence available.
Courts cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or
guesswork in determining the fact and amount of
damages.
CLASS NOTES
This case demonstrates how important the
quality of your evidence is (i.e. testimony for
damages by someone who is an interested
party is weak)
Talisay-Silay v. Assosiacion
August 15, 1995
FACTS: On the 15th of February, 1966, the TalisaySilay Milling Co. (TSMC) and the Talisay-Silay Industrial
Cooperative Association, Inc. (TSICA) instituted an
action for damages against defendants Asociacion de
Agricultores de Talisay-Silay, Inc. (AATSI), First
Farmers Milling Co., Inc. (FFMCI), Dominador
Agravante and other individual sugar planters. And
Ramon Nolan in his personal and official capacity as
administrator of the Sugar Quota administration,
alleging an illegal transfer of sugar quota allotment or
production allowance from TSMC to FFMCI.
In short, what happened was that instead of having the
sugar forming their export quota milled by TSMC as
they had always done in the past, the defendants had
their sugar milled at FFMCI instead, in violation of
Section 4 of RA 1825, An Act to Provide for the
Allocation, Re-allocation and administration of Absolute
Quota on Sugar, which provides certain requirements
that need to be met before a sugar planters sugar
quota allotment can be transferred from one mill to
another.
This started nearly thirty years of litigation between the
parties. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that the
transfer of their export sugar quota by AATSI and
certain individual planters from TSMC to FFMCI was
illegal and invalid and found the defendants liable to the
plaintiffs for damages.
TC: 15.4 M
o
o
CLASS NOTES
Financias Postradas?
Lost profits
Standard required by the Court for this:
accounting standards, pricing of Sugar Quota
Administration
When a property is damaged and you claim
AD, PNOC case provides for guidelines on
how to determine value of property (at what
point do you count)
Court here said: value AT TIME OF LOSS. If
this takes into account profits=FMV
43
4. Damage to property
PNOC v. CA
Where goods are destroyed by the wrongful act of the
defendant the plaintiff is entitled to their value at the
time of destruction, that is, normally, the sum of money
which he would have to pay in the market for identical
or essentially similar goods, plus in a proper case
damages for the loss of use during the period before
replacement.
In other words, in the case of profit-earning chattel s,
what has to be assessed is the value of the chattel to its
owner as a going concern at the time and place of the
loss, and this means, at least in the case of ships, that
regard must be had to existing and pending
engagements.
In the instant case, the pieces of documentary evidence
proffered by private respondent with respect to the
items and equipment lost show similar items and
equipment with corresponding prices approximately ten
years after the collision.
NOTES: Rule: amount at the time of the loss. cf
Gatchalian v. Delim (where the girl was given 15k for
plastic surgery)
CLASS NOTES
PNOC gives guidance as to how actual
damages are computed:
1. Price (fair market value) at the time of
loss, not what the price is at the time
of the ruling
2. In PNOC, inflation was taken into
account.
CLASS NOTES
Art. 2206 provides for earning capacity which
is NOT equal to actual income
Ramos v. CA
December 29, 1999
CLASS NOTES
Gatchalian v. Delim
October 21, 1991
INJURY
IS
SUFFERED
FOR
WHICH
ACTUAL
AND
Petitioner
Gatchalian is entitled to be placed as nearly as possible
in the condition that she was in before the mishap.
A
CLASS NOTES
This case is always cited to support that
plastic surgery can be the subject of AD.
Nature of action here: breach of contract of
common carrier
Sir: is there a health risk if you have a scar?
So purely aesthetic?
What was the proof offered for the scar?
Expert testimony: alleged cost of 5-10k
Yet SC granted 15k based on a presumption
that plastic surgery would cost more after
several years (SO AD became speculative
AND NOT PROVEN).
Sir: technology makes things cheaper but SC
here gave a presumption
Most intriguing is the language of the Court
the longer the scar has been, the more difficult
it is to remove
Gatchalian ruling is OK but the reasoning is
funny
This is still law so women can take advantage
of this
The case also cited Araneta vs. Areglado
where a young boy sued for costs of surgery
for removal of his scar on his face which
caused a degenerative process and inferiority
complex to the boy. Therefore since in this
case it was just a boy, it was easier to remove
the scar. In Reynaldas case, she was older so
SC ASSUMED that removing scar would be
harder
Skewed in favor of the beautiful
Relevance nung snapping sound accdg to
sir: baka naman may turtle kaya nag-turn turtle
ung bus!
People v. Mangahas
July 28, 1999
FACTS: The accused Rufino Mangahas and the late
Rufino Gestala were drinking at a store near the latters
house when an altercation between the two, allegedly
44
CLASS NOTES
5.
CLASS NOTES
The Court cherry-picked! Specifically deleted
an item which was too extravagant.
Attorneys Fees
CLASS NOTES
Attorneys fees are in the form of damages
(nasa title on damages)
Also in the form of AD
MEMORIZE THIS ARTICLE!
You cant recover outside the listing of 2008
unless there is a stipulation
AS regards the gen rule and exception, sir said
it can be BOTH
Why may one recover attorneys fees under
those listed? person is forced to protect his
45
CLASS NOTES
Attorneys fees referred to by Quirante not the
same as attorneys fees in 2208
What the difference?Attys fees in 2208 are
a form of AD and hence need to be proven.
This is not something that goes to the attorney
but to the litigant
7. Interest
Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a
sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the
indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the
contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed
upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal
interest, which is six per cent per annum.
Art. 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court,
be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of
contract.
Art. 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part
of the damages may, in a proper case, be adjudicated
in the discretion of the court.
Art. 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from
the time it is judicially demanded, although the
obligation may be silent upon this point.
Art. 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon
unliquidated claims or damages, except when the
demand can be established with reasonably certainty.
Crismina Garments v. CA
1. Rules on Interest
In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the
Court gave the following guidelines for the application
of the proper interest rates:
With regard particularly to an award of interest in the
concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate
of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed,
as follows:
When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the
payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance
of money, the interest due should be that which may
have been stipulated in writing.
Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal
interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the
absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12%
per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from
judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the
provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.
2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or
forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the
amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the
discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum.
No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated
claims or damages except when or until the demand
can be established with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, where the demand is established with
reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from
the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially but
when such certainty cannot be so reasonably
established at the time the demand is made, the
interest shall begin to run only from the date the
judgment of the court is made (at which time the
quantification of damages may be deemed to have
been reasonably ascertained).
The actual base for the computation of legal interest
shall, in any case, be xxx the amount finally adjudged.
3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of
money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal
interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or
46
stipulation; if none:
loan or forbearance-12%
not loan or forbearance-6%
CLASS NOTES
12% from CB Circular 416-for loan and
forbearance of money; as opposed to 6%
which was imposed by A2209
Forbearance of money: basically a loan, a
credit but loan has a specific legal definition
under the Civil Code
Memorize rules laid down in Eastern Shipping
Lines, Inc. v. CA
Take note of complications like compounding
of interest
When would interest accrue? From time of
judicial demand
8. Mitigation of Liability
Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences:
-if the plaintiff does not try to reduce damages, he
might not be able to recover
-plaintiff must try to avoid further damage
CLASS NOTES
47
IS
WELL-
IT
CLASS NOTES
Whats the connection of this case with the
Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences?
Defendant says that liability is mitigated
because plaintiff could have found another
casco at the same price
SC-no mitigation of liability
Damage = profit which he would have made
had the contract been performed
CASCO: a barge
PATRON: the captain of the barge
B. Moral
1. Concept
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of
pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant's wrongful act for omission.
CLASS NOTES
Kierulf v. CA
March 13, 1997
ALLEVIATE
THE MORAL
SINCE
SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR DAMAGES AND ITS
ITS
48
CLASS NOTES
Rodriguez case-different from what happened
to Lucila (there was nothing wrong with
possible performance. Equipment was not
damaged.)
Sir: what kind of evidence will you present
without embarrassing yourself to prove loss of
consortium?
This case can be used in the futureeven if
reason is only lack of visual stimulation
Another factor to determine amount of moral
damages: social and financial standing (but
wouldnt it be discriminating since you only
award damages to those who are rich?)
Epilogue by ponente: there should be:
Factual basis of mental anguish, etc.
Causal connection between factual basis and
defendants wrongful act or omission
49
ACTED
FRAUDULENTLY
MAY
AND
IN
BE
BAD
RECOVERED
FAITH,
IF
while
CLASS NOTES
CLASS NOTES
50
Miranda-Ribaya v. Bautista
January 28, 1980
moral shock and the like justified the denial of the claim
for damages.
Del Rosario v. CA
January 29, 1997
MUST
HAVE
SATISFACTORILY
PROVEN
DURING
THE
TRIAL
THE
THIS
IS SO BECAUSE MORAL
AND
Raagas v. Traya
February 27, 1968
FACTS: Defendant Bienvenido Carciller, while
recklessly driving a truck owned by his co-defendant
Octavio Traya, ran over the three year old son of
plaintiff spouses Melquiades and Adela Raagas,
causing the childs instantaneous death.
The lower court rendered a judgment on the pleadings
condemning the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs,
among others, the sum of P2, 000 for moral damages.
ISSUE: WON moral damages were properly awarded
despite there being a judgment on the pleadings.
HELD: The court reaffirmed the rule that although an
allegation is not necessary in order that moral
damages may be awarded, it is, nevertheless, ESSENTIAL
THAT THE CLAIMANT SATISFACTORILY PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE
FACTUAL BASIS OF THE DAMAGE AND ITS CAUSAL CONNECTION TO
DEFENDANTS ACTS.
CLASS NOTES
Whats wrong with Judgment on the pleadings
in the granting of MD? the rule on AC as
regards proving cannot be done with a
judgment on the pleadings
Judgment on the pleadings-primary
submission only (nothing to support)
Enervida v. De La Torre
January 28, 1974
FACTS: Petitioner Roque Enervida filed a complaint
against the defendant-spouses Lauro and Rosa de la
Torre, praying that the deed of sale executed by his
deceased father Ciriaco Enervida over a parcel of land
covered by a homestead patent be declared null and
void for having been executed within the prohibited
period of five years. He further prayed that he be
allowed to repurchase the said parcel for being the
legitimate son and sole heir of his deceased father.
51
COURT
(ART. 2217)
DEFENDANT'S ACTS.
CLASS NOTES
Motion for summary judgment (theres no more
controversy if its summary judgment)
Here MD was not awarded not because of
proof but because unfounded suits do not
warrant MD
People v. Bugayong
December 2, 1998
CLASS NOTES
For Rape, Seduction, Abduction, Acts of
Lasciviousness and Physical injuries: NO
NEED to prove MD. Damage automatically
comes from being a victim of such crimes and
it is assumed that the victim suffered mentally,
emotionally...
P50k awarded as indemnity ex delicto + P50k
as MD
Francisco v. GSIS
March 30, 1963
FACTS: Plaintiff Trinidad Francisco in consideration of
a loan, mortgaged in favor of the defendant GSIS a
parcel of land known as the Vic-Mari Compound in
Quezon City, payable within 10 years in monthly
installments.
Some time later, the GSIS extrajudicially foreclosed the
mortgage on the ground that up to that date the plaintiff
was in arrears on her monthly installments. The GSIS
was itself the buyer of the property in the foreclosure
sale.
The plaintiffs father, Atty. Vicente Francisco, sent a
letter to the general manager of the defendant
corporation, Rodolfo Andal, proposing to partially pay
off his daughters indebtedness, and to cover the
balance, to allow the GSIS to manage the property and
collect the installments due on the unpaid houses and
lots thereon until the debt was fully paid.
In exchange, the foreclosure on the property would be
set aside. GSIS appeared amenable to the proposal
and the various sums therein were paid by the plaintiff
and her father to the defendant.
This continued until the GSIS sent the plaintiff and her
father three letters asking for a proposal for the
payment of her indebtedness, since according to the
GSIS, the one-year period of redemption had expired.
52
3.
4.
1.
2.
5.
ESTABLISHED
3.
4.
2.
a. Unfounded Suits
Unfounded
suits
Malicious
prosecution
Mijares v. CA
FACTS: Metro Manila Drug supplied pharmaceutical
products to the Mijares spouses drugstore and to the
Ospital ng Maynila Consumers Cooperative Drugstore,
which is also operated by Editha Mijares, as an officer
of the Co-op. The Co-op was dissolved and ceased
operations in 1986, and its space was leased out to
Solomon Silverio who also put up a drugstore. MMD
made deliveries to Silverios store for almost a year,
amounting to 32K. Silverio issued a check, for partial
payment under the account name of his store, which
was dishonored. MMD filed a complaint to collect from
Editha, despite having been informed that they no
longer did business in Ospital. Court found suit to be
unfounded.
MMD
53
b.
CLASS NOTES
Court applied same elements for MP and
unfounded suits
Sir: this should not have been the case
because it lumps together the two (2) kinds of
action
The enumeration of the elements was
probably a mistake because malicious
prosecution is not equivalent to unfounded
suits.
Cometa v. CA
FACTS: SITI (Cometa: president) extended loans to
GIDC (Guevara: president), which the latter failed to
pay. SITI foreclosed the mortgages and was the
highest bidder in the foreclosure sale. Cometa filed a
falsification case against Guevara which was dismissed
by the prosecutor for lack of probable cause. DOJ
Secretary reversed prosecutors finding but the RTC
eventually dismissed the case.
Guevara filed a
complaint for malicious prosecution against Cometa.
CLASS NOTES
Lesson here as opposed to earlier discussion
to sue as many as you can: dont implead
people without any reason or a suit will also be
filed against you
MP was filed against SITI and Cometa, not
unfounded suit
54
CLASS NOTES
Moral damages are not just awarded
because of violations of the Labor Code.
The case focused more on how Osdana
was treated when she worked in Saudi
Arabia.
CLASS NOTES
Purpose of requirements: to temper the filing
of suits in order to get damages.
Sue someone who could readily be impleaded
(based on legal basis)
i. Labor Cases
the trial that the bank was negligent of its duties. The
Supreme Court reduced the award of 1M to 100k as
moral damages. Flores filed this MFR contending that
the award was too small.
ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages should be
increased.
NOTE: cf Arcona v. CA
IT
IS INHERENTLY
SUCH
DECEASED HIS LIFE, LOVE, SUPPORT AND AFFECTION BUT ALSO LEAVES
THEM WITH A GNAWING FEELING THAT AN INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE
TO THEM.
CLASS NOTES
This seems to be in conflict with the Pirame
case.
Cruz presents a possible distinction
between Arcona and Pirame: the manner of
death was taken into account (violent
nature of the death) which Prof. Casis does
not seem to agree with.
55
CLASS NOTES
Seems to consider MD similar to AD
Fule v. CA
FACTS: Fule, a banker/jeweler bartered his 10 ha.
Property for a pair of diamond earrings from Dr. Cruz
under a Deed of Absolute Sale with Atty. Belarmino.
Fule was able to examine the jewelry and accepted
them (he had already examined them before and even
made a sketch). 2 hours later, he complained that the
earrings were fake. He filed a case against Cruz and
Belarmino seeking the nullification of the Deed on the
ground of fraud and deceit. TC & CA dismissed the
complaint and ordered him to pay Cruz 300K, and
Belarmino 250K as moral damages.
ISSUE: WON the award of damages is proper.
Enough
NOTES:
Q: why ANALOGOUS TO MP only and not MP?
A: cant be MP coz no prior case that ended or was
qualified as MP
CLASS NOTES
PAL v. CA
FACTS: Pantejo, the City Fiscal of Surigao took a PAL
flight from Manila to Surigao. Due to a typhoon, the
flight to Surigao was cancelled while on a stopover in
Cebu. PAL gave out cash assistance to its stranded
passengers. Pantejo requested that he be billeted at a
hotel at PALs expense because he wasnt carrying
cash, but PAL refused. He had to share a room with
another passenger whom he promised to repay in
Surigao. On the flight, he learned that the hotel
expenses of some passengers were reimbursed.
Pantejo sued PAL for damages for discriminating
Valenzuela v. CA
FACTS: Lourdes Valenzuela was fixing a flat tire on the
roadside when she was hit by Alexander Li who was
driving a company car. Her left leg was severed & she
had to get a prosthetic leg. Valenzuela filed a case
claiming damages: 1M (moral), 100K (exemplary), 180K
(medical expenses + loss of earnings). Li and his
employer were found jointly and severally liable. TC
awarded, but CA reduced moral damages to 500K.
ISSUE: WON the reduction of the award of moral
damages was justified.
HELD: No. Valenzuelas left leg was amputated. The
damage done was permanent and lasting, the artificial
leg would have to be adjusted to the physiologic
changes her body would normally undergo through the
years. The amount of damage which goes with the
SUDDEN SEVERING OF A VITAL PORTION OF THE HUMAN BODY AND THE
RESULTANT ANXIETY, SLEEPLESSNESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY AND
P1M in moral
damages is proper.
DOCTRINE: The award should be
SUFFERING INFLICTED.
COMMENSURATE TO THE
56
Sumalpong v. CA
EXCESSIVE DAMAGES
Producers Bank v. CA
FACTS: The Chuas had substantial savings and
current deposits with the Bacolod Branch of Producers
Bank. They obtained a P2M loan, secured by a real
estate mortgage. The Chuas deposited 960K, but the
amount was not credited to their account because the
Branch Manager absconded with the money of the
banks depositors. The bank dishonored checks drawn
out by the Chuas on the ground of insufficient funds,
despite their having over 1M in savings. The Chuas
requested to see the ledgers of their account, but the
bank refused. They filed an action for damages against
the bank, who in turn filed a petition for extrajudicial
foreclosure of the mortgage.
The Chuas filed a
complaint for injunction and damages.
The TC
awarded them 2M in moral damages. CA reduced it to
500K.
ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages is proper.
HELD: SC reduced moral damages to 300K. The
dishonor of the Chuas checks and the foreclosure
initiated by the bank AFFECTED THE CREDIT STANDING AND THE
BUSINESS DEALINGS OF THE CHUAS, as their suppliers
discontinued credit lines resulting in the collapse of their
businesses. The damage to their REPUTATION AND SOCIAL
STANDING
CLASS NOTES
Rule on Damages is jurisprudential: amounts
do not change but basis for fixing damages are
changed!
for
the
CLASS NOTES
Cf: Lopez wife shared in prestige of hubby
(goes into the amount of MD)
What
about
Strebel
and
son-in-law?
Sufferering suffered by vicarious relations?
ABS-CBN v. CA
FACTS: ABS and Viva executed a Film Exhibition
Agreement whereby Viva gave ABS an exclusive right
to exhibit some Viva films. ABS was given a right of
first refusal to 24 films. Vivas agent gave ABS (through
Charo Santos) a list of 36 films to choose 24 from.
Santos only liked 10 (including Maging Sino Ka Man)
and did not accept it. According to Lopez of ABS, there
was a napkin agreement for Viva to sell 14 films for
P36M. Vivas agent denied such agreement. Deals with
ABS failed, so then Viva made a deal with RBS granting
the latter the exclusive right to 104 film, including the 14
films in the napkin agreement. RBS made print ads of
the anticipated airing of Maging Sino Ka Man. ABS
filed a complaint for specific performance w/ a prayer
for injunction. Complaint was dismissed and moral
damages were awarded to RBS for having its
reputation debased by the filing of the complaint.
ISSUE: WON the award of damages to RBS was
proper.
HELD: No. The award of moral damages cannot be
granted in favor of a corporation being an artificial
person and having existence only in legal
contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no
senses.
It therefore cannot experience physical
suffering and mental anguish, which can be
experienced only by one having a nervous system.
On Actual Damages:
-One is entitled to compensation for AD only for such
pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved
(except as provided by law or by stipulation)
57
NAPOCOR v. PHIBROS
FACTS: NAPOCOR issued invitations to bid for the
supply and delivery of imported coal. PHIBROs bid
was accepted. PHIBRO was not able to deliver, so
NAPOCOR advertised again for bidding of the same
products. PHIBRO participated in the bidding again,
but NAPOCOR disapproved their application. PHIBRO
filed an action for damages on the ground that
NAPOCORs act of disqualifying them was tainted with
malice and bad faith. Lower courts ruled in favor of
PHIBRO and awarded actual, moral and exemplary
damages.
ISSUE: WON PHIBRO is entitled to damages.
HELD: No. NAPOCOR did not act in bad faith in
disapproving PHIBROs application for prequalification
to bid. It merely exercised its reserved right to reject bid
applicants who previously failed to perform properly.
Moral Damages not proper:
CLASS NOTES
Code lists all kinds of suffering but MENTAL
ANGUISH should be involved open question
C. Nominal
Art. 2221. 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
recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the
plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in
every obligation arising from any source enumerated in
Article 1157, or in every case where any property right
has been invaded.
Art. 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages shall
preclude further contest upon the right involved and all
accessory questions, as between the parties to the suit,
or their respective heirs and assigns.
Ventanilla v. Centeno
FACTS: Ventanilla hired Atty. Centeno to represent him
in an action for recovery with damages. Centeno
screwed up the filing of appeal. Ventanilla now seeks
to recover damages against Centeno. TC: awarded
him P200 as nominal damages.
ISSUE: WON the TC erred in awarding only P200
instead of P2000 as nominal and other damages.
58
CLASS NOTES
ND small but ok according to SC because it is
not supposed to account for anything
ND only symbollic
CLASS NOTES
ASCERTAINED
LEGAL
RIGHT,
NO
People v. Gopio
*DOCTRINE: WHENEVER
ACTUAL
DAMAGES
Armovit v. CA
FACTS: Dr. Armovit and his family decided to spend
Christmas in the Philippines and bought 3 round-trip
US-Manila tickets from Northwest Airlines. On the
return trip (Manila-US), they were rudely informed that
they cannot be accommodated because their supposed
flight was already taking off and the time on their tickets
was wrong. Dr. Armovit was unable to keep his
appointments with his US patients, he and his family
suffered anguish, wounded feelings and serious anxiety
until they were finally able to fly back to the US. They
filed an action for damages in the Manila RTC after
*DOCTRINE: NOMINAL
DAMAGES.
59
CLASS NOTES
Why ND cant coexist with AD? Sir says that
award of AD already presupposes invasion of
right so awarding ND would lead to double
recovery
Francisco v. Ferrer
FACTS: Rebecca Lo and her daughter Anette Ferrer
ordered a 3-layer wedding cake from Fountainhead
Bakeshop. On the wedding day, at around 6pm, the
cake was not there. They made a follow-up call and
were assured that it was on its way, but was delayed by
traffic. They were later informed that there would be no
cake because the order slip got lost. Ferrer was
compelled to buy a sans rival cake instead. The
wedding cake arrived at 10pm, but they refused to
accept it because it only had 2 layers. Francisco
(owner of Fountainhead) sent a letter of apology and
5K, which was denied for being deemed inadequate.
Ferrer and Lo filed a case against Francisco for breach
of contract w/ damages. TC and CA awarded moral
and exemplary damages.
ISSUE: WON moral and exemplary damages should
have been awarded.
D. Temperate
Sir: awarded when there is no basis for AD
Art. 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are
more than nominal but less than compensatory
damages, may be recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount
can not, from the nature of the case, be provided
with certainty.
Art. 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable
under the circumstances.
CLASS NOTES
Pleno v. CA
FACTS: A red Ford cargo truck hit a blue Volkswagen
kombi driven by Pleno, causing it to hit a cargo truck
parked along the shoulder, hitting its driver who was
urinating in front of it. Pleno was seriously injured and
was confined for 5 months in Makati Med and had to
undergo 5 surgeries. Pleno filed a complaint for
damages against the owner of the red truck and its
driver. CFI ruled in favor of Pleno. CA reduced the
People v. Singh
FACTS: Dalvir, et al ganged up on Surinder, killing him.
Dilbag, who was cleaning his motorbike nearby, tried to
stop the attack, but he too was stabbed. The accused
were convicted of murder and frustrated murder. Lower
courts awarded hospitalization and medical expenses,
actual damages, civil indemnity, moral damages,
attorneys fees and compensation for loss of earning
capacity.
People v. Plazo
FACTS: Edison Plazo boxed and stabbed Romeo
Fabula. Plazo was convicted of murder.
ISSUE: WON temperate damages should be awarded.
HELD: Yes. Temperate damages under Art. 2224 may
be recovered where it has been shown that the victims
family suffered some pecuniary loss but the amount
thereof cannot be proved with certainty. 15K as
temperate damages was awarded.
PROVEN
NOT
ONLY
BY
CREDIBLE
AND
SATISFACTORY
BE
ESTABLISHED,
OFFERED
AND
THE
CLASS NOTES
E. Liquidated
CLASS NOTES
MUST
FACT
THAT
LOSS
HAS
BEEN
CLASS NOTES
LD intended as indemnity or penalty
Juris: LD vs. Penal clause
-intent behind LD penalty is deterrent
-LD is measure of damage which does not
matter in penalty
-LD is perceived loss if other party does not
comply with his obligation because AD would
be difficult to determine
But in A2227: indemnity or penalty
60
F. Exemplary or Corrective
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are
imposed, by way of example or correction for the public
good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages.
Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as
a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the
crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances. Such damages are separate and
distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended
party.
Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be
granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.
Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court
may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted
in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner.
Art. 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as
a matter of right; the court will decide whether or not
they should be adjudicated.
Art. 2234. While the amount of the exemplary damages
need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is
entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages
before the court may consider the question of whether
or not exemplary damages should be awarded. In case
liquidated damages have been agreed upon, although
no proof of loss is necessary in order that such
liquidated damages may be recovered, nevertheless,
before the court may consider the question of granting
exemplary in addition to the liquidated damages, the
plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to moral,
temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the
stipulation for liquidated damages.
Art. 2235. A stipulation whereby exemplary damages
are renounced in advance shall be null and void.
CLASS NOTES
ED and ND:
ED is penalty-like
PNB v. CA
April 2, 1996
FACTS: Tan owned a parcel of land which was
expropriated by the government. He filed a motion w/
the TC requesting that it issue an order for the payment
of P32K as expropriation price. PNB was ordered to
pay Tan the amount. PNB issued and delivered a
managers check to Sonia Gonzaga who had a Special
Power of Attorny supposedly executed by Tan in her
favor. Gonzaga took the money for herself. Tan
demanded payment which was refused by PNB, having
already paid the amount to Tans agent. Tan file a
motion with the court requiring PNB to pay. TC: ruled in
favor of Tan and ordered PNB to pay the amount and
exemplary damages. CA: affirmed, but deleted the
award of exemplary damages.
ISSUE: WON exemplary damages should be awarded
to Tan.
HELD: No. Exemplary damages may be awarded if a
party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive, or malevolent manner.
It cannot be
recovered as a matter of right, but left to the discretion
of the court. Although there was a breach of PNBs
obligation to Tan, there is no basis for the award of
exemplary damages.
*(MEMORIZE) DOCTRINE: REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES: (1) THEY MAY BE IMPOSED BY WAY OF
EXAMPLE IN ADDITION TO COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, AND ONLY AFTER
THE CLAIMANTS RIGHT TO THEM HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. (2) THEY
CANNOT BE RECOVERED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, THEIR
DETERMINATION DEPENDING UPON THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATORY
DAMAGES THAT MAY BE AWARDED TO THE CLAIMANT.
(3)
THE ACT
Del Rosario v. CA
Janunary 29, 1997
CLASS NOTES
How did court arrive at final amount?
Compare with other cases
61