Torts & Damages Based on the lectures of
3 Manresa 2018-2019
December 7, 2018 - Gian Antonio Maligad
INTRODUCTION TO TORTS AND DAMAGES
Latin Phrase: Lex Talionis
English Translation: A tooth for a tooth. An eye for an eye.
Take Note: Every civilization in human history has an equivalent of this
principle. A person who has injured another person returns the
offending action to the originator in compensation.
Also known as: The Principle of Exact Reciprocity. The amount of
damage that you have caused to another would be the amount of
damage that you would also suffer. It requires a penalty or punishment
that is identical, exact, to the offense.
Example of Principle of Exact Reciprocity: If a person causes the
death of another person. The penalty shall also be death.
Discussion:
 This is in relation to the Code of Hamurrabi;
 This is a recurring theme in the Old Testament, in which a
person who has injured the eye of another is instructed to
give the value of his or her own eye in compensation.
 But, despite its biblical connection, the rule on reciprocity
doesn’t have a place anymore in modern society. To allow
such would lead to immoral or even barbaric results
An example to exhibit the absurdity of the application of the
Principle of Exact Reciprocity in the modern times:
If Ace commits an act of lasciviousness upon Jade by touching her
private parts, the punishment ought to be that Ace being touched also
in his private parts
Q: Under the law of retaliation if applied today, how should the
punishment be carried out? Should it be carried out in public or in
private where there is a chance of something happening? Or should
Jade be allowed to touch Ace’s private parts by way of recompense?
A: Of course not! A molested person, for example, would not obtain
relief or justice if the punishment is that she be allowed to molest her
molester.
Q: Should it therefore be the agents of the State that would carry out
the reciprocal justice?
A: No, it is because the State is concerned only about the protection of
public interest—criminal prosecution. It should not interest the public
that a molester is himself molested.
Roman Law: The Roman law has moved to a more civilized
compensation as a substitute for vengeance—in the form of monetary
compensation as a substitute for vengeance.
In cases of assault, fixed penalties were set for various injuries.
Although, talio (the act of retaliation) was still permitted if one persons
broke another’s limb.
Retaliation is not lawful: History teaches us that when acts of
retaliation are allowed, anarchy ensues.
Examples:
 Philippine setting—Rido; which is the retaliatory violence
between families and kinship groups;
 Italy (Sicily)—The concept of Vendetta
The State must regulate vengeance by dispensing justice. For criminal
acts, prosecution and incarceration has taken the place of talio.
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Q: For purely private offenses, how should the law treat them? A
situation wherein a person versus another person—for example you
besmirch the reputation of another. What do you do?
In the sixth century, the Saxons developed what is knows as
WEREGILD (Man-money or blood money). It was a value placed on
every human being and every piece of property in Salic Code. If
property was stolen, or someone was injured or killed, the guilty person
would have to pay weregild to the victim’s family or to the owner of the
property.
Despite these changes, the basic formula remains the same up to this
day. For a wrong or injury, there must be a commensurate
compensation.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
Obligations and Contracts
Article 1157. Obligations arise from:
(1) Law;
(2) Contracts;
(3) Quasi-contracts;
(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and
(5) Quasi-delicts.
Article 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are
guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
Article 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the
performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such
liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the
circumstances.
Persons and Family Relations
Article 19. [Principle of Good Neighborliness] 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.
Property Law
Article 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business,
condition of property, or anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway
or street, or any body of water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.
Revised Penal Code
Article 365 Imprudence and Negligence—Any person who, by
reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been
intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the
penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be
imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of
arresto mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed. xxx
DAMAGES
For example, a breach of the promise to marry, generally, doesn’t give
rise to an action for damages. However, there are instances where
such breach shall lead to damages—such as when there has already
been expenses paid and costs incurred regarding the wedding. There
is payment of actual damages.
If there is seduction, meaning that there is a woman who is seduced
and then the woman is presumed to be a woman of virtue and it
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
amounts to criminal seduction. There is of course prosecution under
the revised penal code.
Q: But what if there is merely moral seduction? Does that amount to
prosecution under the RPC? What will therefore be measure of
retaliation in so far as the victim is concerned?
A: Damages!
In Transportation law, we have the Law on Averages.
 General Averages—affects both the ship owner and cargo
owner;
 Specific Averages
BACKBONE OF THE PHILIPPINE TORT LAW
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.
LOGICAL STARTING POINT IN UNDERSTANDING QUASI-
DELICTS:
Civil Code
Art. 1156. An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to
do.
Article 1156—classifies obligations into two:
1.) Real Obligations—obligations that consist of giving;
2.) Personal Obligations—obligations to do or not to do.
Q: Why do they call it juridical necessity?
A: Violation leads to juridical sanction. An obligation in its purest form,
is a promise or an oath coupled with a curse.
Examples of Oaths with punishment/s:
 I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth. So help me God—punishment: the sanction is so bad
that you would need the help of the Lord;
 I, Willie Revillame, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully and
conscientiously fulfill my duties as President of the
Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its
laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the
service of the Nation. So help me God.
Civilized Times: Because we live in civilized times, when we violate
our promises, we are simply subjected to juridical sanctions—the
payment of damages.
Q: What is the obligation involved in quasi-delicts?
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.
Usual Tort Situation:
Cindy was driving while she was texting Maureen, because she was
distracted she didn’t that Jenica was crossing the street. Cindy bumped
Jenica causing the latter injuries, which made Jenica look uglier than
she already is.
Driving while texting—this is considered as negligence per se.
Q: In this example, what is the obligation of law? In the context of
Article 2176, does the motorist have the obligation to be careful in
operating a vehicle? Is that the obligation under Article 2176?
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Is the obligation in a quasi-delict a personal one, a to do, or not to do?
QUASI-CONTRACT
Civil Code
Article 2142—Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to
the juridical relation of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be
unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another.
Q: What is being stated by Article 2142?
A: There is no such thing as a free beer.
Q: What is the obligation involved in a usual negotiorum gestio?
Example in relation to Negotiorum Gestio:
For example, the farm lot of X is being flooded while he was away on
vacation. Y his neighbor, sees that X’s animals are to perish because
of the flood. Which of the following statements is true?
a.) Y is obliged to save X’s animals under the principle of
negotiorum gestio;
b.) If Y doesn’t save X’s animals, Y can be held liable for
damages;
c.) X must offer compensation as a consideration so that Y will
save the animals;
d.) None of the above
Answer: D—none of the above
Q: What is the obligation involved in the previous example?
A: For one it is a positive obligation and also it is a real obligation—an
obligation to give. In the example I have given, there is no quasi-
contract because Y didn’t do any lawful, voluntary or unilateral act.
The obligation is not to save X’s animals, because there is no
obligation for such under the law.
The obligation is for X to give compensation if Y did something to save
the former’s animals.
Example: Shikki was driving while texting, because she was distracted
she didn’t notice that Jenny was crossing the street. Thankfully, Shikki
was able to avoid hitting Jenny because he swerved the vehicle away
from him at the last moment. No damage, No Injury.
Q: What is the obligation of Shikki?
A: No, Shikki doesn’t have any obligation. It is a matter of cause and
effect. If there is no effect, then who cares about the cause.
Q: Doesn’t Shikki have the obligation to be careful under Article 2176?
A: No, but not under Article 2176. It is a natural obligation that exists
outside of the law.
PRINCIPLE TO REMEMBER: Regardless of how reckless you are,
for as long as you don’t cause injury to anyone, you are not liable
under Article 2176. Responsibility under Article 2176 arises only when
there is damage done and normally it would not cover potential or
perceived injuries. Actual injury is what the law would recompense.
In relation to Article 2176: The obligation is to pay for the damage
done. Provided, that there is damage done in the first place.
So, the obligation involved in quasi-delicts is a real obligation or an
obligation to give that is to pay for damages done.
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
What is a Tort?
Latin word: Torquere, meaning to twist or tortum, which means
twisted, wrong, or injustice.
A tort is a private or civil wrong or injury, including actions for breaches
of contract in bad faith, for which the court will provide a remedy in the
form of an action for damages. (Black’s Law Dictionary)
From this definition we can conclude that:
1.) It is a private wrong involving private acts and parties—it’s
not a crime therefore.
2.) It’s a civil wrong and the remedies are therefore lodged in
the form of civil actions in court;
3.) It includes breaches of contract in bad faith;
4.) The remedy is in the form of an action for damages
Q: Is tort law in the Philippines to private acts and private parties?
A: No, for example the law on human relations that is part and parcel
of the Tort law in the Philippines.
[Republic vs. CA]—The State and its agents are not immune to the
provisions of the law on Human Relations. It applies equally well to
both private and public entities. The Government may actually be held
liable for a tort.
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT IMMUNE FROM TORTS
Civil Code
Article 2189—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.
Example on Article 2189 (CC): Suppose, you fell in a manhole.
Civil Code
Article 2180—xxx
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.
xxx
Discussion on Article 2180—We are a talking about vicarious liability.
Q: When an agent of the State commits a tort, who can be held liable?
A: The State can be held liable vicariously.
Conclusion: A tort action is available to a private individual against
the State.
Q: Is the reverse true? Can tort action be availed of by the State
against a private individual?
A: Yes, we consider the following provisions in Human Relations:
Civil Code—Human Relations
Article 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of
the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence,
ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap,
the courts must be vigilant for his protection.
Comment on Article 24: The Court seeks to level the playing field.
Article 25. [Sanctuary Legislation in the Philippines] Thoughtless
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of
acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts
at the instance of any government or private charitable institution.
Q: Is tort in the Philippines a purely civil wrong and the remedies are
therefore lodged in the form of civil actions in court?
A: No. For example, we recall that nuisance is part and parcel of
Philippine tort law. Under the provisions of the Civil Code on Nuisance:
Civil Code
Article 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:
(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or
(2) A civil action; or
(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
Discussion: The remedy against a public nuisance is not exclusive to
civil actions. You can prosecute under the Revised Penal Code.
Therefore, the definition of a tort is not accurate in a sense.
Q: According to Black, does Philippine tort law include breaches of
contract?
A: Basing on Article 2176 (CC), basing on the codal, then the answer
would be NO. What does Article 2176 state? There should be no pre-
existing contractual relations between the parties.
“Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this Chapter.”
Therefore, based on Article 2176, a tort or quasi-delict should not
include breaches of contract. If there is a pre-existing contractual
relation, the remedies should be limited to those provided for breach of
contract, such as:
 Rescission; or
 Specific performance;
 With an action for damages in either case
Example: You rode a bus. After which, the bus got into an accident
and you weren’t able to arrive to your destination safely and securely—
you were injured.
Q: Do you file an action for damages based on Article 2176?
A: No, because there is a pre-existing contractual relation, which is the
breach of the contract of carriage. You must file a case for breach of
contract of carriage—a culpa contractual.
However, it is possible that an action for damages based on Article
2176 (Tort law) be filed. The Supreme Court in the precedent case of:
[Loadmasters vs. Glodel]—The act that breaks the contract may also
be a tort. In fine, a tort may arise from a contract whereby tort is not
what gave rise to the breach of the contract.
Note: Generally, a tort doesn’t arise if there is a contractual relation.
However, if the art that breaks the contract is also a tort, then you can
claim for damages under Article 2176.
AIR FRANCE versus CARRASCOSO
G.R. No. L-21438, September 28, 1996
FACTS: Plaintiff was a member of a group of 48 Filipino pilgrims that
left Manila for Lourdes in France. Air France, through its authorized
agent, Philippine Airlines Inc., issued to plaintiff a first class round trip
airplane ticket from Manila to Rome.
From Manila to Bangkok, plaintiff travelled in first class but at Bangkok,
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
the Manager of Air France forced him to vacate the first class seat
because, in the words of the witness Cuento, there was a “white man”
who the Manager alleged to have a better right to the seat. When
asked to vacate his first class seat, the plaintiff, as was to be expected,
initially refused. But to avoid further commotion, the plaintiff reluctantly
gave up his first class seat in the plane.
HELD: The Supreme Court awarded damages to Carrascoso based on
a quasi-delict.
On culpa contractual.
There exists a contract of carriage between Air France and
Carrascoso. First, That there was a contract to furnish plaintiff a first
class passage covering, amongst others, the Bangkok-Teheran leg;
Second, That said contract was breached when petitioner failed to
furnish first class transportation at Bangkok; and Third, that there was
bad faith when petitioner's employee compelled Carrascoso to leave
his first class accommodation berth "after he was already, seated" and
to take a seat in the tourist class, by reason of which he suffered
inconvenience, embarrassments and humiliations, thereby causing him
mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social
humiliation, resulting in moral damages.
On culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict or tort)
Even though there is a contract of carriage, there is also a tortuous act
based on culpa aquiliana. Passengers do not contract merely for
transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carrier's
employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration.
They are entitled to be protected against personal misconduct,
injurious language, indignities and abuses from such employees. So it
is, that any rule or discourteous conduct on the part of employees
towards a passenger gives the latter an action for damages against the
carrier.
The stress of Carrascoso's action as we have said, is placed upon his
wrongful expulsion. This is a violation of public duty by the petitioner air
carrier — a case of quasi-delict. Although the relation of passenger and
carrier is "contractual both in origin and nature" nevertheless "the act
that breaks the contract may be also a tort".
Q: Does the remedy consist of an action for damages?
A: Yes, but it is only one of the remedies.
For example:
Civil Code
Article 26—Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following
and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense,
shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other
relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of
another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs,
lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal
condition.
In the US: Article 26 is part of provisions which are called is
“Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress”.
[Islamic Dawa Council case]: In this case, the former acting Chief
Justice Antonio Carpio discussed that although it is not applied in the
Philippines. But, it is supposed to be the name of the tort under Article
26 of the Civil Code.
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Reiteration:
Civil Code
Article 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:
(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or
(2) A civil action; or
(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
Discussion: It is not specified that only civil action for damages are
the only remedy for torts. In conclusion, the Philippine tort law doesn’t
fit the common-law definition of a tort.
TORT IS NOT CAPABLE OF AN EXACT DEFINITION—A tort is not
capable of exact definition, because the lines are blurred. A tort may
overlap from civil actions, to criminal actions. As previously noted, an
act that breaches a contract may also be a tort. In the same vein, a
tortuous act may also be classified as a crime.
TORTS AND CRIMES ARE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF WRONGS
TORT CRIME
Against a private person Against the public
Prosecuted by the persons Prosecuted by the State
themselves
Covers negligent act in general Covers international acts in
and intentional acts by exception general and negligent acts by
exception (Art. 365)
Remedies are punitive and Reliefs are mainly prosecutorial
injunctive in nature
Preponderance of evidence Proof beyond reasonable doubt
 Actus reus;
 Mens rea
Note: The same act may also constitute both a tort and a crime.
Example: Noynoy was driving his care at nigh time above the speed
limit while texting Mar. He bumped Jejomar as he didn’t see him
crossing the street. Noynoy defended that Jejomar, with his
complexion, could not be seen at night.
Remedies of Jejomar:
 Criminal prosecution—Under Article 365 of the RPC; or
 Action for Damages—Under Article 2176 of the Civil Code
Example: In a heated public quarrel, Noynoy called Jejomar Nognog
King of the Dwarfs.
Remedies of Jejomar:
 Criminal Prosecution—Under Article 358 of the RPC
(Imputation of a Vice or Defect); or
 Action for Damages—Under Article 26 of the Civil Code
(Vexing or humiliating another on account of his lowly station
in life, physical defect, or other personal condition)
Conclusion: The remedies are not exclusive. You cannot box it up to
just civil wrong, because remedies can also extend to those, which are
not civil wrong—penal in nature.
DEFINITION OF TORT (By Prosser)—Tort is the term applied to a
miscellaneous and more or less unconnected group of civil wrongs,
other than breach of contract, for which a court of law will afford a
remedy in the form of an action for damages. The law of torts is
concerned with the compensation of losses suffered by private
individuals in their legally protected interests, through conduct of
others, which is regarded as socially unreasonable.
[Legal Garbage Can—if it doesn’t fall under a crime or a breach of
contract, then it can be a tort.]
COVERAGE OF PHILIPPINE TORT LAW:
 Intentional acts; and
 Accidents, or acts deemed tortuous by law
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
Classes of Torts:
1.) Negligence torts—there is fault or negligence. Quasi-delict;
2.) Intentional torts—it would depend on the presence of
negligence. It deals with intent of a particular actor or
defendant that causes damage to the plaintiff.;
3.) Strict liability torts
NEGLIGENCE TORTS:
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.
INTENTIONAL TORTS:
Article 26—Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following
and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense,
shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other
relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of
another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs,
lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal
condition.
Discussion: In Article 26 (CC) there is intent, but it is considered as a
tort. At the same time, you know that there would be criminal
prosecution if it amounts to a criminal offense.
Vexing or Humiliating Another—you can file a criminal case for
slander. It can also be libel if in writing.
STRICT LIABILITY TORTS—Those that are deemed tortuous by law.
 This a tort where the law has determined that some activities
are so dangerous that an individual engaging in those
activities is liable for damages regardless of the intent or
negligence resulting therefrom.
Examples:
1.) Maintenance of a Fire Hazard (RA 9513)—If you maintain
a fire hazard, even if you don’t maintain it intentionally, but it
is a hazard, then you can be held liable. It is a strict tort
liability.
2.) RA 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
Example: You were the one held responsible for taking care
of my carabao. Consequently, the carabao got away and
skewered another person. Such person was injured. Were
you negligent? No. Was there intent on your part? No.
But, you are still held liable because of strict liability.
3.) 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.
Discussion: You were responsible of manufacturing of the
product. But, someone died or got sick because of your
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
product. Since it is a strict tort liability—you are still held
liable despite the absence of direct contractual liability.
4.) Article 2193— The head of a family that lives in a building or
a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things
thrown or falling from the same.
Example: If a person was walking and a pot fell on his head.
The pot came from the 2nd floor of the building where your
family is situated. You are the head of the family. Even it
wasn’t your fault if you are the head of the family, then you
shall be held liable.
You are liable by the very fact that you are the head of a
family. Negligence is immaterial—strict liability tort.
NEGLIGENCE TORTS STRICT LIABILITY TORTS
If you’re unable to prove The law imposes absolute liability
negligence, no liability can be without regard to fault or
attributed to the defendant. negligence and therefore obviates
the need to prove fault or
negligence in court.
All you need to prove is how the
law is applicable to the factual
antecedents of the case.
For Intentional torts: At the onset, remember that when a wrongful
act is committed intentionally, what usually results is not a mere civil
wrong, but a criminal offense.
Example: Duterte says that Leila de Lima you are fat, dumb and a flirt.
What will be Duterte’s liability for intentionally calling De Lima fat,
dumb, and a flirt?
It depends:
 If the statement was printed—liability would be under
Article 353 of the RPC (Libel). Take note that these acts
require the element of publicity. Otherwise, there is no crime;
 What if the statements were uttered privately—If that is
the case, then the liability would be civil in nature, and for
that you apply Article 26 of the Civil Code:
“Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The
following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for
damages, prevention and other relief:
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious
beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or
other personal condition.”
Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress: This example is also
applicable to the Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress. The gravamen
of the tort is not the injury to the plaintiff’s reputation, but the harm to
plaintiff’s mental and emotional state.
In libel, the gist of the action is the injury to the plaintiff’s reputation.
Reputation is the community’s opinion of what a person is.
 If the statements were uttered privately, you’re not talking
about community perception anymore. You’re talking about
the effect of a statement upon the person upon whom the
statements were directed.
 In intentional infliction of mental distress, the opinion of
the community is immaterial to the existence of the action.
Although the court may consider it in awarding damages.
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
What is material is the disturbance of the mental or
emotional state of the plaintiff as the object of the
humiliation.
What is important is the plaintiff actually suffers mental or
emotional distress because he saw the act or read the
statement and it alludes to an identifiable group to which he
clearly belongs.
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio in the case of MVRS vs.
Islamic Dawah Council: The requirements of libel have no application
in intentional torts under ART 26 where the impression of the public is
immaterial while the impact on the mind or emotion of the offended
party is all important. That is why in American jurisprudence, the tort of
intentional infliction of mental or emotional distress is completely
separate and distinct from libel and slander.
NEGLIGENCE TORTS
Negligence torts are the most prevalent tort. It is not a deliberate tort.
Rather, negligence torts occur when an individual fails to act as
reasonable person to someone whom he/she owns a duty to.
Elements: Negligence Torts—
1.) Duty—The person must owe a duty or service to the plaintiff
in question;
2.) Breach—The individual who owes the duty must violate the
duty or obligation;
 The breach must be the proximate causation for
the damages suffered by the plaintiff.
3.) Damages—An injury then must arise because of that
specific obligation; and
4.) Causation—The cause of the injury must have been
reasonable foreseeable as a result of the person’s negligent
actions.
(1st ) DUTY
Everyone has the duty to exercise due care all of the time.
Due care—it is the amount of care that a reasonable person would
exercise under the circumstances. In due regard of the circumstances
of the person, and of the time, and of the place.
Civil Code
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the
omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of
the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the
provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract doesn’t state the diligence which is to be
observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father of
a family shall be required.
Reasonable Person—A reasonable person is not any real person or
even the average person, but an imaginary prudent person who takes
the precautions necessary to avoid harming another person or
property.
 That reasonable person is equated to a good father of a
family.
Reasonableness—Reasonableness is relative. The element of due
care depends on the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of persons, time and place.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF A PERSON
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Q: What is the standard of care required of a bus driver? It depends.
a.) Towards his passengers (a circumstance of persons)—He
is bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of
the passengers transported by him;
b.) Towards non-passengers or other motorists (a
circumstance of persons)—he owes them only ordinary due
care.
CIRCUMSTANCE OF TIME
A public utility company, such as an electric company, is required to
exercise only ordinary care in its day-to-day dealings with consumers.
INELCO vs. CA
The Supreme Court held that in times of calamities extraordinary
diligence requires a supplier of electricity to be in a constant vigil to
prevent or avoid any probable incident that might imperil life or limb.
There is a change according to time.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF PLACE
A motorist can operate a vehicle at a higher speed at straight away
portions of the road but must slow down when he approaches an
intersection. (Heirs of Completo vs. Albayda Jr. GR No. 172200, July 6,
2010)
(2nd) BREACH
It is the simplest of the four elements. You must determine whether the
defendant followed that standard of care as required.
Example: The standard of care required of an owner of an aggressive
dog is to keep the dog on a leash. If the owner doesn’t do so, then he
has breached his duty of care.
(3rd) CAUSATION
The cause and effect relationship “Causal relationship between
conduct and result”.
There are two (2) types of Causation:
1.) Causation-in-fact—But-for Causation. But for the
defendant’s actions, would injury have occurred?
Example: Manny hit Jinkee’s face with a basketball. Jinkee’s
face would not have been injured if Manny had not hit her in
the face with the basketball.
2.) Proximate Causation—It’s a little bit more complex.
Proximate cause is that cause which, in the natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury and without which the result
would not have occurred. In other words, even if an event is
a cause in fact. It may be not the cause in law. [Bataclan vs.
Medina]
Example 1: Practice makes perfect
In order to put up a credible showing in the PBA (as 11TH over-all pick
in the 2014 PBA Draft), Manny keeps on practicing his dribbling “skills”
in his living room. One time, the ball slips from his hands and hits
Jinkee’s sister Janet, in the face, causing a black eye.
Was there a causation in fact? Was there proximate causation?
YES to both questions. Janet’s eye would not have been injured but
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
for the Manny’s ball hitting her face. There is causation in fact.
As to proximate cause, the ball, in the natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, found its way
to Janet’s face thereby producing the injury and without which the
result would not have occurred.
Example 2: Practice makes perfect
A week after the incident, Manny once again practiced dribbling in his
living room. Once again, the ball slipped from his hands, through the
window, hitting the ladder set up by the Cignal TV guy who was
installing a satellite dish, causing the latter to fall and break his arms.
Was there a causation in fact? Was there proximate causation?
YES to both questions. Cignal guy’s arms would not have been
broken had Manny’s ball not hit the ladder he was using, causing him
to fall. There is causation in fact. As to proximate cause, the ball, in the
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, found its way to the ladder causing Cignal guy to fall
and thereby break his arms and without which the result would not
have occurred.
Example 3: Practice makes perfect
The next day, undeterred, Manny practiced his dribbling skills some
more. This time, when the ball slipped, it hits his neighbor in the head
just as he is pouring gas onto his grill. He pours too much, which
causes an explosion. In addition to his head injuries, he suffers burns
from the explosion and there is some fire damage to his house.
Was there a causation in fact? Was there proximate causation?
What if the wind caused the fire to spread to other houses and
burned down one block in Forbes Park where Manny lives?
Let’s look at the element of foreseeability. You dribbling while your
sister’s twin is right there (Sir means that Manny’s wife’s sister, in
reference to the first example), you hit her in the face, causing a black
eye. Foreseeable, when you started dribbling? Pwede! In the second
example, you know there’s a guy there, installing a satellite dish, right
outside the window, the window is open.
Would it be foreseeable na kung kintahay nalagput ang bola sa iyaha,
posible na matumba and mahulog sya? Posible! There’s an element of
foreseeability although it’s kinda remote.
But this (third example), is a difficult situation, something that you
cannot really foresee even in your wildest imagination.
When you were dribbling, is it foreseeable that it will hit your neighbor
just as he was about to put some gas in his grill, which would cause
him to pour too much, which would then cause an explosion, and which
would then cause injuries to his head, and then fire damage to his
house? Foreseeable? No!
In this scenario, there is causation in fact. However, proximate cause
may be more difficult. Perhaps there is something wrong with the grill
or the gasoline that caused the fire.
Why was the neighbor pouring gas in the first place? Perhaps one
could foresee the neighbor burning himself at the grill, but could the fire
damage to the house be foreseen?
What about the wind spreading the fire to the other houses? Is this not
an efficient intervening cause?
Resolution would depend on the evidence, arguments of the counsel
and similar factors. But remember, there is no policy under the law
curtailing a person from dribbling a ball inside his own house.
Conclusion:
 Causation in fact—easy;
 Proximate cause—requires an analysis on a case to case
basis
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
(4th) DAMAGE
The principle of damnum absque injuria (damage without legal injury).
There might be damage, but the law doesn’t give you a relief for
damages.
All injuries can be reduced to monetary amount. The real difficulty
comes in the calculating of the damages.
For example, it is pretty easy to figure out how much a burnt down
house is worth, but it is not easy to figure out how much Janet’s
eyesight is worth.
There is a difficulty in calculating damages, because you cannot
quantify a certain things.
COVERAGE OF TORT LAW:
Tort law covers:
 Actual injuries;
 Potential injuries; and
 Foreseeable injuries
Tortious conduct can lead to liability for actual injuries suffered by a
person such as when, by reason of another’s act, his body is injured.
He may claim damages in the form of reimbursement for his medical
bills, to cite an example. in Philippine Tort Law, liability does not
necessarily arise if there is no actual injury.
IN RELATION TO WESTERN JURISPRUDENCE (Western Tort
Law):
 DEJECTUM EFFESUMVE ALIQUID imposes liability for
damages of the person occupying the house for injury for
anything thrown or poured from the house, regardless of
whether he is the owner of the house or not. In Philippine
Tort Law, this is reproduced under Article 2193 of the Civil
Code. This is strict liability.
 DEL POSITIS VEL SUSPENSIS – the mere placing or
suspension of an object in a dangerous position is already a
ground for liability for it was not necessary that anyone
should be hurt or injured. This principle did not find its way to
Philippine laws, except maybe fire hazards and nuisance.
But remember, if we talk about a fire hazard, it can be
abated even if there is no person injured. It’s usually the
government that causes the abatement. For nuisance, more
or less the same thing, and damage is not the determinant of
liability, but the mere condition of the property. That’s why
when we talk about a remedy against nuisance, we have
abatement or prosecution. Can you consider, therefore, that
Tort Law in the Philippines would cover potential injuries,
such as in fire hazards and nuisance? Dili lang gihapon.
That’s the difference: Philippine Tort Law – there must
always be actual injury.
 Tort Law covers physical and non-physical injuries.
E.g. of physical injuries: Article 2176, Accidents;
E.g. of nonphysical injuries: invasion of privacy, intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
Q: Can moral damages be awarded for both physical and non-physical
injuries?
A: Yes, it is allowed. For example, moral damages can end physical
suffering and non-physical suffering. The purpose of moral damages is
to restore you to your spiritual status quo. Money to be given in order
for you to forget your suffering.
 Torts & Damages Based on the lectures of
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

civil law or criminal law. Then we call it tort law; to make sure that no
Application to physical suffering: If you were in an accident and you wrong remains unpunished.
lost your hand. Can you be awarded moral damages?

Yes, because clearly you have suffered mental and physical suffering.
Restoration here can only be spiritual. It gives you means and
diversions in order for you to forget that you lost your hand.

Conclusion: There is a difference between physical and non-physical

injuries.

AIMS OR THEORY OF TORT LAW

(copied from 2016 tsn, because the discussion was more elaborate)

In The Aims of the Law of Tort (1951), Glanville Williams saw four
possible bases on which different torts rested:

1) Appeasement – to restore the claimant to his spiritual (not

necessarily physical) status quo ante;
- to appease. That would be
your talio; your retribution, rather than exacting proportionality or
reciprocity.

Physical restoration – kung nabangga imong sakyanan, ipa-ayo

imong sakyanan.

Spiritual restoration – nakabangga ka ng tao, it lead to the

amputation of his arm. You pay him damages for spiritual
appeasement, because maybe he will forget that he no longer has an
arm if you give him a lot of money. It gives him means, methods,
amusements to forget.

2) Justice or vindication – to bring relief to the distress, disturbance

or damage suffered by the claimant caused by the wrong committed by
the tortfeasor;

3) Deterrence – to set an example for the public good so that similar

tortuous conduct will be avoided;

E.g you know for a fact that your neighbor is a reckless driver.
Nakasuhan sya and was made to pay P1 million in the form of
damages. If that’s the case, then maybe I should be careful in driving,
so that I won’t be made to pay P1 million like my neighbor.

4) Compensation – to compensate the plaintiff for unreasonable

harms they have sustained.

In Atty. Espejo’s view, the aim of tort law may be expanded to include
the following:

a) Efficient distribution of risk – to reflect as closely as possible

liability where transaction costs could be minimized.

Would it be more economical for me to drive faster to get to an

appointment but risk injuring a pedestrian?

Would it be more efficient and cheaper to employ workers in hazardous

occupations instead of buying an expensive machine to do the work? If
the workers are injured, would my savings be enough to cover
compensation?

b) Regulation of vengeance – by legally recognizing a class of

wrongs not otherwise defined or regulated by statute, there is less
possibility of individuals putting the law into their own hands.

Somehow, tort law developed when lawmakers realized that this could
not be crime or breach of contract. So why not put something in
between; something that will catch anything else that is not covered by
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
QUASI DELICTS
PART 1
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Such fault of negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.
Just to do a little word play here, the word quasi-delict comes from two
latin words. When you say “quasi”, it means almost or hapit na. sa
bisaya pa, “susama”. And delicto, crime. And therefore, we translate
the term quasi-delict, “almost a crime”.
Now, take note , if you ask me, it is a misnomer because quasi-delicts
in the Philippines are not almost crimes. When you talk about almost
crime, you did something with criminal intent except that you were
unable to consummate it. Possible siyang attempted or frustrated na
crime. Ang tort, because you do it without a criminal intent, then you
cannot be considered an almost crime. What makes a quasi-delict
under Article 2176 is actally the presence of fault or negligence.
Kanang imong pagkadanghag.
Kitang tanan simpleng mga tao, diba daghan tag ginabuhat nga wala
gihunahuna. Kanang mag text ka nya nag-drive. Or naggunit kag bata
unya nag archery ka. Naa kay gibuhat, wala nmo gihuna-hunaan.
TAKE NOTE: under the Revised Penal Code, the law defines crimes
as follows:
Acts and omissions punished by law or Felonies or delito--felonies are
committed not only by deceit or dolo but also by means of culpa.
And that, to my mind, is the main delineation between a crime and
quasi-delict. When you talk abiout a crime there is deceit or dolo. When
you talk about quasi-delict, there is fault or culpa, kadanghag,
There is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. Wala ka naghuna-huna.
What is the obligation involved?
I have a problem with what Paras is saying. Because he says that the
obligation involved in a quasi-delict is the obligation to be careful in all
dealings. and we discussed this already. Ang discussion nato was
pinaagi sa quasi-contracts. We discussed when would there be an
obligation when we talk about a quasi contract as a source of
obligation? Only when there is certain lawful voluntary act that causes
unjust enrichment to other person. Somebody is benefitted at your
effort or at your expense. And therefore, you have to recompense. In
quasi-delict, your obligation only is to pay for the damage done if and
only if there is damage that is caused to other person by reason of your
kadanghag.
It is as simple as that. The obligation involved here, as we have
already discussed, is real obligation. To pay for the damage done.
QUASI-DELICT TORTS
Quasi-delicts are limited to those Torts include quasi-delicts,
under Article 2176 to 2194 of the violations of the law on human
Civil Code relations and nuisances
A quasi-delict is strictly a concept A tort originally is a common law
of civil law concept
As defined and originally Tort is broader than quasi-delict
conceived under Article 2176, a because it includes not only
quasi-delict arises only if there is negligence, but intentional
fault or negligence criminal acts as well
What are the elements necessary to establish a quasi-delict? We have
here, the case of:
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
DE LA LLANA VS. BIONG (2013)
Juan dela Llana was driving while Toyota Corolla. His car’s rear end
was rammed by a dumptruck violently pushing the car forward. Due to
the impact, the car’s rear end collapsed and wind shield was broken.
Dela Llana doesn’t show to have
A month later, her health deteriorated. She suffered from a Whiplash
injury. She sued the employer of the driver of the dump truck
ISSUE: WON the truck driver has liability? Is the owner vicariously
liable?
Rule:
Elements:
1. Damage
De la Llana suffered whiplash injury
2. Negligence
Driver of the dump truck was driving recklessly.
3. Relation of cause and effect between the two
The chain of causation between the reckless driving and her whiplash
injury.
What is the duty of the plaintiff? To first establish by preponderance of
evidence the three elements of quasi-delict. Did the plaintiff succeed in
the instant case? No. She failed to discharge the burden of proving the
third element of quasi-delict. She failed to establish by preponderance
of evidence that the driver’s negligence, in its natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produced her
whiplash injury, and without which her whiplash injury would not have
occurred
Remember, we have discussed that there are two types of causation:
1. Causation in fact; and
2. Proximate Causation or Causation in law
Causation in fact does not really refer to our own law on tort of Article
2176. What we are concerned here is that there should be a causal
connection between the negligent act of the defendant and the
damages or injuries suffered by the plaintiff.
So, based on the requisites, what are the duties of the plaintiff?
1. to establish by preponderance of evidence the 3 elements of a
quasi-delict. So, applying the elements:
1. Damage
De la Llana suffered whiplash injury
2. Negligence
Driver of the dump truck was driving recklessly.
3. Relation of cause and effect between the two
The chain of causation between the reckless driving and her
whiplash injury.
Were they abe to prove that? NO.
They failed to establish the 3rd element. They failed to establish that the
driver’s negligence, in its natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause produced her whiplash injury, and
without which, the whiplash injury would not have occurred.
So that is the definition of proximate cause- the cause which in the
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, suffices to produce the injury, and without which the
injury would not have occurred.
What was the evidence of Dela Llana here?
1. The pictures of her damaged case
According to the SC, it only proves impact. It cannot be used
to infer whiplash injury.
2. The medical certificate dated November 20, 2000
Hearsay. The doctor who issued it did not testify.
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
3. Her testimonial evidence that collisions can cause whiplash injury
Excluded for being a mere opinion. The only opinion that
matters is the opinion of the court. Di ka pwede mag buot-buot sa
korte.
FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE
Fault in civil law must be distinguished from dolo in criminal law. If the
act or omission causing the damage is committed with intent to cause
such damage, it is dolo, the act becomes a crime, and is governed by
the Revised Penal Code.
When intent is absent, it is fault or culpa. This distinction between the
two concepts depends on the will of the actor rather than on his
intelligence.
WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE?
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the
omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of
the time and of the place. xxx
SMITH BELL VS. BORJA (10 JUNE 2001) Negligence is conduct that
creates undue risk of harm to another. It is the failure to observe that
degree of care, precaution and vigilance that the circumstances justly
demand, whereby that other person suffers injury.
Two types of FAULT:
1. “Fault substantive and independent” which, on account of its origin,
gives rise to an obligation between two persons not similarly bound by
any other obligation;
Otherwise known as culpa aquiliana or culpa extra-contractual. Diba
naa tay tulo ka klase nga culpa:
1. culpa aquiliana
2. culpa contractual
3. culpa criminal
These are faults or negligence nga dili alien sa atua.
Culpa-contractual- fault that exists concurrent with a pre-existing
obligation.
Also a violation of penal law
Fault substantive and independent of contract. Cause f there is a
contract, you do not call that quasi-delict. You call that culpa
contractual or breach of contract.
ORIGIN OF CULPA AQUILIANA
The “Lex Aquilia” of Roman Law
If anyone wrongfully kills another’s male or female slave or four-footed
herd-animal, let him be ordered to pay the owner whatever its highest
value was in the preceding year. Fault that is not criminal, fault that is
not contractual in nature.
Note that this is a mere civil action despite the fact that it may concern
the unlawful killing of a person (slave). The killing of a slave then was
not treated as a crime. It was merely a tort.
*story on Romans and how they were the first to use roads*
2. As “an incident in the performance of an obligation” which already
existed, which cannot be presumed to exist without the other, and
which increases the liability arising from the already existing obligation.
This means that the fault or negligence arises out of a pre-existing
obligation. There can be no liability if there was no contract in the first
place. Also known as culpa contractual
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Example: A is not contractually bound by B. si A nagadinahggag, si B
is injured. That’s a culpa aquilana.
Another example:
Article 1163. Every person obliged to give something is also obliged to
take care of it with the proper diligence of a good father of a family,
unless the law or the stipulation of the parties requires another
standard of care.
Do you know the contract of commodatum? Delivery perfects a
contract of commodatum. Remember that the ultimate obligation is to
return. But in the meantime, you have the oblgation to take care of it.
What if nanghiram kag ballpen and nawala kay nagdinanghag ka,
culpa aquiliana? No. it I still culpa contractual.
Fault under 2176 is:
Fault substantive and independent
 It means that Article 2176 is an independent source of
obligation.
 Fault in Article 2176 cannot be “an incident in the
performance of an obligation” because the provision requires
that there should be “no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties.
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the
omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of
the time and of the place.
***MEMORIZE THIS
Is there a uniform rule in the determination of whether or not a person
is negligent?
No. In Corliss vs. Manila Railroad Company (1969), the SC ruled
that “negligence is want of care required by the circumstances. It is
relative or comparative, 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 require. Where the
danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary, and the failure to
observe it is a want of ordinary care under the circumstances.”
RELATIVE NOT ABSOLUTE
Examples:
1. Driving in a crowded street during business hours compared to
driving in an empty street;
2. Transporting an infant compared to transporting an adult;
3. Carrying a loaded gun compared to carrying an empty one.
The relative positions and physical situations of the parties must also
be considered.
What do I mean when I say that negligence is relative, not absolute
and you have to consider the relative positions and physical situations
of the parties? This is what I call the Spiderman Doctrine.
Because with great power comes with great responsibility. So, the
greater your position, the more careful you should be.
HEIRS OF COMPLETO VS. ALBAYDA (2010)
FACTS: On August 27, 1997, while Albayda was on his way to the
office to report for duty, riding a bicycle along 11th Street, the taxi
driven by Completo bumped and sideswiped him, causing serious
physical injuries. Albayda was brought to the Philippine Air Force
General Hospital (PAFGH) inside VAB. However, he was immediately
transferred to the Armed Forces of the Philippines Medical Center
(AFPMC) because there was a fracture in his left knee and there was
no orthopedic doctor available at PAFGH.
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
RULING: It is a rule in negligence suits that the plaintiff has the burden
of proving by a preponderance of evidence the motorist’s breach in his
duty of care owed to the plaintiff, that the motorist was negligent in
failing to exercise the diligence required to avoid injury to the plaintiff,
and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury
suffered. It is obvious that a motor vehicle poses a greater danger of
harm to a bicyclist than vice versa. Accordingly, while the duty of using
reasonable care falls alike on a motorist and a bicyclist, due to the
inherent differences in the two vehicles, more care is required from the
motorist to fully discharge the duty than from the bicyclist. The physical
advantages that the motor vehicle has over the bicycle make it more
dangerous to the bicyclist than vice versa.
*story on cars*
Compare a taxi with a bicycle. Which on is easier to operate? The
bicycle. Pero which position is more difficult? Do bicycles do have the
same right on the road compared to taxis? According to the SC, yes.
Because they occupy the road the same right with other vehicles.
Meaning, dako kayo ang difference sa two.
TYPES OF DILIGENCE REQUIRED UNDER THE CIVIL CODE
1. Diligence agreed upon by the parties
Article 1163. Every person obliged to give something is also obliged to
take care of it with the proper diligence of a good father of a family,
unless the law or the stipulation of the parties requires another
standard of care.
It is therefore possible to stipulate as to the degree of diligence to be
employed.
2. Diligence required by law
Ordinary diligence or diligence of a good father of a family (bonum
pater familias), which is the default standard of care (equal to the
diligence of a reasonably prudent man as mentioned in Picart vs.
Smith.
3. Extraordinary diligence
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE WHEN REQUIRED BY LAW:
1. Common Carriers
Article 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and
for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the
passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of
each case.
Article 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely
as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost
diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the
circumstances.
2. Public utility companies
ILOCOS NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE VS. CA (1989)
FACTS: On June of 1967, typhoon Gening buffeted the province of
Ilocos Norte with strong winds and heavy rains. After the storm, Isabel
Lao Juan ventured out of the house (located at Guerrero St.) to check
the status of her business properties (grocery stores). Wading on
waist-deep flood, she was followed by her employees who walked side
by side at a distance behind Isabel. Suddenly, Isabel screamed "Ay"
and quickly sank into the water. The two employees attempted to help,
but fear dissuaded them from doing so because on the spot where the
deceased sank they saw an electric wire dangling from a post and
moving in snake-like fashion in the water. RULING: In times of
calamities, extraordinary diligence requires a supplier of electricity to
be in constant vigil to prevent or avoid any probable incident that might
imperil life or limb. Indeed, under the circumstances of the case,
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
petitioner was negligent in seeing to it that no harm is done to the
general public… “considering that electricity is an agency, subtle and
deadly, the measure of care required of electric companies must be
commensurate with or proportionate to the danger. The duty of
exercising this high degree of diligence and care extends to every
place where persons have a right to be.” The negligence of petitioner
having been shown, it may not now absolve itself from liability by
arguing that the victim’s death was solely due to a fortuitous event.
“When an act of God combines or concurs with the negligence of the
defendant to produce an injury, the defendant is liable if the injury
would not have resulted but for his own negligent conduct or omission.”
The same with what happened to us when we went to the Christmas
Village in Tamayong. Naay nagdula nga bata sa lights, ug
nakuryentehan. The kid got up and presumably they went home. Pero
from I learned dapat gidala ang bata sa ospital.
And action for damages was instituted against INELCO. The SC said
that in times of calamities, the electric companies are required
extraordinary diligence. Only in times of calamities.
VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA
(Doctrine of assumption of risk)
“To one who voluntarily consents to and takes the risk, no
injury is done.”
[If I voluntarily undertake an activity, knowing fully well the
risks involved, I cannot later on blame another person for
any injury that I suffered. An example is sport competitions.]
Can the deceased be deemed to have voluntarily assumed the risk
when she ventured into the flood waters?
A person is excused from the force of the rule, that when he voluntarily
assents to a known danger he must abide by the consequences, if an
emergency is found to exist or if the life or property of another is in
peril, or when he seeks to rescue his endangered property.
Can you apply this in the care? No. citing the rule on common law that:
XXX
For it has been held that a person is excused from the force of the rule,
that when he voluntarily assents to a known danger he must abide by
the consequences, if an emergency is found to exist or if the life or
property of another is in peril, or when he seeks to rescue his
endangered property. Clearly, an emergency was at hand as the
deceased's property, a source of her livelihood, was faced with an
impending loss.
3. BIR and Customs Examiners
RA 9335, SEC. 8. Liability of Officials, Examiners and Employees
of the BIR and the BOC. – The officials, examiners, and employees of
the BIR and the BOC who violate this Act or who are guilty of
negligence, abuses or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance or fail to
exercise extraordinary diligence in the performance of their duties shall
be held liable for any loss or injury suffered by any business
establishment or taxpayer as a result of such violation, negligence,
abuse, malfeasance, misfeasance, or failure to exercise extraordinary
diligence.
4. Banks, in certain cases
When are they required to exercise exercise extraordinary diligence in
their dealings?
Example, you have 100 dollars and magpakambyo ka a bank or you go
to aldivinco. If ang nahatag sa imuha kay kulang, pwede ba ka
magreklamo nga wala ang exert ug extraordinary diligence sa
pagkambyo sa imuha.
No. because the rule is that extraordinary diligence might be required
by bank but only when they are acting in their fiduciary capacity.
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
SAMSUNG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PH., INC. VS. FEBTC
(2004)
FACTS: On 19 March 1992, a certain Roberto Gonzaga presented for
payment FEBTC Check No. 432100 to the bank. The check, payable to
cash and drawn against Samsung Construction’s current account, was
in the amount of P999,500.00. Following the internal banking
procedures, after the teller was satisfied with the authenticity of the
signature appearing on the check, she forwarded the same to the
Branch Senior Assistant Cashier, who concluded that the check was
indeed signed by Jong.
Finally before approval, another bank officer (Syfu) had to verify the
check. Noticing Jose Sempio III (“Sempio”), who is well- known to Syfu
and to the other bank officers, Syfu showed the check to Sempio, who
vouched for the genuineness of Jong’s signature. Confirming the
identity of Gonzaga Satisfied with the genuineness of the signature of
Jong, Syfu authorized the bank’s encashment of the check to
Gonzaga.
The following day, the accountant of Samsung Construction, Kyu,
examined the balance of the bank account and discovered that a check
in the amount of P999,500.00 had been encashed. Aware that he had
not prepared such a check for Jong’s signature, Kyu perused the
checkbook and found that the last blank check was missing. He
reported the matter to Jong, who then proceeded to the bank. Jong
learned of the encashment of the check, and realized that his signature
had been forged.
Defense of Far East: They followed their usual validation and
verification procedure. According to the CA, it was the fault of
Samsung, for lack of care and prudence in keeping the checks. If a
loss, which must be borne by one or two innocent persons, can be
traced to the neglect or fault of either, such loss would be borne by the
negligent party, even if innocent of intentional fraud.
RULING: The irregular circumstances attending the presentment of the
forged check should have put the bank on the highest degree of alert.
The Court recently emphasized that the highest degree of care and
diligence is required of banks.
Banks are engaged in a business impressed with public interest, and it
is their duty to protect in return their many clients and depositors who
transact business with them. They have the obligation to treat their
client’s account meticulously and with the highest degree of care,
considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship. The diligence
required of banks, therefore, is more than that of a good father of a
family.
Why? Remember the nature of bank deposits as irregular deposits. In
truth and in fact, when you say bank deposits, they are deposits in
name only but in actuality they are contracts of mutuum. Who is the
debtor and who is the creditor? Who is the lender and who is the
borrower? Imo man nang kwarta. Sila ang nanghiram sa imo ug kwata.
Your money is demandable anytime and they are required to exercise
extraordinary diligence.
REYES VS. CA (2001)
In Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. CA, upholding a long standing
doctrine, we rules that the degree of diligence required of banks, is
more than that of a good father of a family where the fiduciary nature of
their relationship with their depositors is concerned. In other words,
banks are duty bound to treat the deposit accounts of their depositors
with the highest degree of care. But the said ruling applies only to
cases where banks act under their fiduciary capacity, that is, as
depository of the deposits of their depositors. But the same higher
degree of diligence is not expected to be exerted by banks in
commercial transactions that do not involve their fiduciary relationship
with their depositors.
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
5. Board of Canvassers during election
In Arsenia B. Garcia vs. CA, G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006, the SC
ruled: Public policy dictates that extraordinary diligence should be
exercised by the members of the Board of Canvassers in canvassing
the results of the elections. Any error on their part would result in the
disenfranchisement of the voters. The Certificate of Canvass for
senatorial candidates and its supporting statement of votes prepared
by the municipal board of canvassers are sensitive election documents
whose entries must be thoroughly scrutinized.
Does this doctrine still apply now when we are already automated?
Naa pa baya gihapon naga canvass.
6. Officers of the Securities and Exchange Commission
This is found in Section 6 of RA 8799.
Indemnification and Responsibilities of Commissioners.– 6.1. The
Commission shall indemnify each Commissioner and other officials of
the Commission, including personnel performing supervision and
examination functions for all cost and expenses reasonably incurred by
such persons in connection with any civil or criminal actions, suits or
proceedings to be liable for gross negligence or misconduct. In the
event of settlement or compromise, indemnification shall be provided
only in connection with such matters covered by the settlement as to
which the Commission is advised by external counsel that the persons
to be indemnified did not commit any gross negligence or misconduct.
The costs and expenses incurred in defending the aforementioned
action, suit or proceeding may be paid by the Commission in advance
of the final disposition of such action, suit or proceeding upon receipt of
an undertaking by or on behalf of the Commissioner, officer or
employee to repay the amount advanced should it ultimately be
determined by the Commission that he/she is not entitled to be
indemnified as provided in this subsection.
7. Respondent Public Officers in Writ of Amparo cases
Section 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. – The
parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence. The
respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that
ordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations
was observed in the performance of duty. The respondent who is a
public official or employee must prove that extraordinary diligence as
required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the
performance of duty. The respondent public official or employee cannot
invoke the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed
to evade responsibility or liability.
In a nutshell, if you are a respondent of a writ of amparo case, you are
a public official or employee, you have to prove that extraordinary
diligence is required by applicable laws. You observe that in the
performance of duty. You need to provide sufficient explanation kung
diin ba ning tao nga allegedly na enforce iyang disappearance.
There is no presumption of regularity when you talk about writ of
amparo cases.
REYES VS. CA (2014)
Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by
substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or
omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a measure of the remedies
this Court shall craft, among them, the directive to file the appropriate
criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper
courts. Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of
remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement
in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their
complicity to the level of responsibility defined above; or who are
imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and
who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed
to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation
of the enforced disappearance.
 Torts & Damages Based on the lectures of
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

RULING IN DULAY: Article 2176, where it refers to “fault or

DOES THE TERM QUASI-DELICT APPLY TO INTENTIONAL ACTS?
DULAY VS. CA (243 SCRA 220)
FACTS: BenignoTorzuelais an employee of Safeguard Investigation
and Security Co., Inc., and/or Superguard Security Corp. and, at the
time of the incident complained of, was under their control and
supervision.
On December 7, 1988, an altercation between Torzuela and Atty.
Napoleon Dulay occurred at the "Big Bang saAlabang," Alabang
Village, as a result of which Torzuela, the security guard on duty at the
said carnival, shot and killed Dulay. Action for damages was filed
against Torzuela and Safeguard and/or Superguard, alleged employers
of defendant Torzuela.
RULING: Art. 2176 covers not only acts committed with negligence, but
also acts which are voluntary and intentional.
negligence” covers not only acts “not punishable by law” but also acts
criminal in character; whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.
Consequently, a separate civil action against the offender in a criminal
act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or
acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is
actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores,
and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of
the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary.
There is no double recovery because that is unjust enrichment.
CALANG VS. PEOPLE (2010)
The SC, in this case, ruled that: Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil
Code pertain to the vicarious liability of an employer for quasi-delicts
that an employee has committed. Such provision of law does not apply
to civil liability arising from delict.
Why is the ruling different in this case?

In criminal law:
What happens of a security guard kills in the line of duty? Can you sue
the company criminally? No.
But there could be civil liability when the employee’s criminal guilt
becomes the employer’s civil guilt. When the employer becomes
subsidiarily liable when the employee is insolvent.
This is an action for damages, making it only as civil case. Later we will
learn about vicarious liability wherein an employer can be held liable
directly. We will discuss that in Article 2180.
The RTC and the CA both erred in holding Philtranco jointly and
severally liable with Calang. He was charged criminally before the
RTC. Undisputedly, Philtranco was not a direct party in this case. Since
the cause of action against Calang was based on delict, both the RTC
and the CA erred in holding Philtranco jointly and severally liable with
Calang, based on quasi-delict under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil
Code.
There was no independent action filed against Philtranco in this case.
Does it mean that if an act is both a quasi-delict and a crime that the
tortfeasor or offender can be sued twice for the same act or omission?

Example: a contract of suretyship. A borrowed money from B. C is the
surety. Can A sue C without impleading B? yes. Because the surety is
liable like an original promisor. So it does not matter. Dili necessary
party si A.
Same thing with solidary liability with the employer. You are, as
employer, presumed negligent in the selection or supervision of your
employees.
That is the contention of Superguard. The civil liability is governed by
Article 100 of the RPC and not Art 2176 in relation to 2180.
SIGNIFICANCE:
In essence, YES. However, there should be no double recovery of
damages. Under Article 2177, “responsibility for fault or negligence
under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the
civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the
plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of
the defendant.”
Based on what we know so far, there are three different types of culpa
that can be used as basis for personal injury actions, namely:
1. Culpa aquiliana
2. Culpa contractual
3. Culpa criminal

If only Article 100 of the RPC, in relation to Article 103, the security Culpa Aquiliana Culpa Criminal Culpa Contractual
agency is only subsidiarily liable. They can only be held liable for
damages if the employee is convicted and is insolvent. There can be a quasi- There can be no
delict as long as there crime unless there is
If Article 2176 is applied, in relation to Article 2180, the liability of the is fault or negligence a law clearly
security agency is primary. They can therefore be held liable directly. resulting in damage or punishing the act.
injury to another. It is
But remember it is a shooting. Naay negligence? When you aim a gun broader in scope than
to somebody, with the intent of killing him, that is a crime. You have crime.
intent to kill. But, the ruling of the SC, there is no reason of limitin the
scope of Article 2176. Criminal intent is not Criminal intent is
necessary for quasi essential for criminal
This is confusing. Pagtuo ba nako quasi-delict lang ang covered sa delict to exist. Fault or liability to exist.
2176. Nganong covered pati ang delict? Pagtuo ba nako negligence negligence without
ang cornerstone sa 2176 and not dolo? But why is it in Dulay, apil kuno intent will suffice.
ang intentional acts?
Right violated is a Right violated is a
Situation: Maja files a criminal case against Sara with a prayer for private right. Quasi public one. Crime is a
damages. She was also allowed to file an independent action for delict is a wrongful act wrong against the
damages under Article 2176. against a private State.
individual.
Would this not lead to unjust enrichment because, if Maja wins in both Every quasi delict Some crimes do not
cases, she will be awarded damages twice?How did the SC address gives rise to liability give rise to liability,
this situation in Dulay? for damages. e.g., Illegal
possession of
 Torts & Damages Based on the lectures of
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

firearm, contempt. REPUBLIC VS. LUZON STEVEDORING (1967)

Preponderance of Proof beyond A barge being towed by tugboats “Bangus” and “Barbero” all owned by
evidence reasonable doubt. Luzon Stevedoring Corp. rammed one of the wooden piles of the
Nagtahan Bailey Bridge due to the swollen current of the Pasig after
Reparation or Punishment is either heavy rains days before. The Republic sued Luzon Stevedoring for
indemnification of the imprisonment, fine or actual and consequential damages. Luzon Stevedoring claimed it had
injury or damage. both; sometimes exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its
other accessory employees; that the damages to the bridge were caused by force
penalties are majeure; that plaintiff has no capacity to sure; and that the Nagtahan
imposed. Bailey Bridge is an obstruction to navigation.

Direst, Substantive Negligence is AFRICA VS. CALTEX (1966)

and independent merely incidental to
(Rakes vs. Atlantic, the performance of In March 1948, in Rizal Avenue, Manila, a tank truck was hosing
etc., 7 Phil. 395). the contractual gasoline into the underground storage of Caltex. Apparently, a fire
obligation. There is broke out from the gasoline station and the fire spread and burned
a pre-existing several houses including the house of Sps. Bernabe and Soledad
contract or Africa. Allegedly, a passerby threw a cigarette while gasoline was
obligation (Rakes being transferred which caused the fire. There was no evidence
vs. Atlantic, etc., 7 presented to prove this theory and no other explanation can be had as
Phil. 395). to the real reason for the fire. Apparently also, Caltex and the branch
owner (Boquiren) failed to install a concrete firewall to contain fire if in
Complete and proper NOT a complete case one happens.
defense insofar as and proper defense
parents, guardians, in the selection and
employers are supervision of EFFECT IN EVIDENCE:
concerned (Art. 2180, employees (Cangco
last par.) vs. MRC, 38 Phil. Ordinarily, he who charges negligence shall prove it. However, res
768). ipsaloquitor is the exception because the burden of proof is shifted to
the party charged of negligence as the latter is the one who had
No presumption of There is exclusive control of the thing that caused the injury complained of.
negligence. The presumption of
injured party must negligence as long The requisites for the application of the res ipsaloquitor rule are the
prove the negligence as it can be proved following:
of the defendant that there was 1. The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless
(Cangco vs. MRC, 38 breach of the someone is negligent;
Phil 768). Otherwise, contract . The 2. The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the
the complaint of defendant must exclusive control of the person charged with negligence; and
injured party will be prove there was no 3. The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action
dismissed. negligence in the or contribution on the part of the person injured.
carrying out of the
terms of the contract ROLE: Jarcia vs. People
(Cangco vs. MRC,
38 Phil. 768). The doctrine of res ipsaloquitor as a rule of evidence is unusual to the
law of negligence which which recognizes that prima facie negligence
may be established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for
Taken from Torts and Damages by Pineda specific proof of negligence. The doctrine, however, is not a rule of
substantive law, but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural
NECESSITY OF PROVING NEGLIGENCE convenience. The rule, when applicable to the facts and circumstances
of a given case, is not meant to and does not dispense with the
Negligence must be proved in a suit on a quasi-delict, so that the requirement of proof of culpable negligence on the party charged. It
plaintiff may recover. Note as well that the plaintiff must establish merely determines and regulates what shallbe prima facie evidence
negligence by a preponderance of evidence. However, since thereof and helps the plaintiff in proving a breach of the duty. The
negligence in some cases is hard to prove, we apply the doctrine of res doctrine can be invoked when and only when, under the circumstances
ipsaloquitor (the thing speaks for itself). involved, direct evidence is absent and not readily available.

RES IPSA LOQUITOR SOLIDUM vs. PEOPLE (2014)

This means that in certain instances, the presence of facts and Same conclusion was reached by the SC as in Jarcia.
circumstances surrounding the injury clearly indicate negligence on the
part of the defendant. The maxim applies whenever it is so improbably
that such accident would have happened without the fault of the
defendant, that a reasonable man could find without further evidence
that it was so caused. The maxim throws on to the defendant the
burden of disproving negligence.

The facts and circumstances of the case need to know other

conclusion than that the defendant was negligent. There is no other
explanation to it. The defendant is negligent.

This is my favorite case because of its simplicity.

 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
QUASI DELICT
Traditional Elements of a Quasi-Delict
1. There must be an act or omission;
2. There must be fault or negligence attendant in the same act
or omission;
3. There must be damage caused to another person;
4. There must be a causal connection between the fault or
negligence and the damage; and
5. There must have been no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties. (Meaning, they are not otherwise bound
by a contract)
Damage
It comes from the Latin damnum–demo–to take away.
In legal contemplation, damages could mean any of the following:
1. Sum of money which the law awards or imposes as
pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction from
any injury done or wrong sustained (Articles 2195-2235)
2. The injury or loss caused to another by the violation of legal
rights.
Take note, however, of the more important requisite in so far as Article
2176 is concerned is the Absence of Contract.
Absence of Contract
For example under Article 2176, there should be no pre-existing
contractual relations between the parties for liability to attach under the
provision. Why? Because under Article 1157 of the Civil Code, a
contract is a separate source of obligation (the law, contracts, quasi-
contracts, acts or omissions punished by law and you have quasi
delicts). They two very different sources of obligation.
Take note that culpa aquiliana is different from culpa contractual and
also different from culpa criminal. There is, of course, a separate body
of remedies for violation of the penal law for that matter and also for
the violation of a contract.
Example No. 1
Let us suppose that if a common carrier leaves a passenger stranded
in the middle of nowhere, there is breach of contract of carriage.
Remember the obligation of a common carrier to bring the passenger
safely and securely to his contracted destination. It does not matter
how the contract is breached or whether in the breach of contract the
common carrier was negligent. The fact that the contract was entered
into and was not fulfilled is enough for culpa contractual to be a source
of liability.
That is what culpa contractual is all about, breach of contract.
Example No. 2
You rode a bus operated by Y Bus Company. The driver of the bus
was negligent and bumped a light post. You did not arrive at your
destination safely and securely. You also suffered injury.
What type of culpa is involved in that situation? That is Culpa
Contractual because there is a breach of contract of carriage.
But remember there is negligence on the part of the driver. Can you for
example sue the bus company for culpa acquiliana?
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
As a general rule, you cannot because there is a pre-existing
contractual relationship. There must be no pre-existing contractual
relation between the plaintiff and the defendant for you to maintain an
action for damages under Article 2176.
BUT there is a very broad exception based on jurisprudence.
Exception
It has been held many times by the Supreme Court that, if the manner
of breaching a contract is in itself tortuous, there can be a viable cause
of action for culpa aquiliana, even if there is a pre-existing contractual
relationship between the parties.
This is the case of Air France vs Carrascoso.
Air France vs Carrascoso
G.R. No. L-21438 | September 28, 1966
FACTS:
Plaintiff, Romeo Carrascoso, an engineer wanted to take a pilgrimage
at Lourdes in France. He bought a “first class” round trip airplane ticket
from Manila to Rome. There was no problem in the first leg of his travel
from Manila to Bangkok. He was able to pay first class
accommodations as per contract with PAL but from Bangkok to Rome,
the Manager of the airline forced Engr. Carrascoso to vacate the “first
class” seat on the ground that there was a “white man”, who,
according to the airline Manager, had a “better right” to the seat.
To prevent an altercation and cause a scene, Carrascoso was forced
to have economy seats from Bangkok to Italy. When he arrived in the
Philippines, he filed an action for damages for breach of contract of
carriage against Air France.
The problem is the ground he wanted for damages would be Article
2176, quasi -delict. Remember, that in a breach of contract of carriage,
moral damages are tempered. There are limited instances when moral
and exemplary damages are awared in a breach of contract of
carriage:
1. When the passenger dies while the culpa contractual took
place
2. If the common carrier was guilty of fraud, wanton negligence,
gross negligence amounting to bad faith.
Those are the time where higher amount of damages will be granted.
The case was filed, Article 2176 for damages.
Air France contends that Carrascoso cannot do that. There cannot be
any liability for damages under Article 2176 if there is a pre-existing
contractual relations between the parties.
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled here that even if there is a pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties but the act that breaks the
contract is itself a tort, damages may be awarded under Article 2176
even if there is a pre-exiting contractual relations.
What was the tortuous act of the airline employees here in breaching
the contract with Mr. Carrascoso? Very simple. According to the
supreme Court, passengers do not contract merely for transportation.
They also contract for the right to treated by the common carrier’s
employees with kindness, respect, courtesy and given due
consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal
misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such
employees.
When the airline manager did that against Carrascoso, of course the
SC treated it as a wrongful expulsion ang therefore a violation of public
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
duty by the common carrier, a case of quasi-delict and therefore
damages are proper.
The question is, what was the tortuous conduct in this case? Is there
negligence? This is not negligence but willful conduct. Therefore, what
is the basis for the liability? Is it Article 2176? The answer is NO.
Instead, you go to the law on Human Relations which is Article 21 of
the Civil Code. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another
in a manner that is contrary to morals, etc., shall be liable for damages.
What you need to remember here when you talk about Article 21 is
Article 21 does not make a case for quasi-delict. It is not a quasi-delict
but it is a tort because remember, when you talk about quasi-delict,
under Article 2176, the cornerstone for liability would be negligence. In
this case, it is willful. Rather than it be predicated in a quasi-delict, the
proper term would be to predicate liability here on a tort and not a
quasi-delict.
To my mind, the SC got it wrong but anyway, torts and quasi-delict are
used interchangeably to describe liability.
Coca-Cola vs CA
GR 110295 | October 18, 1993
FACTS:
This case concerns the proprietress of a school canteen which had to
close down as a consequence of the big drop in its sales of soft drinks
triggered by the discovery of foreign substances in certain beverages
sold by it.
The petitioner insists that the legal basis for private respondent’s cause
of action is not article 2176 of the Civil Code on quasi-delict – for the
complaint does not ascribe any tortuous or wrongful conduct on its part
– but Art 1561 and 1562 thereof on breach of a seller’s implied
warranties under the law on sales. According to the law on sales, as
contended by Coca-cola, there is a limited period within which you can
file an action to enforce the seller’s implied warranty in the contract of
sale which is 6 months from delivery of the thing sold.
The Trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription.
Two points made by Coca-cola:
1. There is a breach of contractual relations
2. The cause of action, there being a contractual relation
between the parties, should be under the law on sales.
ISSUE: Is Coca-Cola correct?
HELD:
The Supreme Court said No. While it may be true that the pre-existing
contract between the parties bar the applicability of the law on quasi-
delict, the liability may itself be deemed to arise from quasi- delict,
again the acts which breaks the contract may also be a quasi- delict.
Liability for quasi-delict may still exist despite the presence of
contractual relations.
In Coca-Cola we must observe here that the SC used the term “quasi-
delict” to describe the act of Coca-Cola which is the act of “negligent
manufacture”. There’s negligence and it is quasi-delict.
Then we have this case of Regino vs Pangasinan Colleges.
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Regino vs Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology
(PCST)
GR NO. 156109, NOV. 18, 2004
FACTS:
In February 2002, PCST held a fund raising campaign dubbed the
“Rave Party and Dance Revolution,” the proceeds of which were to go
to the construction of the school’s tennis and volleyball courts. The
problem here was that each student was required to pay 2 tickets at
the price of P100 each.
The project was allegedly implemented by recompensing students who
purchased tickets with additional points in their test scores; those who
refused to pay were denied the opportunity to take the final
examinations.
Financially strapped and prohibited by her religion from attending
dance parties and celebrations, Regino refused to pay for the tickets.
On March 14 and March 15, 2002, the scheduled dates of the final
examinations in logic and statistics, her teachers – Gamurot and
Baladad – disallowed her from taking the tests. Gamurot made her sit
out her logic class while her classmates were taking their
examinations.
The next day, Baladad, after announcing to the entire class that she
was not permitting petitioner and another student to take their statistics
examinations for failing to pay for their tickets, allegedly ejected them
from the classroom. Petitioner’s pleas ostensibly went unheeded by
Gamurot and Baladad, who unrelentingly defended their positions as
compliance with PCST’s policy.
Thus, Regino filed an action for damages in forma pauperis against
PCST and the 2 teachers. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on
the ground of petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
According to the respondents, the question raised involved the
determination of the wisdom of an administrative policy of the PCST;
hence, the case should have been initiated before the proper
administrative body, the Commission of Higher Education (CHED).
In her Comment to respondent’s Motion, petitioner argued that prior
exhaustion of administrative remedies was unnecessary, because her
action was not administrative in nature, but one purely for damages
arising from respondents’ breach of the laws on human relations. As
such, jurisdiction lay with the courts. The RTC dismissed the complaint.
Exhaustion Issue:
Petitioner is not asking for the reversal of the policies of PCST. Neither
is she demanding it to allow her to take her final examinations; she was
already enrolled in another educational institution.
Exhaustion of admin remedies is applicable when there is competence
on the part of the administrative body to act upon the matter
complained of. The CHED does not have the power to award
damages.
With respect to the contract issue:
Generally, liability for tort arises only between parties not otherwise
bound by a contract. An academic institution, however, may be held
liable for tort even if it has an existing contract with students, since the
act that violated the contract may also be a tort.
Now, what about the issue of academic freedom?
The Supreme Court here said, there is liability even if there is a
contract of matriculation between PCST and Regino, the act that
breaks the contract may also be a tort.
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
Take note of what we are talking about here: Even if there is a breach
of contract between the parties, the tort can still be a source of
liability for damages.
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding
article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from
negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. (n)
And it’s very related to what we were talking about. We were talking
about an act that breaks a contract may likewise be a tort which means
that you have liability for example under the law of contracts, there
could be damages under the law on contracts. There could also be
damages under the law on quasi delicts; with all the more reasons of
course that we apply the same type of source of responsibility under
Article 2176 when we talk about criminal acts. Every person who is
criminally liable is also civilly liable. What the law actually abhors will
be the act of awarding damages twice for the same acts or omissions
of the defendant.
Example:
What’s an example of a case na pwede bitaw nato siya file-an ug kaso
for culpa criminal and then culpa aquiliana? Perfect example there
would be kana bitaw nabanggaan ka. That could be considered
reckless imprudence resulting to physical injuries. Pwede pud na
siyang mahimong civil case lang, an action for damages, under Article
2176 because the cause of action stems from the same act or
omission from the defendant for the accused.
Evidence example:
Can you recall my example sa evidence? Katong nilupad na tao?
Nabanggaan ug motor? Paunsa ka kalayo nalagpot? 50 meters! Just
imagine. Murag na kag nilupad. That’s the first time that I’ve ever
applied that, I won in both cases. So daog ko sa MTC for culpa criminal
(reckless imprudence) and then nadaog pud ko sa civil action for
damages under Article 2176.
Whichever is the higher of the 2 awards sa criminal case or sa civil
case, mao na siya ang dapat nimo i-apil. You cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission.
Art. 2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable
to a quasi-delict. (n)
Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the
performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable,
but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according
to the circumstances. (1103)
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in
the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature
of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of
the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence
shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201,
paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to
be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a
good father of a family shall be required. (1104a)
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or
when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the
nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no
person shall be responsible for those events which could not
be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
(1105a)
Now, for me, importante pud kayo ang Article. 2179
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and
proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his
negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause
of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded. (n)
Siya ang sal-an. Why was he injured? Because of his own negligence,
not the negligence of the defendant.
In an ideal world, you can always pinpoint who is to blame for any
misery, for any injury. But in all probability, mas kadaghanan bitaw sa
mga instances, when you are forced to blame somebody or you blame
each other, it really takes two to Tango.
Ikaw negligent ka, ang defendant negligent pud. In other words, both
your negligence (plaintiff and defendant) coincides to produce the
injury. So the Court will now be forced to determine kinsa man jud ang
mas negligent sa inyong dalawa. Kung nakita sa korte na mas
negligent ang defendant, then majority of the damages shall be borne
by the defendant rather than the plaintiff.
That’s contributory negligence. Now let’s talk about the different
defenses. Pag ma file-an kag kaso for damages under Art. 2176 for
quasi-delicts, what are the possible defenses?
DEFENSES IN QUASI-DELICT CASES
1. THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT NEGLIGENT
This one tries to attack the elements of quasi-delict. That is the
element of negligence. The defendant is saying I was not negligent, I
was being careful. The defendant therefore when he interposes that
type of defense, he is trying to prove before the court that a
preponderance of evidence exists that he exercised the required
degree of care that corresponds with the circumstances of the time,
the person and the places.
2. “DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA”
This simply means “damage without wrong” or damage without
anything that the law considers a legal injury, one that at least is
compensable under the law.
Pag walay legal injury, the law does not consider your damage to be
compensable maskin nasamaran ka, nasakitan ka, wala kay mahimo.
Examples:
Under the concept of justifying circumstances in the RPC, there can be
damnum absque injuria. Briefly, they appear in Art 11 as:
a. Self-defense
b. Defense of relatives
c. Defense of strangers
d. State of necessity
e. Fulfillment of a duty or exercise of a right or office; and
f. Obedience of lawful orders
Self Defense
Elements:
1. Unlawful Aggression
2. Reasonable necessity to use the means employed to
prevent or repeal the unlawful aggression
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
What happens if nag self-defense ka? Nakapatay na ka ug
tao. Ang pagpatay nimo ug tao dili ban a siya damage, dili ba
na siya injury? It is. But the law does not consider it a lawful
injury deserving of compensation. But clearly there is
damage, that is the perfect example. You are not liable but
clearly there is damage that is caused.
Death or Physical Injuries under Exceptional Circumstances
Nakita niya iyang asawa doing the thing with somebody else. He is so
obfuscated that he got his ax and then chopped both of them into
pieces. He is not liable. Is there damage? Yes. Nakapatay siyag tao.
But he can always contend that nabuang ko kalit, insanity. Then death
under exceptional circumstance, that’s a justifying circumstance. That’s
damage without legal injury.
Art 429 of the Civil Code
This is another instance where there may be damage or injury but
there is no liability.
Art. 429 The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For
this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
Pwede ka mag prevent pero pag naa na didto, nakasulod na sa
property unya forcibly gipahawa nimo, ikaw pa karon ang liable. For
what? Liable for grave coercion kay gipugos nimog pahawa against
their will even if technically speaking, squatters sila sa property.
FORMULA
So how do we now determine whether ang butang ba kay damnum
absque injuria? For me, it is as simple as this, liability only arises if
there is an invasion of a right that corresponds with a breach of
duty.
Meaning when you committed the injury, you have no right whatsoever
to cause that injury.
Like self defense, nakapatay kag tao but you have the right to defend
yourself. In death or physical injuries under exceptional circumstances,
you have no right to kill but you have every right to defend your honor
under those exceptional circumstances. There is no breach of
obligation or breach of duty that corresponds with the invasion of right
which brings me to this case:
BPI EXPRESS CREDIT CARD VS CA
292 SCRA 260
FACTS: Lawyer has credit card. Failed to pay his bill. Asked to issue a
check for P15,000 otherwise credit will be cut off. Lawyer issued
postdated check. BPI sent letter to inform him that his credit card was
temporarily suspended and asked him to refrain using credit card. He
still used his credit card and it was dishonored. He sued BPI for
damages.
HELD: In order for plaintiff to maintain an action for the injuries which
he complains of, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a
breach of duty which the defendant owed the plaintiff – a concurrence
of injury (VIOLATION OF RIGHT) to the plaintiff and legal responsibility
(BREACH OF DUTY) by the person causing it. 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 person injured alone and 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. Dispositive Portion: “IN VIEW OF THE
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
FOREGOING, the decision of the CA ordering petitioner to pay private
respondent P100,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary
damages and P20,000.00 as atty’s fees, is SET ASIDE. Private
respondent is directed to pay his outstanding obligation with the
petitioner in the amount of P14,439.41.
Discussion: This is a case of damnum absque injuria. Tinood
napaulawan ka but there is no violation of a right that actually
corresponds with the breach of duty. There is no concurrence of injury
to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it. Naa bay
legal responsibility ang BPI Express credit card to continue its credit
facility for the benefit of the lawyer na nibayad ug post dated check?
Wala. Remember also na in ObliCon and CredTrans, when does a
check produce an effect of payment? Only when it has been encashed.
The Supreme Court here said kabalo na bitaw ka na ni-issue kag post-
dated check, wala pa na encash imong check, that’s therefore a case
of damnum absque injuria.
GILCHRIST VS CUDDY, ET AL.
29 PHIL 542
FACTS: Cuddy was the owner of the film Zigomar. He rented it out to
Gilchrist for a week for P125. Cuddy backed out their contract and sent
the money back to Gilchrist. Apparently, Cuddy rented the film to
Espejo and Zaldarriaga for a higher price of P350. Gilchrist filed for
injunction against these parties.
ISSUE: Can Espejo and Zaldarriaga be held liable for damages for
interfering with the contract between Gilchrist and Cuddy? Espejo and
Zaldarriaga contend that they cannot be held liable because they were
merely exercising their right to compete in business.
HELD: YES.
Everyone has a right to enjoy the fruits and advantages of his own
enterprise, industry skill and credit. He has no right to be free from
malicious and wanton interference, disturbance or annoyance. If
disturbance or loss come as a result of competition, or the exercise of
like rights by others, it is damnum absque injuria, unless some superior
right by contract or otherwise is interfered with. In the case at bar, the
only motive for the interference with the Gilchrist – Cuddy contract on
the part of the appellants was a desire to make profit by exhibiting the
film in their theater. There was no malice beyond this desire; but this
fact does not relieve them of the legal liability for interfering with that
contract and causing its breach. It is, therefore, clear under the above
authorities, that they were liable to Gilchrist for the damages caused by
their acts, unless they are relieved from such liability by reason of the
fact that they did not know at the time the identity of the original lessee
(Gilchrist) of the film. The liability of the appellants arises from unlawful
acts and not from contractual obligations, as they were under no such
obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his contract with Gilchrist. So
that if the action of Gilchrist had been one for damages, it would be
governed by Chapter 2, Title 6, Book 4 of CC. Art 1902 of that code
provides that a person who, by act or omission, causes damages to
another when there is fault or negligence, shall be obliged to repair the
damage done. There is nothing in this article which requires as a
condition precedent to the liability of a tort-feasor that he must know
the identity of a person to whom he causes damages. In fact, the
chapter wherein this article is found clearly shows that no such
knowledge is required in order that the injured party may recover for
the damage suffered.
CEBU COUNTRY CLUB VS ELIZAGAQUE
GR NO. 160273
Elizagaque, who is an officer of San Miguel Corporation, applied for
membership in Cebu Country Club and then, na blackball siya.
(Blackball system: majority of one; if there is one member there who
doesn’t like you, cast a blackball pag elect sa imuha, that’s a majority
of one. Di jud ka pwede maapil ana na grupo).
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
Can you sue Cebu Country Club for blackballing him? Na di siya
dawaton?
You can’t. Because naa tay freedom of association. So members of an
association dili pud pwede mapugos na paapilon ang dili namo
ganahan paapilon. It’s as simple as that. What about Sir sa fact na
ulaw ma reject? Wala tay mahimo ana.
But you know what made a difference in this case? It’s the fact that he
was given a ran around for a long period of time. Like mangutana siya
kung apil na ba siya, nobody would ever tell him na na-reject siya.
That, according to the Supreme Court, cannot be considered Damnum
Absque Injuria because there is an abuse of rights. True, you have the
right to exclude somebody from the membership, but you have to treat
that person humanely.
3. THAT THE PLAINTIFF’S OWN NEGLIGENCE IS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE LOSS
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and
proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages.XXX
Take note na ginaingon nimo diri na ang defendant kay dili dapat sal-
an. Why? Because it is actually the plaintiff who caused his own loss
kay siya ang nag dinanghag.
This is a compete defense directed particularly to the element of
causation or that “there must be a causal connection between the fault
or negligence and the damage. Kato ang element of proximate
causation.
What therefore is PROXIMATE CAUSE?
BATACLAN VS MEDINA
102 PHIL 181
FACTS: The deceased Juan Bataclan was among the passengers of
Medina Transportation, driven by Conrado Saylon and operated by
Mariano Medina. On its way from Cavite to Pasay, the front tires burst
and the vehicle fell into a canal. Some passengers were able to escape
by themselves or with some help, while there were 4, including
Bataclan, who could not get out. Their cries were heard in the
neighborhood. Then there came about 10 men, one of them carrying a
torch. As they approached the bus, it caught fire and the passengers
died. The fire was due to gasoline leak and the torch. Salud Villanueva
Vda. De Bataclan, in her name and on behalf of her 5 minor children,
sought to claim damages from the bus company.
HELD: Proximate cause is that cause which, in the natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury and without which the result would not have
occurred. The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing
the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a
close causal connection with its predecessor, the final event in the
chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result
of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the
person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent
and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the
moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might
probably result therefrom.
Discussion: My advice is for you to memorize proximate cause. That
is actually a technical term. What’s the consequence a term being a
technical term under the law?
When a term is considered a technical term, it admits of no other
definition than that which the law provides. If a term has a statutory
definition, you use the definition. The codal definition. In the absence of
statutory definition, you use what is known as the doctrinal definition or
how the term is actually defined by the Supreme Court. So proximate
cause, no other definition but:
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
PROXIMATE CAUSE
That cause which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which
the result would not have occurred.
Dominoes example:
Imagine, this the 10th domino, this is the 1st domino, in a natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by efficient intervening cause, you
have the right to expect na pag matumba ang first domino, tumba
tanan. Pero ang pangutana karon, kay kinsang sala? Katong 1st
domino na unang natumba? Or katong 9th domino na maoy niigo sa
10th domino? Mao na siya ang proximate cause.
What happens if in the middle or the process na natumba ang domino,
giuna nimo’g pitik ang 7th domino? Unsa karon ang cause sa
pagkatumba sa 10th domino? Ang pagflick sa 1st domino or katong
pagflick sa 7th domino? Katong pag flick sa 7th domino. That is
proximate cause, the flicking of the 7th domino can be deemed to be an
efficient intervening cause.
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
It is one which destroys the causal connection between the negligent
act and injury and thereby negatives liability. It is also known as a
PRE-EMPTIVE CAUSE which breaks the continuity of causal
connection between the original negligent act or omission and the
injury so that the former cannot be said to have been the efficient
cause of the latter.
RODRIGUEZ VS MANILA RAILROAD CO.
GR NO. 15688, NOV. 19, 1921
FACTS: The house of the plaintiff was razed by fire because of the
sparks emitted by the defendant’s train. The fire started in one house
until it reached the house of the plaintiff. The defendant contended that
the fire would not have spread to the house of the plaintiff were it not
for the wind, which is contended to be an efficient intervening cause.
HELD: A cause is not intervening if it is already in operation at the time
the negligent act was committed. The wind cannot be deemed to be an
efficient intervening cause because it was already in operation at the
time of the negligence of the defendant. Even if the wind was not in
operation then, it cannot be considered to be an efficient intervening
cause because the wind did not break the chain of causation between
the negligence of the defendant and the resulting damage to the
plaintiff.
Discussion: This is home along da riles. Usually squatters na, and
homes nila usually shanties ra. Naa karong train dira. Manila Rail Road
man, so naay train na ginaoperate sa Manila Rail Road na naga emit
ug sparks, ngano? Kay wala na properly maintain siguro, so naay
sparks emitted by the train. So nasunog ang mga balay nila
Rodrigueza, mga homes along da riles. Naturally pag masunog ang
isa, mangasunog tanan because they are a row of shanties. So they
sued Manila Rail Road company for its negligence for not undertaking
the proper repairs upon the trains and trucks kay mao na ang cause sa
sunod. Ang contention sa Manila Rail Road kay very simple, butang
nato na sala namo sa sugod pero ningkusog man gud ang hangin. The
wind made it possible for the fire to spread, otherwise dili unta na sila
mangasunog.
So, the issue of this case is whether the wind is an efficient intervening
cause. According to the Supreme Court, it cannot be considered an
efficient intervening cause if it is already in operation at the time the
negligent act was committed. So when they did not maintain properly
their trains that can cause sparks, naa na bay wind? Naa naman
siguro. Wind will always be present. So it cannot be considered an
efficient intervening cause. Even if the wind was not in operation then,
it cannot be considered to be an efficient intervening because the wind
did not break the chain of causation between the negligence of the
defendant and the resulting damage to the plaintiff.
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
MCKEE VS IAC
211 SCRA 517
FACTS: Plaintiff Jose Koh was driving along the highway. He swerved
his car to the left and encroached upon the opposite lane to avoid
hitting 2 children. His car was hit by a speeding truck coming from the
opposite direction. Jose sued the driver of the truck.
HELD: The efficient intervening cause is the negligence of the
defendant. The plaintiff may be negligent but the defendant’s
negligence pre-empted the effect of such negligence. Although it may
be said that Jose Koh’s act was negligent and was the initial act in the
chain of events, it cannot be said that the same caused the injuries and
deaths because of the occurrence of a sufficient intervening event, the
negligent act of the driver. The truck driver did not heed the warning
signs of Koh to slow down. Instead of swerving to his right (to the dirt
road portion) which was the proper precautionary measure, he
maintained his speed.
NOTE (from 2018 TSN):
 In Bataclan, the first cause (overspeeding of the bus driver
causing the bus to turn turtle) was still the proximate cause.
 In McKee, the 1st cause (swerving) was not considered the
proximate cause. Note that in McKee, the SC applied the
emergency rule as follows:
One who suddenly finds himself in a place of
danger, and is required to act without time to
consider the best means that may be adopted to
avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently
and upon reflection may appear to have been a
better method, unless the emergency in which he
finds himself is brought about by his own
negligence.
BJDC CONSTRUCTION VA LANUZO
GR NO 161151 MARCH 24, 2014 (from 2018 TSN):
FACTS: This case involves a claim for damages arising from the death
of a motorcycle rider in a nighttime accident due to the supposed
negligence of a construction company then undertaking re-blocking
work on a national highway. The plaintiffs insisted that the accident
happened because the construction company did not provide adequate
lighting on the site, but the latter countered that the fatal accident was
caused by the negligence of the motorcycle rider himself.
HELD: Based on the evidence adduced by the Lanuzo heirs,
negligence cannot be fairly ascribed to the company considering that it
has shown its installation of the necessary warning signs and lights in
the project site. In that context, the fatal accident was not caused by
any instrumentality within the exclusive control of the company. In
contrast, Balbino had the exclusive control of how he operated and
managed his motorcycle. The records disclose that he himself did not
take the necessary precautions. As Zamora declared, Balbino overtook
another motorcycle rider at a fast speed, and in the process could not
avoid hitting a barricade at the site, causing him to be thrown off his
motorcycle onto the newly cemented road. SPO1 Corporal’s
investigation report corroborated Zamora’s declaration. This causation
of the fatal injury went uncontroverted by the Lanuzo heirs.
By the time of the accident, the project, which had commenced in
September 1997, had been going on for more than a month and was
already in the completion stage. Balbino, who had passed there on a
daily basis in going to and from his residence and the school where he
then worked as the principal, was thus very familiar with the risks at the
project site. Nor could the Lanuzo heirs justly posit that the illumination
was not adequate, for it cannot be denied that Balbino’s motorcycle
was equipped with headlights that would have enabled him at dusk or
night time to see the condition of the road ahead. That the accident still
occurred surely indicated that he himself did not exercise the degree of
care expected of him as a prudent motorist. Considering that it was
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
shown that Balbino was not wearing any protective head gear or
helmet at the time of the accident, he was guilty of negligence in that
respect. Had he worn the protective head gear or helmet, his untimely
death would not have occurred. All the established circumstances
showed that the proximate and immediate cause of the death of
Balbino was his own negligence. Hence, the Lanuzo heirs could not
recover damages.
CALALAS VS CA
GR NO. 122039, MAY 31, 2000
(from 2018 TSN):
FACTS: Sunga took a passenger jeepney owned and operated by
Calalas. As the jeepney was filled to capacity, Sunga was given by the
conductor an “extension seat”, a wooden stool at the back of the door
at the rear end of the vehicle. When the jeepney stopped to let a
passenger off, SUnga gave way to the outgoing passenger. Just as
she was doing so, an Isuzu truck driven by Iglecerio Verena and
owned by Francisco Salva bumped the left rear portion of the jeepney.
As a result, Sunga was injured. She sued Calalas for breach of
contract of carriage.
HELD: It is immaterial that the proximate cause of the collision
between the jeepney and the truck was the negligence of the truck
driver. The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for
quasi-delict, not in actions involving breach of contract. The doctrine is
a device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation
between him and another party. In such a case, the obligation is
created by law itself. But, where there is a pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, it is the parties themselves who create the
obligation, and the function of the law is merely to regulate the relation
thus created. Insofar as contracts of carriage are concerned, some
aspects regulated by the Civil Code are those respecting the diligence
of common carriers with regard to the safety of passengers as well as
the presumption of negligence in cases of death or injury to
passengers. In the case at bar, upon the happening of the accident,
the presumption of negligence at once arose, and it became the duty of
petitioner to prove that he had to observe extraordinary diligence in the
care of his passengers. Here, Sunga was made to sit on an extension
seat and the jeepney at the time of the mishap was improperly parked.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and
proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his
negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause
of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded.
PRESENT RULES:
What’s the prevailing rule right now for contributory negligence?
1. If the plaintiff’s own negligence was the proximate cause of
his injury, he cannot recover (Taylor vs Manila Electric).
2. If his negligence was merely contributory, there is a mere
mitigation of damages to be awarded.
Contributory negligence, under Art 2179, is a PARTIAL
DEFENSE as courts are mandated to merely mitigate the
damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. The defendant,
because of his lack of due care is still the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury, is still ultimately liable with the
modification that his liability to indemnify the plaintiff is
lessened.
 Torts & Damages Based on the lectures of
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

BUT PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE: Another Argument: The theory here of petitioners is that while the
petitioner truck driver was negligent, respondent Dionisio had the “last
Contributory negligence before was an absolute bar to recovery. clear chance” of avoiding the accident and hence his injuries, and that
Maskin gamay lang kaayo, 99% ang negligence sa defendant, but 1% Dionisio having failed to take that “last clear chance” must bear his own
lang ang negligence sa plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot recover because he injuries alone.
himself is negligent.
PICART VS SMITH
JARCO MARKETING VS CA 37 PHIL 814
Anent the negligence imputed to Zhieneth, we apply the conclusive
presumption that favors children below 9 years old in that they are Picart seeks to recover from Smith damages from an accident caused
incapable of contributory negligence. In our jurisdiction, a person under by Smith while driving his automobile. The incident happened on the
9 years old is conclusively presumed to have acted without Carlatan Bridge of San Fernando, La Union. Picart was riding his pony
discernment, and is, on that account, exempt from criminal liability. The over the said bridge and when he saw halfway across Smith
same presumption and a like exemption from criminal liability obtains in approached. Smith had the last fair opportunity to avoid the collision
a case of a person over 9 and under 15 years of age, unless it is but failed to act accordingly.
shown that he has acted with discernment.
From the facts mentioned, it was derived that the control of the
NOTES: (from 2018 TSN) situation had passed entirely to Smith and it was his duty to bring the
 If the plaintiff’s contributory negligence is duly proven, the car to an immediate stop or pass in the other side of the road, there
matter of whether or not to mitigate the damages is not a being no other persons on the bridge, to avoid collision. Under the
matter of discretion. The courts are absolutely required to circumstances, the law is that the person who has the last clear chance
to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the
lessen the damages to be awarded. The extent of the
consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the other
mitigation is, however, within the sound discretion of the party.
court with particular reference to the degree of negligence
exhibited by the plaintiff. LAST CLEAR CHANCE
 It must also be noted that the enactment of Art 2179 of the
Civil Code is a statutory rejection of the rules on Contributory The doctrine “last clear chance” or LCC (also referred to, at times, as
Negligence in Common Law. “supervening negligence” or as “discovered peril”), in essence, is to
effect that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of
one is appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is
PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION VS IAC
impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed
MARCH 10, 1987 (from 2018 TSN)
to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
impending harm and filed to do so is chargeable with the
FACTS: Leonardo Dionisio was on his way home from cocktails and
consequences thereof.
dinner meeting with his boss. He was proceeding down General
Lacuna St when he was a Ford dump truck parked askew, partly
Stated differently, the rule would also mean that an antecedent
blocking the way of oncoming traffic, with no lights or early warning
negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for
reflector devices. The truck was driven earlier by Carbonel, a regular
supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against the liability sought
driver of Pheonix. Dionisio tried to swerve his car to the left, but it was
by, another if the latter who had the last fair chance, could have
too late. He suffered some physical injuries and nervous breakdown.
avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.
Dionisio filed an action for damages against Carbonel and Phoenix
Insurance. Petitioners countered the claim by imputing the accident to
In applying the doctrine of last clear chance what we need to
respondent’s own negligence in driving at high speed without curfew
remember is that both parties must have been negligent. But there is a
pass and headlights, and while intoxicated. The trial court and CA ruled
timing element, one negligence is ahead, the other was later in time.
in favor of Dionisio.
So it considers the relative position of the plaintiff and defendant with
the knowledge that both of them had been negligent.
HELD: The truck driver’s negligence far from being a “passive and
static condition” was rather an indispensable and efficient cause. The
Why is it that we have a doctrine of Last Clear Chance?
collision between the dump truck and the private respondent’s car
This doctrine was actually a common law doctrine, there is no codal
would in all probability not have incurred had the dump truck not been
provision talking about the doctrine of last clear chance. It was simply
parked askew without any warning lights or reflector devices. The
imported to our jurisdiction by the case of Picart vs Smith.
improper parking of the dump truck created an unreasonable risk of
injury for anyone driving down General Lacuna St and for having so
Prior to the enactment of the New Civil Code, Contributory Negligence
created this risk, the truck driver must be held responsible. In our view,
was an absolute bar to recovery. In order to mitigate the harshness of
Dionisio’s negligence, although later in point of time than the truck
the former rule of Contributory Negligence, the SC had to import from
driver’s negligence and therefore closer to the accident, was not an
another jurisdictions the doctrine of Last Clear Chance para dili siya
efficient intervening or independent cause.
absolute bar to recovery, katong former doctrine nato on Contributory
Negligence.
Mitigation in Phoenix: Turning to the award of damages and taking
into account the comparative negligence of private respondent Dionisio
But remember, that under Article 2179 right now, our rule on
on one hand and petitioners Carbonel and Phoenix upon the other
Contributory Negligence is no longer an absolute bar to recovery. I-
hand, we believe that the demands of substantial justice are satisfied
mitigate lang ang damages to be awarded.
by allocating most of the damages on a 20-80 ratio. Thus, 20% of the
damages awarded by the respondent appellate court, except the award
So ngano naa pa tay doctrine of Last Clear Chance? There is no more
of P10,000 as exemplary damages and P4,500 as attorney’s fees and
harsh common law rule on Contributory Negligence to mitigate
costs, shall be borne by Dionisio; only the balance of 80% needs to be
because apportioned na ang liability when both parties are negligent.
paid by the petitioners who are solidarily liable therefor to the former.
The award of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees and costs shall
True enough, it has been the observation of the Supreme Court all
be borne exclusively by the petitioners.
along that in the 1987 case of Phoenix vs IAC, the SC questioned why
we still have the doctrine of Last Clear Chance and even declared
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
categorically that there is no more role to be played by the doctrine of
Last Clear Chance in our current system of laws. Wala na dapat ni.
Wala na ba jud ang doctrine of Last Clear Chance?
Answer is no, why? Because 2 years later:
The FLIP-FLOP begins:
 Glan Peoples Lumber vs NLRC, 173 SCRA 464, 1989 (SC
applied doctrine)
 PANTRANCO vs BAESA, 179 SCRA 384, 1989 (SC applied
doctrine)
 LBC Air Cargo, Inc. vs CA, GR No. 101683, 1995 (SC
applied doctrine)
 PBCOM vs CA, March 14, 1997 (SC applied doctrine in a
non-accident case) – Right now, under the Labor Code, the act complained of in Valencia is
The Supreme Court applied it in the matter of encashment of
forged checks. Nganong na forged imong check? Kay
because you left it hanging around, wala nimo gitago imong
check, maong gi fill-in, gipa-encash karon. Kinsang sala?
Ikaw, you were negligent because you did not keep it safely.
Next question to ask, ikaw lang ba ang negligent, kanang
check owner? Answer is no, sala pud sa bangko. Nganong
na encash man na siya? When in fact it could have exercise
proper diligence na i-confirm sa imuha kung nag-issue ba jud
kag cheke in the amount of 2,500 for example.
So this case was actually one that used the doctrine of Last
Clear Chance. Kinsa ba naay last clear chance to prevent
the loss of that encashment of a forged check? Ang Bangko.
So what happened to the negligent check owner? Naa siyay
Contributory Negligence so therefore, naay apportionment
sa liability. He cannot recover everything.
 William Tiu vs Arriesgado, Sept. 1, 2004, (SC rejected
doctrine, applied Phoenix)
 Phil. National Railways vs Brunty, Nov. 2, 2006 (SC applied
doctrine)
 Lapanday vs Angala, GR No. 153076, June 21, 2007 (SC
applied doctrine)
CURRENT STATUS OF THE DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
So instead of putting a stop to the application of the doctrine of Last
Clear Chance in the Philippine jurisdiction, because our rule on
Contributory Negligence is actually different, gi expand pa hinoon
karon sa Supreme Court ang applicability sa doctrine of Last Clear
Chance to non-accident cases. In common law, they only use the
doctrine in accident cases, not in banking cases or commercial
transactions.
Still applicable in the Philippines despite the ruling of the SC in the
case of Phoenix vs IAC in 1987, and later on in the case of Tiu vs
Arriesgado.
4. PRESCRIPTION
What is the prescriptive period for filing an action based on quasi-
delict?
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within 4 years:
1. Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff
2. Upon a quasi-delict.
(From 2018 TSN)
What is the difference between #1 Upon an injury to the rights of the
plaintiff and #2 Upon a quasi-delict?
In Valencia vs Cebu Portland Cement Co, December 23, 1959, the
plaintiff was separated from employment for allegedly unjustifiable
cause. SC held that the action is one for “injury to the rights of the
plaintiff”.
TAKE NOTE:
Valencia was decided before the effectivity of the Labor Code in 1974.
During that time, labor complaints were cognizable by the judiciary.
cognizable as illegal dismissal. What is the proper prescriptive period?
STILL 4 YEARS
Remember the labor principle that a person’s right to his labor is a
property right. Thus, in proper legal contemplation, illegal dismissal is a
violation of a property right or “an injury to the rights of the plaintiff”.
Thus, Valencia still applies. (Teekay Shipping vs Concha, GR No.
185463, Feb. 22, 2012)
5. ASSUMPTION OF RISK
The DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK is to the effect that bears
a claim for negligence when it can be shown that the plaintiff, by his or
her conduct, voluntarily chose to encounter a known and specific
danger and either fully appreciated or should have fully appreciated the
risks posed by that conduct.
The applicable Latin maxim is “VIOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA” or
“VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA NEQUES DOLUS” meaning “HE WHO
VOLUNTARILY ASSUMES A RISK, DOES NOT SUFFER DAMAGE
THEREBY” or “to a willing person, no injury is done”.
This doctrine holds that a person who knowingly and willingly puts
himself in a dangerous situation cannot sue for any resulting injuries.
Again, this is a common law doctrine of Anglo-American origin which
serves as a bar to recovery of damages in negligence cases.
AFIALDA VS HISOLE
GR NO. L-2075, NOV. 29, 1949
FACTS: Loreto Afialda, was employed by the defendant spouses
Hisole as caretaker of their carabaos at a fixed compensation. While
tending the animals he was, on March 21, 2947, gored by one of them
and later died as a consequence of his injuries. The heirs of the
deceased alleged that the mishap was due neither to the own fault of
Afialda nor to force majeure.
HELD: In the present case, the animal was in the custody and under
the control of the caretaker, who was paid for his work as such.
Obviously, it was the caretaker’s business to try to prevent the animal
from causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself. And 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.
 Torts & Damages Based on the lectures of
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

NIKKO HOTEL VS REYES
GR NO. 154259, FEB. 28, 2005
This doctrine does not find application to the case at bar because even
if respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave the
party, petitioners, under Articles 19 and 21 of the NCC, were still under
obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to unnecessary
ridicule and shame.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be
liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices,
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.

Discussion: Kung nag gate crash kag party, gipahawa ka, naulawan The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
ka, can you sue the person na nagpahawa sa imo kay napaulawan ka? persons herein mentioned prove that they observe all the diligence of a
That is answer in this case. good father of a family to prevent damage.

6. FORCE MAJEURE

Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is

otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for
those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen,
were inevitable.

This is complete and proper defense for a quasi-delict case.

 ACTUS DEI NEMINI FACIT INJURIAM – The act of God
prejudices no one.

REQUISITES OF FORCE MAJEURE:

1. The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or
of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation must
be independent of the human will (ex. A building is destroyed
by an earthquake; typhoon destroys ship and cargo);
2. It must be impossible to foresee the event or, if it could be
foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid (ex. Earthquake is
impossible to foresee and impossible to avoid; that a
typhoon will strike is impossible to foresee and avoid but see
Tan Chiong Sian vs Inchausti &C Co., 22 Ohil. 152);
3. The obligor must be free from any participation in the
aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.

7. DUE DILIGENCE IN SELECTION AND SUPERVISION

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not

only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom one is responsible.

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

incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their
company.

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 employees

and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks,
even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

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.
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
QUASI-DELICTS – PART 3
Vicarious Liability
Vicarious Liability, In General
- Vicarious Liability, in tort law, means the imposition of
responsibility for the failure of another with whom the person
has a special relationship.
Atty. Espejo: So you cannot be held vicariously liable if you were not
otherwise bound or privy with a person, regardless of the nature of the
privity, whether it is privity by blood or privity by contract. There has to
be some privity here.
There are instances under the law wherein you did not do anything but
by virtue of the relationship in which you may have to a person who
caused damage, you will also be held responsible therefor. That would
be vicarious liability.
Vicarious means “acting for another”
- From the Latin vicis meaning “substitution or succession”
- Word association:
o Vice as in vice president, meaning in case of
disability of the President, you actually succeed or
substitute.
o Vicar meaning“a substitute, deputy, proxy”.
According to Catholic Doctrine, the Pope is the
vicar of Christ.
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable
not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons
for whom one is responsible.
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
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their
company.
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 employees
and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks,
even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
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.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be
liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices,
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)
"The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only
for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom one is responsible."
Atty. Espejo: That opening paragraph tells you that in law, you are
responsible for your own negligence but if you are acting or you are a
vicar for somebody else, there would also be a tort liability consisting of
what we call vicarious liability.
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Who are these persons?
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
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their
company.
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 employees
and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks,
even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
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.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be
liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices,
so long as they remain in their custody.
Atty. Espejo: Take note, just a precursor to our discussion later on
relating to the State as an employer, it is liable under Article 2180 when
it acts through a special agent but if the official causes damage is the
person whom the task done properly pertains, the liability here is
ordinary.
What would be your defense if you are charged vicariously for the
commission of another person of a tort?
"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"
So there is that defense that is built in under Article 2180.
Characteristic of Vicarious Liability
It is STRICT liability. This means that, under Art. 2180, there is no
need to prove fault or negligence upon the person sought to be made
responsible.
e.g. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise
are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees
x xx So kinsa ang nag commit ug quasi-delict diri? Not the
employer but rather it is the employee.
Note: So there is no need to prove that the owner or manager
was negligent because negligence is actually imputed. What the
plaintiff proves is only the negligence of the employee and the
latter’s relationship with the owner or the manager.
To illustration further the Strict Liability
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. (1905)
Atty. Espejo: If you take a look at the provision, there is no act or
omission on the part of the possessor but of the animal but he is made
responsible. So, there is no need to impute negligence here.
 Torts & Damages Based on the lectures of
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

COMPARISON
Rationale
Both provisions do not require proof of fault or Our Legislature has so elected, for reasons of public policy, to extend
negligence. It is enough that there is damage caused by tort liability, without regard to the lack of moral culpability, so as to
a person or instrumentality subject to the control of include responsibility for the negligence of those persons whose acts or
another. omissions are imputable, by a legal fiction, to others who are in a
Art. 2180 Art. 2183 position to exercise an absolute or limited control over them. The
Who caused damage? What caused damage? legislature which adopted our Civil Code has elected to limit extra-
Children, employees, The animal. contractual liability — with certain well-defined exceptions — to cases
agents, student, etc. in which moral culpability can be directly imputed to the persons to be
Who is liable? Who is liable? charged.
The person responsible for The person responsible for
another. the animal (possessor/user This moral responsibility may consist in having failed to exercise due
of the animal)
care in one's own acts, or in having failed to exercise due care in the
In both provisions, negligence is imputed. Both the
selection and control of one's agent or servants, or in the control of
“vicars” and the possessor/user are deemed negligent
and liable, subject to defences to be proved later on. persons who, by reasons of their status, occupy a position of
Art. 2180 Art. 2183 dependency with respect to the person made liable for their conduct.
The responsibility treated This responsibility shall
of in this article shall cease cease only in case the Atty. Espejo: Under the Tamargo case, there are two types of
when the persons herein damage should come liability: one that is directly created by the defendant and one which
mentioned prove that they from force majeure or may simply be imputed upon the defendant by reason of some
observed all the diligence from the fault of the special relationship.
of a good father of a person who has suffered
family to prevent damage. damage. Type of Liability Imposed Under Art. 2180
In general, the liability imposed against a vicarious tortfeasor is
Doctrine of Imputed Negligence DIRECT AND PRIMARY but subject to reimbursement under Art.
Under Art. 2180, a person is not only liable for torts committed by 2181.
himself, but also for torts committed by others with whom he has a
certain relationship and for whom he is responsible.
So why direct and primary when in fact vicarious lang naman such that
Other Examples of Strict Liability Torts: Liability even without mag arise lang ang liability not because of the acts of the vicar but acts
Fault of the person for whom the vicar is responsible?

1. Vicarious Liability under Art. 2180 Because ultimately, it is the vicar's lack of diligence in preventing
2. Animals under Art. 2183 damage or selection or supervision with respect to employees and
3. Falling objects (dejectumeffesumvealiquid) under Art. 2193 agents that is actually the source of liability subject to reimbursement
under Article 2181.
Article 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a
part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things thrown For example, my employee caused damage to another in the course of
or falling from the same. (1910) doing his assigned task. The injured party here can directly go after
me, the employer, as my liability is direct and primary.
4. Art. 1711 imposes an obligation on owners of enterprises and
other employers to pay for the death or injuries to their This highlights one of the distinctions between culpa criminal and culpa
employees. acquiliana. In criminal cases, recourse must be first had against an
employee before the employer can be held liable. In quasi-delict,
*Liability is strict because it exists even if the cause is purely recourse can be made directly against the employer without suing the
accidental.
employee.
5. Nuisance. There is strict liability on the part of the owner or
possessor of the property where a nuisance is found because What about in criminal cases? When does an employer become
he is obliged to abate the same irrespective of the presence liable to pay damages?
or absence of fault or negligence. 1. The employee must be convicted;
2. The employee is insolvent.
Article 696. Every successive owner or possessor of property
who fails or refuses to abate a nuisance in that property started How do you do that? You file a motion for subsidiary liability in the
by a former owner or possessor is liable therefor in the same same case. That's the procedure.
manner as the one who created it.
Basis of Liability. The basis of liability is the presumed negligence in
supervision.
6. Product Liability.
Article 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, Other Traditional Bases of Vicarious Liability:
toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries 1. Respondeat Superior
caused by any noxious or harmful substances used, although no o Command responsibility or that which would hold
contractual relation exists xxx a superior officer jointly and severally accountable
for damages, including moral and exemplary, with
Common Theme: his subordinates who committed such
 There is no need to prove fault or negligence in these cases. transgressions.
 Negligence is imputed.
o This is related to captain of the ship. Ultimately,
Why is the liability here strict? liable ka regardless of what you do.

2. Pater Familias
TAMARGO vs. CA (1992)
Citing Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co., 38 Phil. 768 o This theory bases the liability of the master
ultimately on his own negligence and not on that
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
of his servant. (Cuison vs. Norton and Harrison
Co., 55 Phil. 18)
Atty. Espejo: Is it fair for the law to impute somebody who did not lift
a finger nor did not do a thing? The fairness comes with the age-old
principle, “With great power comes great responsibility.” If you
examine everything written under Art. 2180 which all hinge on pater
familias, there is that responsibility because of the peculiar authority
granted to the persons who are the vicars. The parents have the
authority to discipline the children. The employer has the authority
over the employee as it is for the former that the latter is permitted or
suffered to work and is therefore subjected to the employer’s
reasonable regulations and instructions. The State has also that power
and authority over another, whether it a special agent or ordinary
agent. (Based on 2017
Atty. Espejo: The parent has the responsibility to keep their children in
line so as they may not commit negligent acts. The employer, for
example, who authorizes an employee to use a company vehicle, has
that responsibility of supervising the employee or at least of insuring
that the vehicle will not in any way [meet] an accident.
TIU vs. ARRIESGADO (2004)
What are the distinctions between Respondeat Superior and Pater
Familias?
Pater Familias Respondeat Superior
Presumed negligence Command Responsibility
Basis of Liability in Civil Basis of liability in Anglo-
Law American/Common Law
Presumption of negligence The negligence of
is disputable employee is conclusively
presumed to be the
negligence of the employer
Defense is diligence of a Diligence of a good father
good father of a family to of a family is not a proper
prevent damage. defense.
Respondeat Superior: When Applicable
1. Liability of employers under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC)
Article 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.
In Art. 103, the employee’s criminal guilt is automatically the
employer’s civil guilt.
Take note they should be engaged in any industry, meaning,
hindi pwede yung personal or family driver or kasambahay.
2. Liability of a partnership for the tort committed by a partner:
Article 1822. Where, by any wrongful act or
omission of any partner acting in the ordinary
course of the business of the partnership or
with the authority of his co-partners, loss or
injury is caused to any person, not being a
partner in the partnership, or any penalty is
incurred, the partnership is liable therefor to
the same extent as the partner so acting or
omitting to act. (n)
Atty. Espejo: In here, it does not provide for a defense that
the partner (without fault) can prove that he exercised due
diligence. He simply has to answer for someone else’s
negligent act.
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Under our Civil law, the basis of liability is not respondeat superior,
but the relationship of pater familas, which theory bases the liability
of the master ultimately on his own negligence and not on that of
his servant. (Cuison vs. Norton and Harrison Co., 55 Phil. 18)
Persons Vicariously Liable
For unity of discussion, let us divide vicarious liability as follows:
1. Parental and Pseudo-Parental Vicarious Liability
o Parents, Guardians and Teachers and Heads of
Establishments of Arts and Trades.
2. Employment-based Vicarious Liability
o Owners and Managers, Employers and State
3. Other Vicariously Liability not found in Art. 2180
Atty. Espejo: In Parental and Pseudo-Parental Vicarious
Liability, plaintiff must prove the relationship (parental or filial
relationship or guardianship). Employment-based Vicarious
Liability requires, for the vicarious liability to attach, that the
plaintiff should prove employer-employee relationship.
OTHER VICARIOUSLY LIABILITY NOT FOUND IN ART. 2180
1. Innkeepers and Hotel Keepers
o They are civilly liable for crimes committed in their
establishments in cases of violations of statutes by them,
in default of persons criminally liable. (Art. 102, RPC)
o The basis of liability here is the fact that there is privity
between the innkeeper or hotelkeeper with the agent or
the employee who committed the crime.
o They are subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods
taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests
lodging therein, or for payment of the value thereof,
provided that:
i. The innkeeper was notified in advance of the
deposit of such goods within the inn; and
ii. The guest shall have followed the directions
which such innkeeper or his representative may
have given with respect to the care and vigilance
over the goods. (See Art. 1998)
o What about in the case of airbnbs? What is the
advantage in the case of a traditional hotel?
Subsidiary liability. They are strictly regulated. Airbnbs,
no. I do not even know if the laws would actually apply to
them. Technically speaking, they are not hotelkeepers,
they are not innkeepers. They are just property owners
who happen to lease their properties. In other words,
transient.
2. Partnership
o Partnership or every partner is liable for torts committed
by one of the partners acting within the scope of the firm
business, though they do not participate in, ratify, or
have knowledge of such torts.
o Partners are liable as joint tort-feasors.
o Vicarious liability is similar to the common rule on
respondeat superior.
o Liability is entirely imputed and the partnership cannot
obviously invoke diligence in the selection and
supervision of the partner.
3. Spouses
o Liability depends on the applicable Matrimonial Property
Regime.
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
Absolute Community. The absolute community of
property shall be liable for liabilities incurred by either
spouses by reason of crime or quasi-delict, in case of
absence or insufficiency of the exclusive property of the
debtor-spouse.
Payments of which shall be considered as advances to
be deducted from the share of the debtor-spouse upon
liquidation of the community. (See Art. 94, Family Code)
Conjugal Partnership of Gains. Pecuniary indemnities
imposed upon the husband or wife are not chargeable
against the conjugal partnership but against the separate
properties of the wrongdoer.
Exception: CPG should be made liable:
1. When the profits have inured to the benefit of the
partnership; or
2. If one of the spouses committed the tort while
performing a business or if the act was supposed
to benefit the conjugal partnership
Let us now go to the next class of vicarious liability:
PARENTAL AND PSEUDO-PARENTAL VICARIOUS LIABILITY
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.
What is the Basis:
FUELLAS vs. CADANO (1961)
The civil liability which the law imposes upon the father and, in case of
his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be
caused by the minor children who live with them, is obvious. This is a
necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise
over them which imposes upon the parents the "duty of supporting
them, keeping them in their company, educating them in proportion to
their means", while on the other hand, gives them the "right to correct
and punish them in moderation."
Citing Manresa:
Since children and wards do not yet have the capacity to govern
themselves, the law imposes upon the parents and guardians the duty
of exercising special vigilance over the acts of their children and wards
in order that damages to third persons due to the ignorance, lack of
foresight or discernment of such children and wards may be avoided. If
the parents and guardians fail to comply with this duty, they should
suffer the consequences of their abandonment or negligence by
repairing the damage caused.
Q: Who is liable here?
A: Under Art. 2180, the father is liable. The mother becomes liable
only in cases of death or incapacity of the father. Thus, the liability
here is alternative and not concurrent or simultaneous.
Q: Is this still the rule?
A: Take note of the provision of the Family Code (FC) regarding
parental authority:
Art. 211. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise parental
authority over the persons of their common children. In case of
disagreement, the father's decision shall prevail, unless there is a
judicial order to the contrary. xxx
Atty. Espejo: If we recall the case of Tamargo, the basis for vicarious
liability is parental authority. Under the Civil Code, parental authority is
primarily vested in the father and then the mother. But in the family
code, it is very clear, the father and the mother jointly. In case of
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
disagreement, the father's decision shall prevail unless there is judicial
order to the contrary in exercising parental authority.
Q: Is there a change in the liability imposed by law, from the
father primarily now to both parents?
A: Art. 221, FC is instructive:
Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority
shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts
or omissions of their unemancipatedchildren living in their company
and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate
defenses provided by law.
Thus, under Art. 211, it appears that this civil liability is now, without
such alternative qualification. We now follow the FC. Since they both
exercise parental authority, they are now both vicariously liable. This
was the categorical ruling of the Supreme Court in the en banc case
of:
LIBI vs. IAC, GOTION (1992)
Under said Article 2180, the enforcement of such liability shall be
effected against the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
mother. xxx However, under the Family Code, this civil liability is
now, without such alternative qualification, the responsibility of
the parents and those who exercise parental authority over the
minor offender. For civil liability arising from quasi-delicts committed
by minors, the same rules shall apply in accordance with Articles 2180
and 2182 of the Civil Code, as so modified.
Other Provisions
1. Child and Youth Welfare Code
Art. 58. Torts. - Parents and guardians are responsible for the damage
caused by the child under their parental authority in accordance with
the Civil Code.
2. Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law (A.M. No. 02-118-
SC, Feb. 28, 2002):
Section 33. Discharge of Juvenile Subject of Disposition Measure.
– xxx The parents and other persons exercising parental authority over
the juvenile shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused
by the acts or omissions of the juvenile living in their company and
under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses
provided by law.
Atty. Espejo: More or less the same. Take note that the liability here is
solidary. However, the instances when the parents are merely
subsidiary liable. Subsidiary meaning kung dili kabayad ang person
primarily liable it’s the time na pwede pabayron ang parents.
Subsidiary liability, like in criminal law, subsidiary lang ang liability sa
employer, dili solidary, dili direct and primary.
Types of Liability Imposed on Parents
GR: Liability is SOLIDARY.
Exception: there are instances when the parents are merely
subsidiarily liable.
Instance #1:
Family Code
Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual,
entity or institution engaged in child are shall have special parental
authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their
supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities
whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or
institution.
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
Atty. Espejo: Kung naa sa skwelahan, kinsa’y naay parental authority
over the children? Substitute parental authority – it’s the school.
What if sa custody sa skwelahan the child commits a tort. Kinsa ang
primarily liable?
Art. 218, it’s the school. They have, in the meantime, special parental
authority over the children.
Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the
preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages
caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The
parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental
authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding
paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper
diligence required under the particular circumstances.
All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be
governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. (n)
Atty. Espejo:
Par. 1:
That’s the only situation na ang parents would only be subsidiary liable,
not primarily and directly liable for the tort commited by the children.
What’s the nature of the liability here?
Locational. The tort was commited in the school. Katong panahon nga
special parental authority ang school over the child.
Everything else, sa gawas, it’s always the parents.
Instance #2:
ELCANO vs. HILL (1977)
FACTS: Reginald Hill, a minor, caused the death of Agapito (son of
Elcano). Elcano filed a criminal case against Reginald but the latter
was acquitted for “lack of intent coupled with mistake.”Elcano then filed
a civil action against Reginald and his father (Marvin Hill) for damages
based on Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. Hill argued that the civil action is
barred by his son’s acquittal in the criminal case; and that if ever, his
civil liability as a parent has been extinguished by the fact that his son
is already an emancipated minor by reason of his marriage.
RULING: While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon
emancipation of the child "by the marriage of the minor (child)", it is,
however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by
marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute. Thus
"Emancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate
parental authority over the child's person. It shall enable the minor to
administer his property as though he was of age, but he cannot borrow
money or alienate or encumber real property without the consent of his
father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be sued in court only
with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian."
Therefore, Art. 2180 is applicable to Marvin Hill – the SC however ruled
since at the time of the decision, Reginald is already of age,
Marvin’s liability should be subsidiary only – as a matter of equity.
Atty. Espejo:
There are 2 Instances/Situations where parents are subsidiarily
liable:
1. Art. 218-219 (NCC) – Parents are merely subsidiarily liable
because of the special parental authority then exercised by
the school, it’s administrators, etc.
2. Elcano v. Hill – when as a matter of equity there should only
be subsidiary parental authority.
Children:
Note that the law makes no distinction as to “children.” Hence, children
could be legitimate, illegitimate, or even adopted.
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
TAMARGO vs. CA (1992)
FACTS: On 20 October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, then a
minor of 10 years of age, shot Jennifer Tamargo with an
air rifle causing injuries which resulted in her death.
Accordingly, a civil complaint for damages was filed with
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Vigan, Ilocos Sur,
docketed as Civil Case No. 3457-V, by petitioner
MacarioTamargo, Jennifer's adopting parent, and
petitioner spouses Celso and Aurelia Tamargo, Jennifer's
natural parents against respondent spouses Victor and
Clara Bundoc, Adelberto's natural parents with whom he
was living at the time of the tragic incident.
Prior to the incident, or on 10 December 1981, the
spouses Sabas and Felisa Rapisura had filed a petition to
adopt the minor Adelberto Bundoc. This petition for
adoption was granted on, 18 November 1982, that is, after
Adelberto had shot and killed Jennifer.
In their Answer, respondent spouses Bundoc, Adelberto's
natural parents, reciting the result of the foregoing petition
for adoption, claimed that not they, but rather the adopting
parents, namely the spouses Sabas and FelisaRapisura,
were indispensable parties to the action since parental
authority had shifted to the adopting parents from the
moment the successful petition for adoption was filed.
ISSUE: Who between the adopting parents and the
natural parents are liable for the tort committed by the
minor child?
RULING: The natural parents are liable.
Retroactive effect cannot be given to the decree of
adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting
parents accruing at a time when adopting parents had no
actual or physically custody over the adopted child.
Retroactive effect may perhaps be given to the granting of
the petition for adoption where such is essential to permit
the accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor of the
adopted child.
In the instant case, however, to hold that parental authority
had been retroactively lodged in the Rapisura spouses so
as to burden them with liability for a tortious act that they
could not have foreseen and which they could not have
prevented (since they were at the time in the United States
and had no physical cus tody over the child Adelberto)
would be unfair and unconscionable. Such a result,
moreover, would be inconsistent with the philosophical
and policy basis underlying the doctrine of vicarious
liability.
Put a little differently, no presumption of parental
dereliction on the part of the adopting parents, the
Rapisura spouses, could have arisen since Adelberto was
not in fact subject to their control at the time the tort was
committed.
Atty. Espejo:
Tan-awa ang complication diri: si Tamargo (victim) adopted. Naa sya’y
natural parents, naa pud sya’y adopting parents. Defendant Bondoc
also had natural and adopting parents.
We’re talking here about vicarious liability, and Bondoc (the minor). By
the time the case was filed, who had parental authority over him? The
adopting parents.
At the time of the incident, who had parental authority over him? The
natural parents.
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
Who between the natural and adopting parents are liable?
Remember, parental authority, i-trace nimo ang parental authority.
Analysis: The basis for the vicarious liability of parents for the torts
committed by their minor children is the actual exercise of Parental
Authority.
Q: What if the parents are dead? Ulila ang mga bata.
A: In the absence of parents (or the adopter in proper cases), a
guardian may be appointed by the court who would then exercise
parental authority.
In default of parents or guardians, parental authority shall be exercised
by the following, in the order indicated (see Art. 214 and Art. 216, FC):
 Surviving grandparents
 Oldest brother or sister, over 21 years
 Child’s actual custodian, over 21 years
Because these persons exercise parental authority, they are civilly
liable in cases where both parents are dead, absent or otherwise
incapacitated to perform their duty.
Take note: Because the age of majority and marrying age in the FC
(which is 18 y/o) are the same, no child can ever be emancipated by
marriage anymore.
Upon attaining age of majority, (1) parental authority, and therefore, in
proper legal contemplation, (2) vicarious liability ceases.
Right now, you can only be emancipated upon reaching the age of
majority.
Example:
Problem: Maja, 19, committed a tort against Angel. Can her parents
be held vicariously liable?
A: Yes!
Family Code
Art. 236. Emancipation for any cause shall terminate parental authority
over the person and property of the child who shall then be qualified
and responsible for all acts of civil life. (save the exceptions
established by existing laws in special cases)
xxx
Nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate from the duty or
responsibility of parents and guardians for children and wards below
twenty-one years of age mentioned in the second and third paragraphs
of Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
Atty. Espejo: Between 18 and 21, naa gihapon ka’y residual parental
authority over your children so long as they live in your company.
To my mind, however, there’s no more basis to hold parents vicariously
liable for the torts of their children who are no longer minor because
they don’t have parental authority over them. Di naman nimo ma
disiplina. Nag-cease na ang parental authority. Consequence ang right
to discipline children in moderation sa parental authority. When
parental authority ceases there’s no more right to discipline your
children in moderation.
So, what’s the basis for vicarious liability when you can no longer
discipline, when there’s no longer any parental authority? Wala. To my
mind that’s an aberrant rule. There is liability but there’s no authority to
discipline children of majority age.
Civil Liability under the Revised Penal Code
Certain minor children are exempt from criminal liability under the
Revised Penal Code (e.g. under 9, 9-15 acting without discernment)
under Art. 101 of the RPC:
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
For both these types of children, civil liability sya devolved upon
parents or guardians being those who have minor under their legal
authority.
But if you really look at the law does not talk about civil liability pag
minor over 9 but below 15 acting with discernment.
What about 15 to 18? Labaw na. regardless of whether they acted with
or without discernment.
Finally, 18 to 21 because there’s still vicarious liability. According Art.
236 (FC) there’s still vicarious liability – civil liability.
SALEN vs. BALCE (1960)
To hold that this provision does not apply to the instant case because it
only covers obligations which arise from quasi-delicts and not
obligations which arise from criminal offenses, would result in the
absurdity that while for an act where mere negligence intervenes the
father or mother may stand subsidiarily liable for the damage caused
by his or her son, no liability would attach if the damage is caused with
criminal intent.
Verily, the void that apparently exists in the Revised Penal Code is
subserved by this particular provision of our Civil Code, as may be
gleaned from some recent decisions of this Court which cover equal or
identical cases.
Atty. Espejo: The RPC is silent as to the civil liability of over 9 below
15 with discernment, 15-18, 18-21. So, based on Salen v. Balce, you
apply Art. 2180 (NCC) for 9-15 with discernment and 15-18. That’s also
applicable to 18-21. We also apply Art. 2180 (NCC) but we only do that
because of what Art. 236 (FC) tells us.
There are pseudo-vicarious parental liability:
1. Guardians -- They are liable for damages by the minors or
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in
their company.
“minors or incapacitated”
Even if you reach the age of majority but if you are still incapacitated,
there’s still vicarious liability for your guardians.
“who are under their authority and live in their company”
There is this custody requirement. The guardian must have had
custody over the minor or incapacitated person.
2. Teachers, or heads of establishments of arts and trades – shall
be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or
apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
Rationale: They stand in loco parentis when they are in the school.
To my mind this is confusing as we are no longer familiar with the
concept of actual apprenticeship. Example, what is this “establishment
of arts and trades”? (ADDU is arts and sciences) It refers to
apprenticeable occupations.
The concept of apprenticeship is not the same as with the labor code.
In the olden times, a skilled craftsman, sculptor, artist, stonecutter,
takes on the custody of a minor (8-15 y.o.) whom he trains and teaches
in the craft. After that time, he can work but he is not yet considered a
master in the craft. This is the situation envisioned by the civil code. So
long as they remain in custody.
So, what does the civil code mean?
Applying *Reddendo Singula Singulis:
It means by referring each to each; referring each phrase or
expression to its corresponding object. It is a rule of
construction used typically in distributing property.
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
“Teachers” “Heads of Establishments of
Arts and Trades”
Correspond to the torts of:
Pupils and students Apprentices
So long as they (pupils or apprentices) remain in their
custody
Atty. Espejo: In the case of heads of establishments of arts and
trades, the custody meant by that is living together. That’s the original
intention. Pupils and students, of course, do not live with their teachers.
The custody is temporary physical custody, kanang nagasulod mo ug
klase.
The law only mentions “arts and trades” not “arts and sciences”.It
seems that the heads of establishment of arts and sciences appear to
be exempt from liability based on Art. 2180. That’s unfair. Example:
Acts of bullying inside the school. That could be considered a tort.
Remember torts may include intentional acts. But what does
jurisprudence say?
Based on Art. 2180: Heads of establishment of arts and sciences are
exempt from liability.
EXCONDE vs. CAPUNO (1957)
If a school is not one of arts and trades, there is no liability to be
imposed on the head of the establishment. It has to be a nonacademic
school.
Example of non-academic schools:
Techical institutes such as: Samson Technical Institute, Joji Ilagan
Career Center (old designation). Vocational courses: secretarial,
stenographers.
MERCADO vs. CA (1960)
The school was not liable because it was not an establishment of arts
and trades. Moreover, the CUSTODY requirement had not been
proved as this “contemplates a situation where the pupil lives and
boards with the teacher, such that the control, direction and influence
on the pupil supersedes those of the parents.”
PALISOC vs. BRILLANTES (1971)
Under Art. 2180, defendants head and teacher of the Manila Technical
Institute are liable jointly and severally for damages to plaintiffs-
appellants for the death of the latter's minor son at the hands of
defendant Daffon at the school's laboratory room. The school itself
cannot be held similarly liable, since it has not been properly
impleaded as party defendant.
[Note: The implication therefore, is you can hold the school itself liable
if you implead it.]
The school itself, likewise, has to respond for the fault or negligence of
its school head and teachers under the same cited article.
There is nothing in the law that requires that for such liability to attach
the pupil or student who commits the tortious act must live and board in
the school, as erroneously held by the lower court, and the dicta in
Mercado (as well as in Exconde) on which it relied, must now be
deemed to have been set aside by the present decision.
Atty. Espejo: If that’s the ruling of the SC, what’s the implication?
You can hold the school liable.
But in Art. 2180 it’s “heads of establishments…”, teachers and heads.
It doesn’t say that you can file against the school itself for vicarious
liability.
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
In Palisoc, you can hold the school liable not because of “teachers and
heads of establishment” but because teachers are employees of the
school.
Mercado and Exconde cases have been overturned. There’s no longer
any requirement of living together. Pwede na transcient lang ang
transfer of parental authority in the present setup.
AMADORA vs. CA (1988)
The provision in question should apply to all schools, academic as well
as non-academic. Where the school is academic rather than technical
or vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort committed by the
student will attach to the teacher in charge of such student, following
the first part of the provision. This is the general rule. In the case of
establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he,
who shall be held liable as an exception to the general rule. In other
words, teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students
except where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the
head thereof who shall be answerable.
There is really no substantial distinction between the academic and the
non-academic schools insofar as torts committed by their students are
concerned. The same vigilance is expected from the teacher over the
students under his control and supervision, whatever the nature of the
school where he is teaching.
The suggestion in the Exconde and Mercado Cases is that the
provision would make the teacher or even the head of the school of
arts and trades liable for an injury caused by any student in its custody
but if that same tort were committed in an academic school, no liability
would attach to the teacher or the school head. All other circumstances
being the same, the teacher or the head of the academic school would
be absolved whereas the teacher and the head of the non-academic
school would be held liable, and simply because the latter is a school
of arts and trades.
The Court cannot see why different degrees of vigilance should be
exercised by the school authorities on the basis only of the nature of
their respective schools. There does not seem to be any plausible
reason for relaxing that vigilance simply because the school is
academic in nature and for increasing such vigilance where the school
is non-academic. Notably, the injury subject of liability is caused by the
student and not by the school itself nor is it a result of the operations of
the school or its equipment. The injury contemplated may be caused
by any student regardless of the school where he is registered. The
teacher certainly should not be able to excuse himself by simply
showing that he is teaching in an academic school where, on the other
hand, the head would be held liable if the school were non-academic.
Atty. Espejo: Amadora was really that one that told us that there is no
need for us to distinguish if its “arts and trades” or “arts and sciences”.
Before, the SC was strict in construing Art. 2180. Later the SC
expanded it to mean what we know schools are today.
Custody: The student is in the custody of the school authorities as
long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within
the premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already
ended.
Katong panahon na naa ka sa control sa skwelahan, within its
premises.
SALVOSA vs. IAC (1988)
Summary:
For as long as the student is within the premises of the school and
remains within the call of his teachers, the custody requirement is
satisfied. This includes “recess” or “temporary adjournment of school
activities where the student still remains within call of his mentor and is
not permitted to leave the school premises.”
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
However, if the student is outside of school premises or has been
dismissed, vicarious liability does not attach.
Likewise, the mere fact of being enrolled or being in the premises of a
school without more does not constitute "attending school" or being in
the "protective and supervisory custody' of the school, as contemplated
in the law.
ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL vs. CA (1991)
FACTS: Ferdinand Castillo, then a freshman student of Section 1-C at
the St. Francis High School, wanted to join a school picnic undertaken
by Class I-B and Class I-C at Talaan Beach, Sariaya, Quezon.
Ferdinand's parents, respondents spouses Dr. Romulo Castillo and
Lilia Cadiz Castillo, because of short notice, did not allow their son to
join but merely allowed him to bring food to the teachers for the picnic,
with the directive that he should go back home after doing so.
However, because of persuasion of the teachers, Ferdinand went on
with them to the beach.
During the picnic and while the students, including Ferdinand, were in
the water, one of the female teachers was apparently drowning. Some
of the students, including Ferdinand, came to her rescue, but in the
process, it was Ferdinand himself who drowned. His body was
recovered but efforts to resuscitate him ashore failed. He was brought
to a certain Dr. Luna in Sariaya, Quezon and later to the Mt. Cannel
General Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
RULING: It is clear that before an employer may be held liable for the
negligence of his employee, the act or omission which caused damage
or prejudice must have occurred while an employee was in the
performance of his assigned tasks.
In the case at bar, the teachers/petitioners were not in the actual
performance of their assigned tasks. The incident happened not within
the school premises, not on a school day and most importantly while
the teachers and students were holding a purely private affair, a picnic.
It is clear from the beginning that the incident happened while some
members of the I-C class of St. Francis High School were having a
picnic at Talaan Beach. This picnic had no permit from the school head
or its principal, Benjamin Illumin because this picnic is not a school
sanctioned activity neither is it considered as an extra-curricular
activity.
Mere knowledge by petitioner/principal Illumin of the planning of the
picnic by the students and their teachers does not in any way or in any
manner show acquiescence or consent to the holding of the same.
The application therefore of Article 2180 has no basis in law and
neither is it supported by any jurisprudence. If we were to affirm the
findings of respondent Court on this score, employers wig forever be
exposed to the risk and danger of being hailed to Court to answer for
the misdeeds or omissions of the employees even if such act or
omission he committed while they are not in the performance of their
duties.
PBSA vs. CA (1992)
FACTS: A stabbing incident on 30 August 1985 which caused the
death of Carlitos Bautista while on the second-floor premises of the
Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA) prompted the
parents of the deceased to file suit in the Regional Trial Court of Manila
(Branch 47) presided over by Judge (now Court of Appeals justice)
Regina Ordoñez-Benitez, for damages against the said PSBA and its
corporate officers. At the time of his death, Carlitos was enrolled in the
third year commerce course at the PSBA. It was established that his
assailants were not members of the school's academic community but
were elements from outside.
RULING: Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Code, establishes the rule of in loco parentis. It had been stressed that
the law (Article 2180) plainly provides that the damage should have
been caused or inflicted by pupils or students of the educational
institution sought to be held liable for the acts of its pupils or students
while in its custody. However, this material situation does not exist in
the present case for, as earlier indicated, the assailants of Carlitos
were not students of the PSBA, for whose acts the school could be
made liable.
When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is
established a contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations
which both parties are bound to comply with. No student can absorb
the intricacies of physics or higher mathematics or explore the realm of
the arts and other sciences when bullets are flying or grenades
exploding in the air or where there looms around the school premises a
constant threat to life and limb. Necessarily, the school must ensure
that adequate steps are taken to maintain peace and order within the
campus premises and to prevent the breakdown thereof.
In the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, however, there is, as
yet, no finding that the contract between the school and Bautista had
been breached thru the former's negligence in providing proper
security measures. This would be for the trial court to determine. And,
even if there be a finding of negligence, the same could give rise
generally to a breach of contractual obligation only. A school, like a
common carrier, cannot be an insurer of its students against all risks.
THE PRESENT RULE:
Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual,
entity or institution engaged in child are shall have special parental
authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their
supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities
whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or
institution.
Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the
preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages
caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The
parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental
authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding
paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper
diligence required under the particular circumstances.
All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be
governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts.
Atty. Espejo:
Art. 218: Authorized, whether sa sulod or sa gawas. There is vicarious
liability.
SUMMARY OF THE CURRENT RULES:
 As a consequence of substitute parental authority, the
school, its administrators and teachers are principally and
solidarily liable for damages caused by their pupils or
students.
 Parents are not exempt from liability. They are subsidiarily
liable under Art. 219. Liability is only subsidiary because,
when students are at school, the primary authority of the
parents is supplanted.
 The Family Code makes no distinction between academic
and non-academic institutions.
 If the school is being sued together with administrators and
teachers, the liability is joint and solidary, in keeping with Art.
2194 which provides that the liability of joint tortfeasors is
solidary.
 Torts & Damages Based on the lectures of
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

 Responsibility and authority shall apply to all authorized

activities whether inside or outside the premises of the
school.
 Unlike Art. 2180, where the child should be within the school
premises, custody under Art. 218 of the FC extends to acts
committed inside or outside the school provided that the
activity was an authorized activity.

Atty. Espejo: If you are a school administrator specifically dealing with

minors, what you need to be aware of it the fact the act of authorizing
an activity makes you liable for damages in case of torts/acts
commited. If it is totally unauthorized, pwede ka maghugas kamot
regardless whether you know it or not.

Rules if Student, etc. is NOT a Minor

In case the main tortfeasor is not a minor anymore, the rules contained
in Art. 2180 will be followed. To restate these rules:
 Art. 2180 makes teachers and head liable for acts of
students and apprentices who are not minors.
 The teacher-in-charge is liable for the acts of the non- minor
student. The school and administrators are not liable.
However, in the case of the teacher, liability will attach
whether the school is academic or non-academic.
 By way of exception, it is only the head of the school, not the
teacher, who is held liable where the injury is caused in a
school of arts and trades.
 Custody mean “protective custody”, which means that the
student must be under the control and influence of the
school within its premises, whether the semester has no yet
begun or has already ended.

[Note: Cases, digests, and some outline items were lifted from the
2016-17 TSN]
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
QUASI-DELICTS PART 4
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
We are still talking about Article 2180- Vicarious Liability.
Again, the obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only
for one’s own acts or omissions but also for those of persons for whom
one is responsible. We are now going to shift from parental and
pseudo-parental to those called employment-based vicarious liability.
Such vicarious liability will now be based on your employment or your
connection to a particular employer which actually includes the state in
certain cases.
EMPLOYMENT-BASED VICARIOUS LIABILITY
When we talk about employment vicarious liability, the liability is based
on the employer-employee relationship. You have to prove, if you are
the plaintiff, that there is employer-employee relationship that exists
between the parties.
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not
only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom one is responsible.
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
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their
company.
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 employees
and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks,
even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
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.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be
liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices,
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.
“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.”
The important phrase to remember there and we would of course make
some qualifications to this later on, will be on occasion of their
functions.
“Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry.”
Take note of the last phrase here again. Another point of specific
interest here would be this:
“…the former are not engaged in any business or industry”
What’s the reason for the law? Nganong kinahanglan og qualification?
It actually 16:16 the phraseology of subsidiary liability in the RPC.
Because there, there is this qualification na dapat engaged in any
business or industry.
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Then finally:
“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.”
Take note ang importante pud na timan-an nato diri is ang special
agent. Meaning naa diay ginatawag nato na kung dili special, unsa
man regular or ordinary agent.
Take note of the defense that is dealt in Article 2180:
“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.”
So there’s that defense. As to how we are going to raise that, we will
know later on. So just a shortlisting of liabilities.
LISTING OF LIABILITY
 Owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are
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 are likewise liable for damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry. (Article 2180 of Civil Code); and
 Employers and corporations engaged in any kind of industry are
subsidiarily civilly liable for felonies committed by their employees
in the discharge of their duties (Article 103, Revised Penal Code)
What does the term “manager” here mean? There seems to be two
terms used by the law, you have owners and managers. You also have
employers and managers. Are they the same? Or are they different?
PHIL. RABBIT vs PHIL-AMERICAN
GR No. L-25142, March 25, 1975
The term “manager” is used in the same sense as ‘employer”. Thus, no
liability for tort can arise where the defendant can himself be regarded
as an employee.
Meaning, kadtong “manager” kung fellow employee lang gihapon siya,
he should not be the one who should be held to be vicariously liable.
Because he himself is a mere employee. Mao na siya ang gist sa ruling
sa Philippine Rabbit.
DOCTRINES TO REMEMBER
In order to hold the defendant vicariously liable under Article 2180, the
plaintiff must prove employer-employee relationship by preponderance
of evidence.
If you’re holding somebody liable under Article 2180, that would be by
virtue of a civil case for damages. Mere preponderance of evidence
would be enough.
To determine the existence of an employment relationship, we rely on
the four-fold test. This involves:
a. The employer’s power of selection;
b. Payment of wages or other remuneration;
c. The employer’s right to control the method of doing the work;
and
d. The employer’s right of suspension or dismissal
The same thing that we learned in Labor Standards Law. Diba under
termination law. Pero if you really look at it, it is actually just Fr. Gus
who discusses kana bitaw termination of employment or kanang
elements of employer-employee relationship. Sometimes, a great detail
in Labor Standards because actually that’s Labor Relations Law
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
kanang termination. Unsa gani ang kaso diri? LVN vs. PHILIPPINE
MUSICIAN’S GUILD.
Can you recall? That is Fr. Gus’ favorite case. Such that he tells us
always before that everytime he reads that case, he learns something
new. How many times can you read a case and learn something new?
You’ve mastered that case already. Again, it’s his way of saying na
importante kaayo ng kasoha na.
NECESSITY OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
Remember that without employer-employee relationship, kadtong
vicarious liability that is based on employment under Article 2180
cannot be applied as a basis for liability. The controlling element there
as we know from Labor Standards, is power of control.
A little bit of review lang no, there are certain cases where employer-
employee relationship is created not by the application of the 4-fold test
but by the law itself.
Can you recall that in Labor Standards? What are they?
Examples:
1. Under Article 106 of the Labor Code, if the contractor or
subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees, the
employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his contractor or
subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the work
performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent that
he is liable to employees directly employed by him.
But if you recall the discussions made in your Labor Standards
classes, diba it is employer-employee relationship created and
supplied by law but only for a limited purpose and that is only to
ensure payment of wages.
2. In the case of labor-only contracting, the person or intermediary
shall be considered merely as an agent of the employer who shall
be responsible to the workers in the same manner and extent as if
the latter were directly employed by him.
There is an employer-employee relationship there that is created
because you skipped kadtong middleman, kadtong labor-only
contractor. It is as if directly hired karun ang employee sa
principal.
Later on, what we need to ask ourselves would be: If there is
presence of labor-only contracting such that the employees are
considered directly the employees of the principal, will that also
cover a situation where that employee committed a tort? Because
here, the purpose is for labor-standards compliance, for purposes
of regularization, as well. But apil ba diha ang commission of
torts? That is what we need to look at.
3. Article 138. Classification of certain women workers. Any woman
who is permitted or suffered to work, with or without
compensation, in any night club, cocktail lounge, message clinic,
bar or similar establishments under the effective control or
supervision of the employer for a substantial period of time as
determined by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, shall be
considered as an employee of such establishment for purposes of
labor and social legislation.
The employer-employee relationship created and supplied by law
in this situation is comprehensive in effect for all labor and social
legislation. Worthy of note,is the fact that it actually does not
seem to hint that there also an employer-employee relationship
for the purposes of liability for damages. Naa ba giingon? For
labor (regularization,e tc) and social legislation lang (SSS,
Medicare,Pag-ibig) Mao lang ang purpose for coverage. Let us
assume gikan ka nag exam, then niadto ka og bugnaw na lugar,
syempre kanang bugnaw na lugar ingon pa nila – would be naa
kay katapad na babae na ientertain ka because you are a guest.
Mao na ang ginatawag na guest relations officer or GRO. 1980’s
tawag ana hostess. Karun nag evolve na. For example, that
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
woman committed a tort, a damage against you. Will the
establishment be made liable vicariously under Article 2180?
We’ll see later on.
4. In RAMOS versus CA, 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.
It’s the case filed against De los Santos Medical Center where
naay isa ka babae, si Erlinda Ramos nagpa-opera pero ang
nahitabo is that she had this severe allergic reaction to the
anesthesia and it caused her to be comatose and then she died.
The defense of the hospital when it was sued together with the
physicians- dili man namo employee ang mga doctor. Because for
lack of a better term, they are merely “visiting physicians” or
“consultants”. The SC said that 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.
Now here it is very clear in Ramos vs. CA. The SC said this is for
the purpose of Tort Law, medical negligence cases. There is a
doctor who committed medical malpractice. Unsa gani akong
example anang medical malpractice? My same example for Res
Ipsa Loquitor, where you don’t need to prove negligence and the
burden is shifted on the defendant to prove that he was not
negligent. Like when you go in for an appendectomy, you go
home with a vasectomy. That seems to be covered by Ramos vs.
CA. Liability for damages - quasi-delicts, that employer-employee
relationship would be the basis despite assuming for example,
even if we don’t go traditionally by the elements of the employer-
employee relationship.
REQUISITES OF LIABILITY UNDER ARTICLE 2180
To sustain claims against employers for the acts of their
employees, the following requisites must be established:
1. That the employee was chosen by the employer personally
or through another;
2. That the service to be rendered in accordance with orders
which the employer has the authority to give at all times; and
3. That the illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by
reason of the functions entrusted to him. Significantly, to
make the employer liable under paragraph 5 and 6 of Article
2180, it must be established that the injurious or tortuous act
was committed at the time the employee was performing his
functions.
It presupposes that the tort was committed while the
employee is being permitted or suffered to work by his
employer and for the latter’s behalf. It brings to mind the fact
that if you’re an employee – you come in maybe at 8am and
go home at 5pm. What happens when you commit a tort
gikan ka sa imong opisina pabalik sa imohang balay? When
technically speaking, you are not acting as an employee
anymore. Is that covered? We will go to the case of
Valenzuela vs. CA, later, where that is actually discussed.
Requisite 1: That the employee was chosen by the employer
personally or through another
Agency arrangements like mga guards nato diri. Are they employees of
Ateneo? No, of course not. They are employees of security agency.
ROQUE vs TORRES ET AL
G.R. No. 157632, December 6, 2006 I
In Soliman, jr. v Tuazon, we held that where the security agency
recruits, hires, and assigns the works of its watchmen or security
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
guards to a client, the employer of such guards or watchmen is such
agency and not the client, since the latter has no hand in selecting the
security guards. Thus, the duty to observe the diligence of a good
father of a family cannot be demanded from the said client.
Liability for illegal or harmful acts committed by the security guards
attaches to the employer agency, and not to the clients or customers
such agency. As a general rule, a client or customer of a security
agency has no hand in selecting who among the pool of security
guards or watchmen employed by the agency shall be assigned to it;
the duty to observe the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection of guards cannot, in the ordinary course of events, be
demanded from the client whose premises or property are protected by
the security guards.
Does the fact that the client has the ability to impose conditions or
guidelines in the performance of duties, does that derogate from the
ruling that the agency has the responsibility?
Like ako, I’m an academic executive, pwede ko manugo sa security
guards. Employed sila by a security agency pero pwede ko manugo
nila. Does that show that I have power of control or the client himself
has power of control over the job performed by these security guards?
I can give them instructions which they have no choice but to follow.
Does that make me an employer. Let us refer to the 2nd requisite.
Requisite 2: That the service to be rendered in accordance with
orders which the employer has the authority to give at all times
The fact that a client company may give instructions or directions to the
security guards assigned to it, does not, by itself, render the client
responsible as an employer of the security guards concerned and
liable for their wrongful acts or omissions. Those instructions or
directions are ordinarily no more than requests commonly envisaged in
the contract for services entered into with the security agency.
So kadto requests lang to siya, incidental ra in other words.
SPOUSES JAYME vs APOSTOL
G.R. No. 163609, November 27, 2008
FACTS:
The Municipality of Koronadal (now City), selected and employed
drivers. One of these drivers were assigned to the Mayor. While the
driver was so assigned, he met a vehicular accident.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Mayor can be held liable under Article 2180
by reason of the fact that the driver, at the time of the accident, was
under his supervision.
HELD:
Spouses Jayme argue that Mayor had at least supervise and control
over Lozano and how the latter operated or drove the Isuzu pick-up
during the time of the accident. they, however, failed to buttress this
claim.
Even assuming arguendo that Mayor Miguel had authority to give
instructions or directions to Lozano, he still cannot be held liable. In
Benson v. Sorrell, the New England Supreme Court ruled that mere
giving of directions to the driver does not establish that the passenger
gas control over the vehicle. Neither does it render one the employer of
the driver.
Requisite 3: The injurious or tortious act was committed at the
time the employee was performing his functions.
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Act done by the employee in furtherance of the interests of the
employer or for the account of the employer at the time of infliction of
the injury or damages.
If the employee was doing something for his own benefit and not for
the benefit of his employer, there is supposedly no basis for vicarious
liability in case at that time he commits a tort. Kung gigamit niya iyang
kaugalingong oras para sa iyang mga kaugalingong purposes, then
definitely it would be unfair to hold the employer vicariously liable and
that is precisely the reason why it has to be committed at the time
when the employee was performing his functions.
The phrase “acts done within the scope of the employee’s assigned
tasks” includes “any act done by an employee in the furtherance of the
interests of the employer or for the account of the employer at the time
of infliction of the injury or damages.” (CASTILLEX vs VASQUEZ, G.R
No. 132266, December 21, 1999).
It is not necessary that the task performed by the employee is his
regular job or that which is expressly given to him by the employer. It is
enough that the task is indispensable to the business or beneficial to
the employer. (FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE vs IAC, 212 SCRA
637 [1992])
Dapat on the occasion of the performance of his functions. That’s the
reason why also if the employees went on strike and then they
committed a tort and injured other people, that is not supposed to call
for the application of vicarious liability under Article 2180.
SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIED IN STRIKES:
UNIVERSAL AQUARIUS vs Q.C. HUMAN RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
G.R. No. 155990, September 12, 2007
An employer incurs no liability when an employee’s conduct, act, or
omission is beyond the range of employment. Unquestionable, when
Resources’ employees staged a strike, they were acting on their own,
beyond the range of their employment. Thus, Resources’ cannot be
held liable for damages caused by the strike staged by its employees.
DISCUSSION:
Kaila ba mo ni Jann Paul? He happens to be a student from the
undergrad who is also an employee. Unsay tawag ana diri? Student
Assistant. So unsa ba usually ang arrangement ana? You are a
scholar, discounted imong tuition but in exchange you have to render
service. Dual imong role. You are a student, you have to fulfill your
academic requirements and at the same time, you are an employee
subject to the control of the school kung asa ka nagskwela.
For example, si Jann Paul kuntuhay kay nagatrabaho as SA sa Dean’s
Office pagkahuman naka commit siya of tortious acts sa imoha kay
gikataw-an niya imong exam score sa succession. Gikataw-an niya
imohang score na 33/200. So that’s a tort right? Unsa man ang
treatment ana niya? Is he to be treated as an employee or is he to be
treated as a student for purpose of determining vicarious liability? That
is answered by the case of:
WORKING SCHOLARS
FILAMER vs IAC
G.R. No. 75112, August 17, 1992
FACTS:
Funtencha, a working student and janitor of Filamer Christian Institute,
took over the wheel utility vehicle of the school from its regular driver
Masa and on navigation, incurred damages.
ISSUE: Is the school liable?
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
HELD:
The act of Funtecha in taking over the steering wheel was one done for
and in behalf of his employer for when she act the petitioner-school
cannot deny any responsibility by arguing that it was done beyond the
scope of their assigned tasks. For purposes of raising the presumption
of liability of an employer, includes any act done by an employee, in
furtherance of the interest of the employer or for the account of the
employer at the time of infliction of the injury or damage.
Even if somehow, the employee driving the vehicle derived some
benefit from the act, the existence of a presumptive liability of the
employer is determined by answering the question of whether or not
the servant was at the time of the accident performing any act in
furtherance of his master’s business.
DISCUSSION:
What the law here is saying is that look, dili niya na duty pero what he
was doing - driving a utility vehicle is normally and usually necessary to
the interest of the school. It is a service regularly done by an employee
for the school albeit a different employee compared to, kadtong si
Funtencha.
Very stringent ang ruling sa SC at that particular case.
We go back to the question I posed earlier. Remember that if there is a
finding of labor only contracting, the law will actually step in and supply
the employer-employee relationship between the workers and the
principal. Murag gitanggal lang ang middleman. That’s the way I would
describe labor-only contracting. But we also know for a fact that the
purpose of that is a way of ensuring compliance with labor and social
legislation or payment of wages. The SC is saying time and again that
there is an employer-employee relationship between the contracted
employees and the principal as if the employees are directly hired by
the principal. Kung dili mabayaran ilang sweldo, ang principal mismo
ang pabayaron. But does that apply to vicarious liability? For that we
consult the case of:
LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING?
NAPOCOR vs CA
G.R. No. 119121, August 14, 1998
FACTS:
PHESCO supplied employees to NAPOCOR. Dump truck owned by
NAPOCOR and driven by one of these employees, collided with a
Toyota Tamaraw that resulted in death and injury to the passengers.
ISSUE: Can NAPOCOR be held liable?
HELD: PHESCO was a labor-only contractor. The person acting a
contractor is considered merely as an agent or intermediary of the
principal who is responsible to the workers in the same manner and to
the same extent as if they had been directly employed by him.
In labor-only contracting, an employer-employee relationship between
the principal employer and the employees of the labor-only contractor
is created. Accordingly, the principal employer is responsible to the
employees of the “labor-only” contractor as if such employees had
been directly employed by the principal employer.
NAPOCOR posits the theory that its liability is limited only to
compliance with the substantive labor provisions on working
conditions, rest periods, and wages and shall not extend to liabilities
suffered by third parties.
The reliance is misplaced. IT bears stressing that the action was
premised on the recovery of damages as a result of quasi-delict
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
against both PC and PHESCO, hence, it is the Civil Code and not the
Labor Code which is the applicable law in resolving this case.
It is apparent that Article 2180 of the Civil Code and not the Labor
Code will determine the liability of the NPC in a civil suit for damages
instituted by an injured person for any negligent act of the employees
of the “labor-only” contractor. This is consistent with the ruling that a
finding that a contractor was a “labor-only” contractor is equivalent to a
finding that an employer-employee relationship existed between the
owner (principal contractor) and the “labor-only” contractor, including
the latter’s works.
DISCUSSION:
I realize that it is very difficult to find good help nowadays, kanang
kasambahay bitaw. May nalang nakakita mi og kababayan rapud namo
pagkahuman maayo, buotan. Pero niagi jud mi og agency. What does
the agency do? The agency recruits and then sila ang mag place karun
sa mga prospective kasambahays didto sa mga clients na nangita og
kasambahay. So siyempre, being lawyers, labor-only contractor kaya
ni? Kay ang labor only contractor, mag direct ko og tao ikaw na bahala
ha, ibayad nimo sa akoa ing-ani. Pero kadto bang amount na to,
maadto to tanan sa empleyado? Dili. So unsa ba ang capital sa labor-
only contractor? Laway lang iyang capital. Igo ra siya mupatong sa
pasweldo na dapat unta maadto tanan sa empleyado. Niadto jud mi sa
agency and lo and behold, there really is an office. They have a
physical office, naay computer so clearly that is not a labor-only
contractor. It is a legitimate contractor. Remember, right now, dili ka
pwede maka engage in the business of contracting if wala ka’y
certificate of registration from the Department of Labor and
Employment.
“NAPOCOR posits the theory that its liability is limited only to
compliance with the substantive labor provisions on working
conditions, rest periods, and wages and shall not extend to liabilities
suffered by third parties.
The reliance is misplaced. IT bears stressing that the action was
premised on the recovery of damages as a result of quasi-delict
against both PC and PHESCO, hence, it is the Civil Code and not the
Labor Code which is the applicable law in resolving this case.”
Unsa daw? Unsa ba ang basis na maconsider nato na employer ang
NAPOCOR? Diba Labor Code. Unya karun muingon na dili man Labor
Code ang applicable but Civil Code. So if you really are strict in
applying what the SC is saying, wala nay premise daan iyang
reasoning na mahimong liable si NAPOCOR. For the purpose of
determining whether employer ka sa mga employee, apply the Labor
Code. But for the purpose of determining whether there is vicarious
liability, muapply ta og Civil Code. Mao na siya ang ruling sa SC.
Which to my mind is weird and then muingon pa siya na dili applicable
ang Labor Code.
“It is apparent that Article 2180 of the Civil Code and not the Labor
Code will determine the liability of the NPC in a civil suit for damages
instituted by an injured person for any negligent act of the employees
of the “labor-only” contractor. This is consistent with the ruling that a
finding that a contractor was a “labor-only” contractor is equivalent to a
finding that an employer-employee relationship existed between the
owner (principal contractor) and the “labor-only” contractor, including
the latter’s works.”
Ang premise sa entire ruling of the SC is the finding of labor-only
contracting. Asa nato na makita sa Labor Code? And yet, the SC in
justifying that they are liable as employer vicariously, is the Civil Code
and walay applicability ang Labor Code. Which for me is weird, but this
is the prevailing law right now.
We need to remember that it appears that comprehensive karun ang
employer-employee relationship created and supplied by law in cases
where there is a finding of labor-only contracting. Mag extend siya dili
lang sa labor standards provisions but also for liability in torts. So it is
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
safe to assume that for the purposes of determining liability in the RPC
in case the employee becomes insolvent, you can also hold the
principal liable and not the labor-only contractor as liable subsidiarily.
BASIS OF LIABILITY
When an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or an
employee, the master or employer is presumed to be negligent one
other the selection (CULPA IN ELIGIENDO) or in the supervision of
the employee (CULPA IN VIGILANDO).
This presumption may be overcome only by satisfactorily showing that
the employer exercised the care and the diligence of a good father a
family in the selection and the supervision of its employee.
HOW TO PROVE DILIGENCE FOR SELECTION AND
SUPERVISION TO NEGATE LIABILITY
As the law merely imposed the standard of a good father of a family,
no particular acts are required for the employer to establish the he
exercised proper diligence. Supervision depends on the circumstances
of employment. It has been observed, however, that the exercise of
diligence may include promulgation of proper rules and regulations and
the formulation and publication of proper instructions for the
employees’ guidance in case where such rules and regulations and
instructions are necessary. (Yamada vs Manila Railroad Company,
G.R. No. L-10073, December 24, 1915)
NOTE: The giving of instructions is indicative of the exercise of power
of control. The putative employer regularly issues policies, directives to
employee then that is actually indicative of power of control.
It may also include the requirement that the employee-applicant submit
the necessary license or clearances and that the employee be required
to undergo examination, tests and training. Nevertheless, the mere
issuance of rules and regulations and the formulation of various
company policies on safety, without showing that they are being
complied with, are not sufficient to exempt the employer from liability
arising from the negligence of the employee. It is incumbent upon the
employer to show that in recruiting and employing the erring employee,
the recruitment procedures and company policies on efficiency and
safety were followed. (Pantranco North Express Inc vs Baesa, 179
SCRA 384 [1989])
CAN AN EMPLOYER BE HELD LIABLE FOR INJURIOUS ACTS OF
THE EMPLOYEE DONE AFTER OFFICE HOURS?
As a GENERAL RULE, NO. Remember that after office hours, there is
no more power of control that an employer exercises over the
employee. After office hours, it can be said that the employee is using
his own time and no longer in furtherance of the business of the
employee.
BUT, jurisprudence provides an exception which might be familiar to
Medical Representatives.
Who are medical representatives? Kana bitaw naga adto sa doctor,
representatives of pharmaceutical companies para i-carry sa doctor
ang iyang ginabligya na tambal. Mao na trabaho nila, storya-storya sa
doctor para ireseta ilang tambal.
If you are familiar with this, kaning mga medical representatives ang
ilang mga sakyanan mauli mana nila. For all intents and purposes,
ilaha na siya. Every after how many years, i-upgrade napud na nila
ilang vehicle into another company-issued vehicle.
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
VALENZUELA vs CA
G.R. No 115024, February 7, 1996
FACTS:
It is customary for large companies to provide certain classes of their
employees with courtesy vehicles. These company cars are either
wholly owned and maintained by the company itself or are subject to
various plans though which employees eventually acquire their vehicle
after a given period of service, or after paying a token amount. Many
companies provide liberal “car plans” to enable their managerial or
other employees of rank to purchase cars, which, given the cost of
vehicles these days, they would not otherwise be able to purchase on
their own.
Under the first example, the company actually owns and maintains the
car up to the point of turnover of ownership to the employee; in the
second example, the car is really owned and maintained by the
employee himself.
ISSUE: In furnishing vehicles to such employees, are companies
totally absolved of responsibility when an accident involving a
company-issued car occurs during private use after normal office
hours?
RULING:
In the ordinary course of business, not all company employees are
given the privilege of using a company-issued car. For large
companies other than those cited in the example of the preceding
paragraph, the privilege serves important business purposes either
related to the image of success an entity intends to present to its
clients and to the public in general, or - for practical and utilitarian
reasons- to enable its managerial and other employees of rank or its
sales agents to reach clients conveniently. In most cases, providing a
company car serves both purposes.
Since important business transactions and decisions may occur at all
hours in all sort of situations, the provision for the unlimited us elf a
company car principally serves the business and goodwill of a
company and only incidentally the private purposes of the individual
who actually use the car, the managerial employee or company sales
agent. As such, in providing for a company car for business use and/or
for the purpose of furthering the company’s image, a company owes a
responsibility to the public to see to it that the managerial or the
employees to whom it entrusts virtually unlimited use of company
issued car are able to use the company issue capably and responsibly.
Not having been able to overcome the burden of demonstrating that it
should be absolved of liability for entrusting its company car to Li, said
company, based on the principle of bonus pater familias, ought to be
jointly and severally liable with the former for the injuries sustained by
Ma. Lourdes Valenzuela during the accident.
DISCUSSION:
The SC is saying na actually dili lang na for the benefit of the
employee, benefit pud na nimo. And I can relate, ikaw daw medical
representative ka, magbahis-bahis ka sa mga clinic sa mga doctors
and wala ka’y sakyanan – mag tricyle raka or nagbaktas ka. Pag-abot
nimo sa doctor, baho naka. Kinsa paman karun ang ganahan makig-
storya nimo? Unsaon pagka carry ang product sa imong employer,
kung ing-ana ka? As simple as that. So, it serves a purpose for the
employer himself.
Now, Medical representatives, if you remember the case of kanang
mga agents oh.
 Torts & Damages Based on the lectures of
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

the occasion or by willful acts although

reason of the the employees acted
CARUNGCONG VS. NLRC functions entrusted beyond the scope of
Kung agent ka ang tawag saimo independent contractor, so unsa ba to the employee. their authority or in
ang mga medical representatives, independent contractors ba na or violation of the
employees? That is another issue that you need to tackle, just take common carrier’s
note of that, dili man ta labor law class, but I think you should refresh orders.
what you know in Labor Law. As to effect of violation The employee That the employee
of orders violated orders is a violated the common
Common Carrier can also be an employer right? defense because it carrier’s orders is
Like unsa’y tawag ana, Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, katong mga Bus proves diligence in not a defense
Drivers imo nang empleyado. supervision
As to availability of Valid defense Not a valid defense
So Article 21 updating applies to common carrier as employers. defense of diligence in
selection and
Take note, it depends: supervision
 If the cause of action is Culpa Aquilliana (injury to a non- As to effect of Apply Article 2179 C/N of the
passenger)- then yes. contributory passenger does not
 If it is Culpa Contractual (injury to a passenger), or breach of negligence bar recovery of
contract of carriage- you apply the provision of law on common damages, if the
carriers. proximate cause is
the negligence of
Article 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to the carrier, but the
passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former's amount of damages
employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the shall be equitably
scope of their authority or in violation of the orders of the common reduced.
carriers.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER THE PENAL CODE
And in contrast with Article 2180, last paragraph:
xxx This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof Please take note Article 103 of the RPC, subsidiary liability; ex delicto.
that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the
Requisites:
selection and supervision of their employees.
1. That the employer is engaged in any kind of industry;
2. That the employee was convicted of the offense committed
So there is really that contrast, like if you back to Article 2180.
in the discharge of his duties and
2180 1759 3. That the employee is insolvent
General Rule: Only in the scope But if you talk about a common
Just take note that is also a specie of Vicarious Liability, dili nimo sala,
of their assigned task, while they carrier it doesn’t matter, because
pero ikaw ang pabayron, bantog na Vicarious.
are committing acts or performing even though the employees acted
functions incidental to the beyond the scope of authority, in
THE STATE
business of their employer. violation of the orders of the
common carrier- common carrier
would still be liable for damages, Finally you have the State, it can also be an employer. Except that ang
for the death, and injuries of difference is the private employment, that is a property right, is a
passengers. property right, it connotes that it cannot be deprived of you without
What’s a valid complete Not a proper defense- liability following the due process of law.
defense? Diligence in the doesn’t cease.
selection, and supervision. What about a public office, public employment?
This is a public trust, you hold the office for the benefit of the public.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special
Article 1762. The contributory negligence of the passenger does not agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to
bar recovery of damages for his death or injuries, if the proximate whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided
cause thereof is the negligence of the common carrier, but the amount in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
of damages shall be equitably reduced.
This is a very simple provision. Take note that the state has different
Article 1763. A common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a aspects:
passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other 1. PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT ASPECTS: The State is liable for
passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier's employees through
the tortious acts of special agents only.
the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have
prevented or stopped the act or omission. Please refer to the Special Agent discussion.
2. PRIVATE/BUSINESS ASPECTS: The State is liable as an
So remember that a Common Carrier, can be an employer. Employer ORDINARY EMPLOYER.
like those found in Article 2180, when there is a big distinction when we
talk about actual liability. And so naa’y 3 ka distinction as what we have It descends to the level of an ordinary private individual, therefore it is
already discussed, so just take note of this table the specifics, when liable as an ordinary employer, and in evidence on the topic of judicial
you think about the restriction. notice, that the public governmental functions of the states can be
given judicial notice, but private or business aspect of the state cannot
DISTINCTIONS ORDINARY COMMON be given judicial notice.
EMPLOYER CARRIER AS
EMPLOYER WHO IS A SPECIAL AGENT?
As to acts covered. Acts performed on All negligent or
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
A special agent is a government employee who commits a tort while
performing an act foreign to his usual duties.
 So ikaw clerk ka pero for the mean time gisugo ka para
mahimong pulis, or you’re doing something that is actually
foreign to what you are appointed to do.
 We are talking about ordinary employees of the state.
The State is liable only for torts committed by its special agents
specially commissioned to carry out acts of which the torts arise, and
which acts are outside of the regular duties of said special agents.
It is actually a warning to the state, if you do not want any
tort liability, vicariously under Article 2180, then do not act as
an Special Agent, it is as simple than that.
You have to be employed by the government first and then you do acts
foreign to your duty, you become a special agent.
Function Agent Vicarious Basis
performed Liability
Government Ordinary No 2176
Business Ordinary Yes, as 2180
ordinary
employer
Government Special Yes 2180
Business Special Yes, as 2180
ordinary
employer
Now let us relate, because we are talking about the employers, there is
what we called:
REGISTERED OWNER RULE
The registration of motor vehicles, as required by Section 5(a) of
Republic Act 4136, the Land Transportation and Traffic Code was
necessary “not to make said registration the operative act by which
ownership in vehicles is transferred,.. but to permit the use and
operation of the vehicle upon any public highway.”
Its “main aim is to identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or
that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on the public
highways, responsibility therefore can be fixed on a definite individual-
the registered owner.
Imagine gud nimo ang situation sa isa ka tao na hit and run,
na bangga.an. Kaila ba siya kinsa’y naka bangga niya? In all
probability no!
 The most that you can do is if na remember nimo ang plate #,
adto ba ka ug LTO, pangitaon nimo ang rehistro aning sakyanan
na nakabangga nimo, and then paggawas sa rehistro, makita
nimo ang registered owner sa motor vehicle. But in otherwise,
kinsa imong ma file-an ug kaso? Wala. Kay wala man ka kaila,
the only thing you can remember is the plate #.
Ordinarily you can rely on the registration who the owner of the motor
vehicle is. And the registered-owner rule establishes another form of
vicarious liability in addition to those enumerated under Article 2180.
The source of registered owner’s liability is not a distinct statutory
provision, but remains to be Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code.
Take note that in Article 2180, there is no mention there that owner of
the motor vehicle.
Unsa naa didto? owners, managers, with respect to their employees.
By fiction of law, a registered owner is considered the employer not
only for the purpose of assuming payment of damages by the motor
vehicle. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry.
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
But as we may observe that the registered owner of the motor vehicle
is not necessarily the employer or the driver- dili mana siya automatic,
example, kanang hiram2 ug sakyanan. What happens if makabangga
ang car? Dili mana siya employee, so does it mean the rule still
applicable in case lang naa’y mahitabo?
The registered owner of motor vehicle is not necessarily the employer
of the driver.
Because jurisprudence of the registered-owner rule cites the fifth
paragraph of Article 2180 as the basis for liability, is there a limited
employer-employee relationship created and supplied by law?
METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORPORATION vs CUEVAS
GR NO. 167797, June 15, 2015
MMTC and Mina’s Transit Corporation entered into an agreement to
sell whereby the latter bought several bus units from the former at a
stipulated price. They agreed that MMTC would retain the ownership of
the buses until certain conditions were met, but in the meantime Mina’s
Transit could operate the buses within Metro Manila.
On October 14, 1994, one of the buses subject of the agreement to
sell, hit, and damaged a Honda Motorcycle owned by Reynaldo and
driven by Junnel. Reynaldo and Junnel sued MMTC and Mina’s Transit
for damages in the Regional Trial Court.
CONTENTION OF MMTC: Although MMTC retained the ownership of
the bus, the actual operator and employer of the bus driver was Mina’s
Transit; and that, in support of its cross-claim against Mina’s Transit, a
provision in the agreement to sell mandated Mina’s Transport to hold it
free from liability arising from the use and operation of the bus units.
HELD: In view of MMTC’s admission in its pleadings that it had
remained the registered owner of the bust at the time of the incident, it
could not escape liability for the personal injuries and property damage
suffered by the Cuevases. This is because of the registered-owner
rule, whereby the registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in a
vehicular accident could be held liable for the consequences.
It is well settled that the case of motor vehicle mishaps, the registered
owner of the motor vehicle is considered as the employer of the
tortfeasor-driver, and is made primarily liable for the tort committed by
the latter under Article 2176, in relation with Article 2180 of the Civil
Code.
Thus, it is clear that for the purpose of holding the registered owner of
the motor vehicle primarily and directly liable for damages under Article
2176, in relation with Article 2180, of the Civil Code, the the existence
of an employer-employee relationship, as it is understood in labor
relations law, is not required. It is sufficient to establish that the
defendant is the registered owner of the motor vehicle causing damage
in order that it may be held vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the
Civil Code.
Note: Let us restate that a little bit.
 Remember that the employer correspond to the tort committed by
the employee under 2180.
 There should be employer-employee relationship, although the
registered owner rule, actually presumes the registered owner to
be the employer of the driver- and actually applies 2180 as the
basis of liability.
 Then there is a defect- no employer-employee relationship. Mao
na ang sulti sa case.
 Ang gamiton nato diri 2180 pero wala ta nanginanghanlan diri ug
relationship. No need for employer-employee relationship. The
law is harsh. Ikaw pa nagpa hulam ikaw pay pakasad.an ikaw pay
pabayron sa danyos.
REMEDY OF MMTC: MMTC could recover from Mina’s Transit, the
actual employer of the negligent driver, under the principle of unjust
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
enrichment, by means of a cross-claim seeking reimbursement of all
the amounts that it could be required to pay as damages arising from
the driver’s negligence. A cross claim is a claim by one party against a
co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject
matter either of the original action or o a counterclaim therein, and may
include a claim that the party against whom it is asserted is or may be
liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the
action against the cross-claimant.
Note: For the purpose of holding the registered owner of the motor
vehicle primarily and directly liable for damages under Article 2176, in
relation with Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the existence of an
employer-employee relationship, as it is understood in labor law is not
required.
APPLICATION OF THE REGISTERED-OWNER RULE
Possible Situations which may arise:
1) The registered owner is a stranger or is not the employer of
the driver who caused damage.
2) The registered owner is the actual employer of the driver
who caused damage. In this situation, the fifth paragraph of
Article 2180 applies as well. This means that the defenses
therein are applicable to the registered owner.
But in the more complicated one is that:
a. The registered owner is not the employer of the driver.
The registered owner of the motor vehicle is considered as the
employer of the tortfeasor-driver for the purpose of applying vicarious
liability. We follow the doctrine in MMTC.
b. The registered owner is the employer of the driver.
Take note that, if the owner is also the employer of the driver, he is
supposed to be allowed claim the defenses under Article 2180.
Diligence in the selection or supervision.
Take note that if the driver is s stranger, you cannot claim the defense
of acting in their assigned tasks or due diligence in selection and
supervision, kay dili man nimo empleyado. What if dili ikaw ang
employer? Can you say naa ko’y diligence in supervision and
selection?
FILCAR vs ESPINAS
GR NO 174156, June 20, 2012
Neither can Filcar use the defenses available under Article 2180 of the
Civil Code - that the employee acts beyond the scope of his assigned
tasks or that it exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family
to prevent damage- because the motor vehicle registration law, to a
certain extent, modified Article 2180 of the Civil Code by making these
defenses unavailable to the registered owner of the motor vehicle.
Thus, for as long as Filcar is the registered owner of the car involved in
the vehicular accident, it could not escape primary liability for the
damages caused to Espinas
Difference between 2180 and 4136.
Article 2180 requires proof of things: first, an employment relationship
between the driver and the owner; second, that the driver acted within
the scope of his or her assigned tasks.
Applying the registered-owner rule only requires the plaintiff to prove
that the defendant-employer is the registered owner of the vehicle.
However if you apply the registered owner rule, it only requires the
plaintiff would prove that the defendant-employer is the registered
owner of the vehicle. It is very easy to prove, just go to the LTO or
LTFRB.
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
However the SC realized that there is overlapping of the rules.
CARAVAN TRAVEL vs ABEJAR
GR NO. 170631, February 10, 2016
Thus, it is imperative to apply the registered-owner rule in a manner
that harmonizes it with Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. Rules
must be construed in a manner that will harmonize them with other
rules so as to form a uniform and consistent system of jurisprudence.
xx
Therefore, the appropriate approach is that in cases where both the
registered-owner rule and Article 2180 apply, the plaintiff must first
establish that the employer is the registered-owner of the vehicle in
question. Once the plaintiff successfully proves ownership, there arises
a disputable presumption that the requirements of Article 2180 have
been proven. As consequences, the burden of proof shifts to the
defendant to show that no liability under Article 2180 has arisen.
WHAT IN THE BLUE HELL DOES THAT MEAN? Makalibog ang
phraesolog refer in this discussion.
Simple. If you are the plaintiff, you don’t need to prove employer-
employee relationship in order to establish a prima facie case against
the defendant employer-owner. All you have to do is to secure proof of
ownership of the motor vehicle. The law would now step in and apply a
disputable presumption that the employment relationship exists and
that the employee acted within the scope of his assigned tasks.
So actually, ang effect niya is when the Registered Owner Rule
applies, it is evidentiary ang iyahang effect- you do not need to prove
these things anymore.
This disputable presumption recognizes that between the owner and
the victim, it is the former that should carry the costs of moving forward
with the evidence. The victim is, in many cases, a helpless pedestrian
or motorist with hardly any means to uncover (1) the employment
relationship of the owner and the driver, or (2) any act that the owner
may have done in relation to that employment.
The registration of the vehicle, on the other hand, is accessible to the
public.
What about the defendant?
He can still make use of the defenses available under Article 2180 for
the purpose of refuting the disputable presumptions.
In other words, if the twin disputable presumptions under Caravan
apply, he can present proof that he is not the employer of the driver
who caused damage or, if he is, that he exercised due diligence in
selection and supervision. If he is successful, no liability attached
whether as owner or employer.
So it is not really that harsh, because finally the SC here
kinda evened the scales a little bit, because if you look at the
jurisprudence 30 years ago, if registered owner ka liable
kana. Finally 2016 cases, there is now a way out, it’s a
matter of PROOF.
EFFECTS:
1.) The order of proof is reversed. Instead of the plaintiff proving
employment and acting within the scope of assigned tasks, it
is the defendant who must disprove it.
It is actually very easy to disprove, mere testimony lang,
although you are actually kinda proving a negative fact.
2.) The owner-stranger situation is harder to defend because
factually, it is not easy to prove diligence in selection and
supervision over a non-employee.
MORAL LESSON: Do not lend your vehicle to anyone.
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
We mentioned the case of Ramos vs CA, we are going to talk about
medical malpractice in that situation. In that setting but we will do that
next meeting, skip nato siya pero part na siya sa vicarious liability.
Let us continue with Article 2181 and other tort provisions, agi.an ra
nato nag paspas.
OTHER TORTS PROVISIONS
Article 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents
or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or
delivered in satisfaction of his claim.
Note that vicarious liability under Article 2180 refers to liability
grounded on the presumed negligence in selection and /or supervision
of a person over whom one is responsible. Thus, under Philippine Tort
Law, vicarious liability is based on imputed negligence but, ultimately,
the employer, parent,etc, will be held liable under their own lack of due
process.
Under the general provisions (Article 2176), liability is direct and
primary. Under the vicarious liability provision, liability is direct and
derivative, to a certain degree. If a defendant is held liable under Article
2176, he therefore corresponds with his own property. If liability is
based on Article 2180, the parent, employer, etc, can directly be
proceeded against.
You’re the employer, you’re liable for the tort committed by your
employee, what does Article 2181 say? Pwede ka mag pa reimburse,
the ultimate analysis dili man ikaw ang naka bangga, dili man ikaw ang
negligent or nag cause ng damage.
PHILTRANCO vs CA
GR NO 120553, June 17, 1997
The liability of the employer for damages arising from the tortious acts
of its employee is PRIMARY, DIRECT, and JOINT AND SEVERAL or
SOLIDARY with the latter. As to solidarity, Article 2194 expressly
provides:
Art.2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a
quasi-delict is solidary.
Since the employer’s liability is primary, direct and solidary, its only
recourse if the judgment for damages is satisfied by it is to recover
what it has paid from its employee who committed the fault or
negligence which gave rise to the action based on quasi-delict.
Article 2181 of the Civil Code provides:
Article 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents
or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or
delivered in satisfaction of the claim.
Now I want you to make a comparison:
 Employer pays for the damages- due to the quasi-delict
committed by the employee.
o Pwede ka mag pa reimburse.
and one more thing you need to remember in that situation is…
 If you’re the plaintiff, you can actually exercise direct
recourse against the employer- not even the employee. 
Under Art. 2180
So what is the rationale for Art. 2180 providing for Vicarious
Liability?
Ikaw ba ang naka bangga? Dili. Pero pwede ikaw ang file-lan ikaw ang
pabay-ron, and good thing about it pwde ka mag pa reimburse to the
person who actually committed the Tort.
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
 So kang kinsa nimo ni karon I compare any other situation in
any law that we have discussed so far that is similar, pwede
direct recourse, pwede ka pabay-ron directly, pwede ka mag
pa reimburse. SURETY. You make a surety when you are
the employer, if you are a vicer in effect you are a surety.
Pwede direct recourse sa imuhan without even impleading
the principal debtor when you are in surety. Kung
mapabayad ka, you are entitled to full reimbursement, like a
surety.
IF SOLIDARY: A files a case against B and C who are both
solidary debtors, which means that the entire obligation is
demandable from anyone of them, but what is the effect between
he two solidary debtors of payment by one of them, you are
entitled to proportional reimbursement.
 But here it is different. It is similar to surety, and with that
what the law seeks to guaranty is the right of recourse
payment to damages, para sigurado ka na ang negligence
naa sa laing tao daghan pud ka ug ma sing-ngilan.
ARTICLE 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no
parents or guardian, 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.
Take note of the case … because this is the case that mirrors this
provision.
LIBI vs IAC
GR No. 70890, September 18, 1992
The minor trangressor shall be responsible or shall respond with his
own property only in the absence or in case of insolvency of the
former. Thus, for civil liability ex quasi delicto of minors, Article 2182 of
the Civil Code states that “ (i)f the minor causing damage has no
parents or guardian, the minor... shall be answerable with his own
property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be
appointed.” For civil liability ex delicto of minors, an equivalent
provision is found in the third paragraph of Article 101 of the Revised
Penal Code, to wIt:
“Should there be no person having such... minor under his authority,
legal guardianship or control, or of such person be insolvent, said..
minor shall respond with (his) own property, excepting property
excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with civiI
law."
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.
We have already discussed this before. The basis of this provision are
the cases of: Rationale
VESTIL versus IAC
November 6, 1989
The obligation impose by Article 2183 is not based on negligence of on
the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal
causing the damage. 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.
APPLICABILITY OF ART. 2183
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
The law mentions `posses an animal or whoever may make use of the
same d not owner. Thus, ownership over the animal is not required in
order for liability to attach.
The law does not speak only of vicious animals but covers also even
tame ones as long as they cause injury.
Actual control is likewise not required. The Article holds the possessor
or user liable even if the animal should escape or be lost and so be
removed from his control.
DEFENSES
There are only two defense to wit:
1. In case the damage should come from force majeure; or
A is driving a horse-drawn carriage. There was a sudden gunshot
which caused the horse to be agitated and injured pedestrians;
2. From the fault of the person who has suffered damage.
A owns a dog. B, a visitor, hits the dog playfully and gets bitten by
it.
Cases:
a. Afilada vs Hisole- Here is a guy who tended a kalabaw mao
na iyang trabaho, and then one day gi sungay siya sa
kalabaw, which caused his death, so iyang pamilya karon
kay ni file ug kaso against the owner of the kalabaw, para
damages. Kay diba under Article 2183, although wala pa ni
na law at the time of the case. SC said that he bears the risk.
b. Vestil vs IAC
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 of
reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the
next preceding two months.
The owner is, in a sense required to be an intelligent back-seat
driver.
The Article covers three (3) situations, to wit:
1. If the owner was in the vehicle could have, by the use of
the due diligence, prevented the misfortune- The owner
is solidarily liable with the driver
2. If the driver had been found guilty of reckless during or
violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next
preceding two months- The driver is disputably presumed
negligent. The owner is solidarily liable with the driver also.
3. If the owner was not in the motor vehicle- Apply Article
2180.  ordinary vicarious liability.
Basis and Rationale
The theory is that ultimately the negligence of the servant, if known to
the master and susceptible of timely correction by him, reflects his own
negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent injury or damage.
*don’t read anymore cases relating to 2184
Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that
a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the
mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
Take note a person driving a motor vehicle, it could be anybody-
comparing to Article 2184.
Article 2184 Article 2185
The driver is not the owner The driver may be the owner or
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
himself. anyone else.
The presumption arises that a It is presumed that a person
driver as negligent, of he had driving a motor vehicle has been
been forged guilty of reckless negligent if at the time of the
driving or violating traffic mishap, he was violating any
regulations at least twice within traffic regulation.
the next preceding two months.
Article 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file with the proper
government office a bond executed by a government-controlled
corporation or office, to answer for damages to third persons. The
amount of the bond and other terms shall be fixed by the competent
public official.
Nothing much here, just skip this.
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.
We’ve discussed this already when we were talking about strict liability.
PROVISION APPLIES ONLY IF CONSUMER IS INJURED
An action for damages is in order if injury or death takes place.
This is in consonance with the general principle in Philippine Tort law
that only actual and not potential injuries are actionable.
Situation: Nipalit kag coke, wala pa nimo nainom nakita
nimo naa’y thumbtacks sa sulod sa coke, so wala diud ka na injure,
can you apply Art. 2187? No because there is no injury.
What is the proper remedy if the consumer discovers something
noxious in the product but is not injured thereby?
APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF RA 7394 otherwise known as the
“CONSUMER ACT OF THE PHILIPPINES”
Article 11. Amendment and Revocation of Declaration of the
Injurious, Unsafe or Dangerous Character of a Consumer Product.
– Any interested person may petition the appropriate department to
commence a proceeding for the issuance of an amendment or
revocation of a consumer product safety rule or an order declaring a
consumer product injurious, dangerous and unsafe.
In case the department, upon petition by an interested party or its own
initiative and after due notice and hearing, determines a consumer
product to be substandard or materially defective, it shall so notify the
manufacturer, distributor or seller thereof of such finding and order
such manufacturer, distributor or seller to:
a) give notice to the public of the defect or failure to comply with the
product safety standards; and
b) give notice to each distributor or retailer of such product.
Article 2188. 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 possession or use thereof is indispensable in his
occupation or business.
You can dispute it, it is not conclusive. The exception being, the
possession or use of the dangerous weapons or substances is
indispensable in his business.
 Perfect example here is a pharmacist.
Article 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for
damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason
 Torts & Damages Based on the lectures of
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, Based on Roman Law
and other public works under their control or supervision. Dejectum Effusumve Aliquid
Liability for damages of the person occupying the house for injury for
*Recall the example of Sir about his student who fell sa manhole  anything thrown or poured from the house, regardless of whether he is
naa sila’y insurance sa UM. the owner of the house or not.

Dejectum (throning) Effusumve (pourins) Aliquid (umpectlied object

CITY OF MANILA vs TEOTICO
GR NO. L-23052, January 29, 1968 Try to distinguish with:

Under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, it is not necessary for the liability
therein established to attach that the defective roads or streets belong
to the province, city, or municipality from which responsibility is
exacted. What said article requires is that the province, city, or
municipality have either “control or supervision” over said street or
road. Even if P. Burgos Avenue were, therefore, a national highway,
this circumstance would not necessarily from its “control or
supervision” by the City of Manila, under RA 09, or its charter.
APPLIES ONLY TO INJURY TO PERSONS
As worded, the provision applies only to death or injury to persons.
What about damage to property? To my mind, it is illogical to limit the
liability to death or personal injury only. For, injury is an act that
damages, harms or hurts and mean in common as the act or result of
inflicting on a person or thing something that causes loss, pain,
distress, or impairment. Injury is the most comprehensive, applying to
an act or result involving an impairment or destruction of right, health,
freedom, soundness, or loss of something of value.
Actio de positis vet suspensis
In Roman law, it is the action against an occupier for a penalty at the
instance o yon.e who complained in respect of things suspended that
would do damage if they fell.
Placing or suspending an object in a dangerous position is already a
ground for liability for it was not necessary that anyone should be hurt
or injured. If someone is hurt by the falling object, the person who
placed the same in such a dangerous position is liable, regardless of
whether he is the owner of the house or not.
In the PH is not applicable, tanan sa atu.a will be actual not potential
injuries, because this talks about potential injuries, dili siya source of
liability under PH law.
Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for
quasi-delict is solidary. (n)
Take note gi discuss ko nani sa inyoha, when we compared surety and
person vicariously liable.

GUILATCO vs. CITY OF DAGUPAN
March 29, 1989
It is not even necessary for the defective road or street to belong to the
province, city o municipality, for liability to attach. The article only
requires that either control or suspension 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 and is exercised through the
City Engineer.
Art. 2190. 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. (1907)
Just take note of this, proprietary torts.
Suppose there are joint tortfeasors, there are two of you, and by
reason of your negligence, you bumped somebody causing injury. In
that situation, if I were made to pay, I can recover half from my
solidary-defendant.
But there is also another form of solidarity under the law of torts. That
is, if I am vicariously liable. Article 2180 provides you are solidarily
liable for the acts of the person whom you are responsible. Pila imong
ma recover? You can’t recover full. It is more on guaranty. Guarantor
can recover anything that you have paid for the benefit of the debtor
which is the same on Article 2180. Solidarity here means recovery of
everything you have paid in full from the actual defendant. What do you
guarantee? The payment of damages.
We’re done with 2176-2194.

Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused:

(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not 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;
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of
infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable to the
place. (1908)

Art. 2192. 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. (1909)

Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof,
is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the
same. (1910)
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
A. DEFINITION
GARCIA-RUEDA VS PASCASIO
GR NO 118141, September 5, 1997
Medical malpractice is that type of claim which a victim has
available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a medical
professional which has caused bodily harm.
Why medical malpractice is specialized?
Medical malpractice is specialized because it is applicable only
when the tort or quasi-delict that causes harm to another person
is committed by a medical professional in the course of medical
treatment.
ELEMENTS OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
SOLIDUM VS PEOPLE
GR NO 192123 March 10, 2014
An action upon medical negligence – whether criminal, civil or
administrative – calls for the plaintiff to prove by competent
evidence each of the following four elements, namely:
1. The duty owed by the physician to the patient, as created by
the physician-patient relationship, to act in accordance with
the specific norms or standards established by his
profession;
2. The breach of the duty by the physician’s failing to act in
accordance with the applicable standard of care;
3. The causation, i.e., there must be a reasonably close and
causal connection between the negligent act or omission and
the resulting injury; and
4. The damages suffered by the patient.
1ST ELEMENT: The duty owed by the physician to the patient, as
created by the physician-patient relationship, to act in accordance with
the specific norms or standards established by his profession.
Just to connect it with what we have learned in Zandolf in Evidence.
Remember that we had this form of privilege communication called
physician-patient privilege communication where the privilege would
attach the moment a medical professional attends to a patient in his
professional capacity. Take note that there’s that phrase in evidence
which provides that “in the course of” or “in view of” professional
relationship in the course of medical treatment. This means that for as
long as the doctors are acting in their professional capacity, the
privilege would attach regardless of whether the patient was in a
position to give his consent.
But here it appears that there has to be a physician-patient relationship
that is created by contract. Muadto ka saimong doctor. Magpatreat ka
sa imong doctor. That would be enough already. Naa nay contractual
relationship that is established between the doctor and the patient.
SPOUSES FLORES VS SPOUSES PINEDA
GR NO 158996, November 14, 2008
In medical malpractice cases, Duty arises then the plaintiff employs the
services of the physician, thus creating a physician-patient relationship
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
between them. Acceptance by the physician of a patient for the
treatment in effect creates a representation on the part of the former
that he has the needed training and skill possessed by those in the
same field and that they will employ the said training, care and skill in
treating the patient.
In other words, there has to be that contract. There has to be consent
on the part of the patient and the doctor to enter into such medical
treatment.
Q: What is the standard of care that is required?
A: In medical treatment, only ordinary diligence is required.
In contract of carriage, extra-ordinary diligence is required as well as
those of banks.
Article 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers
safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the
utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the
circumstances.
There seems to be a disconnect. You’re talking here about life.
Common carrier is probably talking about a bus and there’s a person
who will ride the bus. If he does not reach his destination and there’s
negligence on the part of the bus company or the driver or there is no
extra-ordinary diligence, the bus company or the driver may be held
liable.
Q: If you contract for medical care, will you not expect to be treated as
far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost
diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard to all the
circumstances (similar to a common carrier)?
In the case of Reyes vs. Sisters of Mercy, the Supreme Court had the
occasion to state that the medical profession is one which like the
business of common carriers is affected with public interest.
Why is there then a variance in the required diligence?
Carriage Medicine
No-prequalification process. Profession engaged in only by
qualified individuals.
There is a guaranty that A doctor cannot warrant that a
passengers or goods will arrive at patient under treatment may be
their destination safely and cured of his disease.
securely.
REYES VS SISTERS OF MERCY
GR NO 130547 October 3, 2000
The practice of medicine is a profession engaged in only by qualified
individuals. It is a right earned through years of education, training, and
by first obtaining a license from the state through professional board
examinations. Such license may, at any time and for cause, be
revoked by the government. In addition to state regulation, the conduct
of doctors is also strictly governed by the Hippocratic Oath, an ancient
code of discipline and ethical rules which doctors have imposed upon
themselves in recognition and acceptance of their great responsibility
to society.
Given these safeguards, there is no need to expressly require of
doctors the observance of extraordinary diligence.
By the nature of the profession itself, extraordinary diligence is already
required. What is ordinary in certain circumstances is already
extraordinary in the medical field.
REYES VS SISTERS OF MERCY
GR NO 130547 October 3, 2000
As it is now, the practice of medicine is already conditioned upon the
highest degree of diligence. And, as we have already noted, the
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
standard contemplated for doctors is simply the reasonable average
merit among ordinarily good physicians. That is reasonable diligence
for doctors or, as the Court of Appeals called it, the reasonable skill
and competence that a physician in the same or similar locality should
apply.
This means that a physician is expected to use at least the same level
of care that any other reasonably competent doctor would use under
the same circumstances.
2ND ELEMENT: The breach of the duty by the physician’s failing to act
in accordance with the applicable standard of care.
Improper performance where the patient is injured in body or in health
constitutes actionable malpractice.
Q: How do you determine whether or not a physician has committed
"inexcusable lack of precaution"?
A: Whether or not a physician has committed an "inexcusable lack of
precaution" in the treatment of his patient is to be determined
according to the standard of care observed by other members of the
profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in
mind the advanced state of the profession at the time of treatment or
the present state of medical science.
Breach of duty occurs when the physician FAILS TO COMPLY WITH
OR DEVIATES FROM these professional standards. If injury results to
the patient as a result of this breach, the physician is answerable for
negligence.
Breach could either be:
1. Failure to meet the standards demand by the medical
profession (Tort of omission), or
2. Deviation from the standards (Tort of action)
Therefore, a breach of duty can either by an act or omission.
HOW TO PROVE BREACH
To establish breach there must be:
1. Evidence as to the recognized standards of the medical
community in the particular kind of case; and
2. A showing that the physician in question negligently
departed from this standard in his treatment.
Medical standards of treatment cannot be subject of mandatory judicial
notice. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges
may properly take and act on without proof because they already know
them.
Ours are courts of law not courts of medicine. Therefore, it would be
totally unprocedural and improper for a judge to take judicial notice for
something it had no particular confidence or expertise of.
Medicine is highly technical field and judges are not expected to know
about medicine and medical knowledge cannot be gained by mere
common experience from which the court can derive its conclusions
on. There are matters that can be attributed to common experience.
Two ways by which evidence of medical standards can be
introduced:
1. Expert testimony
2. Learned Medical Treatises
A. EXPERT TESTIMONY
NECESSITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY
Because ours are courts of law and not tribunals of medicine a judge is
not expected to be well-versed in the medical field. Generally, therefor,
expert medical testimony is relied upon in malpractice suits to prove
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
that a physician has done a negligent act or that he has deviated from
the standard medical procedure. Only physicians and surgeons of skill
and experience are competent to testify as to whether a patient has
been treated or operated upon with a reasonable degree of skill and
care.
CRUZ VS COURT OF APPEALS
GR NO 122445 November 18, 1997
FACTS: Lydia was admitted at the Perpetual Help Clinic and General
Hospital for a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus). Her daughter,
Rowena, notices that the clinic was untidy and that she persuaded
Lydia not to proceed with the operation. They were convinced by Dr.
Cruz to proceed.
For the operation, the family bought blood from the blood bank. After
the operation, the doctor advised that they would need more blood.
Thereafter, a person arrived to donate blood which was later
transfused to Lydia. Rowena then noticed her mother, who was
attached to an oxygen tank, gasping for breath. Apparently, the oxygen
supply of the clinic ran out they had to rush to San Pablo Hospital to
procure and oxygen tank.
At around 10:00 PM, she went into shock and her blood pressure
dropped to 60/50.
Lydia’s unstable condition necessitated her to transfer to the San
Pablo District Hospital so she could be connected to a respirator and
further examined. She died upon arrival due to shock and
Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation.
Dr. Ninevetch Cruz, the attending physician/surgeon was prosecuted
for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide
The prosecution’s expert witness in the persons of Dr. Arizala and Dr.
Salvador of the NBI only testified as to the possible cause of death but
not venture as to the standard of care that Cruz should have exercised.
HELD: Inasmuch as the causes of the injuries involved in malpractice
actions are determinable only in the light of scientific knowledge, it has
been recognized that expert testimony is usually necessary to support
the conclusion as to causation.
Immediately apparent from a review of the records of this case is the
absence of any expert testimony on the matter of the standard of
care employed by other physicians of good standing in the
conduct of similar operations.
For whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the requisite degree
of skill and care in the treatment of his patient is, in the generality of
cases, a matter of expert opinion. The deference of courts to the expert
opinion of qualified physicians stems from its realization that the latter
possess unusual technical skills which laymen in most instances are
incapable of intelligently evaluating.
Expert testimony should have been offered to prove that the
circumstances cited by the courts below are constitutive of conduct
falling below the standard of care employed by other physicians in
good standing when performing the same operation. It must be
remembered that when the qualifications of a physician are admitted,
as in the instant case, there is an inevitable presumption that in proper
cases he takes the necessary precaution and employs the best of his
knowledge and skill in attending to his clients, unless the contrary is
sufficiently established. This presumption is rebuttable by expert
opinion which is so sadly lacking in the case at bench.
The probability that Lydia's death was caused by DIC was unrebutted
during trial and has engendered in the mind of this Court a reasonable
doubt as to the petitioner's guilt.
Thus, her acquittal of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide. While we condole with the family of Lydia Umali, our hands
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
are bound by the dictates of justice and fair dealing which hold
inviolable the right of an accused to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, this Court finds the
petitioner civilly liable for the death of Lydia Umali, for while a
conviction of a crime requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, only a
preponderance of evidence is required to establish civil liability.
PURPOSE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY
LUCAS VS TUANO
GR NO 178763, APRIL 21, 2009
What constitutes proper medical treatment is a medical question that
should have been presented to experts. If no standard is established
through expert medical witnesses, then courts have no standard by
which to gauge the basic issue of breach thereof by the physician or
surgeon. The RTC and Court of Appeals, and even this Court, could
not be expected to determine on its own what medical technique
should have been utilized for a certain disease or injury. Absent expert
medical opinion, the courts would be dangerously engaging in
speculations.
B. LEARNED MEDICAL TREATISES
RULE 130, Section 46. Learned treatises. — A published treatise,
periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science, or art is
admissible as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the
court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies,
that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is
recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject. (40a)
WHO IS AN EXPERT?
An expert witness is "one who belongs to the profession or calling to
which the subject matter of the inquiry relates and who possesses
special knowledge on questions on which he proposes to express an
opinion." (People VS Abriol GR NO 123137, OCT 17, 2001)
Q: Is there is a definite standard of determining the degree of skill or
knowledge that a witness must possess in order to testify as an
expert?
A: None. It is sufficient that the following factors be present:
(1) training and education;
(2) particular, first-hand familiarity with the facts of the case; and
(3) presentation of authorities or standards upon which his
opinion is based. (People vs Abriol Gr No 123137, Oct 17,
2001)
HOW IS EXPERTISE ACQUIRED?
There is no precise requirement as to the mode in which
skill/experience shall have been acquired. Scientific study and training
are not always essential to the competency of a witness as an expert.
Knowledge acquired by doing is no less valuable than that acquired by
study (Dilag Co. v. Merced, 1949).
However in medical malpractice cases, because it is required that the
recognized standards of the medical community in the particular kind of
case be proven, expertise must be both scholastic and experiential.
WHEN EXPERT TESTIMONY NOT NEEDED
The expert testimony is not needed when the doctrine of Res Ipsa
Loquitur applies (the thing speaks for itself).
Ramos vs. CA
Although generally, expert medical testimony is relied upon in
malpractice suits to prove that a physician has done a negligent act or
that he has deviated from the standard medical procedure, when the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is availed by the plaintiff, the need for
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself
provides the proof of negligence. The reason is that the general rule on
the necessity of expert testimony applies only to such matters clearly
within the domain of medical science, and not to matters that are within
the common knowledge of mankind which may be testified to by
anyone familiar with the facts. Ordinarily, only physicians and surgeons
of skill and experience are competent to testify as to whether a patient
has been treated or operated upon with a reasonable degree of skill
and care.
Editor’s Note:
General Rule:
Expert medical testimony is relied in medical malpractice suits
Exception:
The court relies on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor as the injury itself
provides the proof of negligence.
Hence, in cases where the res ipsa loquitur is applicable, the court is
permitted to find a physician negligent upon proper proof of injury to
the patient, without the aid of expert testimony, where the court from its
fund of common knowledge can determine the proper standard of care.
Where common knowledge and experience teach that a resulting injury
would not have occurred to the patient if due care had been exercised,
an inference of negligence may be drawn giving rise to an application
of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur without medical evidence, which is
ordinarily required to show not only what occurred but how and why it
occurred.
Thus, courts of other jurisdictions have applied the doctrine in the
following situations:
1. Leaving of a foreign object in the body of the patient after an
operation,
2. Injuries sustained on a healthy part of the body which was
not under, or in the area, of treatment,
3. Removal of the wrong part of the body when another part
was intended,
4. Knocking out a tooth while a patients jaw was under
anesthetic for the removal of his tonsils, and loss of an eye
while the patient was under the influence of anesthetic,
during or following an operation for appendicitis, among
others.
Res ipsa loquitur 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 loquitur can have no
application in a suit against a physician or a surgeon which involves
the merits of a diagnosis or of a scientific treatment. The physician or
surgeon is not required at his peril to explain why any particular
diagnosis was not correct, or why any particular scientific treatment did
not produce the desired result
Thus res ipsa loquitur is not available in a malpractice suit if the
only showing is that the desired result of an operation or
treatment was not accomplished.
REQUISITES OF RES IPSA LOQUITOR:
1. The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur
unless someone is negligent;
2. The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was
under the exclusive control of the person in charge; and
3. The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary
action or contribution of the person injured.
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
SOLIDUM VS PEOPLE
GR NO 192123, MARCH 10, 2014
FACTS: Gerald was born with an imperforate anus. When 2 days old,
he underwent a colostromy operation. When he was 3 years old, a
pull-through operation was conducted (to open his anus). However,
after the operation, he became comatose.
After two months, he regained consciousness but he could no longer
hear, see or move. His mother filed criminal charges against Dr.
Solidum the anesthesiologist.
Dr. Solidum did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail
and neglect to use the care and diligence as the best of his judgment
would dictate under said circumstance, by failing to monitor and
regulate properly the levels of anesthesia administered to said
GERALD ALBERT GERCAYO and using 100% halothane and other
anesthetic medications, causing as a consequence of his said
carelessness and negligence, said GERALD ALBERT GERCAYO
suffered a cardiac arrest and consequently a defect called hypoxic
encephalopathy meaning insufficient oxygen supply in the brain,
thereby rendering said GERALD ALBERT GERCAYO incapable of
moving his body, seeing, speaking or hearing, to his damage and
prejudice.
ISSUE: Does res ipsa loquitur apply?
HELD: NO. Although it should be conceded without difficulty that the
second and third elements were present, considering that the
anesthetic agent and the instruments were exclusively within the
control of Dr. Solidum, and that the patient, being then unconscious
during the operation, could not have been guilty of contributory
negligence, the first element was undeniably wanting.
Hypoxia, or the insufficiency of oxygen supply to the brain that caused
the slowing of the heart rate, scientifically termed as bradycardia,
would not ordinarily occur in the process of a pull-through operation, or
during the administration of anesthesia to the patient, but such fact
alone did not prove that the negligence of any of his attending
physicians, including the anesthesiologists, had caused the injury. In
fact, the anesthesiologists attending to him had sensed in the course of
the operation that the lack of oxygen could have been triggered by the
vago-vagal reflex, prompting them to administer atropine to the patient.
Editor’s Note:
The res ipsa loquitor does not apply automatically simply because a
patient is injured by something that would ordinarily be within the
control of a medical professional.
The fact that the injury rarely occurs does not in itself prove that the
injury was probably caused by someone's negligence.
Sir’s Lecture:
If you’re not sure if res ipsa loquitor applies, present an expert witness
against a medical professional.
Rosit vs. Davao Doctors
G.R. 210445 December 7, 2015
FACTS: Rosit figured in a motorcycle accident. The X-ray showed that
he fractured his jaw. Rosit was then referred to Dr. Gestuvo, a
specialist in mandibular injuries,4 who, on January 19, 1999, operated
on Rosit.
During the operation, Dr. Gestuvo used a metal plate fastened to the
jaw with metal screws to immobilize the mandible. As the operation
required the smallest screws available, Dr. Gestuvo cut the screws on
hand to make them smaller. Dr. Gestuvo knew that there were smaller
titanium screws available in Manila, but did not so inform Rosit
supposing that the latter would not be able to afford the same.
Following the procedure, Rosit could not properly open and close his
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
mouth and was in pain. X-rays showed that the fracture in his jaw was
aligned but the screws used on him touched his molar. Dr. Gestuvo
referred Rosit to Dr. Pangan, opined that another operation is
necessary and that it is to be performed in Cebu.
Alleging that the dentist told him that the operation conducted on his
mandible was improperly done, Rosit went back to Dr. Gestuvo to
demand a loan to defray the cost of the additional operation as well as
the expenses of the trip to Cebu. Dr. Gestuvo gave Rosit P4,500.
In Cebu, Dr. Pangan removed the plate and screws thus installed by
Dr. Gestuvo and replaced them with smaller titanium plate and screws.
Dr. Pangan also extracted Rosit's molar that was hit with a screw and
some bone fragments. Three days after the operation, Rosit was able
to eat and speak well and could open and close his mouth normally.
On his return to Davao, Rosit demanded that Dr. Gestuvo reimburse
him for the cost of the operation and the expenses he incurred in Cebu
amounting to P140,000, as well as for the P50,000 that Rosit would
have to spend for the removal of the plate and screws that Dr. Pangan
installed. Dr. Gestuvo refused to pay.
Rosit filed a civil case for damages and attorney's fees against Dr.
Gestuvo.
ISSUE 1: Whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is applicable?
RULING: YES. The elements of res ipsa loquitor are satisfied:
1. the accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur
unless someone is negligent;
2. the instrumentality or agency that caused the injury was
under the exclusive control of the person charged; and
3. the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary
action or contribution of the person injured.
The first element was sufficiently established when Rosit proved that
one of the screws installed by Dr. Gestuvo struck his molar. It was for
this issue that Dr. Gestuvo himself referred Rosit to Dr. Pangan. In
fact, the affidavit of Dr. Pangan presented by Dr. Gestuvo himself
before the trial court narrated that the same molar struck with the
screw installed by Dr. Gestuvo was examined and eventually operated
on by Dr. Pangan. Dr. Gestuvo knew that the screws he used on Rosit
were too large as, in fact, he cut the same with a saw.
As to the second element, it is sufficient that the operation which
resulted in the screw hitting Rosit's molar was, indeed, performed by
Dr. Gestuvo. No other doctor caused such fact.
What is more damning for Dr. Gestuvo is his failure to inform Rosit that
such smaller screws were available in Manila, albeit at a higher price.
As testified to by Dr. Gestuvo himself:
Court: This titanium materials according to you were already available
in the Philippines since the time of Rosit's accident?
Witness: Yes, your Honor.
Court: Did you inform Rosit about the existence of titanium screws and
plates which according to you is the screws and plates of choice?
Witness: No, your Honor.
Witness: The reason I did not inform him anymore Judge because
what I thought he was already hard up with the down payment. And if I
will further introduce him this screws, the more he will not be able to
afford the operation.
In this case, Rosit was deprived of the opportunity to make an
"informed consent".
ISSUE 2: Whether or not the doctrine of informed consent is likewise
applicable?
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
RULING: YES
Doctrine of Informed Consent
Informed consent evolved into a general principle of law that a
physician has a duty to disclose what a reasonably prudent physician
in the medical community in the exercise of reasonable care would
disclose to his patient as to whatever grave risks of injury might be
incurred from a proposed course of treatment, so that a patient,
exercising ordinary care for his own welfare, and faced with a choice of
undergoing the proposed treatment, or alternative treatment, or none
at all, may intelligently exercise his judgment by reasonably balancing
the probable risks against the probable benefits.
Therefore, it is the duty of Dr. Gestuvo to tell the patient that
these are your options and which can you afford.
ELEMENTS OF THE DOCTRINE OF INFORMED CONSENT:
1. The physician had a duty to disclose material risks; (Duty)
2. He failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks;
(Breach)
3. As a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the
patient consented to treatment she otherwise would not have
consented to; and (Proximate Causation)
4. Plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment. (Injury or
Damage)
Editor’s Note:
Same element for tort but a different type of tort.
The gravamen in an informed consent case requires the plaintiff to
"point to significant undisclosed information relating to the treatment
which would have altered her decision to undergo it
Just to apply:
First, Dr. Gestuvo clearly had the duty of disclosing to Rosit the risks of
using the larger screws for the operation. This was his obligation as the
physician undertaking the operation.
Second, Dr. Gestuvo failed to disclose these risks to Rosit, deciding by
himself that Rosit could not afford to get the more expensive titanium
screws.
Third, had Rosit been informed that there was a risk that the larger
screws are not appropriate for the operation and that an additional
operation replacing the screws might be required to replace the same,
as what happened in this case, Rosit would not have agreed to the
operation.
Fourth, as a result of using the larger screws, Rosit experienced pain
and could not heal properly because one of the screws hit his molar.
This was evident from the fact that just three (3) days after Dr. Pangan
repeated the operation conducted by Dr. Gestuvo, Rosit was pain-free
and could already speak. This is compared to the one (1) month that
Rosit suffered pain and could not use his mouth after the operation
conducted by Dr. Gestuvo until the operation of Dr. Pangan.
Therefore, in the case of Rosit, both the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor
and the Doctrine of Informed Consent applies.
The definition of medical negligence in both Garcia-Rueda vs
Pascasioand Sps. Flores vs Spouses Pineda contemplate only
BODILY HARM or DEATH of a patient.
But in the case of CASUMPANG VS CORTEJO (2015), the SC defined
medical malpractice suit, as an action available to victims to redress a
wrong committed by medical professionals who caused bodily harm to,
or the death of, a patient. As the term is used, the suit is brought
whenever a medical practitioner or health care provider fails to meet
the standards demanded by his profession, or deviates from this
standard, and causes injury to the patient.
Situtational problem:
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
Suppose you visit a gynecologist and he videos your genital. The video
became a scandal over the internet. Is that medical malpractice?
Answer: It’s malpractice but it’s not medical malpractice because it is
outside of his being a medical professional.
What then is the remedy?
1. Go after his license.
2. Sue him a civil case.
3RD ELEMENT: Causation
There must be a reasonably close and causal connection between the
negligent act or omission and the resulting injury.
The same as causation in general tort law. Thus, the same defenses to
causation, including the concept of an efficient intervening cause,
applies to a medical malpractice case.
CAYAO-LASAM VS RAMOLETE
GR NO 159132 December 18, 2008
The omission in not returning for a follow-up evaluation played a
substantial part in bringing about Editha’s own injury. Had Editha
returned, petitioner could have conducted the proper medical tests and
procedure necessary to determine Editha’s health condition and
applied the corresponding treatment which could have prevented the
rupture of Editha’s uterus. The D&C procedure having been conducted
in accordance with the standard medical practice, it is clear that
Editha’s omission was the proximate cause of her own injury and not
merely a contributory negligence on her part.
Based on the evidence presented in the present case under review, in
which no negligence can be attributed to the petitioner, the immediate
cause of the accident resulting in Editha’s injury was her own omission
when she did not return for a follow-up check up, in defiance of
petitioners orders. The immediate cause of Editha’s injury was her own
act; thus, she cannot recover damages from the injury.
EXTENT OF LIABILITY
If a physician, for example, committed actionable malpractice as a solo
practitioner and in the course of treatment in his own clinic, liability
would be based on Article 2176.
If a physician committed a medical malpractice while being clearly an
employee of the hospital, vicarious liability is proper under Article 2180.
Remember that for employment based vicarious liability, it is essential
to prove employer-employee relationship in accordance with labor law
including the power of control.
This is easy to prove if, for example, the malpractice was committed by
a nurse, orderly, or aide of a hospital. All elements of a vicarious
liability would conceivably be present.
REQUISITES TO SUSTAIN A CLAIM
To sustain claims against employers (hospitals) for the acts of their
employees (nurses, etc.) the following REQUISITES must be
established:
1. that the employee was chosen by the employer personally or
through another;
2. that the service to be rendered in accordance with orders
which the employer has the authority to give at all times; and
3. that the illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by
reason of the functions entrusted to him.
What about doctors?
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019
Note that many of them are, for a lack of a better term and to a certain
degree, “independent contractors”
Many doctors have clinics in one or more hospitals. Surgeons do not
perform surgeries exclusively in one hospital.
The threshold issue therefore, is whether a doctor can be
considered an employee of the hospital. If he is, then article 2180
applies.
RAMOS VS CA & DELOS SANTOS MEDICAL CENTER
GR NO 124354, December 29, 1999
FACTS: Erlinda Ramos was admitted at the De Los Santos Medical
Center complaining of discomfort due to pains allegedly caused by the
presence of a stone in her gall bladder. She was operated upon by Dr.
Hosaka and the anesthesiologist was Dr. Gutierrez. After the
operation, the patient suffered brain damage. She became comatose
due to an allergic reaction to the anesthesia. Her family sued both
doctors and the hospital under Article 2180.
De Los Santos Medical Center contends that the doctors were merely
consultants and technically not its employees.
HELD: The unique practice (among private hospitals) of filling up
specialist staff with attending and visiting "consultants," who are
allegedly not hospital employees, presents problems in apportioning
responsibility for negligence in medical malpractice cases. However,
the difficulty is only more apparent than real.
In the first place, 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 accreditation by the
appropriate board (diplomate), evidence of fellowship in most cases,
and references. These requirements are carefully scrutinized by
members of the hospital administration or by a review committee set
up by the hospital who either accept or reject the application. (Power
of Control)
After a physician is accepted, either as a visiting or attending
consultant, he is normally required to attend clinico-pathological
conferences, conduct bedside rounds for clerks, interns and residents,
moderate grand rounds and patient audits and perform other tasks and
responsibilities, for the privilege of being able to maintain a clinic in the
hospital, and/or for the privilege of admitting patients into the hospital.
In addition to these, the physician's performance as a specialist is
generally evaluated by a peer review committee on the basis of
mortality and morbidity statistics, and feedback from patients, nurses,
interns and residents. A consultant remiss in his duties, or a consultant
who regularly falls short of the minimum standards acceptable to the
hospital or its peer review committee, is normally politely terminated.
(Power of Dismissal)
In other words, private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control
over their attending and visiting "consultant" staff. While "consultants"
are not, technically employees, a point which respondent hospital
asserts in denying all responsibility for the patient's condition, the
control exercised, the hiring, and the rights to terminate consultants all
fulfill the important hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship,
with the exception of the payment of wages. In assessing whether
such a relationship in fact exists, the control test is determining.
(Power of Hiring)
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, we rule that 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.
This being the case, the question now arises as to whether or not
respondent hospital is solidarily liable with respondent doctors for
petitioner's condition.
Based on the lectures of
1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
The basis for holding an employer solidarily responsible for the
negligence of its employee is found in Article 2180 of the Civil Code. In
the instant case, respondent hospital, apart from a general denial of its
responsibility over respondent physicians, failed to adduce evidence
showing that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in
the hiring and supervision of the latter. It failed to adduce evidence with
regard to the degree of supervision which it exercised over its
physicians. In neglecting to offer such proof, or proof of a similar
nature, respondent hospital thereby failed to discharge its burden
under the last paragraph of Article 2180. Having failed to do this,
respondent hospital is consequently solidarily responsible with its
physicians for Erlinda's condition.
DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER: 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.
RAMOS VS CA
GR NO 124354 APRIL 11, 2002
(MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION)
DLSMC maintains that first, a hospital does not hire or engage the
services of a consultant, but rather, accredits the latter and grants him
or her the privilege of maintaining a clinic and/or admitting patients in
the hospital upon a showing by the consultant that he or she
possesses the necessary qualifications, such as accreditation by the
appropriate board (diplomate), evidence of fellowship and references.
Second, it is not the hospital but the patient who pays the consultants
fee for services rendered by the latter.
Third, a hospital does not dismiss a consultant; instead, the latter may
lose his or her accreditation or privileges granted by the hospital.
Lastly, DLSMC argues that when a doctor refers a patient for
admission in a hospital, it is the doctor who prescribes the treatment to
be given to said patient. The hospitals obligation is limited to providing
the patient with the preferred room accommodation, the nutritional diet
and medications prescribed by the doctor, the equipment and facilities
necessary for the treatment of the patient, as well as the services of
the hospital staff who perform the ministerial tasks of ensuring that the
doctor’s orders are carried out strictly.
In other words for this particular medical malpractice case, there is no
power of control.
HELD: After a careful consideration of the arguments raised by
DLSMC, the Court finds that respondent hospitals position on this
issue is meritorious. There is no employer-employee relationship
between DLSMC and Drs. Gutierrez and Hosaka which would hold
DLSMC solidarily liable for the injury suffered by petitioner Erlinda
under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
Editor’s Note:
There was no employer-employee relationship because there was no
power of control that was established.
Observation (first case Vs. the MR):
In the first case, the SC ruled that for the purpose of allocating liability
in medical negligence cases there is deemed to exist an employer-
employee relationship between the hospital and the physician-
consultants.
However, on the MR, the SC reversed its earlier pronouncement and
ruled that using the four-fold test, there could not be any such
relationship between the hospital and the doctors.
Q: The 1st case was reversed by the motion for reconsideration. So
does that mean that the doctrine to remember is not anymore
 Torts & Damages
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam
applicable because the ruling was reversed? Does the MR operate as
a complete reversal?
Answer: NO. Because after the ruling of the SC in the MR, the SC
again reiterated the doctrine in:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. VS N&E AGANA
GR NO 126297, January 31, 2007
In our shores, the nature of the relationship between the hospital and
the physicians is rendered inconsequential in view of our categorical
pronouncement in Ramos v. Court of Appeals that for purposes of
apportioning responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-
employee relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their
attending and visiting physicians.
HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE DOCTRINE:
Q: Does the fact that a physician-consultant is allowed to practice
medicine in a hospital operate to immediately call for the application of
the RAMOS DOCTRINE in medical malpractice cases?
A: No. you still have to apply the four-fold test and most especially, the
control test.
It becomes therefore a question of fact. You must plead and prove it.
If you are the plaintiff and you are able to prove it, then employee-
employer relationship exists.
If refuted properly by the defendant, especially power of control, then
there is no application of article 2180 and you only hold the doctors
liable under 2176. No vicarious liability.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. VS N&E AGANA
GR NO 126297, February 2, 2010
(Motion for Reconsideration)
PSI sought a reconsideration of the earlier decision based on the
second Ramos case. It contends that it exercises no control over its
consultants.
HELD: This Court still employs the control test to determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship between hospital and
doctor. In Calamba Medical Center, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, et al. it held:
Under the "control test", an employment relationship exists between a
physician and a hospital if the hospital controls both the means and the
details of the process by which the physician is to accomplish his task.
xx xx xx
As priorly stated, private respondents maintained specific work-
schedules, as determined by petitioner through its medical director,
which consisted of 24-hour shifts totaling forty-eight hours each week
and which were strictly to be observed under pain of administrative
sanctions.
That petitioner exercised control over respondents gains light from the
undisputed fact that in the emergency room, the operating room, or
any department or ward for that matter, respondents' work is monitored
through its nursing supervisors, charge nurses and orderlies. Without
the approval or consent of petitioner or its medical director, no
operations can be undertaken in those areas. For control test to apply,
it is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the
performance of duties of the employee, it being enough that it has the
right to wield the power.
Even in its December 29, 1999 decisionand April 11, 2002 resolution in
Ramos, the Court found the control test decisive.
Control as a determinative factor in testing the employer-employee
relationship between doctor and hospital under which the hospital
Based on the lectures of
Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo
could be held vicariously liable to a patient in medical negligence
cases is a requisite fact to be established by preponderance of
evidence.
What happens if the control test is not satisfied?
In PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. VS N&E AGANA, GR NO
126297, February 2, 2010, the SC ruled that employer-employee
relationship is not the only basis to hold hospitals liable in medical
malpractice suits.
HELD: While in theory a hospital as a juridical entity cannot practice
medicine, in reality it utilizes doctors, surgeons and medical
practitioners in the conduct of its business of facilitating medical and
surgical treatment.
Within that reality, three legal relationships crisscross:
(1) between the hospital and the doctor practicing within its
premises;
(2) between the hospital and the patient being treated or
examined within its premises and
(3) between the patient and the doctor.
The exact nature of each relationship determines the basis and extent
of the liability of the hospital for the negligence of the doctor.
Even when no employment relationship exists but it is shown that the
hospital holds out to the patient that the doctor is its agent (doctrine of
apparent authority), the hospital may still be vicariously liable under
Article 2176 in relation to Article 1431 and Article 1869 of the Civil
Code or the principle of apparent authority.
Moreover, regardless of its relationship with the doctor, the hospital
may be held directly liable to the patient for its own negligence or
failure to follow established standard of conduct to which it should
conform as a corporation.
THREE ADDITIONAL DOCTRINES AVAILABLE ASIDE FROM THE
CONTROL TEST:
1. Concurrent or Independent Negligence
2. Doctrine of Apparent Authority
3. Doctrine of Corporate Responsibility
CONCURRENT OR INDEPENDENT NEGLIGENCE
If both the doctor and the hospital were negligent, and their negligence
concurred in producing the injury, they are both liable as joint
tortfeasors.
Remember that the liability of joint tortfeasors is solidary. (Art. 2194)
DOCTRINE OF APPARENT AUTHORITY
In other words, if the hospital holds out to the public, make patients rely
on the representation on the part of the hospital that this physician or
doctor has the power or agency to act in its behalf.
Two factors that determine apparent authority:
1. The hospital's implied manifestation to the patient which led
the latter to conclude that the doctor was the hospital's
agent; and
2. The patients reliance upon the conduct of the hospital and
the doctor, consistent with ordinary care and prudence.
NOGALES ET AL VS CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER ET AL
GR NO 142625 December 19, 2006
In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent
contractor-physician. There is, however, an exception to this principle.
The hospital may be liable if the physician is the ostensible agent of
 Torts & Damages Based on the lectures of
3 Manresa 2018-2019 1st Exam Atty. Jess Zachael Espejo

the hospital. This exception is also known as the DOCTRINE OF

APPARENT AUTHORITY. 4th ELEMENT: Damage suffered by the patient

[U]nder the doctrine of apparent authority a hospital can be held In short, we go back to the same basic elements for practically every
vicariously liable for the negligent acts of a physician providing care at tort and that would be:
the hospital, regardless of whether the physician is an independent 1. Duty
contractor, unless the patient knows, or should have known, that the 2. Breach
physician is an independent contractor. The elements of the action 3. Proximate Causation (as distinguished from causation in
have been set out as follows: fact)
4. Injury or Damage
For a hospital to be liable under the doctrine of apparent authority, a
plaintiff must show that: Read:
 Our Lady of Lourdes vs. Spouses Capanzana, G.R. 189218,
1. The hospital, or its agent, acted in a manner that would lead March 22, 2017.
a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was
alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the
hospital;
2. Here the acts of the agent create the appearance of
authority, the plaintiff must also prove that the hospital had
knowledge of and acquiesced in them; and
3. The plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the
hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and
prudence.

The element of holding out on the part of the hospital does not require
an express representation by the hospital that the person alleged to be
negligent is an employee. Rather, the element is satisfied if the
hospital holds itself out as a provider of emergency room care without
informing the patient that the care is provided by independent
contractors.

The element of justifiable reliance on the part of the plaintiff is satisfied

if the plaintiff relies upon the hospital to provide complete emergency
room care, rather than upon a specific physician.

READ:
 Casumpang vs. Cortejo, G.R. No. 171127, March 11, 2015
(Reiteration of the Doctrine of Apparent Authority)

DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC. VS CA

GR NO 126297, February 11, 2008

The duty of providing quality medical service is no longer the sole

prerogative and responsibility of the physician. This is because the
modern hospital now tends to organize a highly-professional medical
staff whose competence and performance need also to be monitored
by the hospital commensurate with its inherent responsibility to provide
quality medical care. Such responsibility includes the proper
supervision of the members of its medical staff. Accordingly, the
hospital has the duty to make a reasonable effort to monitor and
oversee the treatment prescribed and administered by the physicians
practicing in its premises.

SUMMARY

Making hospitals vicariously liable

1. Establish power of control by the hospital over the physician

(RAMOS CASE)
2. Establish apparent authority to render hospital estopped
from denying its connection to the physician (NOGALES
CASE, 3rd professional services ruling and CASUMPANG
CASE); DOCTRINE OF APPARENT AUTHORITY or
OSTENSIBLE AGENCY; or
3. Establish that the hospital failed to properly supervise the
members of its medical staff or that it failed to discharge its
duty to make a reasonable effort to monitor and oversee the
treatment prescribed and administered by the physicians
practicing in its premises, (2nd PSI case, DOCTRINE OF
CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY.