Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
I. TORTS
TORT
An unlawful violation of private right, not created by contract, and which gives rise to an action
for damages.
It is an act or omission producing an injury to another, without any previous existing lawful
relation of which the said act or omission may be said to be a natural outgrowth or incident.
An unborn child is NOT entitled to damages. (Geluz vs. CA, 2 SCRA 802)
Defendants in tort cases can either be natural or artificial beings. Corporations are civilly liable
in the same manner as natural persons.
Any person who has been injured by reason of a tortious conduct can sue the tortfeasor.
The primary purpose of a tort action is to provide compensation to a person who was injured by
the tortious conduct of the defendant.
Classes of Torts:
Intentional Torts
Negligent Torts
Strict Liability
Intentional Torts
Include conduct where the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act or believes that
the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.
They are found in Chapter 2 of the Preliminary Title of the NCC entitled “Human Relations”.
Although this chapter covers negligent acts, the torts mentioned herein are mostly intentional in
nature or torts involving malice or bad faith.
Article 20
Speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for
their own sanction.
Under Art. 21, damages are recoverable even though no positive law was violated.
Note: An action can only prosper when damage, material or otherwise, was suffered by the plaintiff.
An action based on Arts. 19-21 will be dismissed if the plaintiff merely seeks “recognition.”
Public Figure - A person, who by his accomplishments, fame or mode of living or by adopting a
profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs and his
character.
Public figures, most especially those holding responsible positions in government enjoy a more
limited right to privacy compared to ordinary individuals.
Negligent Torts
Involve voluntary acts or omissions which result in injury to others without intending to cause the
same or because the actor fails to exercise due care in performing such acts or omissions.
NEGLIGENCE
The omission of that degree of diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponding to the circumstances of persons, time and place. (Article 1173)
Kinds:
Culpa Contractual (contractual)
Governed by CC provisions on Obligations and Contracts, particularly Arts. 1170 to 1174.
Culpa Aquiliana (quasi-delict)
Governed mainly by Art. 2176.
Culpa criminal (criminal)
Governed by Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
See Tables.
Note: The 3 kinds of negligence furnish separate, distinct, and independent bases of liability or
causes of action.
Tests of Negligence
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use the reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation?
If not then he is guilty of negligence.
Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a result of the course
pursued?
If so, it was the duty of the actor to take precautions to guard against harm
Calculation of Risk
Interests are to be balanced only in the sense that the purposes of the actor, the nature of his act
and the harm that may result from action or inaction are elements to be considered.
The state of mind of the actor is not important; good faith or use of sound judgment is immaterial.
The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal
judgment but by the behavior of the actor in the situation before him (Picart vs Smith)
Gross Negligence - Negligence where there is “want of even slight care and diligence.”
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.
Tests:
1. Causation test
Cause in Fact – the defendant’s negligence is the cause without which the injury would not
have taken place.
Substantial Factor Test – to hold the defendant liable, it is sufficient if his negligent conduct
was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.
2. Policy test
Foreseeabilty Test
Natural and Probable Consequence Test
Ordinary and Natural or Direct Consequence Test
Hindsight Test
Joint Tortfeasors
All the persons who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate
in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after is done, if done for their benefit.
They are each liable as principals, to the same extent and in the same manner as if they had
performed the wrongful acts themselves.
They are solidarily liable; and thus, the person injured may sue all of them or any number less
than all.
Proof of Negligence
A. Presumptions
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is presumed negligent if he was in the vehicle and he could
have used due diligence to prevent the misfortune.
It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent if he had been found guilty of reckless driving
or violating traffic regulations at least twice for the next preceding two months.
The driver of a motor vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating
any traffic regulation.
GENERAL RULE: Prima facie presumption of negligence of the defendant arises if death or
injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substance.
EXCEPTION: When such possession or use is indispensable to his occupation or business.
GENERAL RULE: Presumption of negligence of the common carrier arises in case of loss,
destruction or deterioration of the goods, or in case of death or injury of passengers.
EXCEPTION: Upon proof of exercise of extraordinary diligence.
Quasi-Delict
1. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence is
obliged to pay for the damage done. (Art. 2176)
Elements:
Negligent or wrongful act or omission;
Damage; and
Causal relation between such negligence or fault and damage.
2. Torts with Independent Civil Action (Justice Caguioa’s view)
Violation of civil and political rights (Art. 32)
Defamation, Fraud, and Physical injuries (Art. 33)
Neglect of duty by police officers (Art. 34)
Death of the defendant does not extinguish the obligation based on quasi-delict. It is no defense
at all.
1. Prescription
An action based on quasi-delict prescribes in four years from the date of the accident. (Art. 1146)
2. Fortuitous Event
Essential requisites:
The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply
with his obligation, must be independent of the human will;
It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the “caso fortuito,” or if it can be
foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid;
The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a
normal manner; and
The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the
creditor.
GENERAL RULE: It is a complete defense.
EXCEPTION: It is merely a partial defense in case of Art. 2215(4). (Aquino, Torts and Damages)
3. Assumption of Risk
Volenti non fit injuria: One is not legally injured if he has consented to the act complained of or
was willing that it should occur.
It is a complete defense.
Elements:
The plaintiff must know that the risk is present;
He must further understand its nature; and that
His choice to incur it is free and voluntary.
Kinds:
Express waiver of the right to recover
There is assumption of risk if the plaintiff, in advance has expressly waived his right to
recover damages for the negligent act of the defendant
It should be noted, that the waiver contemplated here is the waiver of the right to recover
before the negligent act was committed. It cannot be stipulated in the contract that one of the
parties therein is barred from claiming damages based on negligence.
Implied assumptions
A person who, knowing that he is exposed to a dangerous condition voluntarily assumes the
risk of such dangerous condition may not recover from the defendant who maintained such
dangerous conditions.
Example: A person who maintained his house near a railroad track assumes the usual
dangers attendant to the operation of a locomotive. (Rodrigueza vs. Meralco)
Contractual relations
There may be implied assumption of risk if the plaintiff entered into a relation with the
defendant. In this case, the plaintiff may be found to accept and consent to it.
Dangerous Activities
Persons who voluntarily participate in dangerous activities assume the risks which are
usually present in such activities.
Example: A professional athlete is deemed to assume the risks of injury to their trade.
Defendant’s negligence
When the plaintiff is aware of the risk created by the defendant’s negligence, yet he
voluntarily decided to proceed to encounter it, there is an implied admission.
Example: If the plaintiff has been supplied with a product which he knows to be unsafe, he
is deemed to have assumed the risk of using unsafe product.
4. Contributory Negligence
Conduct on the part of the injured party contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered
which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection.
The court is free to determine the extent of the mitigation of the defendant’s liability depending
upon the circumstances.
It is a partial defense resulting in the mitigation of liability of the defendant.
Comparative Negligence
The relative degree of negligence of the parties is considered in determining whether and to
what degree, either should be responsible for his negligence – apportionment of damages.
7. Involuntariness
It is a complete defense in quasi-delict cases and the defendant is therefore not liable if force
was exerted on him. (Aquino, Torts and Damages)
Example: When the defendant was forced to drive his vehicle by armed men. He was, at pain of
death, forced to drive at a very fast clip because the armed men were escaping from the policemen.
The defendant cannot be held liable, if a bystander is hit as a consequence.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
A person is not only liable for torts committed by himself, but also for torts committed by others
with whom he has a certain relation or for whom he is responsible. (Art. 2180)
Exercise of diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage is a defense.
Notes:
The basis of liability for the acts or omissions of their minor children is the parental authority that
they exercise over them.
The liability is not limited to parents, the same is also imposed on those exercising substitute
and special parental authority, i.e., guardian.
The liability is present only both under Art 2180 of the NCC and Art 221 of the Family Code if the
child is living in his parents’ company.
Parental authority is not the sole basis of liability. A teacher in charge is still liable for the acts of
their students even if the minor student reaches the age of majority.
The parents or guardians can still be held liable even if the minor is already emancipated
provided that he is below 21 years of age.
Parents and other persons exercising parental authority can escape liability by proving that they
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages. (Art. 2180)
The burden of proof rests on the parents and persons exercising parental authority.
Guardian
For damage caused by:
minors or incapacitated persons
under their authority
living in their company
Employers
For damages cause by:
employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks
even if the employer is not engaged in any business or industry
Notes:
Liability of the employer can be established by proving the existence of an employer-employee
relationship with the actor and the latter caused the injury while performing his assigned task
or functions.
The vicarious liability attaches only when the tortuous conduct of the employees relates to or is
in the course of his employment
While the employer incurs no liability when an employee’s conduct, act or omission is beyond
the range of employment, a minor deviation from the assigned task of an employee, however
does not affect the liability of an employer. (Valenzuela vs. CA, 253 SCRA 303)
State
For damage caused by:
a special agent
not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains
Public officers who are guilty of tortuous conduct are personally liable for their actions.
The victim of negligence is likewise required to exercise due care in avoiding injury to himself.
C. Strict Liability
When the person is made liable independent of fault or negligence upon submission of proof of
certain facts.
Types:
1. Animals
GENERAL RULE: The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is
responsible for the damages which it may cause although it may escape or be lost.
EXCEPTION: When the damage was caused by force majeure or by the person who suffered the
damage. (Art. 2183)
If the acts of a third person cannot be foreseen or prevented, then the situation is similar to that of
force majeure and the possessor is not liable. (Francisco, Torts and Damages)
Art. 2183 is applicable whether the animal is domestic, domesticated, or wild.
2. Falling objects
The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof is responsible for damages caused
by things thrown or falling from the same. (Art. 2193)
The term “head of the family” is not limited to the owner of the building, and it may even include
the lessee thereof. (Dingcong vs. Kanaan, 72 Phil 14)
3. Liability of employers
Art. 1711 of the NCC imposes an obligation on owners of enterprises and other employers to
pay for the death or injuries to their employees.
Liability is strict because it exists even if the cause is purely accidental.
If the mishap was due to the employee’s own notorious negligence, or voluntary act or
drunkenness, the employer shall not be liable for compensation.
When the employee’s lack of due care contributed to his death or injury, the compensation shall
be equitably reduced.
If the death or injury is due to the negligence of a fellow-workman the latter and the employer
shall be solidarily liable for compensation.
If a fellow-worker’s intentional or malicious act is the only cause of the death or injury, the
employer shall not be answerable unless it should be shown that the latter did not exercise due
diligence in the selection or supervision of the plaintiff’s fellow-worker.
Nuisance
Any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which:
Injures or endangers the health or safety of others;
Annoys or offends the senses;
Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality;
Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body
of water; or
Hinders or impairs the user of property. (Art. 694)
There is strict liability on the part of the owner or possessor of the property where a nuisance is
found because he is obliged to abate the same irrespective of the presence or absence of fault or
negligence.
Every successive owner or possessor of property who fails or refuses to abate a nuisance in
that property started by a former owner or possessor is liable therefore in the same manner as
the one who created it. (Art. 686)
II. DAMAGES
DAMAGE
The detriment, injury or loss which are occasioned by reason of fault of another in the property or
person.
DAMAGES
The pecuniary compensation, recompense or satisfaction for an injury sustained or as otherwise
expressed, the pecuniary consequences which the law imposes for the breach of some duty or
violation of some rights.
A complaint for damages is a personal action. (Baritua vs. CA, 267 SCRA 331)
Proof of pecuniary loss is necessary to successfully recover actual damages from the defendant.
The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court
according to the circumstances of each case.