Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
(QUASI-DELICT)
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
l
2 LAWS A N D J U R I S P R U D E N C E O N TORTS A N D D A M A G E S
2
S E C T I O N 1. Institution of Criminal and Civil Actions. — (a) W h e n
a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil
liability.arising from the offense c h a r g e d shall be d e e m e d instituted
with the criminal action unless the offended p a r t y waives the civil
action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil a c -
tion shall be m a d e before the prosecution starts presenting its evi-
dence a n d u n d e r circumstances affording the offended p a r t y a reason-
able opportunity to m a k e s u c h reservation.
W h e n the offended p a r t y seeks to enforce civil liability against
the accused by w a y of moral, nominal, t e m p e r a t e , or e x e m p l a r y d a m -
ages without specifying the a m o u n t thereof in the complaint or infor-
mation, the filing fees therefor shall constitute a first lien on the judg-
ment awarding such damages.
W h e r e the a m o u n t of d a m a g e s , other t h a n actual, is specified in
the complaint or information, the c o r r e s p o n d i n g filing fees shall be
paid by the offended p a r t y u p o n the filing thereof in court.
E x c e p t as otherwise p r o v i d e d in these Rules, no filing fees shall
be required for actual d a m a g e s .
N o counterclaim, cross-claim o r third-party complaint m a y b e
filed by the a c c u s e d in the criminal case, b u t a n y cause of action w h i c h
could h a v e been the subject thereof m a y be litigated in a separate civil
action, ( l a )
(b) T h e criminal action for violation of B a t a s P a m b a n s a Big.
22 shall be d e e m e d to include the c o r r e s p o n d i n g civil action. No reser-
vation to file s u c h civil action separately shall be allowed.
U p o n filing of the aforesaid joint criminal a n d civil actions, the
offended p a r t y shall p a y in full the filing fees based on the a m o u n t of
the check involved, w h i c h shall be considered as the actual d a m a g e s
claimed. W h e r e the complaint or information also seeks to recover
liquidated, m o r a l , nominal, t e m p e r a t e or e x e m p l a r y d a m a g e s , the of-
fended p a r t y shall p a y additional filing fees based on the a m o u n t s
alleged therein. If the a m o u n t s are not so alleged but any of these
d a m a g e s are subsequently a w a r d e d by the court, the filing fees based
on the a m o u n t a w a r d e d shall constitute a first lien on the j u d g m e n t .
W h e r e the civil action h a s been filed separately a n d trial thereof
has not yet c o m m e n c e d , it m a y be consolidated with the criminal
action u p o n application with the c o u r t trying the latter case. If the
application is granted, the trial of both actions shall p r o c e e d in accor-
d a n c e with section 2 of this Rule g o v e r n i n g consolidation of the civil
a n d criminal actions."
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
3
A R T I C L E 3 2 . A n y public officer or e m p l o y e e , or any private
individual, w h o directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in
any m a n n e r i m p e d e s or i m p a i r s any of the following rights a n d liber-
ties of another p e r s o n shall be liable to the latter for d a m a g e s :
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) F r e e d o m of speech;
(3) F r e e d o m to write for the press or to maintain a periodi-
cal publication;
(4) F r e e d o m from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) F r e e d o m of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of p r o p e r t y without due
process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation w h e n private property
is taken for public use;
(8) T h e right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) T h e right to be secure in one's person, house, papers,
a n d effects against unreasonable searches a n d seizures;
( 1 0 ) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of c o m m u n i c a t i o n and correspondence;
( 1 2 ) The right to b e c o m e a m e m b e r of associations or societ-
ies for purposes not contrary to law;
10 LAWS A N D J U R I S P R U D E N C E O N TORTS A N D D A M A G E S
4 5
33 , 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code.
26. It thus appears that an aggrieved party may
file criminal case and civil case for quasi-delict on the same
negligent act or omission. This, essentially, is the import
also of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Sps. Santos, et
al. vs. Pizardo, et al, G.R. No. 151452, July 29,2005 when It
said that "[a]n act or omission causing damage to another
6
A R T I C L E 1 0 2 . Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavern-
keepers a n d proprietors of establishments. — In default of the persons
criminally liable, innkeepers, t a v e m k e e p e r s , a n d any other persons or
corporations shall be civilly liable for c r i m e s c o m m i t t e d in their estab-
lishments, in all cases w h e r e a violation of municipal ordinances or
s o m e general or special police regulation shall h a v e been committed
by t h e m or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods
taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging
therein, or for the p a y m e n t of the v a l u e thereof, provided that such
guests shall have notified in a d v a n c e the innkeeper himself, or the
person representing him, of the deposit of such g o o d s within the inn;
and shall furthermore h a v e followed the directions which such inn-
keeper or his representative m a y h a v e given them with respect to the
care of a n d vigilance over s u c h goods. No liability shall attach in case
of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless
committed by the innkeeper's employees.
A R T I C L E 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The
subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also
apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in
any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils,
workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.
14 L A W S A N D J U R I S P R U D E N C E O N TORTS A N D D A M A G E S
vs. Cresencia, et al., G.R. No. L-8194, July 11, 1956, that
"plaintiffs' action for damages is independent of the
criminal case and based, not on the employer's subsid-
iary liability under the Revised Penal Code, but on a
breach of the carrier's contractual obligation to carry his
passengers safely to their destination (culpa contractual).
x x x [I]n culpa contractual, the liability of the carrier is
not merely subsidiary or secondary, but direct and im-
mediate (Articles 1755,1756, and 1759, New Civil Code)."
CHAPTER 2
ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICT
23
24 L A W S A N D J U R I S P R U D E N C E O N TORTS A N D D A M A G E S
Supreme Court found that the actor could not have rea-
sonably foreseen the harm that would befall him, it was
ruled that he was not guilty of negligence (Civil Aero-
nautics Administration vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
L-51806, November 8,1988).
8. In the civil law and at common law, three Degrees of
degrees of negligence were recognized, namely, slight negligence
negligence, ordinary negligence and gross negligence.
Slight negligence is the failure to exercise great or
extraordinary care. Ordinary negligence is the want of
ordinary care and diligence, that is, such care and dili-
gence as an ordinarily prudent person would exercise
under the same or similar circumstances. Gross negli-
gence is materially greater than ordinary negligence, and
consists of an entire absence of care or an absence of
even slight care or diligence; it implies a thoughtless
disregard for consequences or an indifference to the
rights or welfare of others (cf, 65 CJS at pp.536-539).
9. The concept itself is relative and compara- Nature of the
rive. The degree of care to be exercised depends upon concept
person, place and time. "Negligence is want of care re-
quired by the circumstances. It is a relative or compara-
tive not an absolute term, and its application depends
upon the situation of the parties, and the degree of care
and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably im-
pose." (U.S. vs. Juanillo, G.R. No. 7255, October 3,1912).
10. The operator of an automobile is bound to
exercise care in proportion to the varying danger and
risks of the highway and commensurate with the dan-
gers naturally incident to the use of such vehicle. He is
obliged to take notice of the conditions before him, and
if it is apparent that by a particular method of proceed-
ing he is liable to work an injury, it is his duty to adopt
some other or safer method if within reasonable care
and prudence he can do so. In determining the degree
of care an operator of an automobile should use, when
on the highway, it is proper to take into consideration
the place, presence or absence of other travelers, the
speed of the automobile, its seize, appearance, manner
of movement, and the amount of notice it makes, and
26 L A W S A N D J U R I S P R U D E N C E O N TORTS A N D D A M A G E S
& c). Thus, a legal presumption arose that the bus driver
was negligent (Kapalaran Bus Line vs. Coronado, G.R. No.
85331, August 25,1989).
33. There is prima facie presumption of negligence
on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results
from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances,
such as firearms and poison, except when the posses-
sion or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or
business (Article 2188, NCC).
34. Also, "[w]here 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 manage-
ment use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in
the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the
accident arose from want of care." (Cooley on Torts, Vol.
3, p. 369).
35. As Black's Law Dictionary puts it: "Res ipsa Res ipsa
loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. Rebuttable presump- loquitur
d e f i n e d
tion or inference that defendant was negligent, which
arises upon proof that instrumentality causing injury was
in defendant's exclusive control, and that the accident
was one which ordinarily does not happen in absence of
negligence. Res ipsa loquitur is rule of evidence whereby
negligence of alleged wrongdoer may be inferred from
mere fact that accident happened provided character of
accident and circumstances attending it lead reasonably
to belief that in absence of negligence it would not have
occurred and that thing which caused injury is shown to
have been under management and control of alleged
wrongdoer. Hillen v. Hooker Const. Co., Tex. Civ. App.,
484 S.W. 2d 133, 155. Under doctrine of "res ipsa loqui-
tur" the happening of an injury permits an inference of
negligence where plaintiff produces substantial evidence
that injury was caused by an agency or instrumentality
under exclusive control and management of defendant,
and that the occurrence was such that in the ordinary
course of things would not happen if reasonable care
had been used." (Layugan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
G.R. No. 73998, November 14,1988).
34 L A W S A N D J U R I S P R U D E N C E O N TORTS A N D D A M A G E S
NATURE OF LIABILITY
37
LAWS A N D J U R I S P R U D E N C E O N TORTS A N D D A M A G E S
NCC).
10. This principle of parental liability is a species
of what is frequently designated as vicarious liability, or
the doctrine of "imputed negligence" under Anglo-
American tort law, where a person is not only liable for
torts committed by himself, but also for torts committed
by others with whom he has a certain relationship and
for whom he is responsible. Thus, parental liability is
made a natural or logical consequence of the duties and
responsibilities of parents — their parental authority —
which includes the instructing, controlling and disciplin-
ing of the child (Tamargo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 85044, June 3,1992).
11. The civil liability imposed upon parents for
the torts of their minor children living with them, may
be seen to be based upon the parental authority vested
by the Civil Code upon such parents. The civil law as-
sumes that when an unemancipated child living with its
parents commits a tortious act, the parents were negli-
gent in the performance of their legal and natural duty
closely to supervise the child who is in their custody
and control. Parental liability is, in other words, anchored
upon parental authority coupled with presumed paren-
tal dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompany-
ing such authority (Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co., 36 Phil.
768 [1918]).
12. The parents are and should be held primarily
liable for the civil liability arising from criminal offenses
committed by their rninor children under their legal au-
thority or control, or who live in their company, unless it
is proven that the former acted with the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent such damages. That
primary liability is premised on the provisions of Article
101 of the Revised Penal Code with respect to damages
ex delicto caused by their children 9 years of age or un-
CHAPTER 3
41
N A T U R E O F LIABILITY
manager
already mentioned because he himself may be regarded
as an employee or dependiente of his employer, Phil-
American Forwarders, Inc. (Phil Bus Rabbit vs. Phil-Ameri-
can Forwarders, 63 SCRA 232).
Employer's 48. Under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code,
vicarious employers are primarily liable for their negligence ei-
liability under ther in the selection or supervision of their employees.
Art. 2180 and This liability is independent of the employee's own li-
employer's
ability for fault or negligence and is distinct from the
subsidiary
liability under subsidiary civil liability under Article 103 of the Revised
Art. 100 of Penal Code. The civil action against the employer may
RPC distin- therefore proceed independently of the criminal action
guished pursuant to Rule 111 Section 3 of the Rules of Court.
49. The vicarious liability of an employer for the
fault or negligence of an employee is founded on at least
two specific provisions of law. The first is expressed in
Article 2176, in relation to Article 2180, of the Civil Code
which would allow an action predicated on quasi-delict
to be instituted by the injured party against the employer
for an act or omission of the employee and would neces-
sitate only a preponderance of evidence in order to pre-
vail. Here, the liability of the employer for the negligent
conduct of the subordinate is direct and primary subject
to the defense of due diligence in the selection and su-
pervision of the employee. The enforcement of the judg-
ment against the employer for an action based on Ar-
ticle 2176 does not require the employee to be insolvent
since the nature of the liability of the employer with that
of the employee, the two being statutorily considered
joint tortfeasors, is solidary. The second, predicated on
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, provides that an
employer may be held subsidiarily liable for a felony
committed by his employee in the discharge of his duty.
This liability attaches when the employee is convicted
of a crime done in the performance of his work and is
found to be insolvent that renders him unable to prop-
erly respond to the civil liability adjudged (Rafael Reyes
Trucking Corporation vs. People et al, G.R. No. 129029, April
3,2000).
50. In negligence cases, the aggrieved party may
sue the negligent party under (1) Article 100 of the
CHAPTER 3
57
N A T U R E O F LIABILITY
72
CHAPTER 4
73
DEFENSES IN AN ACTION FOR QUASI-DELICT
ENFORCEMENT OF LIABILITY
86
CHAPTER 5
E N F O R C E M E N T O F LIABILITY
94
CHAPTER 6
95
STRICT LIABILITY TORTS
SPECIAL TORTS
102
CHAPTER 7
S P E C I A L TORTS
KINDRED TORTS
no
CHAPTER 8
K I N D R E D TORTS
duty to use at least the same level of care that any other
reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a con-
dition under the same circumstances. The breach of these
professional duties of skill and care, or their improper
performance, by a physician surgeon whereby die pa-
tient is injured in body or in health, constitutes action-
able malpractice. In the event that any injury results to
the patient from want of due care or skill during the
operation, the surgeons may be held answerable in dam-
ages for negligence (Garcia-Rueda vs. Pascasio, supra, cit-
ing Hoover v. Williamson, 236 Md 250 and Gore v. Board
of Medical Quality, 110 Cal App 3d 184 (1980).
3. It is a universal rule that a physician or sur-
geon has the duty to use reasonable care and skill in
diagnosis and treatment. The standard by which the re-
quirement of reasonable skill and care is determined is
the average standard of the profession (61 Am Jur 2d, at
339).
In particular, a doctor has the duty to inform the
patient fully of his condition, and of the results of the
tests made. If the physician discovers, or should know
or discover, that the patient's ailment is beyond his
knowledge or technical skill, ability or capacity to treat
with a likelihood of reasonable success, he is also under
duty to disclose that fact to the patient and advise him
of the necessity of other or different treatment. It has
also been recognized that there exists a duty on the part
of the physician to advise his patient to consult a spe-
cialist or one qualified in a method of treatment which
the physician is not qualified to give. It is also the settled
rule that one who engages a physician to treat his case
impliedly engages him to attend throughout the illness,
or until his services are dispensed with, but it is recog-
nized that a physician has the right to withdraw from a
case by giving due notice to the patient and affording
him the ample opportunity to secure other medical at-
tendance of his own choice. As corollary to the
physician's right to withdraw from a case upon giving
proper notice, he is also under duty not to abandon the
patient and to continue attendance until all the condi-
tions for his rightful withdrawal are complied with (cf.,
65 Am Jur 2d, pp. 358 to 368).
112 L A W S A N D J U R I S P R U D E N C E O N TORTS A N D D A M A G E S
in the ICU for a month. She was released from the hos-
pital only four months later or on November 15, 1985.
Since the ill-fated operation, Erlinda remained in coma-
tose condition until she died on August 3, 1999." The
Supreme Court held that "[t]he injury incurred by Erlinda
does not normally happen absent any negligence in the
administration of anesthesia and in the use of an endot-
racheal tube. As was noted in the Decision, the instru-
ments used in the administration of anesthesia, includ-
ing the endotracheal tube, were all under the exclusive
control of Dr. Gutierrez and Dr. Hosaka. In Voss vs.
Bridwell, which involved a patient who suffered brain
damage due to the wrongful administration of anesthe-
sia, and even before the scheduled mastoid operation
could be performed, the Kansas Supreme Court applied
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, reasoning that the injury
to the patient therein was one which does not ordinarily
take place in the absence of negligence in the adminis-
tration of an anesthetic, and in the use and employment
of an endotracheal tube. The court went on to say that
"[ojrdinarily a person being put under anesthesia is not
rendered decerebrate as a consequence of administering
such anesthesia in the absence of negligence. Upon these
facts and under these circumstances, a layman would be
able to say, as a matter of common knowledge and ob-
servation, that the consequences of professional treat-
ment were not as such as would ordinarily have fol-
lowed if due care had been exercised." (Ramos, et al. vs.
Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 124354, April 11, 2002).
Liability of 13. As regards the responsibility of the hospital
hospitals in medical malpractice cases, the Supreme Court first
noted the "unique practice (among private hospitals) of
filling up specialist staff with attending and visiting "con-
sultants," who are allegedly not hospital employees." It
also noted that hospitals exercise significant control in
the hiring and firing of consultants and in the conduct
of their work within the hospital premises. Doctors who
apply for "consultant" slots, visiting or attending, are
required to submit proof of completion of residency, their
educational qualifications; generally, evidence of accredi-
tation by the appropriate board (diplomate), evidence
of fellowship in most cases, and references. These re-
CHAPTERS
K I N D R E D TORTS
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
124
CHAPTER 1
125
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
ACTUAL DAMAGES
127
128 L A W S A N D J U R I S P R U D E N C E O N TORTS A N D D A M A G E S
MORAL DAMAGES
141
142 LAWS A N D J U R I S P R U D E N C E O N TORTS A N D D A M A G E S
NOMINAL DAMAGES
168
CHAPTER 4
169
NOMINAL DAMAGES
TEMPERATE DAMAGES
172
CHAPTER 5
TEMPERATE DAMAGES
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
176
CHAPTER 6
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
178
CHAPTER 7
179
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
655; Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. vs. CA, 176
SCRA 778. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may
award exemplary damages if the defendant is found to
have acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppres-
sive, or malevolent manner (Art. 2232, Civil Code; PNB
vs. Gen. Acceptance and Finance Corp., 161 SCRA 449).
7. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may
award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent
manner (Art. 2332, Civil Code). It may be awarded for
breach of contract or quasi-contract as when a telegraph
company personnel transmitted the wrong telegram.
Gross carelessness or negligence constitutes wanton mis-
conduct. (Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, 103 SCRA 359 [1981]. It is not recover-
able in the absence of gross negligence (Bagumbayan Corp.
v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 132 SCRA 441 [1984]).
8. The cavalier treatment of airline personnel
manifests malice as manifested in the contemptuous dis-
regard of the passenger's protest and the abrupt rejec-
tion of their request that the Manila office be contacted
for verification of the correct billing. Rudeness is never
excusable. It is especially condemnable if it is commit-
ted in one's own country against a foreign guest. Air-
lines should always bear in mind the special responsi-
bilities they owe their passengers not only of carrying
them safely and comfortably according to their contracts
but also of extending to them the courtesy due them in
all matters relating to their trip, including reservations,
confirmation of bookings, ticketing and other ground
and in-flight services. The fare of the passenger includes
payment for politeness. Award of exemplary damages
warranted (Northwest Orient Airlines vs. Court of Appeals,
et al., G.R. No. 83033, June 8,1990). In these cases, neither
the social standing nor prestige of the passenger should
determine the extent to which he would suffer because
of a wrong done, since the dignity affronted in the indi-
vidual is a quality inherent in him and not conferred by
these social indicators. Thus, as well and aptly put by
Justice Serafin Camilon, propriety of damage awards is
judged by their fairness considering all the circumstances.
CHAPTER 7
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
187
L A W S A N D J U R I S P R U D E N C E O N TORTS A N D D A M A G E S
'Citations omitted.
CHAPTER 8
ASSESSMENT OF D A M A G E S
APPENDIX A
BOOK IV
TITLE XVII
Chapter 2
QUASI-DELICTS
193
194 LAWS A N D J U R I S P R U D E N C E O N TORTS A N D D A M A G E S
The father and, in case of his death or 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 inca-
pacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their com-
pany.
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.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their em-
ployees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned
tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or in-
dustry.
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 pro-
vided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall
be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or appren-
tices, so long as they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of
a good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a)
Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his depen-
dents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or
delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904)
Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no
parents or guardians, the minor or insane person shall be answerable
with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad
litem shall be appointed, (n)
Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or 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 of the person
who has suffered damage. (1905)
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable
with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the
APPENDIX A
195
CIVIL C O D E PROVISIONS O N Q U A S I - D E L I C T
«
APPENDIX B
Chapter 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Chapter 2
ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is
entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suf-
197
LAWS A N D J U R I S P R U D E N C E O N TORTS A N D D A M A G E S
198
Chapter 3
OTHER KINDS OF DAMAGES
Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that
moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages may be
adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones,
is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of
each case.
ABUSE OF RIGHT
Doctrine 102
Elements 104
Test 105
ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS
Liability for quasi-delict 69
Liability under contracts 70
As employer 71
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN.. 109
ASSUMPTION OF RISK 75
Coverage 75
Exceptions 76
BURDEN OF PROOF 31
CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP DOCTRINE 122
CAVEAT EMPTOR , 98, 99
CAVEAT VENDITOR 98
CONSUMER ACT OF THE PHILIPPINES 96
CORPORATION
Liability of directors/ trustees 122
CULPA AQUILIANA
Distinguished from culpa criminal 5
Distinguished from culpa contractual 16,17
Available remedies 86, 91
Action for damages survives death of defendant 93
DILIGENCE OF GOOD FATHER OF FAMILY 29, 39, 52
In the supervision of employees 52
In the selection of employees 54
As a defense 81
DOCTRINE OF ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE 74
Excavation 75
DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
8 2
Definition
205
L A W S A N D J U R I S P R U D E N C E O N TORTS A N D D A M A G E S
206
A partial defense 82
Distinguished from doctrine of last clear chance 83
In children below 9 83
Not applicable in criminal cases 85
DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERED PERIL 77
DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED INVITATION
TO VISIT THE PREMISES OF ANOTHER 73
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
Definition 77
Applicability 77- 79
Not applicable in culpa contractual case 79
Applicable to vehicular accidents 79
DRUGGIST
Liability of 98
EMERGENCY RULE 79
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS TORT ACTION 106
EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY
Based on quasi-delict 14
Based on Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code 56, 58
ENTERPRISE LIABILITY 96
ERROR IN JUDGMENT RULE 115
GUARDIANS
Vicarious liability 43
Kinds of guardians 43
HEAD OF FAMILY 100
HOSPITALS
Liability in medical malpractice cases 118,120
HUMANITARIAN DOCTRINE 77
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION 12
Rules on reservation 90
INSURER 93
INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 109
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT 84
LEGAL MALPRACTICE 122
MANUFACTURERS AND PROCESSORS OF
FOODSTUFFS 95-100
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 110
Elements 112
Error in Judgment Rule 115
NEGLIGENCE
Definition 23
Test 24
SUBJECT INDEX 207
TORTS
Degrees of diligence 25
Factors to be considered 28
Presumptions 32, 33
A question of fact 35
Plaintiff's own negligence 72
Doctrine of Intervening Negligence 77
Doctrine of Contributory Negligence 82
NUISANCE 123
PHYSICIAN- PATIENT RELATIONSHIP 110
POSSESSOR OF ANIMALS 94-95
PRESCRIPTION 81
PROXIMATE CAUSE
Definition 29
"But for" test 30
Concurrence of efficient causes 30
QUASI-DELICT
Definition 2, 3
Elements 3
Culpa aquiliana distinguished from culpa criminal 5
Pre-existing contract as a bar 14
Exceptions 15
Culpa aquiliana distinguished from culpa
contractual 16,17
Special issues involving culpa contractual 18
RECESS 69
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
Definition 33
Applicability 35,116
RESERVATION OF CIVIL ACTION 87-90
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR 45, 50
ROVING COMMISSION RULE 48
RULE OF DAVIES VS. MANN 77
SPECIAL AGENT 61
SPECIAL ERRAND RULE 48
1 0 2 1 0 3
SPECIAL TORTS '
Moral damages 157
STRICT LIABILITY TORTS
9 4
Definition
Rationale 94
9 4
Strict liability in torts
TORTFEASOR
3 7 9 2
Nature of liability '
208 LAWS A N D J U R I S P R U D E N C E O N TORTS A N D D A M A G E S
ACTUAL DAMAGES
Definition 127
Requirements 128
Burden of proof 128
Components of 129
Kinds 130
In contracts 130
In quasi-contracts 130
In quasi-delict 131,135
In crimes 131,135
ATTORNEY'S FEES 138,139
BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY 158,165
CIVIL INDEMNITY 135,136
In rape cases 143
DAMAGE 124
DAMAGES
Definition '. 124
Distinguished from other concepts 124
Rationale 125
General damages 125
Special damages 125
Assessment of 187
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA 124,125
DOCTPJNE OF AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCE 190
DOCTRINE OF FAIR COMMENT 147
EGGSHELL SKULL RULE 131
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
Nature and concept 178
Requisites 178
2 7 9
Rationale
9
When recoverable 17
1 2 5
GENERAL DAMAGES
209
210 LAWS A N D J U R I S P R U D E N C E O N TORTS A N D D A M A G E S
1 2 4
INJURY
3 6
INTEREST I ' 137
JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS 190
1 4
LIBEL 6
Publication in libel cases 149
Group libel 150
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Definition 176
Nature and concept 176
LOST EARNINGS 133
Formula 134
LUCRUM CESSANS 130
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 152
MORAL DAMAGES
Nature and concept 141
Requirements 142
Instances where moral damages may be recovered 144
In seduction 144
In quasi-delict 144
In rape cases 145
In defamation 145
In culpa contractual cases 159
Analogous cases 163
In favor of corporation, general rule 166
Exception 167
NOMINAL DAMAGES
Nature and concept 168
When recoverable 169
PUBLIC FIGURE DOCTRINE 149
SPECIAL DAMAGES 125
SUBROGATORY RIGHT OF INSURER 140
TEMPERATE DAMAGES
Nature and concept 172
When recoverable 174
THIN SKULL RULE 131
AUTHOR'S ACADEMIC
PROFILE
JOAN S. LARGO
Philippine Copyright, 2007
ISBN 9 7 8 - 9 7 1 - 2 3 - 4 8 8 0 - 8
N? 1 0 9 2
Printedby
iii
However, since the Philippines is a civil law country, tort here is
viewed to be that rule of conduct which our legislature prescribes,
supplemented by the interpretations made by our Supreme Court in
appropriate cases presented before it.
Thus, our principal concept of torts is that which is ordained in
Article 2176 of our Civil Code as an act or omission, founded on
negligence, causing damage to another where there is no pre-existing
contractual obligations between parties. Tort, here, is essentially based
on negligent act or omission and cannot generally cover intentional acts,
in view of the limiting definition of Article 2176 of the Code. Unlike in
the United States, tort in the Philippines cannot cover any wrong; its
scope is limited to cases anchored on negligence. The only commonality
shared with the common law concept of torts is that our tort action is
based not on contractual breach and presupposes that there is no pre-
existing contracts between parties. Thus, it was once postulated that
common law torts is more comprehensive than ours.
However, in the course of our jurisprudential development, we
have seen how courts use with greater assertiveness our provisions of
civil law governing human relations. Intentional breaches of the rules
of good morals and customs were considered special torts. Hence, in
modern times, our Supreme Court was bold enough to declare that our
law on civil wrongs has become "much more supple and adaptable than
the Anglo-American law on torts" (Baksh vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,
G.R. No. 97336, February 19,1993).
Our courts have also boldly entered the uncharted territories of
strict liability torts (also known strict liability in torts), rules on products
liability and such kindred torts as medical malpractice/negligence.
Alongside with this growth in our substantive law on torts are the
changes in the manner of litigating a tort action.
Fully cognizant of these changes, this book has endeavored to
present both these substantive and procedural developments. In the main,
then, this book aims to present torts in both the substantive and
procedural form so that the torts students will learn how the substance
and procedure relate to and influence each other. It endeavors to follow
and trace the steps taken by law practitioner when espousing or
defending a tort action. In discussing the general concept of torts
(Chapter 1), an extended discussion is made between three remedies
commonly involving negligence, to wit, culpa aquiliana, culpa criminal
and culpa contractual. Afterwhich, the book focused on elements of
quasi-delict which are negligence and proximate cause (Chapter 2).
Discussion then follows on who may be made liable in a tort action,
iv
vicariously or otherwise (Chapter 3), and the possible defenses that
these defendants may raise (Chapter 4). Then, in the event that these
defenses are unavailing, the next question tackled is how does one bring
a case for tort and what are the ways and devices that may be employed
in enforcing this right of action (Chapter 5). After presenting these
important principles and considerations in a pure tort action, such special
topics as strict liability torts (Chapter 6), special torts (Chapter 7) and
kindred torts of medical malpractice (Chapter 8) are then discussed.
As in common law countries, our "strict liability torts" refer to the
peculiar brand of torts that connote wrongs that law will remedy
despite the absence of negligence. The mere doing of the act that causes
harm creates a cause of action in view of the public policy involved in
the nature of the activity.
Special torts, on the other hand, are such because they are not
negligence-based. They are intentional acts that violate the fundamental
precepts of human relations.
The exposition on torts closes with a discussion on medical
malpractice which has gained prominence in the fairly-recent past. As
this is a branch of torts that is yet to be fully-developed, the author drew
heavily from the commentaries and jurisprudence of foreign scholars
and courts.
The book on damages is intended to be an extensive exposition
of the governing laws, principles and jurisprudence on damages. As
with the author's work on torts, the inputs were drawn heavily from
the works of our Supreme Court from 1901 to present.
In cases where Philippine cases abound, the discussion was
subordinated to the exposition of established rules, principles and
jurisprudence as announced by our own courts, even as neither history
nor the foreign jurisprudence on the subject has been ignored. There is
a conscious effort to avoid putting in the author's personal views,
realizing fully that in this country, only the words of the Supreme Court
have "binding effect" on the readers. References to the writings and
decisions of US Supreme Court and of foreign writers were made, but
only in few areas where there is dearth of Philippine jurisprudence.
Over-all, this is an attempt to present torts and damages in the words
of our very own Supreme Court. To make the book as useful yet as brief
as possible, recent cases have been preferred to older ones, except when
the older cases offer discussion on the principle and authorities that is
equally valuable.
Unlike existing work on the subject, this book is not intended to
be a digest of reported decisions. Instead, this is a concise presentation
V
of legal principles on quasi-delict and damages achieved by briefly
expounding the law as set forth in judicial decisions and referring only
to those cases which bear directly and helpfully upon the topics to
which they are cited. This book also differs in the manner and order or
sequence of presenting the established principles on quasi-delict and
damages based on the encounters with the students in the academe.
This, after all, is a law student's book for learning what lawyers need
to know in practicing in the field of torts. As to form or presentation,
this book is written in numbered paragraph form, a personal preference.
Seeing the fulfillment of a dream and the partial completion of a
teacher's mission, there are just some words that must not go unsaid,
and these are thank you. Thanks to my husband, our Ayen, and family.
Things happen only because I have them. Thanks, too, to my boss, Atty.
Bernardito A. Florido, for the genuine support and kind understanding.
Thanks to University of San Carlos for the constant inspiration. Thanks
to Fr. Ranhilio C. Aquino, Dean of San Beda Graduate School of Law,
for opening the door, and to Justice Jose C. Vitug, my book adviser, for
taking me here. To you both, great minds in extremely humble hearts,
my eternal gratitude. Most importantly, thanks to Him. Now that the
mist has been lifted, I see the humbling power of His daily Grace.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OUTLINE page
I. QUASI-DELICT
AUTHOR'S NOTE iii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS 1
CHAPTER 2. ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICT 23
CHAPTER 3. NATURE OF LIABILITY 37
CHAPTER 4. DEFENSES IN AN ACTION FOR
QUASI-DELICT 72
CHAPTER 5. ENFORCEMENT OF LIABILITY 86
CHAPTER 6. STRICT LIABILITY TORTS 94
CHAPTER 7. SPECIAL TORTS 102
CHAPTER 8. KINDRED TORTS 110
II. DAMAGES
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS 124
CHAPTER 2. ACTUAL DAMAGES 127
CHAPTER 3. MORAL DAMAGES 141
CHAPTER 4. NOMINAL DAMAGES 168
CHAPTER 5. TEMPERATE DAMAGES 172
CHAPTER 6. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES 176
CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES 178
CHAPTER 8. ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES 187
APPENDICES 193
SUBJECT INDEX 205
SUB-OUTLINE
AUTHOR'S NOTE
I. QUASI-DELICT
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
Definition of Quasi-delict 1
Quasi-delict distinguished from torts 2
3
Elements of Quasi-delict
vii
Culpa aquiliana distinguished from culpa
criminal 5
Pre-existing contract generally bars
quasi-delict 14
Exceptions 15
Culpa aquiliana distinguished from culpa
contractual 16
Special Issues 18
CHAPTER 2. ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICT
Definition of Negligence 23
Test to determine existence of negligence 24
Degrees of Negligence 25
Nature of the concept 25
Factors to be considered 28
Definition of proximate cause 29
Concurrence of efficient causes 30
Burden of proof 31
Presumptions of negligence 32
Definition of Res ipsa loquitur 33
CHAPTER 3. NATURE OF LIABILITY
Liability of tortfeasors 37
Doctrine of Vicarious Liability 38
Rationale 38
Vicarious liability of parents 40
Vicarious liability of guardians 43
Vicarious liability of employers 43
Distinctions between employer's vicarious
liability under Art. 2180 of NCC
and employer's subsidiary liability
under Art. 100 of RPC 56
Vicarious liability of owner of vehicle 60
Vicarious liability of State 60
Provinces, cities and municipalities 62
Vicarious liability of teachers and owners
of schools of arts and trade 64
Liability of proprietor of building 71
CHAPTER 4. DEFENSES IN AN ACTION FOR
QUASI-DELICT
Plaintiff's own negligence 72
Theory of implied invitation 73
viii
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance 74
Assumption of risk 75
Doctrine of last clear chance 77
Emergency Rule 79
Prescription 81
Diligence of good father of family 81
Doctrine of contributory negligence 82
Contributory negligence distinguished from
doctrine of last clear chance 83
ix
II. DAMAGES
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
Definition of damages 124
Distinctions with other concepts 124
Rationale 125
General and special damages 125
CHAPTER 2. ACTUAL DAMAGES
Definition 127
Requirements for the grant of actual
damages 128
Components of actual damages 129
In contracts and quasi-contracts 130
In quasi-delicts 131
In crimes 131
Interest 136
Attorney's fees 138
Subrogatory right of the insurer 140
CHAPTER 3. MORAL DAMAGES
Nature and concept 141
Requirements for the grant of moral
damages 142
Instances where moral damages may
be recovered 144
In seduction 144
In quasi-delict 144
In rape 145
In defamation 145
Doctrine of fair comment 147
Public Figure 149
Group libel 150
Malicious prosecution 152
Art. 19, 20, 21 of NCC 157
Breach of promise to marry 158
Culpa contractual cases 159
Analogous cases 163
General rule on moral damages in favor
of corporation 166
Exception 167
CHAPTER 4. NOMINAL DAMAGES
Nature and concept 168
X
Instances where nominal damages are
adjudicated 169
CHAPTER 5. TEMPERATE DAMAGES
Nature and concept 172
Instances where temperate damages
are adjudicated 174
CHAPTER 6. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Definition of liquidated damages 176
Nature and concept 176
CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
Nature and concept 178
Requisites for the award of exemplary
damages 178
Rationale for the award of exemplary
damages 179
Instances where exemplary damages
are adjudicated 179
CHAPTER 8. ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION OF
DAMAGES
Guiding principle 187
In crimes 187
In quasi-delict 190
In quasi-contracts 190
Doctrine of avoidable consequences 190
judgment on the pleadings 190
Good faith not a defense in violation of
constitutional rights 191
APPENDICES
CWIL CODE PROVISIONS ON QUASI-DELICT
CIVIL CODE PROVISIONS ON DAMAGES
SUBJECT INDEX
xi