Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Culpa Aquiliana Culpa Contractual Culpa Criminal

Negligence of the tortfeasor; established by Negligence in the performance of a The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the liability of the accused for
negligence or tort contractual obligation; established by breach damages only when it includes a declaration that the facts from which the
of contract civil liability might arise does not exist.

Negligence of fault must be clearly established as Action can be prosecuted merely by proving Thus, the civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal where:

it is the basis of the action the existence of the contract and the fact 1. The acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of
that the obligor failed to perform his evidence is required in civil cases

obligation 2. The court expressly declares that the liability of the accused is not
criminal but only civil in nature

May even arise under a contract: When an act 3. The civil liability does not arise from or is not based upon the criminal act
which constitutes a breach of contract would have of which the accused was acquitted. (Padilla, wrong COA)

itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual

liability, the contract can be said to have been Note: Civil liability needs to be reserved; but actions quasi-delict may be
breached by tort; It includes voluntary and instituted independently without need of reservation, but may not recover
negligent acts which may be punishable by law twice, but you recover whichever is higher

Proximate Cause Comparative Negligence Contributory Negligence

That cause, which in natural and continuous Allows recovery by a plainti whose own act Conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the
sequence of things, unbroken by any ecient contributed to his injury, provided his harm he has suered, which falls below the standard to which he is required
intervening cause, produces the injury, without negligence was slight as compared with that to conform for his own protection.

which the result would not have occurred.

of the defendant.

Is that acting first and produces the injury, either It must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in
immediately or by setting other events in motion, disregard of warning or signs of an impending danger to health and body. It is
all constituting a natural and continuous chain of still necessary to establish a causal link, between the negligence of the party
events, the final event in the chain immediately and the succeeding injury.

eecting the injury as a natural and probable result

of the cause which first acted. Negligence is only contributory when it contributes proximately to the injury,
and not simply a condition for its occurrence.

Owners and Managers of Enterprises Employers Principle of apparent authority

When an injury is caused by the negligence of a Compared to <- this encompasses negligent A hospital, (or any employer), can be held vicariously liable for the negligent
servant or an employees in the service of the acts of employees acting within the scope of acts of a physician providing care at the hospital, regardless of whether the
branches in which the latter are employed or on their assigned task, whether or not the physician is an independent contractor, unless the patient knows, or should
the occasion of their functions, the employer is employer is engaged in any business or have known, that the physician is an independent contractor.

presumed negligent industry. Requisites:

1. Employer acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable prudent person

Overcome only by satisfactorily showing due Negligent acts of employees are covered so to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was his
diligence in selection and supervision of its long as they were acting within the scope employee or agent

employees of their assigned task, even though not 2. The acts of the agent create the appearance of authority which the
committed in branches or occasion of their hospital had knowledge of and acquiesced to

functions. 3. The plainti acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent,
consistent with ordinary care and prudence

Ecient intervening New and independent act which itself if a proximate cause of the injury and breaks the causal connection between the original wrong and the injury

Damnum Absque Injuria Loss or damage without injury; although there was physical damage, there was no legal injury as there was no violation of a legal right; Not actionable
absent any clear showing that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith. Note: good faith always presumed

Bad Faith A dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; breach of a known duty thru some motive or interest of ill-will; partakes
nature of fraud

Good faith State of mind, an honest intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another

Omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of people, of time and of place.

Test: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in
the same situation

Note: In our jurisdiction, a person below 9 years is presumed to have acted without discernment.

9 years but below 15: Presumed to be incapable of negligence unless it is shown that he has acted with discernment.

Malice Conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity

Assumption of Risk One who voluntarily assumed the risk of injury from a known danger is debarred from a recovery; One who knows, appreciates, and deliberately
exposes himself to a danger assumes the risk therof

Last Clear Chance The negligence of the plainti does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears that the defendant, by exercising
reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to the plainti notwithstanding the plaintis negligence. A person who
has the last clear chance of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponents is considered in law solely responsible for the
consequences of the accident.

Force Majeur
An event which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.

1. Inevitable accident: Elements:

act of God
1. The cause of the event must be independent of the human will

2. Irresistible force: Act 2. The cause must be impossible to foresee or if foreseen, is inevitable

of man 3. Event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner

4. The obligor must be free from any participation

Note: When an act of God combines or concurs with the negligence of the defendant to produce the injury, the defendant is liable if the injury would not
have resulted but for his own negligent conduct to omission. There must be entire exclusion of human agency from the cause of injury.

Injury Injury is the most comprehensive, applying to an act or result involving impairment or destruction of or loss of something of value. (Even physical injury
to objects aka 2-door Corolla)

Waiver To be valid and eective, must be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of a person to give up a right or
benefit which legally pertains to him. It must not be contrary to law, morals, public policy or good customs.

Mistake Wrong conception about said thing or a belief in the existence of some circumstance, fact or event, which in reality does not exist; In order to invalidate
consent, it should refer to the substance of the thing which is the object of the contract, or to those conditions which have principally moved one or
both parties to the contract.

Emergency or Sudden One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the
Peril Doctrine impending danger, is not guilty negligence, if he fails to adopt a what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method,
unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.

Corporate Negligence A hospital has the duty to see that it meets the standards of responsibilities for the care of patients. The modern hospital now tends to organize a
(hospital) highly-professional medical sta whose competence and performance need also to be monitored by the hospital commensurate with its inherent
responsibility to provide quality medical care

Joint tortfeasors All the persons who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate it, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve
of it after it is done, if done for their benefit

Tort Interference 1. A valid contract between two parties; 2. Knowledge by a third person of the existence of such valid contract; 3. Interference by such this person
without legal justification or excuse

Irresistible Force Interposition of human agency, from its nature and power, is absolutely uncontrollable. i.e. war

Presumption of Negligence

Respondeat Superior Violation of Rules and Statutes Res Ipsa Loquitur

Common carrier; employer Trac Rules Statutes and Ordinances or Administrative The thing or transaction speaks for itself

It is not necessary to prove that the Disputably presumed that a driver 1. Violation of a rule promulgated by a Doctrine rests on inference and not on
employer is negligent in contract of was negligent if:
company is not negligence per se, but it presumption; furnish circumstantial evidence of
carriage, the carrier is exclusively 1. He had been found guilty of may be evidence of negligence.
negligence when direct evidence is lacking
responsible and can neither shift his reckless driving, or violating 2. Violation of law, ordinance or statute
liability on the contract to his driver trac regulations at least twice raises presumption of negligence

nor share it with him within the next preceding two 3. Violation of a statutory duty is negligence
months (even if at that time he per se if the policy behind such
was not negligent)
ordinance is the prevention of the very Requisites:

1. EER
2. Presumed that a person driving injury which was committed.
1. The accident was of a kind which does not
2. Employee acted for the benefit has been negligent if at the time ordinarily occur unless someone was
of the employer (acted within the of the mishap, he was violating Sanitary Steam: It must be shown that the negligent

scope of his employment)

any trac regulation violation of the stature was the proximate of 2. The cause of the injury was under the
3. No proof that employer legal cause of the injury or that it exclusive control of the person in charge

exercised due diligence in the substantially contributed thereto. 3. The injury suered must not have been due to
selection and supervision of its any voluntary action or contribution on the
employees. part of the person injured.

Strict Liability Torts

Possessor of an animal Damage done to strangers; although animal may be lost. Cease: force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suered damage

Owner of Vehicle If owner was in the vehicle and could have prevented the damage; 2180 (employers with employee) where employer is directly liable under
vicarious liability

Manufacturers and processors Foodstus, drinks, toilet articles; by any noxious or harmful substances; although no contractual relationship

Dangerous weapons If death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons; except when the possession is indispensable in his occupation; Licensed
possessors have the preemptory duty to safeguard such firearms and prevent an unauthorized person from having possession thereof

Provinces, Cities, Municipalities Defective condition or roads, streets, bridges, public buildings and other public works under their control and supervision

Proprietor of a building Total or partial collapse due to lack of necessary repairs; [METS] Explosion of machinery not taken care of and inflammation of explosive
substances, Emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious matter; falling Trees near highways or lanes; excessive smoke

Engineer, Architect, Contractor Defect of construction results to damage mentioned above;

Engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications - 15 years; collapse by reason of defect in those plans and specifications

Contractor - 15 years; Defects in the construction or use of materials of inferior quality or violation of the terms of the contract

Engineer/Architect: solidarily liable with contractor if supervises the construction

Head of a family Lives in a building; Responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same

Art.19: Abuse of Art. 20: Art. 21: Contrary to Malicious Prosecution Unfair Competition Violation of Civil/Political RIght
Right Contrary to Morals

General Requisites:
Eect is to pass o on the public It is enough that there was a
1. The existence of a sanction for 1. There is an act 1. The fact of the prosecution and goods of one man as the goods of violation of the constitutional rights
legal right or duty
all other which is legal
the further fact that the another.
of the plaintis and it is not required
2. W h i c h is provisions 2. B u t w h i c h i s defendant was himself the that defendants should have acted
exercised in bad of law which contrary to morals, prosecutor, and that the action The most usual devices are the with malice or bad faith;

do not good customs, finally terminated with an simulation of labels and the O c e r, e m p l o y e e o r p e r s o n
3. For the sole intent specifically public order, or acquittal
reproduction of the form, color, and directly or indirectly responsible
of prejudicing or provide for public policy
2. In bringing the action, the general appearance of the package for the violation of the constitutional
enduring another their own 3. Done with intent to p ro s e c u t o r a c t e d w i t h o u t used by the pioneer manufacturer right (MHP Garments)

sanction. injure probable cause

or dealer.

3. The prosecutor actuated or ABS CBN: The adverse result of an

impelled by legal malice The fraudulent intention on the part action does not per se make the
of the defendant may be inferred action wrongful and subject the
from the similarity of the goods actor to damages, for the law could
oered for sale by him to the goods not have meant to impose a penalty
of the plainti
on the right to litigate

Malice or bad faith is at its core

Malice is essential and malicious Strike case:
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is
prosecution refers to unfounded If the new union is allowed, the essential that the victim be
Example: Not liable for damages when the act of making a criminal actions and has been result is subversion of a contract identifiable although it is not
fence was done for legitimate reasons which are not against expanded to include unfounded (agreement of working conditions) necessary that he be named; it is
law, morals, good customs or public policy. civil suits just to vex, humiliate freely entered into without any valid essential that the statement must
despite absence of probable cause. and justifiable reason, a derogation be so sweeping or all-embracing as
But the existence of probable of freedom to contract. to apply to every individual in that
causes sucient to defeat the group or class, or suciently
charge of malicious prosecution. specific so that each individual in
the class or group can prove that
the defamatory statement
specifically pointed to him, so that
he can bring the action separately, if
need be.

Other Notes:
1. Double Recovery: The fact that appellants reserved their right to institute civil action did not preclude them from choosing a civil action for quasi-delict.

1. There can be double filing, but cannot recover twice

2. Element missing in damnum absque injuria: Culpable act

3. If you want to prove negligence, you only have to establish proximate cause and not actual cause