You are on page 1of 16

TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

ARTICLE 2177: Responsibility for fault or negligence - Prayer for relief.


under the preceding article is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil Note: Article 2176, where it refers to a fault or
liability arising from negligence under the negligence, covers not only acts not punishable by law
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and
recover damages twice for the same act voluntary or negligent.
or omission of the defendant.

CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE vs CIVIL NEGLIGENCE CIVIL LIABILITY WHEN EXTINGUISHED BY DEATH OF


ACCUSED:
Criminal Negligence violation of criminal law
Mansion Biscuit Corporation vs CA
Civil Negligence distinct and independent negligence 1. Death of the accused, pending appeal of his
w/c is culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict, having its own conviction, extinguishes his criminal liability as
foundation and individuality, separate from criminal well as the civil liability based solely thereon
negligence. 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives
notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the
Note: However, the same negligence causing damage may same may also be predicated on the source of
produce liability arising from a crime, that is, if the act or obligation other than delict.
omission is punished by the RPC, or may create an action 3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in
for quasi-delict or culpa extra-contractual under the New No1, an action for recovery therefore may be
Civil Code. pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil
action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the
ACTIONS AVAILABLE TO VICTIMS OF NEGLIGENCE 1984 Rules of CrimProc, as amended.
Victims of negligence or their heirs have a choice between: 4. The private offended party need not fear a
1. An action to enforce the civil liability arising from forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil
culpa criminal under Art 100 of the RPC; and action by prescription, in cases where during the
2. An action for quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) under prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its
Arts. 2176-2194 of the Civil Code. extinction, the private offended party instituted
Note: together therewith the civil action.
1. Under 2180, the liability of the employer is direct or
immediate it is not conditioned upon EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED ON HIS
- prior recourse against the negligent employee and CIVIL LIABILITY
- prior showing of insolvency of such employee.
2. The circumstance that NO RESERVATION TO INSTITUTE Note:
A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES WAS MADE - Acquittal in criminal cases will not necessarily
WHEN THE CRIMINAL CASE WAS FILED is of no moment exonerate him from civil liability.
where the criminal case was dismissed without any - The civil liability which may arise from culpa
pronouncement having been made therein in reality, aquiliana or quasi-delict WAS NEVER INTENDED BY
IT IS AS IF THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL CASE TO SPEAK OF LAW TO BE MERGED IN THE CRIMINAL ACTION.
IN THE FIRST PLACE. - The criminal prosecution is not a condition
precedent to the enforcement of the civil rights.
MODES FO ENFORCING CIVIL LIABILITY DUE TO FAULT
OR NEGLIGENCE AZUCENA vs POTENCIANO:
The injured party has the option: To subordinate the civil action contemplated in Arts 33 and
1. To pursue a criminal action which includes the claim for 2177 to the result of the criminal action WOULD RENDER
civil liability arising from the crime based on Art 100 of MEANINGLESS THE INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION AND THE
the RPC INJUNCTION IN ART 31 that such civil action MAY PROCEED
2. To pursue an independent civil action based on quasi- INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
delict under Arts 2176-2194 of the Civil Code
THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DOES NOT NECESSARILY
Note: The Court MAY ACQUIT AN ACCUSED on reasonable EXTINGUISH THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE ACCUSE, EXCEPT:
doubt and STILL ORDER PAYMENT OF CIVIL DAMAGES in the 1. When it declares that the FACTS from which the
same case. civil liability might arise DID NOT EXIST;
2. When it declares that the ACCUSED IS NOT THE
ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYER AUTHOR OF THE CRIME;
Primary liability under Art 2180 3. When the judgment expressly declares that the
Subsidiary liability under art 103 of the RPC liability is only civil in nature;
4. Where the civil liability is not derived or based on
Note: He cannot recover damages twice for the same act the criminal act of which the accused was
or omission. acquitted.
5. Where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt;
TWO SEPARATE CIVIL LIABILITIES ARISING FROM THE 6. Where the civil action has prescribed.
SAME ACT OR OMISSION
2 Separate Civil Liabilities on the Part of the NO RESERVATION IS REQUIRED IN THE CRIMINAL
Offender: CASE FOR THE FILING OF CIVIL ACTION ARISING FRO
1. Civil Liability Ex Delicto under Art 100 of the RPC QUASI-DELICT
2. Independent Civil Liabilities, such as those arising from:
a. Culpa contractual under Art 31 Under the 1964, 1985 and 1988 amendments of the
b. Intentional torts under Arts 32 & 34 Revised Rules of CrimPro
c. Culpa aquiliana under Art 2176 of the Civil Code -it was required that the injured party must make a
d. Where the injured party is granted a right to file an reservation in the criminal case for the filing of a
action indepen-dent and distinct from criminal actions civil action based on quasi-delict. The failure to
under Art 33 of the Civil Code. do so will result in the inclusion of the claim for civil
PURPOSE: The purpose of an action or suit and the law liability in the criminal case and bars any separate
to govern it is to be determined not by the claim of the civil action based on the same act or omission.
party filing the action, made in his argument or brief
but rather HOWEVER, under the 2000 amendments of the Revised
- By the complaint itself; Rules of Criminal Procedure
- Its allegations; and

1|Page
TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

-the reservation required before was deleted. The new -The result must be the natural and probable consequence
amendment now conforms to the express mandate of such as ought to have been foreseen as likely to flow
the New Civil Code that a quasi-delict may be from the act complained of.
prosecuted separately and independently of the -Is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence,
criminal case arising from the same act or unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
omission, just like the other independent civil actions the injury, and without which the result would not have
under Arts 32, 33, and 34 of the New Civil Code. occurred.

LEGAL RESTRICTION ON RECOVERY OF DAMAGES CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE


-The act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on
The plaintiff is not allowed to recover damages twice for the part of the person injured which, concurring with
the same act or omission of the defendant. the defendants negligence, is the proximate cause of
the injury.
DAMAGES not intended to enrich the complainant at the -It is the omission of the diligence required by the
expense of the defendant. circumstance by virtue of which a person could have
- Awarded only to enable the injured party: avoided injury to himself.
o to recover his losses for the things he was -May be an omission of diligence by which the injured party
deprived of, or contributed to the cause which gives rise to the injury.
o to enable him to obtain means, diversion or -May be the failure to take the caution to avoid or minimize
amusement that will serve to alleviate the moral such injury.
suffering he has undergone because of the -The plaintiff failed to use reasonable care for his own safety
culpable acts of the defendant. and this contributed to his own damages.
-Contributory negligence requires foreseeability of harm to
COMPULSION OF ADVERSE PARTY TO TESTIFY oneself.
To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries:
In Civil Cases adverse party in an action based on quasi- -It must be shown that he performed an act that brought
delict may be compelled to testify, unlike in criminal cases. about his injuries in disregard of warnings or signs of an
impending danger to health and body.
In Criminal Cases the accused cannot be compelled to
testify for the prosecution for he cannot be compelled to Note: The underlying precept on contributory negligence is
testify against himself. that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own
injury should not be entitled to recover damages in
ARTICLE 2178: The provisions of Articles 1172 to full but must bear the consequence of his own
1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict. negligence.

APPLICABILITY OF SOME PROVISIONS IN THE LAW Are children below 9 years capable of contributory
ON OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS negligence?
The following articles are expressly made applicable to NO. A child under 9 years of age is conclusively presumed
quasi-delicts: incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

Art 1172 Responsibility arising from negligence in the In our jurisdiction, a person under 9 years old is
performance of every kind of obligation is also conclusively presumed to have acted without
demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the discernment, and is, on that account, exempt from
courts, according to the circumstances. criminal liability. Judge Sangco

Art 1173 The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in EFFECT OF PLAINTIFFS CONTRIBUTORY
the omission of that diligence which is required by the NEGLIGENCE; DOCTRINE OF COMPARATIVE
nature of the obligation and corresponds with the NEGLIGENCE
circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. 1. If the proximate cause of the injury is the contributory
When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Arts negligence of the plaintiff, there can be no recovery for
1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply. damages;

If the law or contract does not state the diligence, A plaintiff is barred from recovering the damages for
which is to be observed in the performance, that which is loss or injury caused by the negligence of defendant
expected of a good father of a family shall be required. only when plaintiffs negligence is the sole legal cause
of the damage, or the negligence of the plaintiff and
Art 1174 except in cases expressly specified by the law, some person or persons other than the defendant or
or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the defendants was the sole cause of the damage.
nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no
person shall be responsible for those events which could Note: If the plaintiff and defendant are both at fault, the
not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were former may recover, but the amount of his recovery
inevitable. may only be such proportion of the entire damage
plaintiff sustained as the defendants negligence
ARTICLE 2179: When the plaintiffs own bears to the combined negligence of both the plaintiff
negligence was the immediate and proximate and the defendant.
cause of his injury, he cannot recover
damages. But if his negligence was only 2. DOCTRINE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE If the
contributory, the immediate and proximate proximate cause of the injuries is still the negligence of
cause of the injury being the defendants lack the defendant, despite the contributory negligence of
of due care, the plaintiff may recover the plaintiff, the latter can still recover damages from
damages, but the Courts shall mitigate the the former. However, damages will be reduced due to
damages to be awarded. the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.

PROXIMATE CAUSE Purpose in comparing the negligence of plaintiff and


-the adequate and efficient cause as in the natural order of defendant:
events, and under the particular circumstances - Reaching an equitable apportionment of their
surrounding the case, would necessarily produce the respective liabilities for the damages caused and
event. suffered by the plaintiff.
-It is one which in natural sequence, undisturbed by any
independent cause, produces the result complained of.
2|Page
TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

3. Jurisprudence regarding the imputed negligence of the 3. Sine qua non Test where the defendants conduct
master-servant relationship instructive. Since a master will not be considered as proximate cause of the event
may be held for his servants wrongful act, the law if the event just the same would have occurred without
imputes to the master the act of the servant, and if the it.
act is negligent or wrongful and proximately results in
injury to a third person, the negligence or the wrongful 4. Cause and Conditions Test where a distinction is
conduct is the negligence or wrongful conduct of the made between the active cause of the harm or injury
master, for which he is liable. and the existing conditions upon which that cause
operated.
General Rule:
If the master is injured by the negligence of a third Note: if the defendant has created only a passive (not
person and by the concurring contributory negligence of active) static condition, which made the damage
his own servant or agent, the latters negligence is possible, he is not liable.
imputed to his superior and will defeat the superiors
action against the third person, assuming, of course ASSUMPTION OF RISK
that the contributory negligence was the proximate 1. A caretaker of a carabao got gored to death by the
cause of the injury of which complaint is made. animal while tending it, cannot recover under Art 1902
(now Art 2176) there being an assumption of risk unless
4. Contributory negligence in common carriers does not it is alleged and proved that there was fault or
bar recovery of damages if the proximate cause of the negligence on the part of the owners of the carabao.
death of the passenger is the negligence of the 2. Taking an extension seat in the jeepney of the
common carrier: defendant which is overloaded is not an implied
Article 1762 The contributory negligence of assumption of risk on the part of the passenger.
the passenger does not bar recovery of 3. Riding on a vehicle driven by a drunk.
damages for the death or injuries, if the
proximate cause thereof is the negligence of ATTRACTIVE NUSIANCE
the common carrier, but the amount of One who maintains on his premises dangerous
damages shall be equitably reduced. instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to
attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary
CAN THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting
APPLY IN CRIMINAL CASES? thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured
It cannot be used as defense in criminal cases THROUGH thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE. premises.

Reason: The condition or appliance in question although in


Why? danger is apparent to those of age, is so enticing and
Because one cannot allege the negligence of another to alluring to children of tender years as to induce them to
evade the effects of his own negligence. approach, get on or use it and this attractiveness is an
implied invitation to such children.
NOTE: It may however, mitigate the civil liability of the
defendant but cannot affect his criminal liability. Note: The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine is generally not
applicable to bodies of water, IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME
PRINCIPLE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE; NOT APPLICABLE UNUSUAL CONDITION OR ARTIFICIAL FEATURES other than
TO ACTIONS INVOLVING BREACH OF CONTRACT the mere water and its location.
The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only for
actions of quasi-delict, not in actions involving breach
of contract. REASONS WHY SWIMMING POOL OR POND NOT
CONSIDERED AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE
Why? The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a According to Indiana Appellate Court:
person where there is no relation between him and another Nature has created streams, lakes and pools attract
party. children. Lurking in their waters is always the danger of
drowning. Against this danger, children are early instructed
Note: the obligation is created by the law itself. Where so that they are sufficiently presumed to know the danger;
there is a pre-existing contractual relation between the and if the owner of the private property, merely duplicating
parties, it is the parties themselves who create the the work of nature, without adding any new danger x x x
obligation, and the function of the law is merely to regulate he is not liable because of having created an attractive
the relation thus created. nuisance.

TEST TO DETERMINE EXISTENCE OF PROXIMATE DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE


CAUSE -Where both parties are guilty of negligence, but the
1. Foreseeability Test where the particular harm was negligent act of one succeeds that of the other by an
reasonably foreseeable at the time of the defendants appreciable interval of time, the one who has the last
misconduct, his act or omission is the legal cause reasonable opportunity to avoid the impending harm
thereof. and fails to do so, is chargeable with the consequences,
without reference to the prior negligence of the other
Note: party.
To be negligent, the defendant must have acted or
failed to act in such a way that an ordinary reasonable Purpose:
man would have realized that certain interests of To mitigate the harshness of the common law rule of
certain persons were unreasonably subjected to a contributory negligence, the principle of last clear chance
general but definite class of risk which made the actors was also adopted here to allow recovery to plaintiff who
conduct negligent, it obviously the consequence for the happened to have been negligent also,
actor must be held legally responsible. PROVIDED, the defendant has the last opportunity to avoid
the accident but failed to do so.
2. Natural and Probable Consequence Test Where
the defendants liability is recognized only if the harm NOTE:
or injury suffered is the natural and probable Viewed as a phase of proximate cause, the negligence
consequence of his act or omission complained of. of the plaintiff is just a remote cause of the accident.
The proximate cause is still the subsequent negligence

3|Page
TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

of the defendant in failing to exercise ordinary care to control of the person charged with the negligence
avoid the accident. complained of; and
To allow recovery, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THERE BE 3. The accident must not have been due to any voluntary
TIME SEQUENCE, that is an interval in which the action or contribution on the part of the person injured.
plaintiffs act of negligence is complete and in which the
defendant by the exercise of reasonable care has had Requisites:
an opportunity to avert disaster. 1. The occurrence of an injury;
2. The thing which caused the injury was under the control
DLCC is also called HUMANITARIAN NEGLIGENCE and management of the defendant;
DOCTRINE 3. The occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of
Reason: things, would have happened if those who had control
It being an exception to the rule on contributory or management used proper care; and
negligence. 4. The absence of explanation by the defendant.
It proceeds from the precepts of humanity and of
natural justice. In other words
Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under
Note: the management of the defendant, and the accident is
It is predicated on the theory that if a plaintiff puts himself such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if
in a place of danger and his negligence and danger are those who have the management use proper care, it
discovered by the defendant, there devolves upon the affords reasonable evidence that the accident arose from
latter a new duty which intervenes or arises want of care, in the absence of an explanation by the
subsequent to the negligence of the plaintiff; and defendant.
that duty is to save the plaintiff if he can, from the
consequence of his negligence. Cantre vs Go
In cases involving medical negligence, the doctrine of res
DLCC is also called DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING ipsa loquitur allows the mere existence of an injury to
NEGLIGENCE justify a presumption of negligence on the part of the
Reason: After the plaintiffs negligence had been person who controls the instrument causing the injury,
concluded, another negligence coming from the defendant provided that the following requisites concur:
intervenes. 1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not
occur in the absence of someones negligence;
ELEMENTS OF DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE 2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the
Plaintiff is placed in danger by his own negligent acts exclusive control of the defendant or defendants;
and he is unable to get out from such situation by any and
means; 3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would
Defendant knows that the plaintiff is in danger and make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.
knows or should have known that the plaintiff was
unable to extricate himself therefrom; and NEGLIGENCE PRESUMED BY LAW IN RES IPSA
Defendant had the last clear chance or opportunity to LOQUITUR
avoid the accident through the exercise of ordinary care It is not necessary to state that petitioner was negligent in
but failed to do so, and the accident occurred as a the supervision and selection of its employees because it is
proximate result of such failure. already presumed by operation of law.

DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE, WHEN NOT NOTE: The presumption of negligence arising from the
APLICABLE principle of res ipsa loquitur may be rebutted. It is not
1. Collapse of a building or structure; conclusive.
- Art 2190 of the Civil Code: the proprietor of a
building or struc-ture is responsible for the damage How? By contending that the plaintiff exercised the due
resulting from its total and partial collapse, it should diligence of a good father in the selection and supervision
be due to the lack of necessary repairs. of employees.
2. When the claim or demand of the injured passenger is
the enforcement of the carriers contractual obligation RES IPSA LOQUITUR IS AN EVIDENTIARY RULE
to bring him safely to his destination; and It is not a rule of substantive law.
- DLCC applies in a suit between the owners and Hence, does not per se create or constitute an
drivers of colliding vehicles. independent or separate ground of liability, being a
- It does not arise when the passenger demands mere evidentiary rule.
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
contractual obligations. PRINCIPAL DEFENSES IN ACTIONS BASED ON
3. When the injury or accident cannot be avoided by NEGLIGENCE
application of all means at hand after peril has been
discovered. 1. Emergency Rule
- One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger
is not
HAS THE DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE BEEN guilty of negligence,
ABOLISHED? required to act without time to consider the best
Phoenix Contstruction, Inc vs IAC means that may be adopted to avoid the
-The principle of last clear chance is inapplicable in the impending danger but he fails to adopt what
instant case, as it only applies in a suit between the subsequently and upon reflection may have been a
owners and drivers of colliding vehicles. better method,
UNLESS the emergency in which he finds
RES IPSA LOQUITOR himself is brought about by his own
Concept: The thing or transaction speaks for itself. negligence.

Conditions:
1. The accident was of such character as to warrant an
inference that it would not have happened except for 2. Assumption of Risk
defendants negligence; - Voluntary assumption of a risk of harm arising from
2. The accident must have been caused by an agency or the negligent conduct of the defendant. (injured
instrumentality within the exclusive management or waives the negligence of the defendant)
- Presupposes an intentional exposure to a known peril.
4|Page
TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

- Express Assumption of Risk when stated


explicitly in a contract
- Implied Assumption of Risk when based on the
conduct of the plaintiff.
- Note: Not applicable in cases covered by the
Workmens Compensation Act

Wherein the the employer is liable for the damage or


compensation for the employee for any injuries
which the latter may suffer from any accident arising
out and in the course of his employment or other
venue directly caused by such employment.
3. Contributory Negligence
- When the plaintiffs own negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his injury
- In this case, plaintiff cannot recover damages.
4. Volenti Non Fit Injuria
- To which a person assents is not esteemed in law as
injury.
- One is not legally injured if he has consented to the
act complained of or was willing that it shall occur.

GUIDELINES IN APPORTIONING NEGLIGENCE WHEN


BOTH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE NEGLIGENT
- Where both the plaintiff and defendant contributed to
the occurrence of the damage or injury, the doctrine
of comparative negligence applies.

TWO WELL-KNOWN RULES IN THE UNITED STATES


1. Pure Comparative Negligence Rule
- Plaintiff can recover from the defendant regardless
of the extent of the negligence of the former.
2. Arkansas Comparative Negligence
- Plaintiff can recover PROVIDED that his negligence is
lesser in degree than that of the defendant.
- If the combined negligence of both parties falls on a
50/50 basis, PLAINTIFF CANNOT RECOVER.

NOTE:
To prove contributory negligence, it is still necessary to
establish a causal link, although not proximate, between
the negligence of the party and the succeeding injury.

RESCUE DOCTRINE or HUMANITARIAN DOCTRINE


-One who has, through his negligence, endangered safety of
another may be held liable for injuries sustained by
third person who attempts to save another from injury.

Example:
A reckless and over-speeding vehicle is about to hit a child
in a sidewalk. A man saw the incident and hurriedly came
in the rescue of the child. The child was saved but the man
himself was injured caused by the negligence of the driver.
The latter will be liable for damages suffered by the
rescuer.

Note:
As a matter of law, one who sees a person in imminent and
serious peril through negligence of another CANNOT be
charged with contributory negligence in risking his own life
or serious injury in attempting to effect a rescue, provided
the attempt is not recklessly or rashly made.

5|Page
TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

The basis of Art 2180 is PATER FAMILIAS, not RESPONDEAT


ARTICLE 2180: The obligation imposed by Art SUPERIOR.
2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts
or omissions, but also for those of persons for RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR negligence of the servant is
whom one is responsible. conclusively the negligence of the
master.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity,
the mother, are responsible for the damages PATER FAMILIAS negligence of the person is rebuttable,
caused by the minor children who live in their not conclusively the negligence of the
company. master.
Reason: Negligence in the supervision of his subordinates.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the However, the master in pater familias under Art
minors or incapacitated persons who are under 2180 will be freed from liability IF HE CAN PROVE
their authority and live in their company. THAT HE HAD OBSERVED ALL THE DILIGENCE OF A
GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY TO PREVENT THE
The owners and managers of an establishment or DAMAGE.
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the ACTUAL TORTFEASOR IS NOT EXEMPT FROM
branches in which the latter are employed or on LIABILITY
the occasion of their functions. Note:
Minor, ward, employee, special agent, pupil, students
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused and apprentices who actually committed the delictual
by their employees and household helpers acting acts are NOT EXEMPTED BY THE LAW FROM PERSONAL
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even RESPONSIBILITY.
though the former are not engaged in any They may be sued and made liable ALONE as when the
business or industry. PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM OR VICARIOUS
OBLIGOR PROVES THAT HE EXERCISED THE DILIGENCE
The State is responsible in like manner when it OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY.
acts through a special agent; but not when the Minor or insane person may be sued and made liable
damage has been caused by the official to whom alone when he has no parents or guardians. (They are
the task done properly pertains, in which case answerable with their own property.
what is provided in Art 2176 shall be applicable.
NATURE OF RESPONSIBILITY OF VICARIOUS OBLIGOR
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of
Primary and direct, not subsidiary.
arts and trades shall be liable for damages
He is solidarily liable with the tortfeasor.
caused by their pupils and students or
apprentices, so long as they remain in their His responsibility is not conditioned upon the insolvency
custody. of or prior recourse against the negligent tortfeasor.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall WHY ARE PARENTS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE?
cease when the persons herein mentioned prove It is a necessary consequence of the parental authority
that they observed all the diligence of a good they exercise over them which imposes upon the parents
father of a family to prevent damage. the duty of supporting them, keeping them in their
company, educating them in proportion to their means,
PRINCIPLE OF VICARIOUS OR IMPUTED LIABILITY while, on the other hand, gives them the rights to correct
and punish them in moderation.
One is not only liable for his own quasi-delictual acts BUT
ALSO FOR THOSE PERSONS FOR WHOM HE IS Note: The only way they can relieve themselves of this
RESPONSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. liability is IF THEY PROVE THAT THEY EXERCISED ALL
THE DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY TO
VICARIOUS LIABILITY the liability for the acts of others PREVENT THE DAMAGE.
enumerated in this article.
LIABILITY OF THE MOTHER
QUASI-TORTS in the American sense, this is the violation Not simultaneous with fathers liability despite the fact that
of the provisions of Article 2180. they exercise joint parental authority over their minor
children.
MINORITY refers to those who are below 21 years and Mother is liable only in the case of death or incapacity of
not those below 18 years old. the father.
When mother is impleaded or co-impleaded with the
Note: The amendment whereby the minority is reduced father, the case may be moved to be dismissed on the
from 21 years old to 18 years old do not cover Art. grounds of prematurity.
2180.
ABSENCE OF FATHER, EFFECT
PD 603: THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE If the father is absent, under Art 390 or 391 of the Civil
Code, the mother who is present and with whom the minor
Art 58: Parents and guardians are responsible for the children live with will be the one vicariously liable.
damage caused by the child under their parental
authority in accordance with the civil code. REQUISITES OF VICARIOUS OR IMPUTED LIABILITY
OF PARENTS
Note: Where at the time of the commission of the crime, 1. The child is below 21 years old;
the accused was minor under the parental authority of 2. The child committed a tortious act to the damage and
his parents, the latter are primarily and directly liable prejudice of another person; and
for the damages sustained by the heirs of the victim. 3. The child lives in the company of the parent concerned
whether single or married.
INCAPACITATED PERSONS persons beyond 21 years of
age but are incapacitated such as those who are insane RESPONSIBILITY FOR MINOR ADOPTED CHILDREN
and imbecile. Domestic Adoption Act of 1988: Judicially adopted children
are considered legitimate children of
PATER FAMILIAS AS BASIS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY their adopting parents.

6|Page
TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

Thus, adopters are civilly liable for their Paragraph 4 refers to OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF
tortious/criminal acts if the children live with ESTABLISHMENTS AND ENTERPRISES and who have
them and are below 21 years old. employees under them.

Adoption de facto adoption which are extra judicial. A manager who is not an owner but who assumes the
- it creates no legal relation between the responsibility of supervision over the employees of the
child and the caretaker. owner may be held liable for the acts of the employees.
Note: It is submitted however, that the foster parent of
such child may also be held civilly liable just like Note:
adopting parent, if the conditions of vicarious The terms employers and owners and managers of
liability are present. This is justified by the fact that an estab-lishment or enterprise are used in the sense
the child lives with the foster parent over whom he of employer and do not include the manager of the
should exercise proper care and supervision. corporation who himself is just an employee.
The liability under paragraph 4 of Art 2180 applies to all
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN those who by their industry or profession or other
1. Acknowledged by father and lives with the father enterprise have other persons in their service or under
father is liable. supervision.
2. Not recognized by putative father but is under mothers
custody mother is the one vicariously liable. LIABILITY OF RADIO STATION FOR THE
BROADCASTERS VIOLATION OF THE RADIO CODE
MAY THE SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF PARENTS Both the broadcasters (Rima and Alegre) and the FBNI
ARISING FROM THE CRIMINAL ACTS OF THEIR MINOR (radio station owner) are liable for moral damages to
CHILDREN WHO ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT BE the complaining party (AMEC-BCCM).
DETERMINED UNDER ART 2180? The FBNI failed to prove that it exercised the diligence
Yes, according to the Supreme Court. of a good father of a family in the supervision of Rima
Reason: This is to avoid the absurdity (ridiculousness) and Alegre.
that while Art 2180 applies to quasi-delicts, it would not
apply to damages caused with criminal intent.
In other words, SC finds it ridiculous that 2180 cannot
be applied to damages with criminal intent. LOL.
NEGLIGENCE OF PROFESSOR IS NEGLIGENCE OF THE
Note: the subsidiary liability of parents arising from the SCHOOL
criminal acts of their minor children, who acted with Petitioner (UE) cannot pass on its blame to the professors
discernment, is determined under Art 2180 of the Civil to justify its own negligence that led to the delayed relay of
Code and Art 101 of the RPC. information to respondent.
A person should be protected only when he acts in the
VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF GUARDIANS legitimate exercise of his right, that is, when he acts with
Same rule as in the liability of parents with respect to prudence and in good faith, but not when he acts with
their children below 21 years old, and who live with negligence or abuse.
them.
If there are 2 guardians: one over his person and one INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE
over his property, the guardian over his person shall be An independent contractor is not an employee of the
liable (Personal Acts of the ward) person who engaged his services.
The independent contractor is free to execute the work
ARE DE FACTO GUARDIANS COVERED BY PARAGRAPH without being subject to the orders of the employer on
3, ARTICLE 2180? the details of the work.
YES. This is to compel them to exercise control and If the employer retains the control and supervision over
supervision over the orphans over whom they the person engaged with respect to the work to be
VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED THE DUTIES OF done, there is between them an employer-employee
PARENTHOOD. relationship.

De facto guardians relatives and neighbors who take LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS UNDER PARAGRAPH 5 OF
unto themselves the duty to care and ARTICLE 2180
support orphaned children without It speaks of employers even if not engaged in business.
passing through judicial proceedings. It covers the tortious acts of household helpers, like:
Family cooks;
REQUISITES OF EMPLOYERS LIABILITY UNDER Gardeners;
PARAGRAPH 4 Yayas; and
1. That the employee was chosen by the employer
Servants, etc.
personally or through another;
2. That the service is to be rendered in accordance with
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PARAGRAPH 4 AND 5
orders which the employer has the authority to give at
Paragraph 4 requires engagement in business on the
all times; and
part of the em-ployers as the law speaks of
3. That the illicit act of the employee was on the occasion
establishment or enterprise
or by reason of the functions entrusted to him.
Paragraph 5 employers referred to need not be
engaged in business or industry.
Note: in other words, employers may be engaged in
Before the employers subsidiary liability is exacted, there business.
must be ADEQUATE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING THAT:
1. They are indeed the employers of the convicted Note: If the employers in Paragraph 5 are engaged in
employees; business, same in paragraph 4, employers shall be
2. That the employers engaged in some kind of industry; liable for the tortious acts of their employees while
3. That the crime was committed by the employees in the acting or performing their assigned functions.
discharge of their duties; and
4. That the execution against the employee has not been Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5
satisfied due to insolvency. Owners and managers of To employers in general
an establishment or whether or not engaged in
VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF OWNERS AND MANAGERS enterprise any business or industry
Covers negligent acts of Encompasses negligent

7|Page
TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

employees committed acts of employees ating Absence of some special benefits to the employer other
ether in the service of the within the scope of their than the mere performance of the services available by
branches or on occasion assigned task. the place where he is needed, the employee is not
of their functions acting within the scope of his employment even though
he uses his employers motor vehicle.
Note: The employer may be liable where he derives some
Under the 5th paragraph, whether or not engaged in any special benefits from having the employee at work
business or industry, an employer is liable for the torts earlier and spending more time at his actual duties.
committed by employee within the scope of his assigned
tasks Special Errand Rule or Roving Commission Rule
where an employer:
How? requires an employee to circulate in a general area with
1. Employer-Employee relationship must first be no fixed place or hours or work, and his employer
established. furnishes him with a vehicle to use in his work, or
2. Plaintiff must show that the employee was acting within requires the employee to go to and from his home to
the scope of his assigned task when the tort various outside places of work, and his employer
complained of was committed. furnishes him with a vehicle to use in his work
3. Then, employer may interpose the defense of due
diligence in the selection and supervision of the Note:
employee. Under the Special Errand Rule and/or Roving
Commission Rule, it can be found that the employee
EMPLOYEE MUST BE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS continues in the service of his employer until he
ASSIGNED TASK WHEN THE INJURIOUS ACT actually reaches home.
COMMITTED If the employee has left the direct route to his work or
TO MAKE THE EMPLOYER LIABLE UNDER PAR. 4 AND 5, it back home and in pursuing a personal errand of his
must be established that the injurious or tortious act was own, the employer is not liable for the employees
committed at the time the employee was performing his negligence at the time of the accident.
functions.
USE OF EMPLOYERS VEHICLE OUTSIDE REGULAR
Note: WORKING HOURS
When the employee causes damage DUE TO HIS OWN Employer not liable when:
NEGLIGENCE while performing his own duties, there He loans his motor vehicle to an employee for the
arises the juris tantum presumption that the employer latters personal use outside working hours even when
is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the employer contemplates that a regularly assigned
the diligence of a good father of a family. motor vehicle will be used by the employee for personal
An employer incurs no liability when an employees as well as business purposes and there is some
conduct, act or omission is beyond the range of incidental benefit to the employer;
employment. Even where the personal purpose in using the vehicle
When employees stage a strike, they are acting on has been accomplished and he has started to return trip
their own, beyond the range of their employment. to his house where the vehicle is normally kept,
If there is a deviation from the scope of employment, because it has been held that he has not resumed his
the employer is not liable, no matter how short in time employment.
is the deviation.
Except: Art 1759 APPLICABILITY OF THE ABOVE AMERICAN
Common carriers are liable for the death of or PRINCIPLES
injuries to passengers through the negligence or Whether the fault or negligence of the employee is
willful acts of the formers employees, although conclusive on his employer as in American law or
such employees may have acted beond the scope jurisprudence, or merely gives the presumption juris
of their authority in violation of the orders of the tantum of negligence on the employer as in ours, it is
common carriers. indespansable that the employee was acting in his
This liability of the common carriers does not employers business or within the scope of his assigned
cease upon proof that they exercised all the task.
diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of their employees.
By the nature of the business of the common carriers RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR IS AN AMERICAN DOCTRINE
and for reason of public policy, EXTRA-ORDINARY WHICH IS ALMOST SIMILAR TO ARTICLE 2180, PAR 4
DILIGENCE is required of them in the vigilance over the AND 5
goods and for the safety of the passengers transported
by them. Resondeat superior let the master answer.
Master is liable in certain cases for the
PRINCIPLES IN AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE ON wrongful acts of his servant, and a
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY FOR THE INJURIES INFLICTED principal for those of his agent.
BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN EMPLOYEE IN THE USE Master is responsible for want of care on
OF AN EMPLOYERS MOTOR VEHICLE servants part toward those to whom
An employee who uses his employers vehicle in going master owes duty to use care, provided
from his work to the place where he intends to eat or in failure of servant to use such care
returning to work from a meal is not ordinarily acting occurred in course of his employment
within the scope of his employment in the absence of An employer is liable for injury to person
evidence of some special business benefit to the or property of another proximately
employer. resulting from acts of employee done
Evidence that by using the employers vehicle to go to within scope of him employment in the
and from meals, an employee is enabled to reduce his employers service.
time-off and so devote more time to the performance of Note:
his duties supports the finding that an employee is -Doctrine applies only when relation of master and servant
acting within the scope of his employment while driving existed between defendant and wrongdoer at time of
the vehicle. injury sued for, in respect to very transaction from
which it arose.
OPERATION OF EMPLOYERS VEHICLE IN GOING TO -If deviation be only slight or incidental, employer may still
OR FROM WORK be liable.

8|Page
TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

NATURE OF EMPLOYERS LIABILITY


Direct and immediate.
It is not conditioned on a prior recourse against the
negligent employee, or a prior showing of insolvency of
such employee.
Joint and solidary with the employee.

PRIMARY LIABILITY AND SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF


EMPLOYERS, DISTINGUISHED; OPTIONS ON
REMEDIES
The injured party has 2 options in pursuing the civil liability
of the employer for the acts of his employee:
1. Filing of Civil Action for Damages liability of
employer is primary, direct and solidary; and not
conditioned on the insolvency of the employee.
PRIMARY LIABILITY the injured party may recover
from the employers directly,
regardless of the solvency of their
employees.
2. Filing of Criminal Case liability of employer is
subsidiary
Employer cannot use as defense the
exercise of the diligence of a good
father of a family.

Note:
The judgment in the criminal action pronouncing the
employee to be also civilly liable is conclusive on the
employer not only as to the actuality of that liability but
also as to the amount.
The employer, under Art 103 of the RPC, is subsidiarily
liable, if it can be shown that the commission thereof
was in the discharge of the duties of the employee.
Previous dismissal of an action based on culpa aquiliana
could not be a bar to the enforcement of the subsidiary
liability required by said Article 103 of the RPC.

ENFORCEMENT OF SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF


EMPLOYER
To enforce the employers subsidiary liability, there must
be adequate evidence establishing that:
1. He is indeed the employer of the convict
2. That he is engaged in some kind of industry
3. That crime was committed by the employee in the
discharge of his duties; and
4. Execution against the employee is unsatisfied.

Note:
The exemption (proof of diligence in the selection and
supervision) from civil liability established in the last
paragraph of Art 2180 does not apply to the subsidiary
civil liability under the RPC.
Mere formulation of various company policies on safety
without showing that they were being complied with is
not sufficient to exempt an employer from liability
arising from negligence of its employees.
Presumption of vicarious liability may be overcome only
by satisfactorily showing that the employer exercised
the care and the diligence of a good father of a family in
the selection and supervision of its employee.

9|Page
TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

WHEN THE EMPLOYEES CIVIL LIABILITY HAS


BECOME FINAL, SO MUST ALSO THE SUBSIDIARY Note:
LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYERS The State may designate a public officer as a SPECIAL
AGENT to perform governmental work, in which event,
Where the civil liability of the accused-employee has it assumes liability for the tortious acts of the officer
become final and enforceable by reason of his flight (jump- done in the pursuit of his assignment.
bail), then his employers subsidiary civil liability has also If the public officer committed tortious acts unrelated to
become immediately enforceable. his special assignment, he alone is is responsible.

Note: It is the height of absurdity for this single case to be Note: If the special agent appointed by the State is
final as to the accused who jumped bail, but not as to assigned to perform acts for private and business
an entity whose liability is dependent upon the interests of the State, then it assumes the
conviction of the former. responsibility of an ordinary employer should the
agent commit tortious acts in the pursuit of his
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP CANNOT BE assignment.
PRESUMED
Note:
Note: The State may designate a private person as a special
It is necessary for the plaintiff to establish it by agent, in which case, the State is considered as an
evidence. ordinary employer.
Failure to do this was fatal to its action. The state may also commission a private person to do a
governmental function, in which case, the State is
He who alleges rests in him the burden to prove the acting through a special agent falling under paragraph
allegation. 5 of Art 2180.

Note: If the plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of TWO SITUATIONS PRESENTED IN PARAGRAPH 6
proving his cause of action fails to show in a
satisfactory manner the facts upon which he based his 1. When the State acts through special agent.
claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove - The State is subject to liability for damages caused
his exception or defense. by the special agent.

EMPLOYER WHO IS MADE LIABLE MAY SEEK 2. When the act is performed by an official upon whom
REIMBURSEMENT previously devolved the duty of doing the act
Should the employer be held liable solidarily for the performed.
damages caused by the tortious acts of his employee, he - It is the official, not the State, who is liable for
may seek reimbursement from the latter for the amount he damages caused by the act he performed.
paid to the offended party for the satisfaction of claim.
Special Agent vs Official
STATES IMPUTED LIABILITY Comprises all officials and
The State is only liable for the negligent acts of its: employees of the government who
Officers; when they are acting exercise duties of their respective
Agents; and as SPECIAL AGENTS, in public offices
which case All others who are acting
Employees, the Govt assumed liability for their by commission of the government,
acts. whether individual or juridical bodies.

Special Agent one who receives a definite and fixed IMPUTED LIABILITY OF TEACHERS AND HEADS OF
order of com-mission, foreign to the exercise SCHOOLS; CONCEPT EXPANDED
of the ordinary duties of his office
Exconde vs Capuno: Teachers and directors of arts and
Note: An employee who on his own responsibility performs trades do not include teachers and
the functions inherent in his office and naturally heads of academic institutions.
pertaining thereto is NOT A SPECIAL AGENT.
Note: Paragraph 7 contemplates a situation where the
ASPECTS OF LIABILITY OF THE STATE, CATEGORIZED pupil lives and boards with the teacher, such that
1. Public or Governmental where the State is liable only the control, direction and influence on the pupil
for the supersedes those of a parent.
tortious acts of its special
agents Palisoc vs Brilliantes: The president of a vocational
2. Private or Non-Governmental when the State is school and the instructor of the student
engaged in private of said school, who caused the death of
business or enterprises, it his classmate were made solidarily
becomes liable for damages to the parents of the
liable as an ordinary deceased who was fatally injured at the
employer schools laboratory room.

Proprietary Function when a service provided by a private Salvosa vs IAC: The Baguio Colleges Foundation and
corporation and the private corporation its president were held liable for the
collects revenues from it. damage caused by the armorer of the
schools ROTC unit who fatally shot a person
Note: within the school premises citing the case of
If the special agent is not a public official and is Palisoc vs Brillantes
commissioned to perform non-governmental functions,
then the State assumes the role of an ordinary In Palisoc vs Brillantes and Salvosa vs IAC, the schools
employer and will be held liable as such for the tortious are not schools of arts and trades.
acts of said agent.
If the State commissioned a private individual to Amadora vs CA: It has been held that the provision in
perform a special governmental task, it is acting Article 2180 involving teachers or heads of
through a special agent within the meaning of this establishments of arts and trades should
provision.
10 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

apply to all schools, as well as non-academic All other cases not covered by this and the preceding
ones. articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil
Code on quasi-delicts.
Ylarde vs Aquino: Where a school teacher was held liable
for the death of the pupil while in school. PHRASE SO LONG AS THE STUDENTS REMAIN IN
THEIR CUSTODY
Observations: The protective and supervisory custody that the school
In Exconde, the provision was declared restrictive; and its head and teachers exercise over the pupils and
In Palisoc and Amadora, it was made liberal to include students holds true for as long as they are at
both the academic and non-academic schools. attendance at the school, including recess time.
In Pasco vs CFI of Bulacan, it was held again that Art Nothing in the law requires that such liability to attach,
2180 applies only to teachers or heads of schools of the pupil or student who commits the tortious act must
arts and trades, which returned to the restrictive rule. live and board at the school.
Strictly speaking, THE EXCONDE CASE PROVIDES THE
CORRECT RULE! NO NEED FOR THE STUDENT TO BE A BOARDER
The law is very clear. It needs no interpretation. It Custody requirement does not mean that the student
speaks of ESTABLISHMENTS OF ARTS AND TRADES. should be within the control and under
The Congress of the Philippines should make the the influence of the school authorities
necessary curative amendments to accommodate the at the time of the occurrence of the
courts liberal interpretation in Palisoc and Amadora injury.
cases to avoid any further see-saw decisions on this
matter. This does not necessarily mean that such custody be
co-terminus with the semester, beginning with the
DELINEATION OF RESPONSIBILITY start of classes and ending upon the close thereof,
and excluding the time before or after such period,
School is ACADEMIC rather than technical or vocational in such as the period of registration, and in the case of
nature graduating students, the period before the
responsibility for the tort committed by the student commencement exercises.
will attach to the teacher-in-charge of such students,
following the first part of the provision. Note: The student is in the custody of the school
authorities as long as he is under the control and
Establishments of arts and trades influence of the school and within its premises,
it is the head thereof, and only he, who shall be held whether the semester has yet begun or has already
liable as an exception to the general rule. ended.
STUDENTS PRESENCE IN SCHOOL, SUFFICIENT
Reddendo Singula Singulis referring each to each As long as it can be shown that the student is in the
school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student
Paragraph 7: Lastly, teachers or heads of right, the responsibility of the school authorities over
establishments of arts and trades shall be the student continues.
liable for damages caused by their pupils Even if the student should be doing nothing more than
and students or apprentices, so long as relaxing in the campus in the company of his
they remain in their custody. classmates and friends and enjoying the ambiance and
atmosphere of the school, he is still within the custody
Teachers should apply to the words pupils and students and under the discipline of the authorities under the
provisions of Art 2180.
Heads of Establishments of Arts and Trades should apply
to the words TEACHER-IN-CHARGE, ANSWERABLE
apprentices During all these occasions, it is the teacher-in-charge
who must answer for the students torts, just like the
LIMITATION TO THE LIABILITY OF TEACHERS AND parents are when the students are under the latters
HEADS OF SCHOOLS custody.
The teachers or heads of schools are only liable if the
students remain in schools. Teacher-in-charge the one designated by the dean,
If they are no longer in school, their responsibility shall principal, and other administrative superior to exercise
attach no more. Their parents become responsible for supervision over the pupils in the specific classes or
them. sections to which they are assigned.

SCHOOL OR INSTITUTION INVOLVED IN CHILD CARE CUSTODY OF STUDENTS, COVERAGE


Art 218: Note: At the time of the injury, it is not necessary that the
The school, its administrators and teachers, or the teacher be physically present and at the position to
individual, entity or institution engaged in child care shall prevent it.
have special parental authority and responsibility over the
minor child while under their supervision, instruction or Custody does not connote immediate and actual
custody. physical control.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized it refers more to the influence exerted on the child
activities whether inside or outside the premises of the and the discipline instilled in him as a result of
school, entity or institution. such influence.

Art 219: Note: For the injuries caused to the student, the teacher
Those given the authority and responsibility under the and NOT THE PARENT shall be held responsible if the
preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for tort was committed within the premises of the school
damages caused by the act or omission of the at anytime when its authority could be exercised over
unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or him.
the persons exercising substitute parental authority over
the said minor shall be subsidiarily liable. ARE STUDENTS OF AGE WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the PARAGRAPH 7, ARTICLE 2180?
preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they YES, if they are equally in the custody of the school and
exercised the proper diligence required under the particular subject to the schools discipline, just like pupils.
circumstances.

11 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

Note: Unlike the parent, who will be liable only if the child employee was not during the latters discharge of his
is still a minor, the teacher is held answerable by the duties.
law for the act of the student under him regardless of
the age of the student. REASON BEHIND THE PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
AGAINST THE EMPLOYER
WORKING SCHOLARS, STATUS Presumption is either in the:
Note: Students (Working Scholars) and Selection of the servant or employee (culpa in
Schools/Colleges/Universities have NO employer- eligiendo)
employee relationship. Supervision over him after the selection (culpa
vigilando)
Working Student Scholarship where students work
for the school in exchange for Reasons:
the privilege to study free of It is indeed difficult for any person injured by the
charge provided the students carelessness of a driver to prove the negligence or lack
are given real opportunity, o due diligence of the owner of the vehicle in the choice
including such facilities as may of the driver.
be reasonable, necessary to Were we to require the injured party to prove the
finish their chosen courses owners lack of diligence, the right will in many cases
under such arrangement. prove illusory, as seldom does a person in the
community, especially in the cities, have the
FCI vs CA: For the tortious act of the student in causing opportunity to observe the conduct of all possible car
injuries to Kapunan, Sr. in recklessly driving the owners therein.
schools jeepney, the said school is exonerated So the law imposes the burden of proof of innocence on
from liability. the vehicle owner.
As earlier pointed out, this burden of all owners of
RATIONALE OF SCHOOL HEADS AND TEACHERS private and public utility vehicles is imposed as a
LIABILITY FOR TORTIOUS ACTS OF THEIR PUPILS AND matter of public policy for the protection of the public.
STUDENTS
Teachers and schools stand in loco parentis (in the place of ARTICLE 2181: Whoever pays for the damage
a parent). caused by his dependents or employees
may recover from the latter what he has
Therefore: paid or delivered in satisfaction of the
They are called upon to exercise reasonable claim.
supervision over the conduct of the child.
It becomes their obligation to provide proper OBLIGATION OF THE TORTFEASOR TO REIMBURSE
supervision of the students activities during the whole PAYOR
time; The vicarious debtor who paid for the damage or injuries
To take the necessary precautions to protect the caused by the tortfeasor is entitled to be reimbursed for
students in their custody from dangers and hazards that what he paid.
would reasonably be anticipated, including injuries that The tortfeasor who actually caused the damage or injuries
some student themselves may inflict willfully or through cannot just be exempted from the consequences of his
negligence on their fellow students. own acts.
Reason: The parent is not supposed to interfere with the ARTICLE 2181 APPLIED BY ANALOGY
discipline of the school nor with the authority and Where a railroad company had been compelled to pay a
supervision of the teacher while the child is under judgment for damages for injuries sustained by a
instruction. The school itself, likewise has to respond passenger as a result of the maltreatment and misconduct
for the fault or negligence of its head and teachers of the conductor the Court held that THE SERVANT WAS
under the same cited article. LIABLE TO HIS MASTER FOR ALL LOSS AND DAMAGE
DEFENSE IN ARTICLE 2180; DILIGENCE OF A GOOD SUSTAINED BY IT.
FATHER OF A FAMILY
ARTICLE 2182: If the minor or insane person causing
Parent damage has no parents or guardian, the
Guardian shall be exempted from liability if minor or insane person shall be
they can prove that answerable with his own property in an
Employer they have exercised all the diligence action against him where a guardian ad
of a good father litem shall be appointed.
State of the family to prevent damage.
Teacher WHERE THE MINOR OR INSANE WHO CAUSED
DAMAGE OR INJURY HAS NO PARENTS OR GUARDIAN;
Diligence which an ordinary CONSEQUENCES
prudent man Dependent Child is one who is without a parent,
would exercise with regard to his guardian or custodian; or one whose
own property. parents, guardian or other custodian for
good cause desires to be relieved of his
BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL DUTY NEGATES DEFENSE care and custody; and is dependent upon
OF EXERCISE OF DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A the public for support.
FAMILY JURISDICTION OF APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN
When the employee is guilty of BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL If the tortfeasor is:
DUTY, the employers defense of having exercised the MINOR whether sane or insane, the complaint and the
diligence of a good father of family to prevent the damage application
does not apply to an employer. for guardianship shall be filed with the Family
Court.
Take note, REQUISITES OF EMPLOYERS LIABILITY, NO. 3, OF LEGAL AGE the provisions of Rules 92 to 97 of the
the illicit act of the employee was on the occasion
Rules of Court
or by reason of the functions entrusted to him or in
shall apply.
the discharge of the employees duties.
ARTICLE 2182 SUPPLEMENTED BY ARTICLE 222,
In other words, the employer doesnt need to prove
FAMILY CODE
diligence because in the first place, the negligence of the
12 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

The Courts may appoint a: Even if the animal was removed from the control of the
Guardian over the childs property; or possessor, the latter is still liable as when the animal
Guardian ad litem when the best interests of the child so had escaped or got lost.
require.

ARTICLE 2183: The possessor of an animal or


whoever may make use of the same is Afialda vs Hisole
responsible for the damage which it may A person hired a caretaker of a carabao gored him to death
cause, although it may escape or be lost. and his heirs thereupon sued the owner of the animal for
This responsibility shall cease only in damages. The complaint was dismissed on the ground that
case the damage should come from force it was the caretakers duty to prevent the carabao from
majeure or from the fault of the person causing injury to anyone, including himself.
who has suffered damage.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF LIABILITY OF THE
DAMAGE OR INJURY CAUSED BY ANIMALS POSSESSOR
Animals covers all kinds of animals. These exceptions to the rule of liability on the part of the
Tame or domesticated; if they retain the habit of possessor of the animal constitute defenses in the action
returning to the filed against him:
premises of the possessor 1. If the damage was caused by force majeure
Wild or Vicious are possessed only while they are under - If by the tooting of a horn of a car, a horse was
ones frightenedand instinctively run causing injuries and
control death to a person, the possessor is not liable. The
event is considered fortuitous.
NATURE AND BASIS OF OBLIGATION IN ARTICLE 2183
Natural Equity / Principle of Social Interest 2. If the damage was caused by the fault of the
He who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or plaintiff or person injured
service, must answer for the damages which such - A caretaker of a carabao who was being paid for his
animal may cause. work, was gored by one of the carabaos under his
responsibility and as a result, he died. The owner of
WILD BEAST THEORY the carabao was exempted from liability.
The person who for his own purposes brings on his land Reason: The caretaker has assumed the risk of the
and collects and keeps there anything likely to do occupation he accepted. It was the duty of the
mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he caretaker to prevent the carabao from causing
does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the injury to anyone, including himself.
damages which is the natural consequence of its Note:
escape. The contributory negligence of the plaintiff is a
It is therefore unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove defense under Article 2183.
negligence. A person is unnecessarily or without cause or excuse
Defendant has no defense to prove that he has taken all knowingly places himself within the reach of a wild
possible precautions to prevent damage. animal securely fastened which he knows to be
dangerous, he cannot recover for the injury resulting
POSSESSOR NEED NOT BE THE OWNER from an attack by such animal.
Note: The person in charge of the animal need not be the A plaintiff may also deprive himself of a right to
owner, although the possessor may also be the owner complain, if notwithstanding warnings given to him
at the same time. and without the knowledge of the keeper, he
exposes himself to be attacked.
If the animal was borrowed by someone for his own use, he
alone should be held liable for the damage caused while 3. If the damage was caused by the act of a third
the animal was under his control. person
The bailee of an animal has a qualified ownership over it, - If a third person excites or provokes the animal,
which imposes on him the duty to exercise due care in which in turn injures another, he is liable for the
managing it. resulting damage and not the possessor.
Note: If the one who excites or provokes the animal is
Breach of which renders him an employee or child, or a ward for whom the
liable to their parties for injuries possessor is imputable liable under 2180, the
inflicted by animals in his custody possessor would still be responsible for the injuries
and attributable to his negligence. caused by the animal.
Damage may be caused upon PERSONS or upon PROPERTY.
For personal injuries the essence and measure
of damage
ARTICLE 2184: In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner
are those generally applied to personal
is solidarily liable with his driver, if the
injury cases.
former, who was in the vehicle, could
physical pains
have, by the use of due diligence,
mental anguish
prevented the misfortune. It is
serious anxiety disputably presumed that a driver was
For recovery of damages to plaintiffs property negligent, if he had been found guilty of
like crops, reckless driving or violating traffic
when destroyed by animals, the measure regulations at least twice within the
of next preceding two months.
damages is the value of the properties at
the time the same were destroyed If the owner was not in the motor
without prejudice to consideration of vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180
unrealized profits if the same can be are applicable.
proved.
RATIONALE BEHIND ARTICLES 2184-2186
Vestal vs IAC - To cope with the alarming increase of vehicular
What must be determined is the possession of the dog that mishaps.
admittedly was staying in the house in question,
regardless of the ownership of the dog or of the house.

13 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

IS THE ARTICLE APPLICABLE TO A CALESAS negligent if at the time of the mishap, he


MISHAP? was violating any traffic regulation.
- Though the article speaks of motor vehicle mishaps, it
has been applied to a calesa mishap. PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE OF DRIVER
A person driving a motor vehicle who was violating any
LIABILITY OF THE CAR OWNER IF PRESENT IN THE traffic regulation at the time of the accident is presumed to
CAR AND/OR IF NOT PRESENT IN THE CAR be negligent.
a. If present in the car
- The owner is liable if he could have prevented the rebuttable
mishap by the exercise of due diligence but did not
do so. Traffic laws issued
during certain
Note: Car owners are not held to a uniform and
Ordinances
inflexible standard of diligence as are professional
occasions promulga-
drivers.
Special rules ted by
What would be a negligent omission on
the part of the car owner who is in the competent
prime of age and knows how to handle a and regulations authority
car, is not necessarily so on the part of an
old and infirm person who is not similarly INSTANCES OF TRAFFIC RULES UNDER LAND
equipped TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CODE (RA 4136)
b. If not present in the car 1. Section 32(a)
- If the owner is not in the car, but his driver was Exceeding registered capacity No person
negligent, the injured party MAY STILL sue the car operating any motor vehicle shall allow more
owner under Art. 2180 for imputed liability. Defense passengers or more freight or cargo in his vehicle
of car owner is diligence of a good dad. than its registered capacity.
2. Section 54
Note: The masters liability in civil law is NOT Obstruction of Traffic No person shall drive his
respondeat superior but rather the relationship of motor vehicle in such a manner as to obstruct or
pater familias. impede the passage of any vehicle, nor, while
discharging or taking on passengers or loading or
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR negligence of the servant unloading freight, obstruct the free passage of
is conclusively the negligence of other vehicles on the highway.
the master.

PATER FAMILIAS negligence of the person is ARTICLE 2186: Every owner of a motor vehicle shall
rebuttable, not conclusively the file with the proper government office a
negligence of the master. bond executed by a government-
controlled corporation or office, to
THEORY: The negligence of the servant, if known to answer for damages to third persons.
the master and susceptible of timely The amount of the bond and other terms
correction by him, reflects his own shall be fixed by the competent public
negligence if he fails to correct it in order to official.
prevent injury or damage.
MOTOR VEHICLE BOND
Note: As a matter of fact, many car-owners precisely Note: No known implementing rules on the filing of the
hire drivers since the former for one reason or bond to answer for damages to third persons.
another cannot drive their cars themselves. Hence, HOWEVER,
the care or vigilance demanded of them cannot be A car owner cannot renew the registration of his car
uniform; each case must stand on its own. without first securing an insurance against third party
liability.
EFFECT, WHEN DRIVER IS FOUND NEGLIGENT Different from other
The law presumes the vehicle owner equally negligent and comprehensive insurance
imposes upon the latter the burden of proving proper coverage for theft, loss or own
selection of employee as a defense. damage for the protection of the
The presumption is not conclusive but ONLY car owner.
REBUTTABLE.
Note: The registered owner of any vehicle is directly and
The vehicle owner, to primarily responsible to the public and third persons
overcome the while it is being operated.
presumption, must Whether the driver is authorized
present clear, strong and or not by the actual owner is irrelevant
convincing evidence. in determining the liability of the
registered owner who the law holds
Note: Malfunction or loss of brake is not a fortuitous event. primarily and directly responsible for
The carrier remains liable. any accident, injury or death caused by
the operation of the vehicle in the
EFFECT OF RATIFICATION OF TORTIOUS ACT OF streets and highways.
DRIVER OR EMPLOYEE
- If the employer ratifies the wrongful acts of the employee, ARTICLE 2187: Manufacturers and processors of
the employer will still be held liable even if he has foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and
proved diligence in the selection and supervision. similar goods shall be liable for death or
- When the employer is in the car when his driver has run injuries caused by any noxious or
over somebody and instead of ordering the driver to harmful substances used, although no
stop the car, he allowed the driver to proceed with his contractual relation exists between
driving, he has RATIFIED the act of the driver. them and the consumers.

ARTICLE 2185: Unless there is a proof to the PRINCIPLE OF STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT APPLIES
contrary, it is presumed that a person Strict Liability proof of negligence is not necessary.
driving a motor vehicle has been It applies even if the defendant manufacturer
or pro-cessor has exercised all the possible
14 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

care in the preparation and sale of his The plaintiff has four options if he desires to pursue a
product. complaint against the manufacturer or processer under Art
2187. He may base his complaint on the:
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 1. Theory of strict liability in torts;
MANUFACTURERS/ PROCES-SORS AND CONSUMERS 2. Fault or negligence;
IS NOT NECESSARY 3. Breach of warranty;
Note: 4. Crime anchored on violation of the Foods and Drugs Act
Even if the consumer is not a direct buyer, as when he
acquired the foodstuffs through intermediate dealers, Wherein the enforcement
the manufacturers and processors are liable by express of which the doctrine of
provision of the law. absolute criminal liability
There is no need for the existence of a contractual may be applied
relation.
Manufacturers or processors are presumed to have ARTICLE 2188: There is prima facie presumption of
assumed responsibility to the consuming public that negligence on the part of the defendant
their products are safe and not harmful or injurious. if the death or injury results from his
possession of dangerous weapons or
Manufacturers duties: substances, such as firearms and poison,
Their duty of care must be exercised with respect to the except when the possession or use
ingredients of his product thereof is indispensable in his
See to it that in the process of manufacture of a food occupation or business.
product, no deleterious or poisonous matter enters it.
DEATH OR INJURY RESULTING FROM POSSESSION OF
DANGEROUS WEAPONS OR SUBSTANCES
Reason: They have the opportunity and the means to
When death or injury results from the defendants
insure that no noxious or injurious substances shall
possession of dangerous weapons or substances, there is a
get into the can.
presumption that he is negligent.
Rebuttable:
Note:
The burden of evidence is on him
Where a packer of boneless chicken advertises that
to establish that he was not
the bones have been removed from the chicken, this negligent at all.
assurance requires him to exercise as much care as will
enable consumers to rely on reasonable safety on such Note: The presumption prevails if he fails to overcome it
assurance. by clear, strong and convincing evidence.
The manufacturers and processors who may be sellers
of their own products to the public must exercise all ILLUSTRATIONS
possible care and precaution in the preparation, A has in his area bottles of muriatic acid. Children
manufacture or processing of their products. playing around got affected and were injured with the
Extra-ordinary diligence is required of them because the acid.
life or health of the consuming public is involved in the General Rule:
consumption of the foodstuffs or processed products. A is presumed to be negligent in the keeping of
Art 2187 is broad enough to cover all processing of the acid.
foodstuffs, drinks, and other similar products. Exception:
If As occupation is one of being a dealer of such
muriatic acid.
PRESENCE OF CONTRACT BETWEEN MANUFACTURER Hence:
OR PROCESSOR WITH PLAINTIFF, EFFECT There is no presumption of negligence.
If there is a contractual relation between the parties, Plaintiffs duty:
the plaintiff is not precluded from filing a suit based on Injured party must present evidence to prove the
the breach of warranty, whether express or implied. negligence of A which allegedly caused the
The principle of strict liability still applies. damage or injury.
The consumers cause of action does not depend upon A is a licensed gunholder. While he was carrying his
the validity of his contract with the person from whom gun on his waist, it fell and fired off harming somebody.
he acquires the product, and it is not affected by any A is presumed to be negligent. However, if he is a
disclaimer or other agreement, whether it be between policeman, the presumption is not applicable.
the seller and the immediate buyer, or attached to and ARTICLE 2189: Provinces, cities and municipalities
accompanying the product into the consumers hands. shall be liable for damages for the death
of, or injuries suffered by, any person by
REQUISITES OF STRICT LIABILITY reason of the defective condition of
To establish the liability of the manufacturer or processor roads, streets, bridges, public buildings,
under the article, the following requisites must be and other public works under their
established: control or supervision.
1. The defendant is the manufacturer;
2. The defendant used noxious or harmful substances in DEFECTIVE CONDITION OF THE ROADS, STREETS,
the manufacture or processing; BRIDGES, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND OTHER PUBLIC
3. Plaintiff used or consumed such product unaware of the WORKS
injurious condition of the product; Note:
4. Plaintiffs injury or death was caused by the product The political subdivisions
used or consumed; (provinces/cities/municipalities) are liable to the death
5. The forms or kinds of damages suffered and the amount or injuries caused to persons by reason of the defects in
thereof. existing roads, streets, bridges, etc., which are under
their control and supervision.
Note: The plaintiff has the burden of proof that at the time If the damage consists in injury to property, it is
the product left the hands of the defendant, the submitted that the same is deemed covered by analogy.
product was in a defective or injurious condition.
Otherwise, his case will fall. Example: If there is an open manhole in an unlighted
street under the supervision of a city, a car fell into
OPTIONS ON REMEDIES it and was destroyed, the city should be held liable
for the resulting damage.

15 | P a g e
TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES (PINEDA 2009 EDITION) LAW (ILIGAN)

OWNERSHIP OF ROADS, ETC. IS NOT REQUIRED He has to overcome the presumption with sufficient
Roads Need not be owned by the political units. evidence to avoid responsibility.
Streets It suffices that there is control or super-
Bridges vision over them by the political unit. EXCESSIVE SMOKE
Smoke when excessive and prolonged is harmful to
Guilatco vs City of Dagupan persons or property.
It is not necessary for the defective road or street to The same is a nuisance.
belong to the province, city or municipality for liability It can be abated in accordance with law and without
to attach. prejudice to payment of damages by the proprietor of
The article only required that either control or the thing emitting the smoke.
supervision is exercised over the defective road or
street. FALLING TREES
General Rule: If a tree falls, the owner thereof is liable for
ARTICLE 2190: The proprietor of a building or the damage or injury caused to another.
structure is responsible for the damages Exception: If it shall be caused by force majeure.
resulting from its total or partial
collapse, if it should be due to the lack Note: The owner is required to cut or fell the tree or to
of necessary repairs. remove it, if the tree is imminently inclined to fall in
such a way as would cause damage to persons or
APPLICABILITY property.
This applies when a building or structure collapsed and
caused harm to somebody due to necessary repairs. HARMFUL OR INJURIOUS EMANATIONS FROM TUBES,
The collapse may be total or partial. CANALS, SEWERS OR DEPOSITS OF INFECTIOUS
Total or partial, the owner or proprietor shall be MATTERS
responsible for the damage or injury caused. General Rule: If the emanations or deposits of infectious
matter become injurious because of improper
ARTICLE 482 construction of the tubes, canals, etc., the
If a building, wall, column, or any other construction is in proprietor shall be liable for the resulting
danger of falling, the owner shall be obliged to demolish it damage.
or to execute the necessary work in order to prevent it Exception: The defect in the construction is covered by
from falling. Art 1723, in which case the
If the proprietor does not comply with this obligation, the contractor/engineer/architect is the liable.
administrative authorities may order the demolition of the INJUNCTION MAY BE RESORTED TO PREVENT
structure at the expense of the owner, or take measure to DAMAGE OR INJURY
insure public safety. Affected party may seek:
Writ of Preliminary Injunction to prevent the
Note: If the collapse is due to force majeure or defect in construction of any
the construction contemplated under Art 1723 AND structures, tubes, canals,
NOT DUE TO LACK OF NECESSARY REPAIRS, the owner etc., that threaten to cause
is not responsible for the resulting damage or injury. explosion, emit excessive
smoke or harmful ema-
ARTICLE 2191: Proprietors shall also be responsible nations therefrom.
for damages caused: Mandatory Preliminary Injunction to compel the
1. By the explosion of machinery which proprietor to per-
has not been taken care of with due form, or do something to
diligence, and the inflammation of prevent explosion of
explosive substances which have not machinery, emission of
been kept in a safe and adequate excessive smoke or infectious
place; mat-ter, or to remove a
2. By excessive smoke, which may be falling tree.
harmful to person or property;
3. By the falling of trees situated at or
near highways or lanes, if not caused
by force majeure;
4. By emanations from tubes, canals,
sewers or deposits of infectious matter,
constructed without precautions
suitable to the place.

PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
If any of the four enumerated events occurred, the
proprietor of the machinery is presumed negligent.
Not necessarily the owner of the tenement where it is
located.

16 | P a g e