UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE RECOLETOS

SCHOOL OF LAW
COURSE SYLLABUS

Course Title: TORTS & DAMAGES Instructor:

No. of Units: 2 units Atty. Raymiejella R. Sususco-

Viagedor
Semester/ SY: 2nd Semester 2019-2020
Department/Trac Civil Law Department
k:

Course Requirements:

Attendance
Recitations
Case Digests
Quizzes

Grading System

Mid Term: (50%)

Class Standing: 50%
Recitations – 60%
Case Digests - 20%
Quizzes/Other Activities - 20%
Midterm Exam: 50%

Final Term: (50%)

Class Standing: 50%
Recitations – 60%
Case Digests - 20%
Quizzes/Other Activities - 20%
Final term Exam: 50%

Final Grade: (100%)

NB: No Prelim Exams but students will be required to submit a legal

memorandum concerning issues in relation to the course.

Course Outline

This course is divided into four (4) major parts – (a) Concept of Torts & Damages (b)
Quasi-Delicts; (c) Damages; (d) Special Torts or other Actionable Wrongs;

For each topic, the students will be introduced to the concepts, theories and prevailing
jurisprudence and new doctrines developed under Philippine jurisprudence.

1
Under the topic of Concept of Torts & Damages, the aim is to let the students
understand the different kinds of wrongful acts and distinguish them from each other to
determine the right causes of action to pursue and the defenses available.

Under the topic of Quasi-Delicts (Article 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines), the aim is to teach the students the scope of negligence and acts or
omissions committed through negligence, definition, tests, circumstances, standard vs.
specific rules, degrees and proof of negligence, as well as its legal consequences.
Likewise, we will deal with negligence of health care professionals, lawyers and
accountants and selected business organizations and defenses in negligence cases such
as plaintiff’s conduct, accident, proximate cause, emergency rule, res ipsa loquitur, last
clear chance, etc.

Under the topic Special Torts or other Actionable Wrongs, the aim is to teach the
students the almost unlimited applicability of all wrongs in all facets of human actions
and relations, private or public, community, business enterprises, etc.

Under the topic Damages (Articles 2195 to 2235 of the Civil Code of the Philippines),
the aim is to teach the students the scope and various forms of damages and how to
apply them in actual situations;

I. Introduction

II. Preliminary Considerations

A. Tort Defined
B. Kinds of Tort Liabilities
C. Sources of Philippine Tort Law
D. Purposes and Fundamental Principles of Tort Law
E. Persons who can sue and be sued for tort
F. Remedies
G. Alternative Compensation Scheme

H. Classification of Torts
I. Difference between Culpa Aquiliana, Culpa contractual and Crime

J. Difference between Fault and Dolo

K. Elements of Quasi-delict

L. Negligence under Article 2176 of the Civil Code

M. Negligence under Article 1173 of the Civil Code

N. Criminal Negligence under Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code

-CASES-

i. Naguiat vs. NLRC, G.R. # 116123, March 13, 1997

2
 ii. Daywalt vs. La Corporacion delos Padres Agustinos G.R. # 13505,
February 4,1919
iii. Elcano and Elcano vs. Hill and Hill, G.R. #L-24803, May 26, 1977
iv. Cangco vs. Manila Railroad, G.R. # L-12191, October 14, 1918
v. Barredo vs. Garcia G.R. # L-48006, July 8, 1942
vi. Andamo vs. IAC G.R. # 74761, November 6, 1990
vii. Dulay vs. CA, G.R. # 108017 April 3, 1995

III. NEGLIGENCE
A. STATUTORY BASIS AND REQUISITES
1. Quasi-delict
2. Delict
3. Contract
4. Distinctions: Culpa aquiliana vs. culpa contractual; Culpa aquiliana and
Crime
5. Concurrence of causes of action

-CASES-
i. Child Learning Center vs. Tagario, G.R. # 150920 November 25, 2005
ii. Donaldson vs. Smith, G.R. # 411, April 23, 1902
iii. The Receiver vs. Ybanez, G.R. L-22183, August 30, 1968
iv. Cinco vs. Canonoy, G.R. # L-33171, May 31, 1979
v. Bulao vs. CA GR # 101983, February 1, 1983
vi. Gregorio vs. CA GR # 179799, September 11, 2009
vii. Corinthian Gardens Association, Inc. vs. Tanjangco, GR # 160795,
June 27, 2009
viii. PSBA vs. CA GR # 84698, February 4, 1992
ix. Fores vs. Miranda, G.R. # L-12163, March 4, 1959
x. Air France vs. Carrascoso GR # L-21438, September 28, 1966
xi. Consolidated Bank vs. CA, G.R. # 138569, September 11, 2003
xii. American Express vs. Cordero G.R. # 138550, October 14, 2005
xiii. Syquia vs. CA, G.R. # 98695, January 27, 1993
xiv. Far East bank vs. Ca, G.R. # 108164, February 23, 1995
xv. BLTB vs. IAC, G.R. #s 74387-90, November 14, 1998
xvi. Makati Shangri-La Hotel vs. Harper, G.R. # 189998, August 29, 2012

B. CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE
1. Definition
2. Test of Negligence

-CASES-
i. PLDT vs. CA, GR No. 57079, September 29, 1989
ii. Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. CA, GR No. 53401, November 6, 1989
iii. Picart vs. Smith, G.R. # L-12219, March 15, 1918 37 Phil. 809
iv. People vs. Delos Santos, 355 SCRA 415 (2001)
v. Evelyn Acuna vs. Rodolfo A. Alventara, Sheriff IV, RTC, Br.50, Villasis,
Pangasinan (A.M. No. 01-1463, March 20, 2001)
Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping M.V., et.al. vs. Phil. Insurance
Co., In., GR No. 14133, June 5, 2002

3. Foreseeability and Undue Risk

3
 -CASES-
i. Phoenix Construction vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 353 (1987)
ii. Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District, 104 Phil 398 (1958)
iii. Civil Aeronautics Administration vs. Court of Appeals and Ernest E.
Simke, G.R. No. L-51806, November 8, 1988
iv. Philippine Hawk Corp. vs. Tan Lee, G.R. # 166869, February 16, 2010
v. Philippine National Construction Corporation vs. CA, G.R. # 159270,
August 22, 2005
vi. Greenstar Express, Inc. vs. Universal Robina Corp., G.R. # 205090,
October 16, 2016
vii. Abrogar vs. Cosmos Bottling Company, G.R. # 164749, March 15, 2017

4. Probability
-CASE-
i. Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 30 (1998)

5. Negligence is conduct
6. Calculation of risk
7. Circumstances to consider in determining negligence (Time, Place,
Emergency, Gravity of Harm to be Avoided, Alternative Course of Action,
Social Value or Utility of Activity, Person Exposed to the Risk)

-CASES-
i. People vs. Ramirez, G.R. # L-24084, November 3, 1925
ii. Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co., 16 Phil. 8 (1910)
iii. United States vs. Bonifacio, 34 Phil. 65 (1916)
iv. Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 303 (1996)
v. McKee vs. IAC, G.R. # L-68102, July 16, 1992
vi. Delsan Transport Lines vs. C &A Construction, Inc., G.R. # 156034,
October 1, 2003
vii. Julian del Rosario vs. Manila Electric Co., 57 Phil. 478 (1932)
viii. Manila Electric Co. vs. Remoquillo, G.R. # L-8328, May 18, 1956

8. Standard of Conduct: Good Father of a Family

-CASES-
i. Julian del Rosario vs. Manila Electric Co., 57 Phil. 478 (1932)
ii. PLDT vs. CA, G.R. 57079, September 29, 1989
iii. Corliss vs. Manila Railroad, G.R. # L-21291, March 28, 1969
iv. BJDC Construction vs. Lanuzo, G.R. # 161151, March 24, 2014
v. Federico Ylarde, et al. vs. Edgardo Aquino, 163 SCRA 697, July 29, 1988
vi. Jarco Marketing Corporation vs. CA, G.R. # 129792, December 21, 1999
vii. Francisco vs. Chemical Bulk Carriers Incorporated, G.R. # 193577,
September 9, 2011
viii. Culion Ice, Fish and Electric Co. vs. Phil. Motors Corporation, 55 Phil.
129 (1930)
ix. BPI vs. CA, G.R. # 102383, November 26, 1992
x. Smith Bell Dodwell vs. Borja, G.R. # 143008, June 10, 2002
xi. Dr. Ninevetch Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 282 SCRA 188 (1997)

4
 xii. E.M. Wright vs. Manila Electric R.R. & Light Co., G.R. No. 7760, October
1, 1914

9. Standard vs. Specific Rules

Cases:
i. Preciolita V. Corliss vs. The Manila Railroad Co., G.R. # L-21291, March
28, 1969, 27 SCRA 674 (1969)
ii. Victorino Cusi and Pilar Pobre vs. Philippine National Railways, G.R. No.
L-29889, May 31, 1979

10. Other Factors to consider in determining negligence

Cases:
i. Anonuevo vs. CA, G.R. # 130003, October 20, 2004
ii. Cipriano vs. CA, G.R. # 107968, October 30, 1996
iii. FF Cruz vs. CA, 164 SCRA 731 (1988)
iv. Teague vs. Fernandez, G.R. # L-29745, June 4, 1973
v. Delgado, et al. vs. Go Chong Bing, 102 Phil 556
vi. Sanitary Steam Laundry vs. CA, 300 SCRA 20
vii. Yamada vs. Manila Railroad, 33 Phil 11, 12-13
viii. SD Martinez vs. Van Buskirk, G.R. # L-5691, December 27, 1910

11. Degrees of diligence

12. Degrees of negligence

Cases:
i. People vs. Vistan, G.R. # 17218, September 8, 1921
ii. US vs. Gomez, G.R. # 14068, January 17, 1919
iii. Chan vs. Iglesia ni Cristo, G.R. #160283, October 14, 2005
iv. Negros Navigation, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. # 110398, November 7, 1997

13. Proof of negligence

- Burden of proof
- Presumptions:
Article 2184, NCC
Article 2185, NCC
Article 2188, NCC

-Res Ipsa Loquitor

Applicability of the Rule
Cases:
i. Ramos vs. CA, G.R. # 124354, December 29, 1999
ii. Macalinao vs. Ong, G.R. #146635, December 14, 2005
iii. Layugan vs. IAC, 167 SCRA 376
iv. Ma-ao Central Co., Inc. vs. C.A.
v. Africa vs. Caltex (Phil.), Inc., G.R. No. L-12986, March 31, 1966
vi. F.F. Cruz and Co., Inc. vs. The Court of Appeals, et. Al., G.R. No. L-
52732, August 29, 1988
vii. Republic of the Philippines vs. Luzon Stevedoring Corp., G.R. No. L-
21749, September 29, 1967
viii. Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 59

5
 ix. Batiquin vs. Court of Appeals, 258 SCR 334 (1996)
x. Cebu Shipyard vs. William Lines, G.R. # 132607, May 5, 1999
xi. D.M. Consunji vs. CA, G.R. # 137873, April 20, 2001

Cases (when doctrine held inapplicable)

i. S.D. Martinez, et.al. vs. William Van Buskirk, G.R. No. L-5691,
December 27, 1910
ii. Espiritu vs. Philippine Power and Dev. Co., C.A.- G.R. No. L-3240-R,
September 20, 1949
iii. Radio Communications of the Phils., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,
G.R. No. L-4478, August 29, 1986
iv. FGU Insurance G.P Sarmiento Trucking Corporation, G.R. # 141910,
August 6, 2002
v. Rodriguez, et al. vs. CA, G.R. # 121964, June 17, 1997
vi. Wildvalley Shipping vs. CA, G.R. #119602, October 6, 2000

IV. AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES

V. MALPRACTICE
I. Negligence of Health Care Professionals
1. Medical Malpractice
2. Liability of Hospitals
3. Nurses
4. Pharmacists
5. Clinical Laboratories

Cases:
i. Cayao-Lasam vs. Ramolete, G.R. # 159132, December 18, 2008
ii. Lucas vs. Tuano, G.R. # 171636, April 7, 2009
iii. Solidum vs. People, G.R. # 192123, March 10, 2014
iv. Reyes vs. Sisters of Mercy Hospital, G.R. # 130547, October 3, 2000
v. Rogelio Ramos vs. CA, G.R. # 124354, December 29, 1999
vi. Li vs. Sps. Soliman, G.R. # 165279, June 7, 2011
vii. Rosit vs. Davao Doctors Hospital, G.R. # 210445, December 7, 2015
viii. Ramos vs. CA, GR # 124354, April 11, 2002
ix. Professional Services, Inc. vs. Agana, G.R. # 126297, February 2,
2010
x. Manila Doctors Hospital vs. So Un Chua, G.R. # 150355, July 31,
2006
xi. LEONILA GARCIA-RUEDA vs. WILFREDO L. PASCASIO, G.R. #
118141. September 5, 1997
xii. ORLANDO D. GARCIA, JR., doing business under the name and style
COMMUNITY DIAGNOSTIC CENTER and BU CASTRO vs. RANIDA D.
SALVADOR, G.R. #168512, March 20, 2007
xiii. CARLOS BORROMEO, Petitioner, v. FAMILY CARE HOSPITAL, INC.
AND RAMON S. INSO, M.D., G.R. # 191018, January 25, 2016

II. Negligence of Lawyers

III. Accountants and Auditors

VI. NEGLIGENCE OF SELECTED BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS

6
VII. DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE CASES
A. PLAINTIFF’S OWN NEGLIGENCE AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE
Article 2179, NCC

Cases:
1. PLDT vs. SPOUSES ESTEBAN
2. KIM vs. PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXI, CO., 58 Phil. 838 (1933)

B. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Cases:
1. M.H. RAKES vs. THE ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY, G.R.
No. L-1719, January 23, 1907
2. PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC. and ARMANDO U. CARBONEL vs.
THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and LEONARDO DIONISIO,
G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987

C. VIOLATION OF STATUTE BY THE VICTIM OR HIS AGENT

D. ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Requisites
Kinds:
a. Express Waiver of the Right to Recover
b. Implied Conditions
Cases:
1. Abrogar vs. Cosmos Bottling Company, G.R. # 164749, March 15, 2017
2. TRANSPORTO vs. MIJARES (1961)

E. FORTUITOUS EVENT
Cases:
1. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, et al. vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS, GAUDENCIO C. RAYO, et al., 222 SCRA 415, G.R. Nos.
103442-45, May 21, 1993
2. SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., G.R.
No. 126389, July 10, 1998

F. EFFECT OF DEATH OF DEFENDANT

G. PRESCRIPTION
Computation of Period
Article 1146, NCC

VIII. CAUSATION
A. PROXIMATE CAUSE
a. Definition
Cases:
1. Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 83,
1998)
2. Singapore Airlines Limited vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 243 SCRA
619(1991)
3. Syjuco vs. Manila Railroad Company, CA- G.R. No. 22631-R,
December 17, 1959
4. Prospero Sabido vs. Carlos Custodio, 124 Phil. 516, 1966

7
 5. Fransisco Vinluan vs. The Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-21477-81,
April 29, 1966

b. Tests of Proximate Cause

Cause-In-Fact Tests
Cases:
1. Consolacion Gabeto vs. Agaton Araneta, 42 Phil. 252 (1921)
2. Pilipinas Bank vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 435, 1994

Cause and Condition

Cases:
1. Phoenix Construction vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
2. Rodrigueza, ET AL. VS. The Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. 15688,
November 19, 1921

Efficient and Intervening Cause

Definition and Concept
Cases:
1. McKee vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (211 SCRA 517)
2. Vda. De Bataclan, et al. vs. Mariano Medina, 102 Phil. 181 (1957)
3. Mercedes M. Teague vs. Elena Fernandez, 51 SCRA 181 (1973)
4. The Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company vs. The Government of the
Philippine Islands, G.R. No. L-4195, February 18, 1908
5. Filomeno Urbano vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.
72964, January 7, 1988

B. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Definition
Plaintiff’s Negligence is the Cause
Compound Cases
Part of the Same Causal Set
Defendant’s Negligence is the Only Cause

C. LAST CLEAR CHANCE

Elements and Conditions of the Last Clear Chance Doctrine

Cases:
1. PLDT vs. CA
2. Glan People’s Lumber and Hardware, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court, et al., G.R. No. 70493, May 18, 1989
3. Phoenix Construction, Inc. Vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.
65295, March 10, 1987
4. Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Maricar Bascos Baesa, et al., G.R. Nos.
79050-51, November 14, 1989
5. LBC Air Cargo vs. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 619 (1995)

When Doctrine is Not Applicable

IX. HUMAN RELATIONS: INTENTIONAL TORTS
Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the New Civil Code

Cases:

8
1. Grand Union Supermarket vs. Jose J. Espino, Jr., G.R> No. L-48250,
December 28, 1979
2. Enrique J.L. Ruiz, et.al. vs. The Secretary of National Defense, G.R. No.
L-15526, December 28, 1963
3. Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 176
SCRA 778 (1989)

Abuse of Rights
Elements
Cases:
1. University of the East vs. Romeo A. Jader, G.R. No. 132344, February 17,
2000
2. Arturo P. Valenzuela, et.al. vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et.al.,
G.R. No. 83122, October 19, 1990

Acts Contra Bonus

Elements
Breach of Promise To Marry
General Rule
Exception
Cases:
1. De Jesus vs. Syquia, 58 Phil. 866
2. Wassmer vs. Velez, 12 SCRA 648 (1964)
3. Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals, et.al., February 19, 1993
4. Apolonio Tanjanco vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Araceli Santos, G.R.
No. L-18630, December 17, 1966

Seduction and Sexual Assault

Cases:
1. Cecilio Pe, et al. vs. Alfonso Pe, G.R. No. L-17396, May 30, 1962

Desertion by a Spouse
Cases:
1. Pastor B. Tenchaves vs. Vicenta F. Escano, et al., G.R. No. L-19671, July
26, 1966

Trespass and Deprivation of Property

Articles 451, 448 and 456
Cases:
1. Cogeo Cubao Operators and Drivers Association vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 100727, March 18, 1992

Disconnection of Electricity or Gas Service

Cases:
1. Manila Gas Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-44190, October
30, 1980
2. Manial Electric Company, et al. vs Court of Appeals, GR No. L-39019,
January 22, 1988

Abortion and Wrongful Death

9
 Cases:
1. Antonio Geluz vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-16439, July 20,
1961

Malicious Prosecution
Definition
Elements
Cases:
1. Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 81262, August 25, 1989
2. Drilon vs. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 211 (1997)
3. Manila Gas Corp vs CA (1980)

Public Humiliation
Cases:
1. Rafael vs. The Honorable Oscar Leviste, G.R. No. 51832, April 26, 1989
2. Grand Union Supermarket, Inc. vs. Jose J. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. L-48250,
December 28, 1979

X. HUMAN DIGNITY
Article 26

Privacy
Constitutional Right to Privacy
a. Scope of Protection: Bill of Rights Sec. 1, 2, 3(1), 6, 8 & 17
Interference with Family and Other Relations
Cases:
1. Tenchavez vs. Escano, G.R. No. L-19671, November 29, 1965
Vexation and Humiliation

XI. TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION

Articles 32, 33 & 34

Article 32: Violation of Civil and Political Rights

Rationale
How Committed
Persons Liable
Superior Officers
Subordinate Officers
Cases:
1. Rogelio Aberca, et. Al. vs. Maj. Gen. Fabian Ver, et al., G.R. No. L-
69866

Article 33: Defamation, Fraud and Physical Injuries

Defamation, Definition
Requisites
Persons Liable (Article 360, RPC)
Proof of Truth (Article 361, RPC)
Defenses:
1. Absolutely Privileged Matters

10
 2. Qualified Privilege
Cases:
1. Arturo Borjal vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January 14,
1999
2. Esteban C. Manuel vs. The Hon. Ernani Cruz-Pano, G.R. No. L-
46079, April 17, 1989

Fraud
Cases:
1. Elenita Ledesma Silva, et al. vs. Esther Peralta, G.R. No. L-13114,
November 25, 1960

Physical Injuries

Article 34: Neglect of Duty

XII. CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM DELICT

Persons Liable
What is included in Civil Liability
Circumstances Affecting Civil Liability
Justifying and Exempting Circumstances
Case:
1. Anita Tan vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Co., et al., 91 Phil 672
(1952)
Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
Extinction and Survival of Liability
Effect of Death
Effect of Pardon
Case:
1. People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239
(1994)
Prejudicial Question

XIII. THE DEFENDANTS

Article 2176, NCC
Joint Tort-feasors
Article 2194,NCC
Motor Vehicle Mishaps
Article 2184, NCC
Vicarious Liability (Imputed Negligence)
Statutory Provision:
Article 2180, 2181 and 2182, NCC
Articles 101, 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code
Article 58 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code (PD No. 603)

Parents & Other Persons Exercising Parental Authority:

Liability for Acts of Minors
Basis of Liability
Persons Liable
Nature of Liability
Liability for Acts of Children of Majority Age

11
 Civil Liability Ex Delicto, Article 101 of the RPC

Defense of Exercise of Due Diligence

Cases:
1. Cuadra, et al. vs. Alfonso Monfort, 35 Phil. 160 (1970)
2. Macario Tamargo, et al. vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., 209
SCRA 518 (1992)
3. Cresencio Libi, et al. vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.,
214 SCRA 16 (1962)

Liability of Guardians of Incapacitated Adults

Rule 92, Revise Rules of Court
Articles 38 and 39, NCC

Schools, Teachers and Administrators

Article 218, Family Code
Article 2180, NCC
Article 103, RPC
Persons Liable
Supervision, Instruction or Custody

Cases:
1. Jose S. Amadora, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
L-47745, April 15, 1988
2. Phil. School of Business Administration vs. Court of Appeals,
205 SCRA 729 (1992)

Employers
Article 2180, NCC
Article 103, RPC
Innkeepers and Hotelkeepers
Article 102, RPC

XIV. STRICT LIABILITY

Article 2183 and 2193 of the New Civil Code

1. ANIMALS
Case: Purita Miranda Vestil and Agustin Vestil vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 74431, November 6, 1989

2. FALLING OBJECTS
Article 2193

3. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS
Article 1711 and 1712 of the Civil Code

4. NUISANCE
a. Definition
b. Kinds

12
 c. Strict Liability and Persons Liable
d. Abatement
Cases: Velasco vs. Manila Electric Company, 40 SCRA 342
(1971)

XV. PRODUCT AND SERVICE LIABILITY

XVI. BUSINESS TORTS

XVII. DAMAGES
1. Definition
2. Damnum Absque Injuria
Case: Spouses Cristino and Brigida ustodio, et al. vs Court of Appeals, et
al., 253 SCRA 483
3. Kinds of Damages
Article 2197
a. Actual or Compensatory, Articles 2199, 2200, 2201, 2202, 2205, 2206
Case: Manzanares vs. Moreta, 38 Phil. 823
b. Moral Damages
c. Nominal and Temperate Damages
Articles 2221, 2222, 2223, 2224 and 2225
Cases:
1. Rogelio Ramos vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 124354, December
29, 1999
2. Araneta vs. Bank of America, 40 SCRA 114 (1971)
d. Liquidated Damages
Articles 2226, 2227 and 2228
e. Exemplary or Corrective Damages
Articles 2230, 2231, 2232, 22333, 2234 and 2235

References:
TORTS AND DAMAGES by Timoteo B. Aquino, latest edition
TORTS AND DAMAGES ANNOTATED by Dean Ernesto L. Pineda

COURSE POLICIES
Use of electronic devices is permitted, but only for use in class work.
Attendance in class is a must. Excused absence must have approval

V. CONTACT AND OTHER INFORMATION

Preferred manner of communication is email: mvrs28@gmail.com

FB: Rayjelle Sususco Viagedor
Twitter: iamATTYjelle
IG: jellelovesman

13
Note: The professor reserves the option of amending the reading list and
assignments.

14