Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8



1. Tort - wrongful act or omission resulting in a breach of 1. contract duties are created by the promises of the parties
private duty and damage from said breach of duty of such a while tort duties are imposed as rules of law
character as to afford a right of redress at law in favor of the
inured party against the wrongdoer. 2. contracts are largely about economic matters such as buying
and selling many torts involve physical harms
3. contract law is at least formally strict liability law. most tort
1.Defendant's potential for civil liability - the defendant's law on the other hand, is at least formally fault based.
potential civil liability to the victim for harmful wrongdoing and
correspondingly the victims potential for compensation or 4. it is a character of torts that the duties from the violation of
other relief. which tort result are creatures of the law and not of particular
2. Existence of physical harms, not essential agreements. a contract is not essential to the existence of tort
3. variations of torts
5. a breach of contract may be treated as a tort where the law
KINDS OF WRONG casts its separate obligation.
1. civil - involves a violation of private legal right
criminal - regarded as an offense against the public and is DAMAGES AND OTHER REMEDIES
penalized by law as a crime or felony 1.Restitution; injunction - forces the tortfeasor to disorge
gains he wrongfully obtained by tort, and injunction, which
2. intentional - defendant is consciously aware that his compels him to cease his tortous conduct.
conduct is wrongful, or negligent if the defendant does not
intend an invasion of plaintiff's right but is aware that, by his 2.Compensation of harm suffered - the award is usually a
behavior, he is taking unreasonable risk money award called damages and is intended as a kind of
compensation for the harm suffered.
3. reckless, wrong, wanton wrong - species of negligence
which imports knowledge and consciousness of the high risk of PERSONS ENTITLED TO SUE FOR TORT
harm resulting from his conduct as to be equivalent to an 1. Particular individual injured
intentional wrong. 2. Persons upon whom tort committed
3. person injured by tort committed upon another
FUNCTIONS OR GOALS OF TORT 4. Several persons wronged by the same act
1. morality or corrective justice 5. persons especially injured by contract violation
2. Social Utility or policy 6. Person directly, not collaterally, injured
3. Legal process
4. potential conflicts PERSONS LIABLE FOR TORT
5. Distribution of loss 1. Tortfeasor
6. redress of social grievances 2. Person incapable of making a contract
7. summary - a mixed system 3. Person other than tortfeasor
a. mere presence at the commission of a wrongful act by
TWO GENERAL CLASSES OF TORTS another will not render him liable as a participant. however,
1.Property torts - embrace all injuries and damages to proof that a person is present at the commission of a wrongful
property, whether realty or personalty act
2. Personal Torts - include all injuries to the person, whether b. Mere knowledge - that a tort is being committed against
to the body, reputations or feelings. a tort which is not an another will not be sufficient to establish liability
injury to property is a personal tort. c. mere acquiescence in the commission of a tort after the act
does not make a person liable
CONCEPT OF PERSONAL INJURY IN TORT LAW d. ratification must be founded on full knowledge of the facts
- it embrace all actionable injuries to the individual himself. it constituting wrong which has been committed or with a
may denote an injury affecting the reputation, character, purpose on the part of the principal to take the consequences
conduct, manner and habits of a person. on himself without inquiry.
e. no duty to control conduct of a third peron as to prevent him
DEFINITION OF INJURY, DAMAGES AND DAMAGE from causing bodily harm to another unless a special
1. Injury - illegal invasion of a legal right relationship exists between one and the third person.
2. damage - loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury joint tortfeasor - two or more persons who act together in
3. damages - recompense or compensation awarded for the committing a wrong or contribute to its commission or assist
damage suffered. or participate therein actively and without common intent, so
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
that injury results to a third person from the joint wrongful act General rule - a cause of action arises whenever one person,
of the wrongdoers. by an act not in the exercise of a lawful right, causes loss or
does damage to another with an intent, either actual or
ELEMENTS AND TYPES OF TORTS constructive, to produce such harm, without just or lawful
excuse or justifiable cause or occasion.
1. legal right in favor of a person (plaintiff) 2. acts not intended to inflict injury - a casue of action may be
2. correlative legal obligation on the part of another to respect predicated upon negligence, or the failure to observe a
or not to violate such right standard of case prescribed by law, without a conscious design
3. a wrong in the form of an act or omission in violation of said to do wrong
legal right and duty with consequent injury or damage to
plainitff. 3. malicious acts - defined not only as relating to the
intentional commission of a wrongful act, but also as involving
Legal right - well founded claim enforced by sanctions wickedness, depravity and evil intent.
* there is no liability in tort for doing a lawful act even though
Legal duty - which the law requires to be done or forborne to it is done for the malicious purpose of injuring another party,
a determinate person or to the public. where there are also legitimate reasons for doing the act.

Motive - impelling force or underlying or subjective reason for 4. willful and wanton act
doing an act, or the mental state or force which induces an act willful act - one done intentionally, or on purpose, and not
of violation accidentally and willfulness implies intentional wrongdoing
wanton act - wrongful act done on purpose or in malicious
Motive is material: lawful act constitutes an actionable tort disregard of the rights of others
when unlawful means are employed purposely to injure
another. 5. willful or wanton negligence - imports premeditation or
knowledge and consciousness that injury is likely to result from
Motive is immaterial: conduct which does not either by itself the act done or from the omission of the act.
or because of the manner of its exercise, constitute an invasion
of the right of another is not tortuous , however bad or 6. Acts arising out of a contractual relationship
malicious the actor's motives.
Purpose - denotes the object of an act or the external or 1. General types
objectives result desired a. culpable and intentional acts resulting in harm
Intent - an external act or an intelligent volition and is thus b. acts involving culpable and unlawful conduct casing
distinguishable from the term "motive" their use in statements unintentional harm
of legal principles has not always been mutually exclusive. c. non culpable acts or conduct resulting in accidental harm
which because of hazards involved, the law imposes absolute
MATERIALITY OF INTENT liability notwithstanding the abuse of fault.
1.Intentional act is done in ignorance - voluntary act, 2. Interference with property rights
presenting the elements of duty, breach, and damage is 3. Interference with right to services
tortious although unaccompanied by a deliberate design to 4. Interference with contractual rights
injure or to commit an unlawful act. 5. Interference with personal rights
6. Rudeness, threats, abusive language
2. Resulting damage is different from that contemplated - 7. obstruction of, and compelling resort to, legal remedies
fortiori where defendant voluntarily engages in conduct 8. Malicious prosecution of a criminal action
designed to cause some damage, it is immaterial, on the 9. unauthorized suit in another's name
question of the existence of a tort that the damage actually 10. other particular torts;
brought is different from that contemplated by him a. Acts of public officers
b. injurious falsehood
3. Act complained of is not done unlawfully or without care - c. interference with right or destruction of will
although the ultimate motive is not bad, if the intent is to d. trade secrets, inventions or patents
accomplish that purpose be deliberately inflicting injury, the
goodness of the motive will not render non- tortiuos acts Prima Facie Tort Doctrine
which are torts by reason of the badness of the intent. - the infliction of intentional harms resulting in damage
without excuse or justification by an act or a series of acts
PARTICULAR KINDS OF TORTIOUS ACTS which would otherwise be lawful.
1. acts intended to inflict injury
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
the burden of proof is generally on the person claiming
Doctrine of absolute or strict liability damages to establish by satisfactory evidence that the legal
- the actor, realizing the hazard of his undertaking nevertheless cause of his damage or injury was the fault or negligence of the
assumes the risk connected therewith and, notwithstanding defendant or of one for whose acts he must respond and the
he is free from all wrong, and has used utmost care, he damages suffered by him
nevertheless is liable for any invasion of the person or property
rights of another. As a rule, negligence is not presumed. Mere suspicion, surmise
or speculation cannot be the basis of an award for damages.
QUASI - DELICTS where, however, negligence is presumed by law, , the burden
of proving its non existence is shifted to the party to whom the
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to presumption applies.
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre- CULPA AQUILANA VS. CULPA CONTRACTUAL
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a 1.culpa aquilana- is the wrongful act or omission which of itself
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. is the source of the obligation separate from, and independent
(1902a) of, contract
culpa contractual - act or omission considered as an incedent
*Fault - when a person acts in a manner contrary to what in the performance of an obligation already existing and which
should have done. constitutes a breach thereof

only juridical fault, but not moral fault gives rise to liability for a. where liability arises from culpa aquilana, not a breach of
damages. lack of charity or altruism, constituting moral fault, positive obligation, an employer or master may excuse himself
does not constitute quasi- delict. under the last paragraph of Article 2180 by proving that he had
exercised " all diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
* The fault referred to Art. 2176 is a fault substantive and damage"
independent which in itself is a source of obligations and is also
known as culpa aquilana as distinguished from culpa b. in culpa aquilana, the plainitff has the burden of proving that
contractual. If the fault is committed intentionally to cause the defendant was at fault or negligent.
damage to another, it becomes a dolo punished as a crime by
the RPC. in culpa contractual, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to plead
or prove that the violation of the contract was due to fault or
Negligence - failure to observe for the protection of the negligence.
interests of another person, that the degree of care,
precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly c. culpa aquilana- there is no preseumption that the defendant
demand whereby such another person suffers injury. was at fault or negligent

Distinction between fault and negligence Culpa contractual - the mere proof of the existence of the
A Person guilty of negligence is necessarily at fault, but there contract and its breach raises such presumtion that the burden
may be fault without negligence as here the damage or injury is on the defendant to prove that he was not at fualt or
resulting from the wrongful act or omission as cause wilfully negligent.
and not by reason of lack of care.
d. culpa aquilana - primarily governed by Article 2176
No Duty to Act Rule
Unless the defendant has assumed a duty to act, or stands in a Culpa Contractual - governed by 1170 to 1174
special relationship to the plaintiff, defendants are not liable in
tort for a pure failure to act for the plaintiffs benefit. Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil
REQUISITES OF QUASI-DELICT liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the
1. act or omission by the defendant plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
2. fault or negligence of the defendant omission of the defendant.(n)
3. damage or injury caused to the plaintiff
4. there must be a direct relationship or connection of cause CRIME VS. QUASI- DELICT
and effect between the act or omission and the damage 1. crime -there is criminal or malicious intent or criminal
5. no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties negligence
quasi delict - there is only negligence
2. Crime - there are 2 liabilities: criminal and civil
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
QD - there is only civil liability 1.Reasonable care and caution expected of an ordinary
prudent person
3. Crime - affects public interest 2. No hard and fast rule from measuring degree of care
QD - concerns private interest or concern 3.Negligence, a legal question
4. crime - purpose is punishment or correction
QD - indemnification of the offended party Factors to be considered
1. nature of the obligation
5. Criminal liability cannot be compromised 2. circumstances of the person or thing
Liability for QD can be compromised as any other civil liability 3. Circumstances of time
4. Circumstances of the place
6. In crime, the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt, Fortuitous Event
QD - the fault or negligence of the defendant need only be
proved by preponderance of evidence Article 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or
when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the
7. Crime - the liability of the person responsible for the author nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no
of the negligent act or omission is subsidiary person shall be responsible for those events which could not
QD - it is direct and primary be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
Recovery of damages twice for the same act or omission is
prohibited Fortuitous Event - any event which cannot be foreseen, or
which though foreseen, is inevitable. it is an event which is
* quasi - delict and an act or omission punishable by law are either impossible to foresee or impossible to avoid.
two different sources of obligations.
Fortuitous Event vs. Force Majeure
The offended party has the option between an action for
enforcement of civil liability based on culpa criminal under Art. Fortuitous Event - event independent of the will of the obligor
100 of RPC and an action for recovery of damages based on but not of other men (Acts of Men)
culpa aquilana under Art. 2177 of the NCC.
Force Majeure - those events which are totally independent of
These two cases of action may be availed of subject to the the will of every human being (Acts of God)
caveat that the offended party cannot recover twice for the
same act or omission or under both causes. Requisites of Fortuitous Event

This proscription in our law stems from the fundamental rule 1. Event must be independent of the human will or at least the
against unjust enrichment. Since these two civil liabilities are obligor's will
distinct and independent of each other, the failure to reciver
in one will not necessarily preclude recovery in the other. 2. the event could not be foreseen or if foreseen, must have
been impossible to avoid
Article 2178. The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are also
applicable to a quasi-delict. (n) 3. Event must be of such a character as to render it impossible
for the obligor to comply with his obligation in a normal
Statutory definition of Fault or negligence manner
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in
the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature 4. Obligor must be free from any participation in, or the
of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of aggravation of the injury to the obligee
the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence
shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, Doctrine of assumption of risk
paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to Meaning - assumption of risk may be invoked as a complete
be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a defense by the defendant in a quasi-delictual action. it
good father of a family shall be required. (1104a) assumes that a plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm
Negligence - conduct that creates undue risk or harm to from the negligent conduct of the defendant cannot recover
another. it is the failure to observe for the protection of the from such harm.
interests of another person , that justly demand, whereby such
other person suffers injury Requisites:
Test for determining whether a person is negligent 1. plaintiff had actual knowledge of the danger
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
2. he understood and appreciated the risk form the danger
3. he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk 5. Natural and probable consequence test - it must appear
that the injury was not only the natural but also the probable
consequence of the conduct as distinguished from
Article 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the consequences that are merely possible. since shat is probable
immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot is, in a real sense, foreseeable, foresee ability appears to be an
recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, implicit element of this test of proximate cause.
the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover 6. Direct consequence test - the defendant is liable for all the
damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be damage that flows as the ordinary and natural or direct
awarded. (n) consequence of his conduct to be determined from the
circumstances of the case rather than upon whether he might
Effect of negligence on the part of the injured party or must have reasonably expected the resulting inury.

Negligence merely contributed to the injury - to be entitled Doctrine of contributory negligence - negligence on the part
to the damages, the law does not require that the negligence of the injured party which merely contributes to, but is not the
of the defendant should be the sole cause of the damage. proximate cause of, his inury, and resulting in the mitigation of
the defendant's liability and plaintiff's indemnity.
There is a contributory negligence on the part of the injured
party where his conduct has contributed, as a legal cause to Doctrine of comparative negligence - a comparison is made in
the harm he has suffered, which fall below the standard to terms of the degree of the negligence of the plaintiff and that
which he is required to conform for his own protection. of the defendant and the amount of damages recoverable by
plaintiff is reduced to the extent of his negligence.
Legal cause of damage, harm or injury
Doctrine of Last clear chance - the negligence of the plaintiff
A person claiming damages for the fault or negligence of does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the
another has the burden of establishing at least 3 conditions: defendant where it appears that the defendant, by exercising
reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious
1. fault or negligence of the defendant consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff's
2. Damage, harm or injury to the plaintiff negligence.
3. Connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence and the damage. Elements - The doctrine may be invoked by the injured
person, if the following facts are present.
Proximate cause
- that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, 1. the plaintiff was in a position of danger and, by his own
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the negligence , became unable to escape from such position by
injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. the use of ordinary care , either because it became physically
impossible for him to do so or because he as totally unaware
Tests of Proximate cause of the danger.
1. But for test - defendant's conduct is the cause of the injury
which would not have been sustained if the defendant had not 2. the defendant knew that the plaintiff as in a position of
been negligent. danger and further knew , or in the exercise of ordinary care
should have known , that the plaintiff was unable to escape
2. cause-in-fact test - a cause in fact relation must exist there from
between defendants conduct and plaintiff's injury before
liability may arise. 3. that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the
accident by the exercise of ordinary care but failed to exercise
3. substantial factor test - if the actors conduct is a substantial such last clear chance, and the accident occurred as a
factor in bringing about harm to another, the fact that the proximate result of such failure.
actor neither foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of
the harm or the manner in which it occurred, does not prevent
him from being liable Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor
- the thing or transaction speaks for itself. it is a maxim for the
4. Foreseability test - if the defendant could not reasonably rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the
foresee any injury as a result of his act, or if his act is surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or
reasonable in the light of what he could anticipate, there is no negligence, or make out a plaintiff's prima facie case, and
negligence and no liability.
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
explanation. persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
the doctrine is applied only if unsure and if no direct evidence (1903a)
of who is at fault. when you cannot tell who is at fault but you
can tell what contributed to the injury. Principle of vicarious liability
- a person is made liable not only for torts committed by
Requisites of the doctrine: himself but also for torts committed by others with whom he
has certain relationship and for whom he is responsible ,
1. the accident is of a kind or character which ordinarily does subject to certain conditions.
not occur in the absence of someone's negligence
Liability of parents
2. it is caused by an instrumentality or an agency within the both parents shall be liable as amended by the family code
exclusive management or control of the defendant or
defendants Scope of liability
1. minor children who live in their company
3. the possibility of contributing conduct which would make 2. minor child is already married and minor is not living with
the plaintiff responsible is eliminated. parents if the separation of unjustifiable because of the failure
of the parents to properly exercise their parental authority and
Emergency Rule responsibility.
- a person who, without fault or negligence on his part , is
suddenly placed in an emergency or unexpected danger and Respondent superior - negligence
compelled to act instantly and instinctively with no time for Vicarous libility - liability
reflection and exercise of the required precaution, is not guilty
of negligence and therefore, exempt from liability, if he did not Article 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his
make the wisest choice of the available courses of conduct to dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he
avoid injury which reasonably a prudent person would have has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904)
made under normal circumstances.
Does not concern on either joint or solidary liability.
- the rule is not available where the situation or danger was
caused by his own negligence. -persons enumerated under 2180 are given the right to seek
reimbursement from the author for "what he has paid of or
delivered in satisfaction of the claim " of the plaintiff.
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is
demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also Article 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has
for those of persons for whom one is responsible. no parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, answerable with his own property in an action against him
are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. (n)
who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live Article 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may
in their company. make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This
are likewise responsible for damages caused by their responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has
are employed or on the occasion of their functions. suffered damage. (1905)
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of Main consideration for liability: if there is control.
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged He who possesses the animal for utility, pleasure or service
in any business or industry. must answer for the damage which such animal may cause.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a Article 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily
special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle,
the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the
case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable. misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or
shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next
or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. preceding two months.
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of control or supervision. (n)
article 2180 are applicable. (n)

Applicability of 2184 Article 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is

the article applies only if the owner was at the vehicle at the responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial
time of the mishap otherwise, the provisions of article 2180 collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.
would be applicable, where the owner even if not in the (1907)
vehicle will be liable unless he exercised due diligence to
prevent the damage. Liability of proprietor - if he failed to make necessary repairs

Article 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages

Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is caused:
presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been (1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken
negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any care of with due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive
traffic regulation. (n) substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate
Article 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file with the (2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or
proper government office a bond executed by a government- property;
controlled corporation or office, to answer for damages to (3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes,
third persons. The amount of the bond and other terms shall if not caused by force majeure;
be fixed by the competent public official. (n) (4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of
infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable to
Article 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, the place. (1908)
drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death
or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used, Article 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding
although no contractual relation exists between them and the articles should be the result of any defect in the construction
consumers. (n) mentioned in article 1723, the third person suffering damages
may proceed only against the engineer or architect or
This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that negligence contractor in accordance with said article, within the period
is not presumed. therein fixed. (1909)

Requisites for liability 2190 talks about the defect in the construction - engineer or
1. defendant is a manufacturer or processor architect shall be liable for any damage or injury y the defect.
2. products manufactured or processed are foodstuffs, drinks,
toilet articles, and similar goods Article 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a
3. defendant used noxious or harmful substances in the part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things
manufacture of processing thrown or falling from the same. (1910)
4. death or injury was caused by the product consumed or used
containing such noxious or harmful substances. Head of the family - may not be the owner of the building and
5. victim is the consumer, user or purchaser it may include lessee who lives in the building or a part

Article 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence Article 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who
on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. (n)
his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as
firearms and poison, except when the possession or use Proscription of action upon quasi-delict
thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. (n) Article 1146. The following actions must be instituted within
four years:
Prima facie presumption that the defendant was negligent if:
1. a person dies or in injured (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
2. death or injury results from the defendant's possession of (2) Upon a quasi-delict;
dangerous weapon or substances.
However, when the action arises from or out of any act,
Article 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable activity, or conduct of any public officer involving the exercise
for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any of powers or authority arising from Martial Law including the
person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, arrest, detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same must be
Licuanan, Apple Jade S.
Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)
brought within one (1) year. (As amended by PD No. 1755, Dec.
24, 1980.)

Licuanan, Apple Jade S.

Torts reviewer - midterms ( Atty. Ever Rose Higuit)