I.

Classification of Torts 
a. Negligence Torts 
b. Intentional Torts 
c. Strict Liability Torts 
NEGLIGENCE TORTS 
II. Definition & Elements of Quasi-delict/​Culpa Aquiliana 
a. Article 2176, New Civil Code (NCC)s 
b. Picart v. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219, March 5, 1918 
c. Cangco v. Manila Railroad, G.R. No. L-12191, October 14, 1918 
d. Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf, G.R. No. 1719, January 23, 1907 
e. Corliss v. Manila Rail Road Co., G.R. No. L-21291, March 28, 1969 
f. Accident v. Negligence  
i. Jarco Marketing v. CA (GR No. 129792, December 21, 1999) 
III.Distinctions from Other Sources of Obligation 
a. Ex lege 
b. Ex delicto 
c. Ex culpa contractual 
IV.Test of Negligence/Standard of Care 
a. Ordinary diligence 
i. Corliss v. Manila Rail Road Co., G.R. No. L-21291, March 28, 
1969 
ii. Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling & Intergames, Inc. (G.R. No. 
164749, March 15, 2017) 
b. Extraordinary diligence 
c. Presumption of negligence 
i. Belgian Overseas Chartering v. Phil. First Insurance, G.R. 
No. 143133, June 5, 2002 
V. Factors in Determining Negligence 
a. Foreseeability 
i. Picart v. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219, March 5, 1918 
ii. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. 248 NY 339 (read also 
Justice Andrews’ dissenting opinion) 
iii. Phoenix Construction v. IAC (GR No. L-65295, March 10, 
1987) 
iv. Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling & Intergames, Inc. (G.R. No. 
164749, March 15, 2017) 
b. Time 
i. Adzuara v. CA, G.R. No. 125134, January 22, 1999 
ii. People v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 24084, November 3, 1925 
c. Place 
d. Emergency 
i. Gan v. CA, G.R. No. September 19, 1988 
ii. McKee v. IAC, G.R. No. L-68102, July 16, 1992 
 iii. Valenzuela v. CA, Richard Li, G.R. No. 115024, February 7, 
1996  
e. Gravity of harm to be avoided 
i. Junio v. Manila Railroad, G.R. No. L-37045, March 29, 1933 
f. Person exposed to the risk 
i. US v. Clemente, G.R. No. 8142, January 25, 1913 
ii. Taylor v. Manila Electric and Railroad, G.R. No. L-4977, 
March 22, 1910 
iii. COMPARE: Jarco Marketing v. CA (GR No. 129792, 
December 21, 1999) 
g. Utility of activity 
h. Violation of statute/ordinance 
i. Negligence in fact v. Negligence ​per se 
i. Violation of Administrative rules 
j. Practice and custom 
k. Res Ipsa Loquitur 
i. Rogelio Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124354, 
December 29, 1999 
ii. Solidum v. People, G.R. No. 192123, March 10, 2014 
iii. Geromo et al v. La Paz Housing, G.R. No. 211175, January 
18, 2017 
iv. Africa v. Caltex, G.R. No. L-12986, March 31, 1966 
VI.The Tortfeasor 
a. Direct Tortfeasor 
i. Junio v. Manila Railroad, G.R. No. L-37045, March 29, 1933 
b. Vicarious liability 
i. Vicarious liability v. ​respondeat superior 
1. Tamargo v. CA, G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1922 
2. Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297, 
January 31, 2007 
ii. Parents & those with parental authority 
1. Art. 2180, NCC; Art. 58 & 201, Child and Youth 
Welfare Code; Art. 219, 221, and 236, FC 
2. Cuadra v. Monfort, G.R. No. L-24101, September 30, 
1970 
iii. Schools and teachers 
1. Art. 218, FC 
2. St. Joseph’ College v. Miranda, G.R. No. 182353, June 
29, 2010 
3. St. Francis High School v. CA, G.R. No. 82465, 
February 25, 1991 
4. Amadora et al v. CA et al., G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 
1988 
iv. Owners and managers of establishments 
 v. Employers 
1. Art. 2180, NCC 
2. Cerezo v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 141536, March 23, 2004 
3. Spouses Jayme v. Apostol, G.R. No. 163609, November 
27, 2008 
4. Metro Manila Transit v. CA, G.R. No. 116617, 
November 16, 1998 
5. Valenzuela v. CA, Richard Li, G.R. No. 115024, 
February 7, 1996  
6. Borrow Employees 
7. Labor-only Contractors 
a. National Power Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 
119121, August 14, 1998 
8. Diligence in Selection and Supervision of Employee 
a. Cang v. Cullen, G.R. No. 163708, November 25, 
2009 
b. Safeguard Security v. Tangco, G.R. No. 165732, 
December 14, 2006 
vi. Registered owner of vehicle 
1. Article 2184, NCC 
2. Chapman v. Underwood, G.R. No. L-9010, March 28, 
1914 
3. Erezo et al v. Jepte, G.R. No. L-9605, September 30, 
1957 
4. PCI Leasing v. UCPB, G.R No. 162267, July 4, 2008 
5. Duavit v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82318, May 18, 
1989 
6. Kabit System 
a. Abelardo Lim v. CA, G.R. No. 125817, January 
16, 2002 
vii. The State 
1. Merrit v. Government, G.R. No. L-11154, March 21, 
1916 
2. Philippine National Railway v. IAC, G.R. No. 70547, 
January 22, 1993 
viii. Local Government Units 
1. Art. 2189, NCC 
2. Guilatco v. City of Dagupan, G.R. No. 61516, March 21, 
1989 
3. Quezon City v. Dacara, G.R. No. 150304, June 15, 2005 
c. Joint tortfeasors 
i. Article 2194, NCC 
ii. Worcerster v. Ocampo et al., G.R. No. L-5932, February 27, 
1912 
 iii. Loadmaster Custom Services v. Glodel Brokerage, G.R. No. 
179466, January 10, 2011 
d. Professionals (malpractice) 
i. Physicians 
1. Breach of Duty 
2. Standard of Care 
a. Mendoza v. Casumpang, G.R. No. 197987, 
March 19, 2012 
b. Ramos et al v. CA et al., G.R. No. 124354, 
December 29, 1999 
3. Informed Consent 
a. Dr. Li v. Spouses Soliman, G.R. No. 165279, 
June 7, 2011 
4. Captain of the Ship Doctrine 
a. Dr. Cantre v. Spouses Go, G.R. No. 16088, April 
27, 2007 
ii. Hospitals as Employers 
1. Corporate Responsibility 
2. Unlawful Restraint 
a. Manila Doctors v. So Un Chua, G.R. No. 150355, 
July 31, 2006 
iii. Nurses 
iv. Pharmacists 
1. Mercury Drug v. De Leon, G.R. No. 165622, October 
17, 2008 
v. Lawyers 
1. Adarne v. Aldaba, AM No. 801, June 27, 1978 
2. Atienza v. Evangelista, AM No. 1517, November 29, 
1977 
3. Roque v. Gunigundo, AM No. 1664, March 30, 1979 
VII. Causation 
a. Proximate cause 
i. Cause-in-fact v Policy Tests 
ii. Cause-in-facts Tests 
1. Sine qua non test 
2. Sufficient link test 
3. Substantial factor 
4. NESS test 
iii. Mixed consideration 
iv. Cause v. condition 
b. Concurrent causes 
c. Remote cause 
i. Manila Electric v. Remoquillo, G.R. No. L-8328, May 18, 1956 
d. Efficient Intervening cause 
 e. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance 
i. Picart v. Smith 
ii. Phoenix Construction v. IAC, G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 
1987 
iii. Instances where Last Clear Chance is inapplicable 
VIII. Defenses/Mitigation of Liability in Negligence Cases 
a. Due diligence 
b. Act of public officer 
c. Authority of law 
d. Damnum absque injuria 
e. Proximate cause is plaintiff’s negligence 
i. Article 2179, NCC 
ii. Taylor v. Manila Electric and Railroad  
iii. GSIS v. Pacific Airways (G.R. No. 170414, August 25, 2010) 
f. Contributory negligence of plaintiff 
i. Rakes v. Atlantic 
g. Imputed negligence 
i. Phil. Commercial Intl. Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 121413, January 
29, 2001 
ii. Ramos v. COL Realty Corp., G.R. No. 184905, August 28, 
2009 
h. Victim violated statute 
i. Anonuevo v. CA, G.R. No. 130003, October 20, 2004 
i. Fortuitous event & Force Majeure 
i. Article 1174, NCC 
ii. Pons v. La Compania Maritima, G.R. No. L-3676, October 26, 
1907 
iii. Spouses Cruz v. Sun Holidays Inc., G.R. No. 186312, June 29, 
2010 
j. Assumption of risk ​(Volenti non fit injuria) 
i. Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling & Intergames, Inc. (G.R. No. 
164749, March 15, 2017) 
ii. Ilocos Norte Electric v. CA (G.R. No. L-53401, November 6, 
1989) 
iii. Rodrigueza v. Manila Electric Railroad (G.R. No. L-15688, 
November 19, 1921) 
k. Prescription 
i. Article 1146, NC 
ii. Relations Back Doctrine 
1. Allied Banking Corporation v. CA (G.R. No. L-85868, 
October 13, 1989) 
l. Waiver 
i. Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling & Intergames, Inc. (G.R. No. 
164749, March 15, 2017) 
 ii. Pleasantville Development v. CA (G.R. No. 79688, February 
1, 1996) 
m. Involuntariness 
n. Emergency rule