TORTS AND DAMAGES * Philippine Tort Law

COURSE OUTLINE Article 1157 of the NCC is the primary statute that governs
torts in the Philippines.

I.GENERAL CONSIDERATION Article 1157. Obligations arise from: (1) Law; (2)
Contracts; (3) Quasi-contracts; (4) Acts or omissions
* Definition of “tort” punished by law; and (5) Quasi-delicts. (1089a)

From the French word, torquere, meaning to twist. Art. 1157 of the NCC includes quasi-delict as a source of
Common law definition obligation. This source of obligation is classified as “extra-
Black’s Law Dictionary contractual obligation” and is governed by Chapter XVII,
Chapter 2 of the Code consisting of Arts. 2176 to 2194. Other
* Classes of Tort/Kinds of tort liabilities provisions that are considered “tort” provisions can be found in
other titles of the Code and in special laws.
1. Intentional torts
* Scope and Applicable Laws
Definition found in various provisions of the NCC, specifically
the provision on Human Relations, Arts. 19035 Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his
2. Negligence or negligent torts rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and
Found in the rules on Quasi-Delicts under Articles 2176-2194 good faith.
of the NCC
Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully
3. Strict liability torts or negligently causes damage to another, shall
Are those exemplified by the provisions on nuisances (Art.694- indemnify the latter for the same.
707, NCC
Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or
injury to another in manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage.
II. NEGLIGENCE * Requisites (Taylor vs Mla Electric Co.16 Phil 8)

* Statutory Basis and Requisites 1. There must be an act or omission constituting fault or
negligence;
There are five sources of obligations under Article 1157 of the 2. Damage caused by the said act or omission; and
NCC—law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delict and quasi-delict. 3. Causal relation between the damage and the act or omission.

“No obligation will be recognized and enforced by our The same requisites are adopted in present day as expressed by
courts unless the plaintiff can justify said obligation as arising the Supreme Court in the case of PNCC vs. C.A, G. R. No.
from one of the sources enumerated in Article 1157.” (Mla. 159270, August 22, 2005
Railroad Co. vs Compania Transatlantica citing Sanchez
Roman).
* DELICT (Criminal negligence) is found in Article 365,
Fault or negligence is an indispensable requirement of an RPC.
obligation based on quasi delict under Art 2176, NCC and the
crime defined under Art. 365 RPC. Elements of a crime
1. The offender does or fails to do an act;
* Kinds of Negligence 2. The doing or failure to do that act is voluntary;
3. It is without malice;
1. CULPA CONTRACTUAL (contractual fault) 4. The material damage results from the reckless imprudence;
and
2. CULPA AQUILIANA (quasi-delict) 5. There is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the
offender, taking into consideration his employment or
Art. 2176 NCC. “Whoever by act or omission causes damage occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and
to another, thee being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for other circumstances regarding person, time and place (Cruz vs.
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre- Court of Appeals, 282 SCRA 188)
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
* Distinction between culpa aquiliana from culpa
contractual

* Distinction between culpa aquiliana from crimes

Cases: Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf, 7 Phil 359
Wright vs. Manile Electric, 28 Phil 122
Samson vs. Dionisio, 11 Phil 538
Tenchavez vs. Escano, 15 SCRA 355
* Test to determine whether or not person is negligent
(Picart vs. Smith)
Art. 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.
(1902a)
In relation to the discussion on quasi-delict or negligence,
reference must also be made to Article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code. Article 365, Imprudence and Negligence.
Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence
In Article 365 of the RPC, there is reference not only to
negligence but also to imprudence. As a matter of fact,
imprudence precedes negligence in Article 365.
Elements of Article 365
282 SCRA 188
Distinction between culpa aquiliana and crime:
* Important:
While the rule in Article 2176 requires that to be liable for
damages based on quasi-delict, there must be no pre-existing
contractual relationship between the parties, this rule is not
absolute.
For on to be liable for tort even if there is a contract, there must
be an act independent of the contract that violates the contract.
(landmark case: Air France vs. Carrascoso)
* Important point again:
In an action for damages based on quasi delict, it is the burden
of the plaintiff to prove the negligence of the defendant. Absent
proof, the defendant cannot be held liable, no damage no
injury.
* Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
* Doctrine of Proximate Cause
* Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur
Cases: Africa vs Caltex et al
Republic vs Luzon Stevedoring
* Doctrine of Damnum Absque Injuria (Damage without
injury)
* Principle of Fortuitous Event
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)
* Application of Art. 2177 in relation to /secs. 1-4 Rule 111
RRC
* Important:
Be ready to give the distinctions between civil liability arising
from quasi-delict under Art. 2176 and civil liability arising
from crime
* What is the effect of acquittal of the accused in a criminal
case to his civil liablity?
Cases: Urbano vs, IAC, G.R. No. 72964 Jan 7, 1988
People vs. Ritter, G.R. No. 88582, March 5, 1991
* Read Sections 1-4, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court
Sec. 1 Institution of criminal and civil actions
Sec. 2 When separate civil action is suspended.
Sec. 3 When the action may proceed independently
Sec. 4. Effect of death on civil actions
* Differentiate Civil Liability Arising from Quasi-Delict
from Civil Liability Arising from crime
* Understand Art. 2177 by relating it with Section 1-4 Rule
111 of the ROC
- Simplify Rules
- Application of Rules
* Art. 2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also
applicable to a quasi-delict. (n)
* Please do your readings on Article 1172 to 1174 and bear in
mind that these provision are applicable to a quasi-delict.
Give examples of application/relation of articles
Cases: Bachelor Express vs. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 216
NPC et. al. vs Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No.
102442, May 21, 199
Juan Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals, et.al., G.R.
No. L-47851, October 2, 1986
* Are there instances when one can be held liable inspite of
fortuitous event/s?
Art. 1942
Art. 1979
Art. 147
Art. 2148
* Why may a party be liable despite the happening of a
fortuitous event?
Even if the fortuitous event is the proximate case of the loss or
injury, if there was an intervening fault, negligence or fraud,
delay, contravention of the tenor of the obligation, still there
should attach some laiblity to the person (Art. 1170).
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)
Two doctrines/principles under this Article:
- Proximate Cause
- Contributory Negligence
Cases: Ramos vs C.O.L. Realty, GR No. 184905, August 28,
2009
Pilipinas Bank vs Ca, G.R. No. 97873 August 12, 1993
Phoenix Construction vs. IAC, GR. No. 65295, March
10, 1987
Cadiente vs. Macas, G.R. No. 161946, Nov. 14, 2008
NPC vs. Heirs of Casionan, GR No. 165969, Nov. 27,
2008
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.
(1903a)
* Degree of Proof required in trial involving vicarious
liability of employers
Important Note:
Under Article 2180, where the injury is cause by the
negligence of the employee, there instantly arises a
presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the
master or employer either in the selection of the servant or
employee, or in the supervision over him after selection or
both.
Important:
There has been a drastic change in our jurisprudence insofar as
liability of teachers and heads and establishments of arts and
trades.
In the cases of Exconde vs. Capuno (101 Phil. 843), Mercado
vs. CA(108 Phil 414), Palisoc vs. Brillantes, cases decided by
the Supreme Court a long time ago, the Supreme Court has
uniformly held that the liability of the teacher for the tortious
act of his student or pupil to attach, he must be a teacher of a
school of arts and trades.
This rule no longer applies. The provision should now apply to
all schools, academic or non-academic, school of arts or trade.
There is no more 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 Court no longer recognizes that there must be a different
degree of vigilance that should be exercised by the school
authorities on the basis of the nature of their respective schools.
The injury subject of liability is caused by the school and not
by the school itself nor is it a result of the operations of the
school or the equipment.
* Explanation on the legal basis of this responsibility
Case: Cuadra vs. Monfort, , 35 SCRA 160, 162-163
NPC vs. CA, GR No. 96410 July 3, 1992
Libi vs. IAC GR No. 70890, Sept. 18, 1992
Spouses Jaime vs. Apostol, et.al. GR No. 163609, Nov.
27, 2008
St. Francis High School et. al vs. CA, GR No. 82465,
Feb. 25, 1991
Estacion vs. Bernardo, GR No. 144723, Fe. 27, 2006
City Government of Tagaytay vs. Guerrero, GR No.
140743 & 140745, Sept. 17, 2009
Art. 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. (1904)
* Reason for the rule: It should be the person who caused the
injury who should pay for the damage done. The fact that
another person paid the obligation does not exempt him from
liability because of the principle that no one shall enrich
himself at the expense of another.
Art. 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. (n)
* Important: There must be the appointment of a guardian ad
litem in case minor has no parents before child can be made to
pay from his own funds.
Question:
What if the child has no money or resources? Will the damage
done remain without relief?
* Civil judgment can be enforced within a period of five years
by execution, by filing a motion for issuance of writ of
execution. If after five but within 10 years, revivial of
judgment (Rules of Court!!!!)
Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make
use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may
cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility
shall cease only in case the damage should come from force
majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered
damage. (1905)
* Important: The possessor need not be the owner of the
animal
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily
liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle,
could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the
misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was
negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or
violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next
preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of
Article 2180 are applicable. (n)
* Nature of liablity of employer
Liability of employer is purely civil and not criminal, as the
criminal without a showing that the other participated directly
or constructively in the act or that the act was done in
furtherance of common design or purpose for which the parties
were united in intention.
Case: Manlangit vs. Urgel
Caedo vs. Yu Khe Tai, L-20392, Dec. 18, 1968
* Art. 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. (n)
Case: Guillang et. al vs. Bedania et. al. GR NO. 162987, May
21, 2009
* Liability under Art. 2187
Art. 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. (n)
Art. 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. (n)
* Art. 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. (n)
How can that prima facie presumption of negligence be
overcome?
* Art. 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. (n)
Cases: City of Manila vs. Teotico (L-23052, Jan. 29, 1968)
QC Government and Engr. Timazon vs. Dacara, GR
No. 150304, June 15, 2005
* Basis of responsibility under Art. 2191 is Article 20 CC
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)
Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages
caused:
(1) By the1 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 * What are the defenses that can be raised in quasi-delict
should be the result of any defect in the construction mentioned
in Article 1723, the third person suffering damages may 1. Contributory negligence-defendant may claim that
proceed only against the engineer or architect or contractor in plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the injury.
accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed. 2. Proximate cause of the loss or injury is the negligence
(1909) of the plaintiff.
3. Last clear chance.
Case: De Roy vs. CA, G.R. No. 80718, Jan. 29, 1988. 4. Assumption of risk.
5. Defense of due diligence in the selection and
- Relate 2192 with Article 1723 supervision of employees.
6. Force majeure.
7. Prescription
* Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a 8. Fault of negligence of engineer, architect of contractor
part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things
thrown or falling from the same. (1910)

Case: Dingcong vs. Kanaan 72 Phil 14

* Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are

liable for quasi-delict is solidary.

Solidary Liability under this Article applies only when:

1. When there are two ro more persons who are joint
tortfeasors; and
2. Whn they are guilty of only one quasi delict

- Be ready to make distinction/difference between Article 2184

and 2194
V.OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES ARISING FROM Zulueta vs. Nicolas
HUMAN RELATIONS Phil Match Co. Ltd vs. City of Cebu

* Manner of exercising rights and duties Unfair Competition

Velayo vs Shell Co
PNB vs. CA Civil action where accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt
Bernardes vs. Bohol Land Transp.
* Damages for acts contrary to morals, good customs,
public policy Violation or obstruction of civil or political rights
Mla Gas Corp vs CA Lim and Taja vs. Ponce de Leon
Grand Union Supermarket vs. Espino Jr.
Quisumbing vs ICAO Separate and independent action for fraud, defamation and
Pe et al vs Pe physical injuries
Wassmer vs. Velez Carandang vs Santiago and Valenton

* Return of things acquired without just or legal cause Refusal or failure of police to render assistance

* Liability for benefits received although not due to fault or Where no independent civil action is granted and the municipal
negligence judge or fiscal fails or refuses to institute criminal action

* Duty of courts to give protection in certain cases Pre-judicial questions

* Extravagant expenses in period of public want or The time to ask for suspension or criminal action
emergency

* Right of privacy

* Interference with family relations

* Vexing or humiliating a person

* Refusal or neglect to perform official duty

Jovellano et al vs Tayo
VI. NUISANCE Jamilo vs Serfino
Joaquin vs Aniceto
Kinds of nuisance
Employer liable only when engaged in industry; meaning of
Remedies against public nuisance “industry”
Telleria vs. Garcia
Liability for extra-judicial abatement Clemente vs Foreign Mission Sisters

Easement against nuisance Employee’s conviction conclusive upon employer

Ayala vs Baretto Martinez vs Barredo
Sitchon et al vs. Aquino Orsal vs Arisbo
Velasco vs Mla Electric Miranda vs Malate Garage
Tat Chan vs. Mun of Iloilo
Employee’s insolvency not necessary for employer’s
subsidiary liability
Bntot vs Bobis

VI. INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACUAL RELATIONS Crime must be in the discharge of employee’s duty
History under the Common La in the Philippines Basa Marketing Corp. vs Bolinao Security et. al.

What is included in civil liability

VII. LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES Padua vs. Roblez
Lanuza vs Ping
Dual aspect of crime Manio vs Gaddi
People and Manuel vs Coloma Chan vs yatco 103 Phil 1126
Mendoza vs Arrieta
Subsidiary liability of innkeepers and proprietors Elcano vs Hill
Arambulo vs. Manila Electric PNB vs Purisima
Yumul vs. Juanito & Pamapanga Bus Co. Albornos vs Racela

Employer’s liability being subsidiary, employee must be I. DAMAGES

convicted first
Title XVIII. - DAMAGES
Art. 2216.
Art. 2217. Art. 2218.
CHAPTER 1 Art. 2219.
Art. 2220.
GENERAL PROVISIONS Art. 2221.
Art. 2222.
Art. 2223.
Art. 2195.
Art. 2196. SECTION 3. - Temperate or Moderate Damages
Art. 2197
Art. 2198. Art. 2224.
Art. 2225.
ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
SECTION 4. - Liquidated Damages
Art. 2199.
Art. 2200. Art. 2226.
Art. 2201. Art. 2227.
Art. 2202. Art. 2228.
Art. 2203.
Art. 2204. SECTION 5. - Exemplary or Corrective Damages
Art. 2205.
Art. 2206. Art. 2229.
Art. 2207. Art. 2230.
Art. 2208. Art. 2231.
Art. 2209. Art. 2232.
Art. 2210. Art. 2233.
Art. 2211. Art. 2234.
Art. 2212. Art. 2213. Art. 2235.
Art. 2214.
Art. 2215.
Meaning of Damages
CHAPTER 3
OTHER KINDS OF DAMAGES The law on damages-where found
Fundamental rule on damages Damages for injury to business standing

Damages and its amount must be proved Factors to be considered in determining damages in case of
death of person
Only proximate cause, not remote cause recoverable Cilla Ray Transit vs CA

Juntilla vs. Fontanar, Subrogation on insurance company

GR No. L-45637, May 31, 1985
Attorney’s fees when recoverable
Payment on interest
Effect of plaintiff’s contributory negligence
Speculative damages, not recoverable Rakes vs Atlantic Gulf
Taylor vs Mla electric
Damages recoverable Laguna Tayabas Bus vs Cornista

Lopez et al vs PANAM
Air France vs Carrascoso
Ortigas vs Lufthansa German Airlines
Damages recoverable in quasi-delict
Power of courts to mitigate damages on equitable grounds
No proof of pecuniary loss necessary to recover moral,
nominal, temperate or liquidated or exemplary damages, but
factual basis must be shown

Duty of injured party to minimize damages

Lasam vs Smith Moral damages

Damages increased or diminished by aggravating or mitigating Cases where moral damages may be recovered
circumstances
Moral damages for breach of contract
Damages for impairment of earning capacity Acts contrary to moral, public policy, good customs
Araneta vs Bank of America
Borromeo vs Mla Electric Co
Soberano vs Mla Railroad
Marchan vs Mendoza