March 9, 2019

Torts and Damages

IV. Liability

a. Vicarious Liability (Art. 2180)

i. Parents & Guardians
ii. Owners and Managers of Establishments
iii. State
 ARTICLE 2180 (PAR. 6) -- 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.
 The government may be held liable under this rule only if it first allows itself to
be sued through any of the accepted forms of consent. Moreover, the agent
performing his regular functions is not a special agent even if he is so
denominated at the case at bar.
 The Government of the Philippine Islands is not liable in damages for the negligent
acts of its regular officers or employees in the performance of their ordinary functions.
 The State is responsible only when it acts through a special agent.
 The liability of the State has two aspects:
1) Its public or governmental aspects where it is liable for the tortious acts of special
agents only; and
2) Its private or business aspects (as when it engages in private enterprises) where it
becomes liable as an ordinary employee.
 When is the State liable:
 SPECIAL AGENT -- If the State’s agent is not a public official, and is commissioned
to perform non-governmental functions, then the State assumes the role of an ordinary
employer and will be held liable as such for its agent’s tort. Where the government
commissions a private individual for a special governmental task, it is acting though a
special agent within the meaning of the provision.

b. Primary/Strict Liability
i. Possessors and Owners of Animals (Art. 2183)
 ARTICLE 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.”
 ELEMENTS:
(1) Person in possession of an animal;
(2) Animal escapes from the person’s custody; and
(3) Animal causes injury to another.
 GENERAL RULE: Possessor liable when animal escapes or be lost.
 EXCEPTIONS:
 force majeure; or
 from the fault of the person who has suffered damage
 VESTIL v. INTERMIDIATE APPELLATE COURT -- Article 2183 of the Civil
Code holds the possessor liable even if the animal should “escape or be lost” and so be
removed from his control. And it does not matter either the dog was tame and was
merely provoked by the child into biting her. The law does not speak only of vicious
 animals but covers even tame ones as long as they cause injury… It is based on
natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses animals
for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such animal
may cause.
 AFIALDA v. HISOLE --
Facts:
Deceased Loreto Afialda was employed by the defendant spouses as caretaker of
their carabaos at a fixed compensation. On March 21, 1947, while he was tending
the animals, he was gored by one of them and consequently died of his injuries.
Thus, herein appellant, Loreto’s elder sister who depended on him for support,
filed the action for damages. The complaint was dismissed by the trial court upon
granting a motion to dismiss filed by spouses Hisole. Subsequently, the plaintiff
had taken the present appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not defendants may be HELD liable for damages when damage is
caused to the animal’s caretaker.
Ruling:
Under Article 1905 of the old Civil Code, the owner of an animal is answerable
only for damages caused to a stranger, and that for damage caused to the
caretaker of the animal the owner would be liable only if he had been
negligent or at fault under Article 1902 of the same code. In the case at hand,
the animal was in custody and under the control of the caretaker, who was paid for
his work as such. Thus, it was his business to try to prevent the animal from
causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself. 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. Deceased
does not fall within the ambit of “stranger”, which is significant for the claim for
damages under the said article.
Moreover, under the said circumstances, the action should not come under Article
1905 of the Civil Code but under the labor laws, i.e. Workmen’s Compensation
Act. The complaint contained no allegation as to constitute liability under the Civil
Code or the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Hence, it alleges no cause of action.
The order appealed from was affirmed.

ii. Owners of Motor Vehicles (Art. 2184)

 ARTICLE 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 use of the due
diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was
negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. If the owner was not
in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable. (n)
 VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF OWNERS -- The owner of an automobile, present in
the vehicle, is not liable for the negligent acts of a competent driver unless such acts
are continued for such a length of time as to give the owner a reasonable
opportunity to observe them and to direct the driver to desist therefrom, and to
fail to do so. If a competent driver of an automobile in which the owner there of is at
the time present, by a sudden act of negligence, without the owner having a reasonable
opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance, violates the law, the owner of the
automobile is not responsible, either civilly or criminally, therefor. The act complained
of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length of time that he, by
acquiescence, makes his driver’s act his own.
 REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY IS A REQUISITE FOR OWNER OF A
VEHICLE TO BE LIABLE. -- Solidary liability is imposed on the owner of the
vehicle not because of his imputed liability but because his own omission is a
concurring proximate cause of the injury. This rule was first laid down in Chapman vs.
Underwood (27 Phil. 374, 376-377 [1914]), where the Supreme Court explained that
the owner who was present is liable if the negligent acts of the driver are
 continued for such a length of time so as to give the owner a reasonable
opportunity to observe them and to direct his driver to desist therefrom. An
owner who sits in his automobile and permits his driver to continue in violation of the
law by the performance of negligent acts, after he has had a reasonable opportunity to
observe them and to direct the driver to desist therefrom, becomes himself responsible
for such acts. (Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai, No. L-20392, Dec. 18, 1968)
 An owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident involving the said vehicle
if the same was driven without his consent or knowledge and by a person not
employed by him. (Duavit v. CA, et.al.)
 Difference of Art. 2184 with the liabilities of employers in Art. 2180 (5): encompasses
all possibilities and with limited liability (owner is in the vehicle and owner could have
by use of diligence prevented the misfortune)
 Exception: If owner was not in the vehicle…
 REGISTERED OWNER RULE -- Well-settled is the rule that the registered owner
of the vehicle is liable for quasi-delicts resulting from its use. Thus, even if the
vehicle has already been sold, leased, or transferred to another person at the time the
vehicle figured in an accident, the registered vehicle owner would still be liable for
damages caused by the accident. The sale, transfer or lease of the vehicle, which is not
registered with the Land Transportation Office, will not bind third persons aggrieved
in an accident involving the vehicle. The compulsory motor vehicle registration
underscores the importance of registering the vehicle in the name of the actual owner.

iii. Manufacturers and Possessors (Art. 2187)

 ARTICLE 2187 -- Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles
and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or
harmful substances used, although no contractual relation exists between them and
the consumers.
 Persons Liable:
o Manufacturer
The strict liability under the Act is imposed on the manufacturer. A manufacturer is
“any person who manufactures, assembles or processes consumer products, except
that if the goods are manufactured, assembled or processed for another person who
attaches his own brand name to the consumer products, the latter shall be deemed the
manufacturer. In case of imported products, the manufacturer’s representatives or, in
his absence, the importer, shall be deemed the manufacturer.” (Article 4[as],
Consumer Act).

Thus, a supermarket that sells certain products using its own trademark, is considered
the manufacturer even if, in fact, it was produced by another person or entity.

o Seller
Ordinarily the tradesman or seller is not liable for damages caused by defective
products under the Consumer Act. He is liable only when:
a) it is not possible to identify the manufacturer, builder, producer or importer;
b) the product is supplied, without clear identification of the manufacturer, producer,
builder or importer; and
c) he does not adequately preserve perishable goods. (Article 98, Consumer Act).

A seller under the Act means “a person engaged in the business of selling consumer
products directly to consumers. It shall include a supplier or distributor if:
(1) the seller is a subsidiary or affiliate of the supplier or distributor;
(2) the seller interchanges personnel or maintains common or overlapping officers or
directors with the supplier or distributor; or
(3) the supplier or distributor provides or exercises supervision, direction or control
over the selling practices of the seller.” (Article 4[bn]).

On the other hand, a distributor and a supplier are defined as follows

 “a) Distributor means any person to whom a consumer product is delivered or sold
for purposes of distribution in commerce, except that such term does not include a
manufacturer or retailer of such product.

b) Supplier means a person, other than a consumer, who in the course of his business,
solicits, offers, advertises, or promotes the disposition or supply of a consumer
product or who other than the consumer, engages in, enforces, or otherwise
participates in a consumer transaction, whether or not any privity of contract actually
exists between that person and the consumer, and includes the successor to, or
assignee of, any right or obligation on of the supplier.’’

Article 106 provides that “if the damage is caused by a component or part
incorporated in the product or service, its manufacturer, builder or importer and
the person who incorporated the component or part are jointly liable.” It may
happen that the manufacturer was not the one who actually manufactured all the
components used in the product. Usually, the manufacturer also gets components or
parts from other manufacturers. In such cases, the liability of the persons involved is
joint.
 Article 97: A product is defective when it does not offer the safety rightfully
expected of it, taking relevant circumstances into consideration, including but not
limited to:
a) presentation of product;
b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it;
c) the time it was put into circulation.
A product is not considered defective because another better quality product has been
placed in the market.
 Article 98: TRADESMAN/SELLER is likewise LIABLE (pursuant to the preceding
article):
a) It is not possible to identify the manufacturer, builder, producer or importer;
b) The product is supplied, without clear identification of the manufacturer, producer,
builder or importer;
c) He does not adequately preserve perishable goods.
 Article 99: Service defective when it does not provide the safety the consumer may
rightfully expect of it, taking the relevant circumstances into consideration, including
but not limited to:
a) The manner in which it is provided;
b) The result of hazards which may reasonably be expected of it; and
c) The time when it was provided.
 Suppliers are jointly liable for imperfections in the quality of the product when, in due
regard for variations inherent thereto, their net content is less than that indicated on the
container, packaging, labeling or advertisement, the consumer having powers to
demand, alternatively, at his own option:
a) The proportionate price;
b) The supplementing of weight or measure differential;
c) The replacement of the product by another of the same kind, mark or model,
without said imperfections; and
d) The immediate reimbursement of the amount paid, with monetary updating
without prejudice to losses and damages, if any.
 SEE RA 7374 -- The service supplier is liable for any quality imperfections that
render the services improper for consumption or decrease their value, and for those
resulting from inconsistency with the information contained in the offer or
advertisement, the consumer being entitled to demand alternatively at his option:
a) the performance of the services, without any additional cost and when applicable;
 b) the immediate reimbursement of the amount paid, with monetary updating
without prejudice to losses and damages, if any;
c) a proportionate price reduction.
Reperformance of services may be entrusted to duly qualified third parties, at the
supplier's risk and cost (Art. 102).
iv. Municipal Corporations (Art. 2184, Sec. 24 RA 7160)
 ARTICLE 2189 -- Provinces, cities and municipalities… liable for damages for the
death of, or injury suffered by, any person by reason --- specifically --- of the
defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public
works under their control or supervision. (City of Manila v. Teotico)
 GUILATCO v. CITY OF DAGUPAN, et.al. -- It is not necessary for the defective
road or street to belong to the province, city or municipality for liability to attach. The
article only requires that either control or supervision is exercised over the defective
road or street.
Facts:
Florentina Guilatco, a Court Interpreter, was about to board a tricycle along a
sidewalk when she accidentally fell into a manhole that was partially covered by a
concrete flower pot leaving a gaping hole about 2 ft long by 1 ½ feet wide and 150
cm deep. Florentina suffered a fracture on her right leg and as result thereof, had to
be hospitalized. Florentina averred that she suffered mental and physical pain, and
that she has difficulty in locomotion. She became incapable of reporting for duty
within quite some time and thus lost income. She also lost weight, and is no longer
her former jovial self. Florentina sued the City of Dagupan. The City contends that
the manhole is owned by the National and the sidewalk on which it is found is
located in Perez Blvd., which was also under the supervision of the National
Government. While the lower court HELD the City of Dagupan liable, the
appellate court reversed the RULING on the ground that no evidence was
presented to prove that the City of Dagupan had "control or supervision" over the
Boulevard, where the manhole is located.
Issue:
Whether or not the City of Dagupan is liable for damages?
Ruling:
Yes. The City of Dagupan is liable for damages. The liability of public
corporations for damages arising from injuries suffered by pedestrians by reason of
the defective condition of roads is expressed in the Art. 2189 of Civil Code, which
states: 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. For liability to attach, it is not even necessary for the defective road or
street to belong to the province, city or municipality. The article only requires that
either control or supervision is exercised over the defective road or street. In the
case at bar, this control or supervision is provided for in the charter of Dagupan
City and is exercised through the City Engineer. This function of supervision over
streets, public buildings, and other public works is coursed through a Maintenance
Foreman and a Maintenance Engineer. Although these last two officials are
employees of the National Government, they are detailed with the City of Dagupan
and receive instruction and supervision from the city through the City Engineer.
The express provision in the charter holding the city not liable for damages or
injuries sustained by persons or property due to the failure of any city officer to
enforce the provisions of the charter, cannot be used to exempt the city from
liability. The charter only lays down general rules regulating the liability of the city.
On the other hand article 2189 applies in particular to the liability arising from
"defective streets, public buildings and other public works.
Damages were awarded against the City of Dagupan although the street
involved is a National Road. Exemplary damages were awarded to serve warning
to the city or cities concerned to be more conscious of their duty and responsibility
to their constituents, especially when they are engaged in construction work or
 when there are manholes on their sidewalks or streets which are uncovered, to
immediately cover the same, in order to minimize or prevent accidents to the poor
pedestrians. The Court also explained that too often in the zeal to put up “public
impact” projects such as beautification drives, the end is more important than the
manner in which the work is carried out. Because of this obsession for showing off,
such trivial details as misplaced flower pots betray the careless execution of the
projects, causing public inconvenience and inviting accidents.
v. Building Proprietors (Art. 2190-2193)
 The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting from
its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.
 Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused:
1) By the explosion of machinery which has bot been taken care of with due
diligence, and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept
in a safe and adequate place;
2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property;
3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not caused by force
majeure; and
4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious matter,
constructed without precautions suitable to the place.
vi. Architects and Engineers (Art. 2192 and 1723)
 If damage referred to in the two preceding articles should be the result of ANY
DEFECT IN THE CONSTRUCTION mentioned in Article 1723, the third person
suffering damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect or
contractor in accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed.
 Liability of Engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specification: if the
building collapses within 15 years due to:
(1) A defect in those plans and specifications; or
(2) Due to the defects in the ground.
 Liability of Contractor: if the edifice falls within 15 years due to:

(1) Defects in the construction;

(2) The use of materials of inferior quality furnished by the contractor; or

(3) Due to any violation of the terms of the contract.

VI. Kindred Torts/Medical Malpractice
 "This is a Medical particular form of negligence which consists in the failure of a physician or
surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily
employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like surrounding
circumstances."
 CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIP -- The relationship between physician and patient is a
consensual one wherein the patient knowingly seeks the assistance of a physician and the
physician knowingly accepts him as patient.
 NOT DEPENDENT UPON FEES -- The relationship is not dependent upon payment
of fees, for a physician may accept a patient and thereby incur the consequent duties
although his services are performed gratuitously.
 NO DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATION BETWEEN PHYSICIAL AND
EXAMINEE -- However, the generally accepted rule is that where a job applicant or
employee is examined by a doctor engaged by the prospective or actual employer, there
is no doctor-patient relationship between the physician and the examinee.
 Physicians have a duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably competent
doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances. The breach of these
professional duties of skill and care, or their improper performance, by a physician surgeon
whereby die patient is injured in body or in health, constitutes ACTIONABLE
MALPRACTICE.
 It is a universal rule that a physician or surgeon has the duty to use reasonable care and skill in
diagnosis and treatment. The standard by which the requirement of reasonable skill and care is
determined is the average standard of the profession.
 In particular, a doctor has the duty to inform the patient fully of his condition, and of the
results of the tests made.
 PHYSICIAN’S RIGHT TO WITHDRAW -- 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 recognized 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 attendance 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 conditions for his rightful withdrawal are complied with.
 DOCTORS NOT GUARANTORS OF CARE -- As a general rule, "[djoctors are protected by
a special rule of law. They are not guarantors of care. They do not even warrant a good
result. They are not insurers against mishaps or unusual consequences. Furthermore they
are not liable for honest mistakes of judgment. . ."
 FOUR ELEMENTS INVOLVED IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES:
1) Duty
2) Breach
3) Injury
4) Proximate Causation
 In the ABSENCE OF A SPECIAL CONTRACT, a physician or surgeon is not required to
exercise extraordinary skill and care or the highest degree of skill and care possible; but as a
general rule, he is only required to possess and exercise the degree of skill and learning
ordinarily possessed and exercised under similar circumstances by the members of his
profession in good standing, and to use ordinary and reasonable care and diligence, and his
best judgment, in the application of his skill to the case.
 LOCALITY RULE -- The locality in which a physician practices is likewise important in
determining the degree of skill and care required of him, and the rule is frequently stated that a
physician or surgeon is required, or is only required, to exercise the same degree of care and
skill exercised by physicians and surgeons in good standing engaged in the same general line
of practice in the same locality or neighborhood"
 SOME ACTS OR OMISSIONS CONSTITUTING NEGLIGENCE OR MALPRACTICE:
a) wrong diagnosis, when such results from want of requisite skill or care;
b) Unwarranted abandonment of a case after its assumption, at least where he does not give
reasonable notice or provide a competent physician in his place;
c) Operating without patient's consent where a patient is in possession of his faculties and in
such physical health as to be able to consult about his condition, and no emergency exists
in making it impracticable to confer with him, or without the consent of the parents, spouse
or guardian, in the absence of an emergency;
d) failing to give the patient or his family or attendants all necessary and proper instructions as
to the care and attention to be given to the patient and the cautions to be observed;
e) allowing a foreign substance to enter or remain in the body of the person operated on, and
this extends to the sponges and pads;
f) failing to give warning when attending to a patient afflicted with contagious or infectious
disease,
g) writing an erroneous prescription; or
h) issuing wrongful certificate of insanity or inebriety
 ERROR IN JUDGMENT RULE -- "a physician is not liable for error in his judgment when he
applies ordinary and reasonable skill and care, or his best judgment, or keeps within recognized
and approved methods or common practice, or if he forms his judgment after a careful or proper
examination or investigation"
 RAMOS v. CA --
 FACTS:
Plaintiff Erlinda Ramos was, until the afternoon of June 17, 1985 a 47-year old robust
woman. Except for occasional complaints of discomfort due to pains allegedly caused by
presence of a stone in her gall bladder, she was as normal as any other woman. Married to
Rogelio Ramos, an executive of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT),
she has three children whose names are Rommel, Roy Roderick, and Ron Raymond.
Because of the discomforts somehow interfered with her normal ways, she sough
professional advice. She was told to undergo an operation for the removal of a stone in her
gall bladder. She underwent series of examination which revealed that she was fit for the
said surgery. Through the intercession of a mutual friend, she and her husband met Dr.
Osaka for the first time and she was advised by Dr. Osaka to go under the operation called
cholecystectomy and the same was agreed to be scheduled on June 17,1985 at 9:00am at the
Delos Santos Medical Center. Rogelio asked Dr. Osaka to look for a good anesthesiologist
to which the latter agreed to. A day before the scheduled operation, she was admitted at the
hospital and on the day of the operation, Erlinda’s sister was with her insider the operating
room. Dr. Osaka arrived at the hospital late, Dr. Guttierez, the anesthesiologist, started to
intubate Erlina when Herminda heard her say that intubating Erlinda is quite difficult and
there were complications. This prompt Dr. Osaka to order a call to another anesthesiologist,
Dr. Caldron who successfully intubated Erlina. The patient’s nails became bluish and the
patient was placed in a trendelenburg position. After the operation, Erlina was diagnosed to
be suffering from diffuse cerebral parenchymal damage and that the petitioner alleged that
this was due to lack of oxygen supply to Erlinda’s brain which resulted from the intubation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the doctors and the hospital are liable for damages against petitioner for the
result to Erlinda of the said operation.
HELD:
Yes. The private respondents were unable to disprove the presumption of negligence on
their part in the care of Erlinda and their negligence was the proximate case of her piteous
condition.
Nevertheless, despite the fact that the scope of res ipsa liquitor has been measurably
enlarged, it does not automatically follow that it apply to all cases of medical negligence as
to mechanically shift the burden of proof to the defendant to show that he is not guilty of the
ascribed negligence. Res ipsa liquitor is not a rigid or ordinary doctrine to be perfunctorily
used but a rule to be cautiously applied, depending upon the circumstances of each case. It
is generally restricted to situations in malpractice cases where a layman is able to say, as a
matter of common knowledge and observation, that the consequences of professional care
were not as such as would ordinarily have followed if due care had been exercised. A
distinction must be made between the failure to secure results, and the occurrence of
something more unusual and not ordinarily found if the service or treatment rendered
followed the usual procedure of those skilled in that particular practice. It must be conceded
that the doctrine of res ipsa liquitor can have no application in a suit against a physician or
surgeon which involves the merits of a diagnosis or of a scientific treatment.
Scientific studies point out that intubation problems are responsible for 1/3 of deaths
and serious injuries associated with anesthesia. Nevertheless, 98% or the vast majority of
difficult intubation may be anticipated by performing a thorough evaluation of the patient’s
airway prior to the operation. As stated beforehand, respondent, Dra. Guttierez failed to
observe the proper pre-operative protocol which could have prevented this unfortunate
incident. Had appropriate diligence and reasonable care been used in the pre-operative
evaluation, respondent physician could have been more prepared to meet the contingency
brought about by the perceived atomic variations in the patient’s neck and oral area; defects
which could have been easily overcome by a prior knowledge of those variations together
with a change in technique. In other words, an experienced anesthesiologist, adequately
alerted by a thorough pre-operative evaluation, would have had little difficulty going around
the short neck and potruding teeth. Having failed to observe common medical standards in
pre-operative management and intubation, respondent Dra. Guttierez negligence resulted in
cerebral anoxia and eventual coma of Erlinda.
 VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF HOSPITALS -- In assessing whether such a relationship in
fact exists, the control test is determining. Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, for the
 purpose of allocating responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee
relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians.
 UNIVERSAL RULE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR and APARENT AUTHORITY and
RES IPSA LOQUITOR (Ramos v. CA)

VII. Special Torts in Human Relations

a. Abuse of Rights Principle (Art. 19)
 ARTICLE 19 -- Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of
his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.
 CARPIO v. VALMONTE --
Facts:
Respondent Leonora Valmonte is a wedding coordinator. Michelle del Rosario and Jon
Sierra engaged her services for their church weddinng on October 10, 1996. At about
4:30 pm on that day, Valmonte went to the Manila Hotel and when she arrived at Suite
326-A, several persons were already there including Soledad Carpio, the aunt of the
bride.
After reporting to the bride, Valmonte went out of the suite to go to the reception
hall to give the meal allowance to the band and to pay the suppliers. Upon entering the
suite, Valmonte noticed the people staring at her and it was at this juncture that Soledad
Carpio allegedly uttered the following words to Valmonte: “Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng
kwarto, nasaan ang dala mong bag? Saan ka pumunta? Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng
kwarto, ikaw ang kumuha” It turned out that after Valmonte left the room to attend to
her duties, petitioner discovered that the pieces of jewelry which she placed ins i de the
comfort room in a paper bag were lost and these include diamond rings, earrings,
bracelet and diamong necklace with a total value of about 1M pesos. Valmonte was
allegedly bodily searched, interrogated and trailed by the police officers, but the pe
titioner kept on saying the words “Siya lang ang lumabas ng kwarto.” Valmonte’s car
was also searched but the search yielded nothing.
Few days after the incident, petitioner received a letter from Valmonte demanding
a formal letter of apology which she wanted to be circulated to the newlyweds’ relatives
and guests to redeem her smeared reputation but the petitioner did not respond.
Valmonte filed a suit for damages.
The trial court dismissed the complaint and ruled that when sought investigation
for the loss of her jewelry, she was merely exercising her right and if damage results
from a person exercising his legal right, it is damnum absque injuria. It added that no
proof was presented by Valmonte to show that petitioner acted maliciously and in bad
fai th in pointing to her as the culprit.
The CA ruled out differently and opined that Valmonte has clearly established that
she was singled out by the petitioner as the one responsible for the loss of her jewelry.
However, the court find no sufficient evidence to justify the award of actual damages.
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether the respondent is entitled to the award of actual and moral damages
Held:
The Court ruled that the respondent in entitled to moral damages but not to actual
damages.
In the sphere of our law on human relations, one of the fundamental precepts is the
principle known as “abuse of rights” under Article 19 of the Civil Code. To find
existence of an abuse of right, the following elements must be present: 1) there is legal
right or duty; 2) which is exercised in bad faith; 3) for the sole intent or prejudicing or
injuring another. Thus, a person should be protected only when he acts in the legitimate
exercise of his right, that is when he acts with prudence and good faith; but not when he
acts with negligence or abuse.
The Court said that petitioner’s verbal reproach against respondent was certainly
uncalled for considering that by her own account nobody knew that she brought such
 kind and amount of jewelry inside the paper bag. This being the case, she had no right
to attack respondent with her innuendos which were not merely inquisitve but
outrightly accusatory. By openly accusing respondent as the only person who went out
of the room before the loss of the jewelry in the presence of all the guests therein, and
ordering that she be immediately bodily searched, petitioner virtually branded
respondent as the thief. Petitioner had willfully caused injury to respondent in a manner
which is contrary to morals and good customs. Certainly, petitioner transgressed the
provisions of Article 19 in relation to Article 20 for which she should be held
accountable.
 SEA COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. CA, et.al. -- That where a person exercises his
rights but does so arbitrarily or unjustly or performs his duties in a manner that is not in
keeping with honesty and good faith, he opens himself to liability.
 ELEMENTS OF AN ABUSE OF RIGHT:
1) There is a legal right or duty;
2) which is exercised in bad faith;
3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
 ARTICLE 21 deals with CONTRA BONUS MORES; ELEMENTS:
1) There is an act which is legal;
2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; and
3) it is done with intent to injure.
 SECOND RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW, to recover for the international infliction
of emotional distress the plaintiff must show that:
a) The conduct of the defendant was intentional or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff;
b) The conduct was extreme and outrageous;
c) There was a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's
mental distress; and,
d) The plaintiff's mental distress was extreme and severe.
 ARTICLE 1314 -- provides that Interference any third person who induces another to
violate his con- with contractract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting
relations party. The tort recognized in that provision is known as interference with
contractual relations. The interference is penalized because it violates the property rights
of a party in a contract to reap the benefits that should result therefrom (Lagon vs. Court of
Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 119107, March 18, 2005).
 ELEMENTS OF TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE with contractual relations:
a) existence of a valid contract;
b) knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of the contract and
c) interference of the third person without legal justification or excuse.
 Knowledge of the contract is important because a defendant in such a case
cannot be made liable for interfering with a contract he is unaware of.

MARCH 16, 2019

DAMAGES

Damage is the sum of money which the law awards or imposes as pecuniary COMPENSATION,
recompense or satisfaction for an injury done.

 imposed (refers to burden of paying) upon PERPETRATOR

 Claimed by PERSON INJURED
Damage v. Damages
Damage is the loss, hurt or harm which results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or
compensation awarded for the damage suffered. Thus Thus, there can be damage without injury in
those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. In such
cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured person alone, the law affords no remedy for
damages resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or wrong. These situations are
often called damnum absque injuria. In other words, in order that a plaintiff may maintain an action
for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of
duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal
responsibility by the person causing it.

 If damage results from a person’s exercising his legal rights, it is damnum absque injuria.
 Purpose - To compensate the injury
 Complaint for damages is a personal action --- it can only be brought forth by the person
concerned.
 If injury is composed of personal property (eg cp), can the court just order the loss of the
cellphone with another? Every loss or injury must be equated with its monetary value.
 When you are injured, sustained damage, are you automatically entitled to damages? No. You
must prove that injury was made.
 Proof of loss - pecuniary damages
 INJURY OR INVASION OF RIGHT - that is the basis not only physical or actual losses, so
long as your right has been invaded, you are entitled to damages. DAMNUM ABSQUE
INJURIA (#3 - page 144)
 6 kinds of damages (forms) - MORAL, EXEMPLARY, NOMINAL, TEMPERATE, ACTUAL,
LIQUIDATED

ACTUAL DAMAGES
Actual and compensatory damages - are those recoverable because of pecuniary loss - in business,
trade, property, profession, job or occupation.

Under both the Spanish Civil Code and American law of damages, actual damages for a negligent act
or omission are confined to those which "were foreseen or might have been foreseen," or those which
were "the natural and probable consequences" or "the direct and immediate consequences" of the act
or omission. Actual damages, under the American system, include pecuniary recompense for pain
and suffering, injured feelings, and the like. Actual damages in the Philippines do not extend to such
incidents. Aside from this exception, actual damages, in this jurisdiction, in the sense that they mean
just compensation for the loss suffered, are practically synonymous with actual damages under the
American system (Algarra vs. Sandejas, G.R. No. 8385, March 24, 1914).

In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages and quasi- which may be awarded are dependent on
whether the contracts obligor acted with good faith or otherwise.

In case of good faith, the damages recoverable are those which are the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of the obligation and which the parties have foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen at the time of the constitution of the obligation. If the obligor acted with fraud,
bad faith, malice, or wanton attitude, he shall be responsible for all damages which may be
reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation (Art. 2201, NCC).

In actions based on torts or quasi-delicts, actual damages include all the natural and probable
consequences of the act or omission complained of. There are two kinds of actual or compensatory
damages: one is the loss of what a person already possesses (dano emergente), and the other is the
failure to receive as a benefit that which would have pertained to him (lucro
 cesante) (Marikina Auto Line Transport Corporation vs. People, et al, G.R. No. 152040, March 31,
2006).

In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendants shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and
probable consequences of the act or omission complained of, whether or not such damages have been
foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant (Public Estates Authority vs. Chu,
G.R. No. 145291, September 21, 2005). In the United States, this rule is otherwise referred to as the
eggshell skull rule (or thin-skull rule) which makes an individual responsible for all the consequences
of his act, whether foreseen or unforeseen. The term implies that if a person had a skull as delicate as
the shell of an egg, and a tortfeasor or assailant who did not know of that condition were to tap that
person on the head, causing the skull to break, the responsible party would be held liable for all
damages resulting from the wrongful contact, even though they were not foreseeable. The general
maxim is that the defendant must "take their victim as they find them" (Internet-http://
www.answers.com/ / torts).

 Actual losses - pertains to losses caused by injuries

 Future income, future rentals, future harvest is included.
 Can Future income be awarded with concurrent losses - YES

Anent the amount of lost income, the formula for its computation is "Net Earning Capacity = [2/3 x
(80 - age at time of death) x (gross annual income — reasonable and necessary living
expenses)]" (People vs. Sia, et al, G.R. No. 137457, 21 November 2001). In the absence of proof of
living expenses of the deceased, net earnings are computed at fifty (50%) percent of the gross
Earnings.

 What if the one who was killed was a student, is it necessary that the person who can claim for
earning capacity even the person killed is a student?

 Formula - loss of earning capacity

 A student was hit by your car, causing a fracture on his pinky toe, because of this there was
an infection which caused his eventual death. What are you liable? ARTICLE 2202, 2203
(In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendants shall be liable for all damages which are the
natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of, whether or not
such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the
defendant.)
 Construction of bldng -> defect -> death - liable to all
 Construction of bldng -> defect -> injury -> infection - liable
 Construction of bldng -> defect in Good Faith -> injury/death - article 2201

QUASI AND DELICTS - ALL POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES, presuposes intent

CONTRACTS - GOOD FAITH factor, those that can only be reasonably foreseen

BURDEN OF PROOF - HE WHO ALLEGES

ABSENCE OF PRECISE AMOUNT - NOT FATAL,

TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGE IN PLACE OF ACTUAL DAMAGES,
BASIS OF PROPERTY - REAL VALUE - WEAR AND TEAR,
REAL PROP-MARKET VALUE
USUFRUCT - POSSIBLE
ATTORNEY’S FEES - When awarded? See #32, page 157
Legal interest - 6%
In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs,
cannot be recovered, except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded; (2) When the defendant's
act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to
protect his interest; (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff; (4) In case of
a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff; (5) Where the defendant acted in
gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable
claim; (6) In actions for legal support; (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers,
laborers and skilled workers; (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and
employer's liability laws; (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded; (11) In any other case where the court deems it
just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered (Article 2208,
NCC).

Provisions on mitigation of liabilitues

Article 2203, 2204, 2214 (contibutory negligence)

MORAL DAMAGES
Moral Damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of
pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant's wrongful act or omission (Art. 2217, NCC).

Limited to physical sufferings xxx sleepless nights

Purpose - to compensate; Moral damages are awarded to compensate one for manifold injuries such as
physical suffering, mental anguish, serious, anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social
humiliation.

In order that an award of moral damages can be aptly justified, the claimant must be able to satisfactorily
prove that he has suffered such damages and that the injury causing it has sprung from any of the cases
listed in Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. Then, too, the damages must be shown to be the
proximate result of a wrongful act or omission. The claimant must establish the factual basis of the
damages and its causal tie with the acts of the defendant.

Basis: factors determining the amount - FACTUAL (SEE #3, PAGE 161)
EXTENT OF HUMILIATION
PAIN OR SUFFERING
OFFICIAL POLITICAL SOCIAL STANDING
AGE

CORPORATION - is it entitled to moral damages? NO. Exception: libel, besmirched reputation

Is there moral damages in breach of contracts? #13 page 164, only awarded if there is bad faith, fraud or
wanton chu2

Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting
physical injuries; (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other
lascivious acts; (4) Adultery or concubinage; (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; (6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation; (8) Malicious prosecution; (9) Acts mentioned in
Article 309; (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35 (Art. 2219,
NCC).
NOMINAL DAMAGE -Article 2221-2223

Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, "nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the
plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not
for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him."

The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in Article
1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded (Article 2222, Civil Code of the
Philippines).

Can nominal damage co-exist with moral damages? YES

Nominal + actual - YES
Nominal + exemplary - yes
Nominal + temperate/moderate - no
Nominal + Liquidated - no
When you are awarded with actual - presuposes that a right has been violated

LABOR LAWS - afford employee due process even if there is just cause otherwise nominal

TEMPERATE AND ACTUAL - YES #6 PAGE 195

Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may
be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not, from
the nature of the case, be proved with certainty (Art. 2224, Civil Code).

Liquidated - not in quasi and delict and in quasi contract, only contracts
Includes attorney’s fees
Purpose: (two fold) - avoid inconvenience of submiting proof + deter the contracting party from violating
terms of contracts
ONLY APPLIES IN CONTRACTS

EXEMPLARY - corrective, used to be punitive damages

Required as public policy to suppress wanton acts, reprehensible acts
BASIS

EXAMS
KINDRED
SPECIAL
DAMAGES
PRIMARY AND STRICT LIABILITY

FOCUS ON PRINCIPLES
NOT TOO MUCH ON THE CASES