Melanie P.

Mejia
Torts 1st Sem 2012-2013

TORTS AND DAMAGES

CONCEPT OF TORT AND QUASI-DELICT
TORT An unlawful violation of private right, not created by contract, and which
gives rise to an action for damages; an act or omission producing an injury to
another, without any existing lawful relation of which the said act or omission may
be said to be a natural outgrowth of the incident
Tort consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a duty
imposed by law. Tort is a breach of legal duty (Naguiat v. NLRC, G.R. no
116123, March 13, 1997)
A tort is a wrong independent of a contract, which arises from an act or
omission of a person which causes some injury or damage directly or
indirectly to another person
Tort is of Anglo-American (common law) law which is broader in scope than
the Spanish-Phil concept which is limited to negligence which the former
includes international or criminal acts. Torts, in Philippine law, is the blending
of common-law and civil law system
Origin: French torquere to twist
Private or civil wrong or injury, other than breach of contract for which a court
of law will afford a remedy in the form of an action for damages
Can be based on all 5 sources of obligation under Art 1157 NCC: law,
contract, delict, quasi-delict, and quasi-contract
ELEMENTS:
1. A legal duty
2. Breach
3. Causation
4. Damage
QUASI DELICT refers to acts or omissions which cause damage to another, there
being fault or negligence on the part of the defendant, who is obliged by law to pay
for the damages done
Art 2176 NCC: Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault
or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this
Chapter
Presupposes that there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties
ELEMENTS OF A QUASI-DELICT (DAFNC)
1. ACT or ommission
2. DAMAGES suffered by the plaintiff
3. FAULT or negligence of the defendant; and
4. NO PRE-EXISTING contract relations between the parties; and
5. CAUSAL CONNECTION between the fault or negligence of the defendants act
and the damages incurred by the plaintiff (Andamo v. IAC, 191 SCRA 426,
1996)
Page | 1

Melanie P. Mejia
Torts 1st Sem 2012-2013

RELATION OF QUASI-DELIC TO TORT

Quasi-delict, known in the Spanish legal treatises as culpa aquiliana, is a civil law
concept while tort is an Anglo-American or common law concept. Torts, in common
law, embrace both delicts and quasi-delicts. Quasi-delict is seemingly a refinement
of the torts concept in that it refers particularly to wrongful, negligent, injurious acts
outside the ambit of penal laws.
Our concept of culpa aquiliana embraces both negligent and intentional acts
(Barredo v. Garcia, 73 PHIL 607, 1942)
PHILIPPINE TORT LAW
1. Obligations based on law and quasi-delict
2. Sources
a. New Civil Code
b. Roman Law
c. Spanish Law
d. French Law
e. Anglo-American Law
3. Scope and Applicable laws
o The Code Commission used the word quasi-delict instead of torts
because the latter in American law is much broader than the SpanishPhilippine concept of obligations arising from non-contractual negligence
o Intentional acts (considered torts in American law) are intended to be
governed by RPC
o Art 19, 20 and 21 NCC enlarge the concept of tortious acts and embody in
our law the common law concept of tort. They are catch-all provisions
that serve as basis for any imaginable tort action
o Art 20 NCC is the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do
not especially provide their own sanctions and is broad enough to cover all
legal wrongs which do not constitute violation of contract
o Art 1902 of the Old Civil Code covers the broad concept of torts prior to
NCC
o Art 2176 NCC covers quasi-delict, which as observed by the SC in
numerous cases, involves intentional acts
o Culpa aquiliana includes acts which are criminal in character or in violation
of the penal law, whether voluntary or negligent
CLASSES OF TORTS
1. NEGLIGENT TORTS (NEGLIGENCE) Voluntary acts or omissions which result in
injury to others, without intending to cause the same. The actor fails to
exercise due care in performing such acts or omissions
2. INTENTIONAL TORTS Conduct where the actor desires to cause the
consequences of his acts or believes the consequences are substantially
certain to result therefrom
3. STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT The person is made liable independent of fault or
negligence upon submission of proof of certain facts. Rests not on negligence
but on intentional doing of that which a person knows or should, in the exercise
of ordinary care, know may reasonably cause loss to another in the normal
course of events e.g. product liability cases/doctrine of enterprise liability
Page | 2

Melanie P. Mejia
Torts 1st Sem 2012-2013

MAJOR PURPOSES OF TORT LAW (PDER)

1. To provide a PEACEFUL means for adjusting the rights of parties who might
otherwise take the law into their own hands
2. To DETER wrongful conduct
3. To ENCOURAGE socially responsible behavior; and
4. To RESTORE injured parties to their original condition by compensating them
for their injury
THESE PURPOSES MAT BE ACHIEVED IN THE PURSUIT OF THE FOLLOWING
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES:
1. EQUITY and JUSTICE Persons damaged by the wrongful or negligent conduct
of another are compensated
o Justice and equity demand that persons who may have been injured by
the wrongful act or negligent act of another are compensated
o Acting with justice involves the duty to indemnify for damages caused
under Art 20, 21, 27 and 28 NCC; to indemnify by reason of unjust
enrichment under Art 22 and 23 NCC; and to protect the weaker party
under Art 24 NCC
levels of justice:
a. Social
(1) Distributive addresses the allocation of social goods
(2) Retributive sanctions or penalties that are applied to those who
engage in certain kinds of anti-social behavior
b. Individual
(1) Compensatory a person who wrongfully inflicts harm on another
or that persons property must repay or repair the damage
(2) Commutative fairness of a private bargain or exchange
2. DEMOCRACY Code includes provisions implementing civil liberties guaranteed
by the Constitution because of concern for the democratic way of life
o Art 32 NCC provides for independent civil actions for damages against
any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or
indirectly, obstructs, defeats, violates, or in any manner impedes or
impairs the civil rights and liberties of another person
3. RESPECT FOR HUMAN DIGNITY The touchstone of every system of laws, of the
culture and civilization of any country, is how far it dignifies men
o Art 26 NCC and the provisions on moral damages are included in order
to remedy defects in the Old Civil Code insofar as it did not properly
exalt human personality
JUSTIFICATION OF TORT LIABILITY
In cases of non-contractual obligations, it is the wrongful or negligent act or
omission itself which creates the vinculum juris (legal tie) whereas in contractual
obligations the vinculum exists independent of the breach of the voluntary duty
assumed by the parties
1. Moral Perspective
o Tort liability may be justified because the conduct is considered morally
wrong
Page | 3

Melanie P. Mejia
Torts 1st Sem 2012-2013

The law of torts abounds in moral phraseology; it has much to say of

wrongs, malice, fraud, intent and negligence. Hence, it may naturally be
supposed that the risk of mans conduct is thrown upon him as a result of
some moral shortcomings
o Ubi jus ibi remedium (there is no wrong without remedy)
o Moral turpitude is considered the outstanding though not exclusive
principle of tortious liability
2. Social and Economic Perspective
o Liability may be provided for certain tortious conduct because of the good
that it will do to the society as a whole and its function of encouraging
socially responsible behavior
o Economic analysis of tort law focuses on the allocation of the risks of loss
due to the destruction of property or injury to persons created by those
activities
o

PARTIES IN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES

1. PLAINTIFF any person who has been injured by reason of a tortious conduct,
can sue the tortfeasor
o Plaintiff can be a natural person or juridical entity
o An unborn child is not entitled to damages. But bereaved parents may be
entitled to damages, on damages inflicted directly upon them (Geluz v.
CA, 2 SCRA 802)
2. DEFENDANT may be held liable even if he does not know the identity of the
plaintiff at the time of the accident
o Can either be a natural or judicial being
NOTE: The primary purpose of a tort action is to provide compensation to a person
who is injured by the tortious conduct of the defendant.
DELICT OR CRIME AND CULPA AQUILIANA DISTINGUISHED
DELICT OR CRIME
CULPA AQUILIANA OR CULPA EXCONTRACTU (QUASI-DELICT)
LEGAL BASIS OF LIABILITY
There can be no crime unless there is a
There can be a quasi-delict as long as
law clearly punishing the act; governed
there is fault or negligence resulting in
by RPC
damage or injury to another; governed
by NCC
CRIMINAL INTENT
Criminal intent is essential for criminal
Not necessary for quasi-delict to exist.
liability to exist
Fault or negligence without intent will
suffice
NATURE OF RIGHT VIOLATED
Right violated is a public one. Crime is a Right violated is a private right. It is a
wrong against the state
wrongful act against a private individual
LIABILITY
Includes both civil and criminal liability.
Civil liability only. Every quasi-delict
Some crimes (like contempt, illegal
gives rise to liability for damages.
possession of firearm) do not give rise to
damages.

Page | 4

Melanie P. Mejia
Torts 1st Sem 2012-2013

PROOFS NEEDED
The guilt of the accused must be proved
Proof of the fault or negligence requires
beyond reasonable doubt
only preponderance of evidence
SANCTION OR PENALTY
Punishment is either imprisonment, fine, Reparation or indemnification of the
or both; sometimes other accessory
injury or damage
penalties are imposed
LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER
Subsidiary liability of employer
Solidary liability of employer; As to the
employers liability under Art 2180, it is
direct and primary
EMPLOYERS DEFENSE
Employers defense is that employees
Employers defense is that accused
resources must first be exhausted
observed due diligence of a good father
of a family
NOTE: Acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable
doubt or not, shall NOT BE A BAR for a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability
arising from the criminal act, but for damages due to a quasi-delict (Elcano v. Hill,
77 SCRA 98 (1977)
CULPA AQUILIANA AND CULPA CONTRACTUAL DISTINGUISHED
CULPA AQUILIANA
CULPA CONTRACTUAL
NATURE OF NEGLIGENCE
Negligence is direct, substantive and
Negligence is merely incidental to the
independent (Rakes v. Atlantic, 7 PHIL
performance of the contractual
395)
obligation. There is a pre-existing
contract or obligation
DEFENSE OF GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY
This is a complete and proper defense
This is not a complete and proper
insofar as parents, guardians, employees defense in the selection and supervision
are concerned (Art 2180 NCC, last par)
of employees (Cangco v. MRC, 38 PHIL
768)
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
There is no presumption of negligence.
There is a presumption of negligence as
The injured party must prove the
long as it can be proved that there was
negligence of the defendant (Cangco v.
breach of the contract. The defendant
MRC, supra). Otherwise, the complaint
must prove that there was no negligence
of the injured party will be dismissed
in the carrying out of the terms of the
contract
EXISTENCE OF PRE-EXISTING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION
There may or may not be a pre-existing
There is always a pre-existing
contractual obligation
contractual relation
LAW GOVERNING
Governed by Art 2176 (See Art 2178
Governed by Art 1170-1174
NCC)
DELICT, QUASI-DELICT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT DISTINGUISHED

Page | 5

Melanie P. Mejia
Torts 1st Sem 2012-2013

Vinculum
juris
(legal tie)

Proof
needed
Defense
available

Preexisting
contract
Burden of
proof

CONTRACT
Contract

QUASI-DELICT
Negligent act/omission
(culpa, imprudence)

Preponderance of
evidence
Exercise of
extraordinary
diligence (in contract
of carriage); force
majeure
There is pre-existing
contract

Preponderance of
evidence
Exercise of diligence of a
good father of a family
in the selection and
supervision of
employees
No pre-existing contract

Contractual party
must prove the
following:
1. Existence of a
contract
2. Breach

Victim must prove the

following:
1. Damage
2. Negligence
3. Causal connection
between the
negligence and the
damage done

DELICT
Act/omission
committed by
means of dolo
(deliberate,
malicious, in bad
faith)
Proof beyond
reasonable doubt

No pre-existing
contract
Prosecution.
Accused is
presumed innocent
until the contrary is
proved.

NEGLIGENCE
NEGLIGENCE has been defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the
interests of another person the degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the
circumstance justly demands, whereby such other person suffers an injury (PNR et
al v. CA, G.R. no 157658, October 15, 2001; Jarco Marketing Corp v. CA, G.R. no
129792, December 21, 1999).
There is no hard and fast rule whereby such degree of care and vigilance is
calibrated; it is dependent upon the circumstances in which a person finds
himself. All that the law requires is that it is perpetually compelling upon a
person to use that care and diligence expected of sensible men under
comparable circumstances (PNR v. CA, supra).
Negligence is a relative or comparative concept. Its application depends on
upon the situation that the parties are in and in the degree of care and
vigilance which the prevailing circumstances reasonably require (Bulilan v.
COA, G.R. no 1300557, December 22, 1998).
NOTE: The definition of negligence, its tests and standard of conduct apply to
obligations arising from contract (Art 2178 NCC). The same test and definition also
apply to criminal negligence.
KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE
1. CULPA AQUILANA (QUASI-DELICT) Art 2176 NCC
Requisites:
a. Act or omissions constituting fault or negligence
Page | 6

Melanie P. Mejia
Torts 1st Sem 2012-2013

b. Damage or injury caused by the said act or omission

c. Causal relation between the damage and the act or omission
d. There is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties
NOTES:
o Majority view: Art 2176 includes intentional torts
o Minority view: limited to negligence. Intentional and malicious acts are
to be governed by the RPC; negligent acts or omissions are covered by
Art 2176
o While it is true that in order that a person may be liable for quasidelicts, there must be no pre-existing contractual relationship between
the parties, yet, if there is an act that violates the contract
independently of the contract, the act can give rise to liability under
quasi-delicts (YHT Realty Corp v. CA et al, G.R. no 126780, February 17,
2005)
o Concept of quasi-delict in Art 2176 is broad; it includes injuries to
persons and damage to property (Cinco v. Canonoy, G.R. no L-33171,
May 31, 1979)
2. CULPA CRIMINAL (CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE) Art 365 RPC
Elements:
a. That the offender does or fails to do an act
b. That the doing or failure to do the act is voluntary
c. That it be without malice
d. That material damage results from the reckless imprudence
e. That there is an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender,
considering his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence,
physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and
place (Cruz v. CA, G.R. no 122445, November 18, 1997)
3. CULPA CONTRACTUAL (CONTRACTUAL NEGLIGENCE) Civil Code provisions on
obligations and contracts, particularly Art 1170 to 1174 NCC
o Those who, in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud,
negligence, or delay are liable for damages (Art 1170)
NOTES:
o The field of non-contractual obligations is broader than that of
contractual obligations; it comprises the whole extent of juridical
human relations (Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co, G.R. no 12191, October
14, 1918)
o It is settled that in culpa contractual, the mere proof of the existence of
the contract and the failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, a
corresponding right of relief (Saludaga v. FEU, G.R. no 179337, April 30,
2008)
CONCURRENCE OF CAUSES OF ACTION
A single act or omission may give rise to two or more causes of action such as those
based on delict, quasi-delict and contract
Two persons may be liable for breach of contractual obligation even if there is
only one act or omission that causes the injury
Page | 7

Melanie P. Mejia
Torts 1st Sem 2012-2013

There may also be a concurrence of actions even if only one person is sought
to be held liable
The choice of remedy, whether to sue for a delict or a quasi-delict, affects the
procedural and jurisdictional issues of the action. An action based on quasidelict may proceed independently from the criminal action (Barredo v. Garcia,
73 PHIL 607); it is subject to the proscription against double recovery (Art
2177)

STANDARD OF CARE
The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that degree
of diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds
with the circumstances of the persons, time and place (Art 1173 NCC)
GOOD FAITH means honesty of intention or honest lawful intent. It connotes
freedom from knowledge and circumstances which ought to put a person in
inquiry. Moreover, in good faith, there exists an honest intention to abstain
from taking unconscientious advantage of another (Torts and Damages
Simplified, R.B. Aralar, p. 37 2010 ed)
GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY (PATER FAMILIAS)
The standard of conduct used in the Philippines is that of pater familias or good
father of a family (bonos pater familia). What should be determined in negligence
cases is what is foreseeable to a good father of a family
A good father of a family is likewise referred to as a reasonable man, man of
ordinary intelligence and prudence, or ordinary reasonable prudent man (Art
1173, 2178 NCC)
A reasonable man is deemed to have knowledge of the facts that a man
should be expected to know based on ordinary human experience (PNR v.
IAC, G.R. no 7054, January 22, 1993)
The law requires a man to possess ordinary capacity to avoid harming the his
neighbors unless a clear and manifest incapacity is shown; but it does not
generally hold him liable for unintentional injury unless, possessing such
capacity, he might and ought to have foreseen the danger (Corliss v. Manila
Railroad Co, G.R. no L-21291, March 28, 1969)
The knowledge and experience of the actor is also considered in determining
whether he observed due diligence (Corliss v. Manila Railroad Co, supra)
TESTS OF NEGLIGENCE
1. Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act used reasonable care and
caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same
situation?
o If not, then he is guilty of negligence
2. Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a result
of the course pursued?
o If so, it was the duty of the actor to take precautions to guard against
harm
o Reasonable foresight of harm followed by the ignoring of the
suggestion born of this provision, is always necessary before
negligence can be held to exist

Page | 8

Melanie P. Mejia
Torts 1st Sem 2012-2013

Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of

the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another
was sufficiently probable to warrant his disregard of the conduct or
guarding against its consequences (Picart v. Smith, G.R. no L-12219,
March 15, 1918)

DILIGENCE BEFORE THE FACT

The conduct that should be examined in negligence cases is prior conduct or
conduct prior to injury that resulted or in proper cases, the aggravation thereof
NOTE:
The state of mind of the actor is not important; good faith or use of sound
judgment is immaterial (Picart v. Smith, supra)
Only juridical fault is subject to liability and not moral fault
Subject diligence before the fact does not necessarily mean that conduct
which is the safest way of doing things
RISK danger which is apparent or should be apparent to the actor. Such is
unreasonable risk. If it results in injury to the plaintiff, the latter can recover from
the defendant (Phoenix Construction v. IAC, G.R. no L65295, March 10, 1987)
Skewed parking of a motor vehicle is negligence. It creates an unreasonable
risk of injury to anyone driving along the road to oncoming motorists (Phoenix
Construction v. IAC, supra)
Kerosene lighted tin cans may act as substitute early warning device (Dy
Teban v Trading Inc v. Jose Ching et al, G.R. no 161803, February 4, 2008)
FORESEEABILITY AND PROBABILITY DISTINGUISHED
FORESEEABILITY
PROBABILITY
To determine negligence, the court will
There is negligence if a prudent man in
place itself in the actors position to see
the position of the tortfeasor would have
if a prudent man could have foreseen
foreseen that the harmful effect was
the resulting harm if the conduct is
sufficiently probable to warrant his
pursued. Even if injury was not
conduct or guarding against its
foreseeable, risk is still foreseeable if
consequence (Picart v. Smith, supra)
possibility of injury is foreseeable

Foreseeability is not the same as probability. Even if there is lesser degree of

probability that damage will result, the damage may still be considered
foreseeable.

CALCULATION OF RISK
RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS Balancing the risk, in light of the social value of the
interest threatened and the probability and extent of the harm against the value of
the interest which the actor is seeking to protect and the expedience of the course
pursued (Prosser and Keaton, Law of Torts, p. 173)
CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Gravity of the harm to be avoided
2. Utility of conduct or the social value it seeks to advance

Page | 9

Melanie P. Mejia
Torts 1st Sem 2012-2013

3. Alternative course of action, dangers and advantages to the person or property

of the actor himself and to others
CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED (PEST-GAP)
1. PERSON exposed to the risk
o A higher degree of diligence is required if the person involved is a child
2. EMERGENCY
o The actor confronted with an emergency is not to be held up to the
standard of conduct normally applied to an individual who is in no such
situation
EMERGENCY RULE OR SUDDEN PERIL DOCTRINE
GENERAL RULE: An individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of
danger and is required to act without much time to consider the best means
to avoid the impending danger is not guilty of negligence if he fails to
undertake what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better
solution
EXCEPTION: When the emergency was brought about by the individuals own
negligence (Valenzuela v. CA, G.R. no 115024, February 7, 1996)
In McKee v. IAC (G.R. no L-68102, July 16, 1992), one of the plaintiffs therein
swerved his vehicle in order to avoid hitting 2 children. The SC held that any
reasonable and ordinary prudent man would have tried swerving the car
away from where they were even if this would mean entering the opposite
lane

3.

4.
5.
6.

7.

REASON: A person who is confronted with a sudden emergency may be left

with no time for thought and must make a speedy decision largely upon
impulse or instinct, unlike one who has had an opportunity to reflect
SOCIAL value or utility of action
o Any act subjecting an innocent person to unnecessary risk is a
negligent act if the risk outweighs the advantage accruing to the actor
and even to the innocent person himself
The TIME of the day may affect the diligence required of the actor (Art 1173
NCC), e.g. a driver is required to exercise more prudence when driving at night
GRAVITY of the harm to be avoided
o Even if the odds that an injury will result are not high, harm may still
be considered foreseeable if the gravity of harm to be avoided is great
ALTERNATIVE courses of action
o If the alternative presented to the actor is too costly, the harm that
may result may still be considered unforeseeable to a reasonable man.
More so if there is no alternative thereto
PLACE
o A man who should have occasion to discharge a gun on an open and
extensive marsh, or in a forest would be required to use less
circumspection and care, than if he were to do the same thing in an
inhabited town or village
o Travelling on a slippery road requires higher degree of diligence than
driving in a dry road
Page | 10

Melanie P. Mejia
Torts 1st Sem 2012-2013

SPECIAL RULES
1. CHILDREN
o Art 12(2) RPC had been impliedly repealed by the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006 (RA 9344), which raised the age of absolute
irresponsibility from nine (9) to fifteen (15) years of age
o Liability without fault: a child under 15 years can still be subsidiarily
liable with his property (Art 100 RPC)
o Absence of negligence does not necessarily mean absence of liability
2. PHYSICAL DISABILITY
GENERAL RULE: A weak or accident-prone person must come up to the
standard of a reasonable man, otherwise, he will be considered as negligent
EXCEPTION: If the defect amounts to a real disability, the standard of
conduct is that of a reasonable person under like disability
3. INTOXICATION
GENERAL RULE: Mere intoxication is not negligence nor establishes want of
ordinary care. But it may be one of the circumstances to be considered to
prove negligence (Wright v. Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co, G.R. no
L7760, October 1, 1914)
EXCEPTION: It is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been
negligent if at any time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation
(Art 2185 NCC)
4. INSANITY
o Under the RPC, an insane person is exempt from criminal liability. But
there may be civil liability even when the perpetrator is exempted from
criminal liability. An insane person is still liable with his property for
the consequences of his acts, though they may be performed
unwittingly (US v. Baggay Jr., G.R. no 6706, September 1, 1911)
o The same rule is applicable under the Civil Code. The insanity of a
person does not excuse him or his guardian from liability based on
quasi-delict (Art 2180 and 2182 NCC)
5. WOMAN
o Valenzuela v. CA (G.R. no 115024, February 7, 1996) appears to require
a different standard of care for women under the circumstances
indicated therein. It is believed it can also be argued that the same
conclusion can be reached if it was a man who was in the position of
the actor (Aquino, Torts and Damages, p. 100)
o Dean Guido Calabresi believes that there should be uniform standard
between men and women
OTHER FACTORS TO CONSDIER IN DETERMINING THE PRESENCE OF NEGLIGENCE
1. VIOLATION OF RULES AND STATUTES
a. Statutes

Page | 11

Melanie P. Mejia
Torts 1st Sem 2012-2013

GENERAL RULE: Violation of a statutory duty is NEGLIGENCE PER SE

(Cipriano v. CA, G.R. no 107968, October 30, 1998). When the Legislature
has spoken, the standard of care required is no longer what a reasonable
prudent man would do under the circumstances but what the Legislature
has commanded

i.
ii.
b.
c.
d.

Petitioners failure to construct a firewall in accordance with city

ordinances is an act of negligence (FF Cruz and Co Inc v. CA, G.R. no L66478, August 29, 1988)
EXCEPTIONS:
When unusual conditions occur and strict observance may defeat the
purpose of the rule and may even lead to adverse results
When the statute provides that the violation merely establishes a
presumption of negligence
Administrative Rules Violation of a rule promulgated by administrative
agencies is not negligence per se but may be EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE
Private Rules of Conduct Violation of rules imposed by private individuals
(e.g., employers) is merely a POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE
Burden of Proof
GENERAL RULE: Plaintiff must present proof that the proximate cause of
his injury is the negligence of the defendant and that there was causal
connection between the negligence or violation of the statute and the
injury (Vda. De Gregorio et al v. Go Chong Bing, G.R. no 7763, December
2, 1957)

EXCEPTION: Proof of violation of statute and damage to the plaintiff may

itself establish proximate cause where the damage to the plaintiff is the
damage sought to be prevented (Teague v. Fernandez, G.R. no L-29745,
June 4, 1973)
2. PRACTICE AND CUSTOM
o Compliance with the practice and custom in a community will not
automatically result in a finding that the actor is not guilty of
negligence. Non-compliance with the same does not necessarily mean
that the actor was negligent
o A practice which is dangerous to human life cannot ripen into a custom
which will protect anyone who follows it (Yamada v. Manila Railroad,
G.R. no L-10073, December 24, 1915)
3. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTES
o Non-compliance with statutes is not sine qua non of negligence. One
cannot avoid a charge of negligence by showing that the act or
omission was of itself lawful or not violative of any statute or ordinance
(e.g., liable for negligence even if driving below the speed limit)
DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE
1. SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE
2. GROSS NEGLIGENCE There is want of even slight care and diligence and
implies conscious indifference to consequences; pursuing a course of conduct
which would naturally and probably result to injury; utter disregard of the
consequences

Page | 12

Melanie P. Mejia
Torts 1st Sem 2012-2013

In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant

acted with gross negligence (Art 2231 NCC)

PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
BURDEN OF PROOF: The quantum of proof required is PREPONDERANCE OF
EVIDENCE (Sec 1 Rule 133 ROC)
GENERAL RULE: If the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was damaged
because of the negligent acts of the defendant, plaintiff has the burden of proving
such negligence (Taylor v. MERALCO, supra)
EXCEPTIONS: When the rules or the law provide for case when negligence is
presumed:
1. PRESUMPTIONS OF NEGLIGENCE Fault or negligence is presumed under the
following circumstances:
a. In motor vehicle mishaps, it is disputably presumed that a driver was
negligent if he was found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the preceding two months (Art 2184 par 1
2nd sentence NCC)
b. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a
motor vehicle was negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating
any traffic regulation (Art 2185 NCC)
c. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the
defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous
weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the
possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business
(Art 2188)
d. In case of death or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed
to have been at fault or acted negligently, unless they prove that they
have observed extraordinary diligence prescribed in Arts 1733 and 1755
(Art 1756) (Sangco, Torts and Damages, p. 18)
2. RES IPSA LOQUITUR The thing or transaction speaks for itself
o Its function is to aid the plaintiff in proving elements of negligence by
circumstantial evidence (Epstein, p. 294)
o The doctrine can be invoked when and only when, under the
circumstances involved, direct evidence is absent and not readily
available
Requisites:
a. The occurrence of an injury
b. The thing which caused the injury was under the control and management
of the defendant
c. The occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things, would not
have happened if those who had control or management used proper
care; and
d. The absence of explanation by the defendant (Professional Services Inc v.
Agana, G.R. no 126297, January 31, 2007)
It is a rebuttable presumption that defendant was negligent,
which arises upon proof that the instrumentality causing injury
was in the defendants exclusive control, and that the accident
Page | 13

Melanie P. Mejia
Torts 1st Sem 2012-2013

was one which does not happen in the absence of negligence

(College Assurance Plan et al v. Belfranet Dev Inc, G.R. no
155604, November 27, 2007)
Elements:
a. The apparatus must be such that in the ordinary state of affairs, no
injury would result unless from a careless construction, inspection or user
b. Both inspection and user must have been, at the time of the injury, under
the exclusive control of the person charged with negligence
c. The injurious condition on occurrence must not have been due to any
voluntary action on the part of the injured person
Inapplicability of doctrine:
a. If there is direct proof of absence or presence of negligence (Martinez v.
Buskirk, G.R. no L-5691, December 27, 1910)
b. When an unexplained accident may be attributable to one of several
causes for some of which defendant could not be held responsible (FGU
Insurance Corp v. GP Sarmiento Trucking Corp, G.R. no 141910, August 6,
2002)

Page | 14