Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

I.

INTRODUCTION

TORT S or dare? Midterms |1

TORT

An unlawful violation of a private right, NOT created by contract, which gives rise to an action for damages; a wrongful act or omission, resulting in breach of a private legal duty, as distinguished from a mere breach of contractual duty (Aquino, Beda reviewer)

DAMAGE v DAMAGES v INJURY

Damage actionable loss, hurt or harm which results from the unlawful act, omission or negligence of another Damages sum of money which the law awards/imposes as pecuniary compensation, recompense/satisfaction for an injury done or wrong sustained as a consequence of either a breach of a contractual obligation or a tortious or illegal act Injury legal invasion of a right.

SO: as a GR: the INJURY causes the DAMAGE which makes the injurer liable for DAMAGES. However, there can be damage without injury (damnum absque injuria)

KINDS OF TORT LIABILITIES

1. Negligent Tort (Negligence) omission to do acts required under the attendant circumstances resulting in damage/injury to another; voluntary act/omission which results in injury to others, without intending to do the same

2. Intentional Tort Tort or wrong perpetrated by one who intends to do that which the law has declared wrong. Includes Art. 32, 34, and culpa aquiliana under Art. 2176

3. Strict Liability in Tort person is made liable independent of fault or negligence upon submission of proof of certain facts. (ex:

 

product liability; doctrine of enterprise liability whew)

CULPA

AQUILIANA

CONTRACTUAL

CRIMINAL

AQUILIANA/CONTRACTUAL/CRIMINAL

 

Legal basis of liability

Fault or negligence resulting in damage/injury to another

That there was a contract + breach of the contract

No crime unless there is a law punishing the act

 

Presumption of negligence

NO presumption of negligence. Injured party must prove negligence of defendant

There is presumption of negligence as long as it can be proved that there was a breach of contract. Defendant must prove that there was no negligence in performance of contract

Innocence is presumed until contrary proven so no presumption of negligence

 

CASE DOCTRINES

 

BLTB CO. v IAC

By the contract of carriage, carrier assumed express obligation to transport the passengers to their destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence with a due regard for all the circumstances, and any injury that

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

TORT S or dare? Midterms |2

 

might be suffered by its passengers is right away attributable to the fault/negligence of the carrier

ABOITIZ v CA

^SAME; + It has been recognized as a rule that the relation of the carrier and the passenger does not cease the moment the passenger alights from the carrier vehicle, but continues until the passenger has had a reasonable time/opportunity to leave the carrier’s premises

DANGWA TRANSPO v CA

It is the duty of common carriers of passengers xxx to stop their conveyances for a reasonable opportunity for passengers to board and enter the vehicle. They are liable for injuries suffered by boarding passengers resulting from a sudden starting up/jerking of their conveyances.

II.

QUASI-DELICT

1.

ART. 2176. QUASI-DELICT

Whoever by act or omission

 

Causes damage to another

There being fault/negligence,

If there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties

ELEMENTS OF CAUSE OF ACTION (R-O-W)

1. A right in favor of plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;

2. An obligation on the part of defendant to respect and not to violate such right; and

3. A wrongful act or omission on part of such defendant violative of the right of plaintiff

REQUISITES FOR A CLAIM OF DAMAGES BASED ON QUASI-DELICT

1. Damage suffered by plaintiff

2. Fault/negligence of defendant

 

3. Connection of cause and effect between fault/negligence of defendant and damage incurred by the plaintiff

 

CASE DOCTRINES

 

ANDAMO v IAC

Responsibility for fault or negligence under Art. 2176 is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the RPC. (But note that law also prohibits double-recovery of damages for the same act/omission)

EQUITABLE LEASING CORP v LUCITA SUYOM

In an action based on quasi-delict, the registered owner of a motor vehicle is solidarily liable for the injuries and damages caused by the negligence of the driver, in spite of the fact that the vehicle may have already been the subject of an unregistered Deed of Sale in favor of another person

2. Art. 2177. NO DOUBLE RECOVERY RULE

Responsibility for fault/negligence under Art. 2176 is entirely separate and distinct

From liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code

Plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act/omission

CASE DOCTRINES

VIRATA v OCHOA

Acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages due to quasi- delict or “culpa aquiliana”

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

TORT S or dare? Midterms |3

ATLANTIC GULF v CA

There is no double recovery when the basis of one action is culpa contractual while the other is delict

CANCIO v ISIP

case dismissed based on criminal action, case may still prosper if based on contract (other sources of obligations) *from Atty. Calleja

If

III.

NEGLIGENCE

 
 

1.

Art. 1173. CONCEPT.

 

Fault or negligence of obligor

 

Consists of the omission of that diligence

Which is required by the nature of the obligation

And corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place

If law/contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance,

that which is expected of a good father of a family is required.

 

CASE DOCTRINES

 

PICART v SMITH

Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the conduct/guarding against the consequences

CITYTRUST BANKING v IAC

Banks are negligent when it failed to credit deposits when the name of the depositor is clearly written on the deposit slip, even if the depositor wrote an incorrect account number

FAR EAST BANK v QUERIMIT

A

bank is negligible for releasing funds without the surrender of the bearer

instrument

 

REYES v IAC

The degree of diligence required of banks in handling deposits is EXTRAORDINARY diligence. This applies only to cases where banks are acting in their FIDUCIARY capacity, that is, as depository.

 

UCPB v RAMOS

A

bank is negligent when it failed to determine the correct identity of its

 

debtor for purposes of distraint or levy

2.

NEGLIGENCE AS PROXIMATE CAUSE

That cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred

 

More comprehensively:

- That acting first and producing injury

o

Either immediately OR

o

By setting other events in motion

- all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events

- each having a close causal connection to its immediate predecessor

- The final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted

- Under such circumstances, that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act/default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom

WHAT CLAIMANT MUST ESTABLISH FOR ENTITLEMENT OF DAMAGES

Relation between the omission and the damage

That the defendant’s negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of the injury

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

TORT S or dare? Midterms |4

CASE DOCTRINES

SABIDO v CUSTODIO

Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts/omission of two or more persons, although acting independently of each other, are, in combination, the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury, either is responsible for the whole injury, even though his act alone might not have caused the entire injury, or the same damage might have resulted from the acts of the other tort-feasor

EDNA RAYNERA v FREDDIE HICESTAS

Drivers of vehicles who bump the rear of another vehicle are presumed to be the cause of the accident, unless contradicted by evidence.

BENGUETE ELECTRIC v CA

Companies vested with public interest also have the duty to ensure the safety of the public by the proper maintenance and upkeep of facilities

GUILLERMO ADRIANO v ROMULO PANGILINAN

Loss brought about by the concurrent negligence of 2 persons shall be borne by the one who was in the immediate, primary and overriding position to prevent it

3.

PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE

RULE:

 

Person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proving of such fault/negligence;

Facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively established by competent evidence

 

CASE DOCTRINES

 

PLDT v CA

^THE RULE ABOVE HEHE

 

COLLIN MORRIS v CA

In awarding moral damages for breach of contract of carriage, the breach must be WANTON and DELIBERATELY injurious or the one responsible ACTED FRADULENTLY or with MALICE/BAD FAITH. Where in reaching the contract of carriage, the defendant airline is not shown to have acted fraudulently/in bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural and probable consequences of the breach of obligation, which the parties had foreseen/could have reasonably foreseen

PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE:

A.

RES IPSA LOQUITUR

“The thing speaks for itself”

 

Rule of evidence

Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant that the accident arose from want of care. (Batiquin v CA)

 

REQUISITES

1. Accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence

 

2. Caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant/defendants

3. Possibility of contributing conduct which would make plaintiff responsible is eliminated

 

CASE EXAMPLES (doctrines same throughout)

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

TORT S or dare? Midterms |5

AFRICA v CALTEX

Defendants (employees of a gasoline station) were held responsible for a fire, which would not have spread to neighboring houses were it not for the defendants’ acts, i.e. the driver of the gasoline tank wagon who transferred the contents of the tank into the underground storage when the fire broke out, their failure to provide a concrete wall high enough to prevent the flames from leaping over.

BATIQUIN v CA

Dr. Batiquin was held liable for leaving a piece of rubber (part of a rubber glove) inside the abdomen of Mrs. Villegas after a caesarian operation performed on her. Such negligence of Dr. Batiquin caused infection on the ovaries of Mrs. Villegas. It was held here that the entire proceeding of the caesarean section was under the exclusive control of Dr. Batiquin.

REYES v SISTERS OF MERCY HOSPITAL

Res ipsa loquitur has no application in a suit against a physician/surgeon, which involves the merits of diagnosis/of a scientific treatment. The physician or surgeon is not required at his peril to explain why any particular diagnosis was not correct/why any particular scientific treatment did not produce the desired result. ** (I don’t understand this haha)

 

B.

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

 

Also discussed under Vicarious liability.

 

Art. 2180

 

C.

VIOLATION OF TRAFFIC RULES

2184:

 
 

Art. 2184 and 2185

 

In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver,

 

If former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due diligence,

Prevented the misfortune

Disputably presumed that a driver was negligent if:

-

he had been found guilty of reckless driving or

-

violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding 2 months

if owner not inside the vehicle, 2180 applies

2185:

 

Unless there’s proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.

 

CASE DOCTRINES

 

BLTB v IAC

In

an action based on a contract of carriage, the court need not make an

 

express finding of fault/negligence on part of carrier in order to hold it responsible for the payment of damages sought by the passenger. Under the contract of carriage, the common carrier assumed the express obligation to transport the passengers to their destination safely and to observe extraordinary diligence

MANUEL AND SUPERLINE TRANSPO v CA

A

person involved in a vehicular accident cannot be exempt from liability

when it clearly appears from the evidence that h was at fault. The fact that the party driving the other vehicle did not have a license at the time of the accident cannot change the other person’s liability therefrom.

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

TORT S or dare? Midterms |6

D.

COMMON CARRIER

 
 

Art. 1733

Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy:

 

Are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them

According to all the circumstances of each case

 

Art. 1755

Bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide

 

Using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons

With due regard for all the circumstances

 

Art. 1756

In case of death of or injuries to passengers:

 

Common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE

Art. 1734 (EXCEPTIONS; L/D/D of GOODS)

Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the GOODS, unless the same is due to any of the following causes ONLY:

Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity

Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil

Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods

Character of the goods/defects in the packing/in the containers

Order or act of competent public authority

 

CASE DOCTRINES

DSR-SENATOR LINES v FEDERAL

Fire is NOT one of the enumerated exceptions, which would exempt a carrier from liability for loss/destruction of cargo.

SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED v ANDION FERNANDEZ

When an airline issues a ticket to a passenger, confirmed for a particular flight on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises. The passenger then has every right to expect that he be transported on that flight and on that date. If he does not, then the carrier opens itself to a suit for a breach of contract of carriage.

E.

DANGEROUS WEAPONS AND SUBSTANCES

Prima facie presumption of negligence on part of defendant if:

Death/injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances

Art. 2188

Such as firearms and poisons

 

EXCEPT: when possession/use is indispensable in his occupation or business

DEFENSES

A.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury:

Art. 2179

He cannot recover damages

 

BUT if his negligence was only contributory:

The immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care,

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

TORT S or dare? Midterms |7

   

The plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

Emergency Rule

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 impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt 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 (McKee v IAC)

 

CASE DOCTRINES

ESTACION v BERNARDO

To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warning signs of an impending danger to health and body

CADIENTE v MACAS

The

underlying precept of contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is

partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full, but must proportionately bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant is thus held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence

B.

ASSUMPTION OF RISK

It is a voluntary assumption of a risk of harm arising from the negligent conduct of the defendant or from the nature of the obligation itself. It presupposes an intentional exposure to a known peril. (Pineda [2009])

 

CASE DOCTRINES

AFIALDA v HISOLE

(haha the carabao case; and its caretaker)

Xxx

Being injured by the animal under those circumstances, was one of the

risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he

must take the consequences

ONG v METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

The

rule is well-settled that the owners of resorts to which people generally

are

expressive or by implication invited are legally bound to exercise

 

ordinary care and prudence in the management and maintenance of such resorts, to the end of making them reasonably safe for visitors

Such owner is not in any sense, however, deemed to be the insurer of the safety of patrons. And the death of a patron within its premises does not cast upon him the burden of excusing himself from any presumption of negligence

C.

LAST CLEAR CHANCE (aww)

Elements:

 

1. Plaintiff is placed in danger by his own negligent acts and is unable to get out from such situation by any means

2. Defendant knows that plaintiff is in danger and knows/should have known that the plaintiff was unable to get out from such situation

3. Defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the impending harm/injury through the exercise of due diligence, but had failed to do so;

4. Such failure is the proximate cause of the injury

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

TORT S or dare? Midterms |8

 

Does not apply in:

Collapse of a building/structure

Suit between the owner and passenger

When injury cannot be avoided by application of all means at hand after peril has been discovered

 

CASE DOCTRINES

BUSTAMANTE v CA

Doctrine of LCC cannot be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of them should be held liable to the injured person by reason of his discovery of the latter’s peril. It cannot also apply as between defendants concurrently negligent.

MCKEE v IAC

The person who had the last clear chance to avoid the mishap is considered in law as solely responsible for the consequences thereof.

CANLAS v CA

When both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point in time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault/negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences as arising therefrom.

PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS v BAESA

For the doctrine to apply, it is necessary that the person who allegedly had the last opportunity to avert the accident was aware of the existence of the peril/should, with exercise of due care, have been aware of it.

D.

PRESCRIPTION

The following actions must be instituted within FOUR years:

 

Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;

 

Art. 1146

Upon a quasi-delict

 

The action must be instituted form the time the tortious act is known/discovered.

 

CASE DOCTRINES

CALLANTA v CARNATION PH AND NLRC

An action for damages involving a plaintiff separated from his employment for alleged unjustified causes is one for “injury to the rights of the plaintiff”, and must be brought within four years

E.

FORTUITOUS EVENTS

Requisites:

 

1. Cause is independent of the debtor/obligor’s will

2. It was an unforeseen/unavoidable event

3. Happening of the event made it impossible for the debtor/obligor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner

4. Debtor didn’t take advantage of the event to aggravate the injury to the creditor/oblige

Exceptions:

1. When the law expressly declares so (that there’s no liability)

2. Expressly stated in contract

3. When the obligation’s nature requires the assumption of risk

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

TORT S or dare? Midterms |9

 

4.

When the obligor/debtor is in fault/has promised to deliver the same thing to 2 or more persons who don’t have the same interest

 

CASE DOCTRINES

BAYASEN v CA

Skidding is an unforeseen event and cannot be regarded as negligence

NPC v CA

When the “fortuitous event” is found to be in part the result of the participation of man, whether due to his active intervention/neglect/failure to act, the whole occurrence is then humanized and removed from the rules applicable to the acts of God. (so dapat, no human intervention at all)

ELIAS CIPRIANO v CA

When there is a statutory duty imposed and there is a failure to comply with that duty, he is deemed to be negligent rendering him liable for damages. While the loss may be caused by a fortuitous event, the circumstances cannot exempt him from liability for loss.

JAPAN AIRLINES v CA

Common carriers are not absolutely responsible for all injuries or damages if the same were caused by a fortuitous event

 

F.

DILIGENCE

The kinds of diligence to be observed by the parties:

 

1. Diligence stipulated by the parties

2. If there is no stipulation, the diligence required by law governing the particular obligation

3. In the absence of the foregoing, the diligence which is required of a good father of the family

G.

MISTAKE AND WAIVER

MISTAKE Art. 1331

In order that mistake may 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/both parties to enter into the contract.

Mistake as to the identity or qualifications of one of the parties will vitiate consent only when such identity or qualifications have been the principal cause of the contract. A simple mistake of account shall give rise to its correction

Concept of Error must include both:

1. Ignorance (absence of knowledge with respect to a thing

2. Mistake (wrong conception about a thing/belief in the existence of some circumstance/fact/event that does not exist in reality)

WAIVER Art. 6

Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to L/PO/PP/M/GC or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law

 

H.

OTHERS

Privileged communications

 

Malicious prosecution

- There must be absence of probable cause and

- Illegal malice on the petitioners

Damnum absque injuria for which the law gives no remedy.

Litis pendencia

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

IV. VICARIOUS LIABILITY

TORT S or dare? Midterms |10

1. “VICARIOUS LIABILITY”?

 

Occurs when a person is not only liable for torts committed by him, but also for torts committed by others with whom he has a CERTAIN RELATIONSHIP and for whom he is responsible. (Tamargo v CA)

A. PARENTS AND GUARDIANS

Art. 2180:

 

xxx

The father and, in case of his death/incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company

 

CASE DOCTRINES

TAMARGO v CA

No presumption of parental dereliction on the part of the adopting parents could arise if the adopted was not in fact subject to their control at the time the tort was committed.

B.

OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF ESTABLISHMENTS

xxx

 

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

xxx

Requisites:

1. Act must have been done in the service of a branch where he/she is employed/or in occasion of his/her functions

2. There must be an employer-employee relationship (homagahd labor hehe)

 

CASE DOCTRINES

 

ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL v CA

The act/omission which caused the damage/prejudice must have occurred while an employee was in the performance of his assigned tasks

C.

EMPLOYERS

xxx

 

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business/industry

Requisites:

1. Employer-employee relationship

2. Employee is acting within the scope of his assigned task

“Within the scope of his assigned tasks”

Any act done by an employee in furtherance of the interests of the employer/for the account of the employer at the time of the infliction of the injury or damages (Filamer Christian Institute v IAC)

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

TORT S or dare? Midterms |11

 

CASE DOCTRINES

ARMANDO JOSE v CA

Before the presumption of the employer’s negligence can arise, the negligence of the employee must first be established

VICTORY LINER v HEIRS OF MALECDAN

Employers may be relieved of responsibility for the negligent acts of their employees acting within the scope of their assigned task only if they can show that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. Thus, the employers have the burden of proving that they have indeed exercised such diligence, both in the selection of the employee and in the supervision of the performance of his duties

CEREZO v TUAZON

An employer’s liability based on a quasi-delict is primary and direct, while the employer’s liability based on a delict is merely subsidiary. The words “primary and direct” as contrasted with “subsidiary”, refer to the remedy provided by law for enforcing the obligation. The aggrieved party may sue the employer directly

FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE v IAC

Working scholars are not considered as employees of the school/college/university. The students work for the latter in exchange for the privilege to study free of charge; provided the students are given real opportunity xxx

FILIPINAS BROADCASTING SYSTEM v AMEC-BCCM

Joint tortfeasors are all persons who command, instigate, promote, cooperate in, aid or abet in the commission of a tort or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit. The corporation which operates the radio station and who is the employer of the radio hosts, is solidarily liable to pay for damages arising from libelous broadcasts

D.

STATE

xxx

 

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable

xxx

The State cannot be sued without its consent, EXCEPT:

1. When it is performing proprietary functions

2. When the State enters into a contract with a private person

3. Acts through a special agent (one who receives a fixed compensation foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office)

 

CASE DOCTRINES

MERITT v GOVERNMENT

The Government is only liable for the negligent acts of its officers, agent and employees when they are acting as special agents. A chauffeur of the General Hospital is not such a special agent

MENDOZA v DE LEON

Municipal corporations, when acting in their corporate capacity, fall within the operation of the rule (that superior must answer civilly of the negligence or want of skill of his agent/servant in the course of his employment)

E.

TEACHERS/HEADS OF ESTABLISHMENT

xxx

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

TORT S or dare? Midterms |12

 

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody

 

CASE DOCTRINES

SPOUSES PALISOC v BRILLANTES

“So long as they remain in their custody” – protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over their pupils as long as they are at attendance in school and includes recess time

AMADORA v CA

Rule applies to all schools academic and non-academic

If academic: tort committed by student will attach to the teacher in charge

If of arts and trades: liability shall attach to head

PSBA v CA

Damage should have been caused by pupils or students of the educational institution (lol but in this case, the Court still said that there is an implicit obligation of providing students with an atmosphere conducive to learning i.e. provide the proper security measures)

MERCADO v CA* (contradicts another case)

Applies to an institution of arts and trades and not to any acad institution and contemplates where the pupil lives and boards with the teacher. (case decided in 1960, baka bad jurisprudence na to)

SALUDAGA v FEU

School is not absolved of any liability for injuries sustained by its students even if it employed a security agency to be in charge of the school’s security. The said agency however may be held liable

2.PRIMARY LIABILITY

A. POSSESSORS/USERS OF ANIMALS

Art. 2183

Possessor of an animal/whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault fo the person who has suffered damage.

CASE DOCTRINES

AFIALDA v HISOLE

The possessor and user of the animal, and not necessarily its owner, is liable for damages for injuries the said animal may have caused

B.

OWNERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES

2184:

 

In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver,

If former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due diligence,

Prevented the misfortune

Disputably presumed that a driver was negligent if:

-

he had been found guilty of reckless driving or

-

violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding 2 months

if owner not inside the vehicle, 2180 applies

2185:

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

TORT S or dare? Midterms |13

 

Unless there’s proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation

In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with the driver if:

 

1. He was in the vehicle

2. He could have, through due diligence, prevented the misfortune

 

CASE DOCTRINES

CHAPMAN v UNDERWOOD

For an owner-passenger of a vehicle to be liable for damage caused by his driver, the act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length of time that the owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver’s act his own

FIRST MALAYAN LEASING v CA

The registered owner of a vehicle, not the de facto owner thereof, is liable for the damage caused by the vehicle.

FGU INSURANCE v CA

Car renter and car lessee, not of a nature of an employer-employee relationship wherein the employee’s acts may result in his employer liable, NOR between a master-driver relationship

TISON v SPS. POMASIN

A

causal connection must exist between the injury received and the

violation of the traffic regulation. Negligence, consisting in whole/part, of

violation, is without legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause of the injury

C.

MANUFACTURERS AND PROCESSORS

 

Art. 2187

 

Manufacturers and processors of:

 

Foodstuffs

Drinks

Toilet articles and

Similar goods

Shall be liable for death/injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used, although no contractual relation exists between them and the consumers

Art. 97 of RA 7394

Any Filipino/foreign manufacturer, producer and any importer shall be liable for redress, independently of fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects resulting from:

 

Design

Manufacture

Construction

Assembly and erection

Formulas and handling in making up

Presentation or packaging of their products

As well as insufficient or inadequate information on the use and hazards thereof

A

product is defective when:

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina

TORT S or dare? Midterms |14

   

It does not offer the safety rightfully expected of it; taking relevant circumstance into consideration, including but not limited to:

- Presentation of product

- Use and hazards reasonably expected of it

- The time it was put into circulation

Product not considered defective just because another better quality has been placed in the market

Manufacturer etc shall not be held liable when it evidences:

- That it did not place the product on the market

- That although it did place the product on market, such product has no defect

- That the consumer/third party is solely at fault.

D.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS

 

Art. 2189

 

Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of or injuries suffered by any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings and other public works under their control or supervision

 

CASE DOCTRINES

 

CITY OF MANILA v CA

Article 2189 does not require that the defective roads/streets belong to the province etc, from which responsibility is exacted. What is essential is that the province etc have either “control or supervision” over said street/road

LAUDENCIO TORIO v CA

If

the injury is caused while in the performance of a governmental function,

there can be no recovery from the municipality unless there is an existing statute on the matter; nor from its officers, so long as they performed their duties honestly and in good faith or that they did not act wantonly and

maliciously. With respect to proprietary functions, a municipal corporation is subject to be sued upon contracts and in tort.

MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN v CA

While the DPWH may have issued the requisite permit of the excavation on

a

road, the Municipality is not thereby relieved of its liability for its own

gross negligence. The obligation of the Municipality to maintain the safe condition of the road within its territory is a continuing one. Knowledge of the condition of the road and the defects and/or obstructions on the road may be actual or constructive.

3A (Atty. Calleja) | Arcaina