UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN

College of Law
Iloilo City

Concepts of Torts and Damages

Submitted by:

Laurence John B. Sortigosa

Renzo Beaver B. Balberona
Maybelle T. Fajila
JD-4A

Submitted to:

Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes, III

A. ACTUAL DAMAGES

I. What is the actual damages?

Actual damages shall be construed to include all damages that the plaintiff may show he has
suffered in respect to his property, business, trade, profession, or occupation, and no other
damages whatever. Actual damages are compensatory only. They simply make good or replace the
loss caused by the wrong. (Algarra vs. Sandejas, G.R. No. L-8385)

Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded to the aggrieved party as adequate
compensation and such party may only be indemnified by means of actual damages if such actual
pecuniary loss suffered by him can be duly proved in court. As stated under Article 2199 of the New
Civil Code:

“Article 2199,. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate

compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such
compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.”

The law provides that in order for the reward of actual damages may be rewarded by the court
to the victim, the latter must prove the loss and the best evidence that can be obtained by the part,
seeking the reward, must be presented in court.

II. Rationale

Actual or compensatory damages simply make good or replace the loss caused by the wrong.
They proceed from a sense of natural justice and are designed to repair that of which one has been
deprived by the wrong of another. (Algarra vs Sandejas)

Actual damages are primarily intended to simply make good or replace the loss caused by a
wrong. (Flores vs Uy, 368 SCRA 347)

III. Case Discussion

OSCAR VENTANILLA, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
GREGORIO CENTENO, defendant-appellee.

G.R. No. L-14333            

Facts: An action to recover damages claimed - by the plaintiff due to the defendant's neglect in
perfecting within the reglementary period his appeal from an adverse judgment rendered by the
Court of First Instance. The case sprang from a civil case, wherein Ventanilla retained the service of
Atty. Centeno. The decision unfavourable to Ventanilla was received by Centeno , which was not
conformable to Centeno and that he wanted to file an appeal by which Ventanilla agreed.

Atty. Centeno wrote a letter to the plaintiff enclosing forms for an appeal bond. Ventanilla,
however, instead of executing an appeal bond, and because use of his reluctance to pay the
premium on the appeal bond, decided to file a cash appeal bond of P60.00. Ventanilla went to the
Office of Atty Centeno but was informed by the clerk that Centeno was in Laguna campaigning for
his candidacy as member of Provincial Board. Ventanilla issued a P60.00 check and handed it to
the clerk with an instruction to give it to Atty Centeno.
 Atty. Centeno prepared the motion for extension of time to file the record on appeal. Atty.
Centeno encash the check and went to the office of the Clerk of Court to file the appeal bond.
According to Atty Centeno, it was not accepted because the period of appeal had already expired

The court does not believe Centeno, neither the Clerk of Court, or any of the employees has the
right to refuse an appeal bond that is being filed, for it is not in his power to determine whether or
not the appeal bond has been filed within the time prescribed by law. In fact the record on appeal
was accepted and filed on September 5, 1955, but no appeal bond has been filed by Atty. Centeno.

Issue: Whether or not the appellant is entitled to receive actual, moral and exemplary damages.

Held:

Article 2199 of the new Civil Code provides:

Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only

for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as
actual or compensatory damages.

He who claims actual or compensatory damages must establish and prove by competent
evidence actual pecuniary loss. The appellant's bare allegation that by reason of the appellee's
indifference, negligence and failure to perfect within the reglementary period his appeal from an
adverse judgment rendered in civil case No. 18833, by not paying the appeal bond of P60, he lost
his chance to recover from the defendants therein the sum of P4,000 and moral and actual
damages, which he could have recovered if the appeal had duly been perfected, indicates that his
claim for actual or compensatory damages is highly speculative. Hence he is not entitled to such
damages.

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

Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;

(4) Adultery or concubinage;

(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;

(6) Illegal search;

(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;

(8) Malicious prosecution

 (9) Acts mentioned in article 309;

(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

Art. 2219 specifically mentions "quasi-delicts causing physical injuries," as an instance when
moral damages may be allowed, thereby implying that all other quasi-delicts not resulting in
physical injuries are excluded

Judgment appealed from is thereby affirmed.

Comment:
The award of actual or compensatory damages depends upon one’s credible evidence
such as receipt. Absence of such, the award may not be given to the party claiming it based
only on mere speculations. This case tackled the importance of actual evidence of the
pecuniary loss suffered by the aggrieved party. In accordance with Article 2199 of the Civil
Code, one is entitled only to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered
by him as he duly proved. Appellant’s claim is based on his own speculation of the future award
that he may get is not enough for the court to rule in his favor and grant him the damages he
prayed for.

SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION, Petitioner,

vs.
DMC-CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES, INC., Respondent.

G. R. No. 193914

Facts: On 23 February 1996, the cargo ship M/V "Diamond Rabbit" (the Vessel) owned and
operated by defendant Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation (Seven Brothers),was at the PICOP
Pier in Mangagoy, Bislig, Surigao del Sur to dock there. According to the record, the weather that
day was windy with a wind force of 10 to 20 knots, and the sea condition was rough, with waves 6 to
8 feet high. However, the parties also stipulated during pre-trial that prior to the occurrence of the
incident, the vessel was anchored at the cause way of the port of Bislig, where it was safe from
inclement weather.

Under the influence of the wind and current, the dead weight of the vessel caused it to swung
from side to side until the fender, where the mooring rope was attached, collapsed. The
uncontrollable and unmaneuverable vessel drifted and dragged its anchor until it hit several
structures at the Pier, including the coal conveyor facility owned by DMC Construction Equipment
Resources, Inc. (DMC). (Emphasis in the original)

On 5 March 1996, respondent sent a formal demand letter to petitioner, claiming for the
damages sustained by their vessel.7
RTC awarded respondent actual damages in the amount of ₱3,523,175.92 plus legal interest of
6%, based on the testimony of respondent’s engineer, Loreto Dalangin. The value represented 50%
of the ₱7,046,351.84 claimed by the respondent as the fair and reasonable valuation of the
structure at the time of the loss, because as manifested by Engr. Dalangin at the time of the
incident, the loading conveyor and related structures were almost five years old, with a normal
useful life of 10 years.

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed via a Notice of Appeal on 5 February 2001.The appeal was
dismissed by the CA.

The CA affirmed the RTC’s Decision with respect to the finding of negligence on the part of the
vessel’s captain. However, the appellate court modified the nature of damages awarded (from
actual to nominal), on the premise that actual damages had not been proved. Respondent merely
relied on estimates to prove the cost of replacing the structures destroyed by the vessel, as no
actual receipt was presented.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in awarding nominal damages to respondent after having ruled
that the actual damages awarded by the RTC was unfounded.

Held:

The Court ruled that temperate, and not nominal, damages should be awarded to respondent.
Factual findings of appellate and trial courts are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal,
especially when established by unrebutted testimonial and documentary evidence.

In this case, two facts have been established by the appellate and trial courts: that respondent
suffered a loss caused by petitioner; and that respondent failed to sufficiently establish the amount
due to him, as no actual receipt was presented.

Temperate or moderate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss
has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be provided with certainty.

Under the Civil Code, when an injury has been sustained, actual damages may be awarded under
the following condition:

Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation
only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred
to as actual or compensatory damages.

As the court have stated in Dee Hua Liong Electrical Equipment Corp., v. Reyes, actual or
compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be duly proved, and proved with a
reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjecture or guess work as to
the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have suffered
and on evidence of the actual amount thereof. If the proof is flimsy and unsubstantial, no damages
will be awarded."

Jurisprudence has consistently held that to justify an award of actual damages x x x credence can
be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts." The court take this to mean by
credible evidence. Otherwise, the law mandates that other forms of damages must be awarded, to
wit:

Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate,
liquidated or exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except
liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case.

Under Article 2221 of the Civil Code, nominal damages may be awarded in order that the plaintiff’s
right, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and
not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered. We have laid down the concept
of nominal damages in the following wise:

Nominal damages are ‘recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated
against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind or where there has been a
breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have been or can be
shown.
In contrast, under Article 2224, temperate or moderate damages may be recovered when the court
finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the
case, be provided with certainty. This principle was thoroughly explained in Araneta v. Bank of
America, which cited the Code Commission, to wit:

In some States of the American Union, temperate damages are allowed. There are cases where
from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered, although the court is
convinced that there has been such loss.For instance, injury to one's commercial credit or to the
goodwill of a business firm is often hard to show with certainty in terms of money. Should damages
be denied for that reason? The judge should be empowered to calculate moderate damages in such
cases, rather than that the plaintiff should suffer, without redress from the defendant's wrongful act.

Thus, in Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc., temperate damages were rightly awarded because plaintiff
suffered a loss, although definitive proof of its amount cannot be presented as the photographs
produced as evidence were deemed insufficient. Established in that case, however, was the fact
that respondent’s truck was responsible for the damage to petitioner’s property and that petitioner
suffered some form of pecuniary loss. In Canada v. All Commodities Marketing
Corporation, temperate damages were also awarded wherein respondent’s goods did not reach the
Pepsi Cola Plant at Muntinlupa City as a result of the negligence of petitioner in conducting its
trucking and hauling services, even if the amount of the pecuniary loss had not been proven. In
Philtranco Services Enterprises, Inc. v. Paras, the respondent was likewise awarded temperate
damages in an action for breach of contract of carriage, even if his medical expenses had not been
established with certainty. In People v. Briones, in which the accused was found guilty of murder,
temperate damages were given even if the funeral expenses for the victim had not been sufficiently
proven.

Given these findings, the court ruled that temperate and not nominal damages should have been
awarded, considering that it has been established that respondent herein suffered a loss, even if the
amount thereof cannot be proven with certainty.

The amount of temperate damages to be awarded is usually left to the discretion of the courts, but
such amount must be reasonable.

Comment:
As a general rule, actual or compensatory damages must be proved for they cannot be
presumed. To seek recovery of actual damages, it is necessary to determine the actual amount of
of loss with reasonable degree of certainty assisted with competent proof of the best evidence a
party can present to the court. In this case, the court ruled that temperate damages will be rewarded
to the aggrieved party considering that that the latter suffered pecuniary losses however, such loss
cannot be determined the actual amount. The ruling of the Supreme Court in this case coincide with
the provisions as specifically stated under the civil code which states that as provided by law or
stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by
him as he duly proved.
B. Doctrine of Vicarious Liability

I. What is vicarious liability?

Vicarious liability under the law is where one person is held liable for the acts or omissions of
the other even though that person did not commit the act himself.

As a general rule, one is liable for his own acts and omissions as stated under Article 2176 of
the New Civil Code which provides that:

“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.”

However, by means of exception, Article 2180 of the New Civil Code provides that:

“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 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.”

II. Rationale

In vicarious liability, persons are made liable for the acts not committed by them due to their
own negligence by failing to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of their
employees or the persons they are held responsible for under the law. The underlying purpose of
this liability can be found on the imposed responsibility and authority of the persons enumerated
under Article 2180. The said persons are expected to exercise proper diligence and care when it
comes to handling the persons or employees under their supervision or custody and the imposition
of vicarious liability will urge them to exert proper management and control as to what the law
requires them to do so.

Also, it is the intent of the law that such liability may be imposed in order to obtain a just and
practicable remedy for the victims as far as possible to deter future harm.

III. Case Discussion

FEDERICO YLARDE and ADELAIDA DORONIO petitioners,

vs.
EDGARDO AQUINO, MAURO SORIANO and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

Facts: In 1963, private respondent Mariano Soriano was the principal of the Gabaldon Primary
School, a public educational institution located in Tayug, Pangasinan-Private respondent Edgardo
Aquino was a teacher therein. At that time, the school was full of several concrete blocks which
were remnants of the old school shop that was destroyed in World War II. Realizing that the huge
stones were serious hazards to the schoolchildren, another teacher by the name of Sergio Banez
started burying them one by one as early as 1962. In fact, he was able to bury ten of these blocks
all by himself. Deciding to help his colleague, private respondent Edgardo Aquino gathered eighteen
of his male pupils. Private respondent Aquino alone continued digging while the pupils remained
inside the pit throwing out the loose soil that was brought about by the digging.

When the depth was right enough to accommodate the concrete block, private respondent Aquino
and his four pupils got out of the hole. Then, said private respondent left the children to level the
loose soil around the open hole. Alonso, Alcantara and Ylarde, playfully jumped into the pit. Then,
without any warning at all, the remaining Abaga jumped on top of the concrete block causing it to
slide down towards the opening. Alonso and Alcantara were able to scramble out of the excavation
on time but unfortunately for Ylarde, the concrete block caught him before he could get out, pinning
him to the wall in a standing position. As a result thereof, Ylarde sustained injuries.

Three days later, Novelito Ylarde died. Ylarde's parents, petitioners in this case, filed a suit for
damages against both private respondents Aquino and Soriano. 

Issue: Whether or not both private respondents can be held liable for damages.

Held: As regards to the principal, the court hold that he cannot be made responsible for the death of
the child Ylarde, he being the head of an academic school and not a school of arts and trades.
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, it is only the teacher and not the head of an academic school
who should be answerable for torts committed by their students. This Court went on to say that in a
school of arts and trades, it is only the head of the school who can be held liable.

The negligent act of private respondent Aquino in leaving his pupils in such a dangerous site has a
direct causal connection to the death of the child Ylarde. Left by themselves, it was but natural for
the children to play around. Tired from the strenuous digging, they just had to amuse themselves
with whatever they found. Driven by their playful and adventurous instincts and not knowing the risk
they were facing, the three of them jumped into the hole while the other one jumped on the stone.
Since the stone was so heavy and the soil was loose from the digging, it was also a natural
consequence that the stone would fall into the hole beside it, causing injury on the unfortunate child
caught by its heavy weight. Everything that occurred was the natural and probable effect of the
negligent acts of private respondent Aquino. Needless to say, the child Ylarde would not have died
were it not for the unsafe situation created by private respondent Aquino which exposed the lives of
all the pupils concerned to real danger.

The court cannot agree with the finding of the lower court that the injuries which resulted in the
death of the child Ylarde were caused by his own reckless imprudence. It should be remembered
that he was only ten years old at the time of the incident, as such, he is expected to be playful and
daring. His actuations were natural to a boy his age. Going back to the facts, it was not only him but
the three of them who jumped into the hole while the remaining boy jumped on the block. From this,
it is clear that he only did what any other ten-year old child would do in the same situation.

The contention that private respondent Aquino exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious
person is certainly without cogent basis. A reasonably prudent person would have foreseen that
bringing children to an excavation site, and more so, leaving them there all by themselves, may
result in an accident. An ordinarily careful human being would not assume that a simple warning
"not to touch the stone" is sufficient to cast away all the serious danger that a huge concrete block
adjacent to an excavation would present to the children. Moreover, a teacher who stands in loco
parentis to his pupils would have made sure that the children are protected from all harm in his
company.

Comment:

Article 2180, paragraph 6 provides that the teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils, students or apprentices, so long as they
remain in their custody. In the case at bar, the letters of the law was literally applied as the principal
of the school was not sentenced to any penalty since he cannot be considered as head of
establishments of arts and trades and he cannot be held liable for any injuries sustained by the
victim and his family although he is the head of the educational institution. The case is not the same
with the teacher. Aquino who stands as a parent of the children while inside the educational
institution or where the circumstances permit them to exercise such role, was sentenced by the
court as liable for the damages and injury sustained by Ylarde and his family. As his duty and
position requires him to be vigilant with his students’ safety, he must have done his part and
exercise the necessary degree of diligence required by him under the law. In his case, the law was
strictly applied since the provision states that the teachers shall be held liable for damages caused
by their pupils and students and apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

JOSE S. AMADORA, LORETA A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA JR., NORMA A. YLAYA

PANTALEON A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA III, LUCY A. AMADORA, ROSALINDA A.
AMADORA, PERFECTO A. AMADORA, SERREC A. AMADORA, VICENTE A. AMADORA and
MARIA TISCALINA A. AMADORA, petitioners
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS, VICTOR LLUCH
SERGIO P. DLMASO JR., CELESTINO DICON, ANIANO ABELLANA, PABLITO DAFFON thru
his parents and natural guardians, MR. and MRS. NICANOR GUMBAN, and ROLANDO
VALENCIA, thru his guardian, A. FRANCISCO ALONSO, respondents.

Facts: Alfredo Amadora, while in the auditorium of the school, was mortally hit by a gun by Pablito
Daffon resulting to the former’s death. Daffon was convicted of homicide through reckless
imprudence. The victim’s parents, herein petitioners, filed a civil action for damages against Colegio
de San Jose-Recoletos, its rectors, high school principal, dean of boys, the physics teacher together
with Daffon and 2 other students. Complaints against the students were dropped. Respondent Court
absolved the defendants completely and reversed CFI Cebu’s decision for the following reasons: 1.
Since the school was an academic institution of learning and not a school of arts and trades 2. That
students were not in the custody of the school since the semester has already ended 3. There was
no clear identification of the fatal gun, and 4. In any event, defendants exercised the necessary
diligence through enforcement of the school regulations in maintaining discipline. Petitioners on the
other hand claimed their son was under school custody because he went to school to comply with a
requirement for graduation (submission of Physics reports).

Issue: Whether or not Collegio de San Jose-Recoletos should be held liable.

Held: The time Alfredo was fatally shot, he was in the custody of the authorities of the school
notwithstanding classes had formally ended when the incident happened.  It was immaterial if he
was in the school auditorium to finish his physics requirement.  What was important is that he was
there for a legitimate purpose.  On the other hand, the rector, high school principal and the dean of
boys cannot be held liable because none of them was the teacher-in-charge as defined in the
provision.  Each was exercising only a general authority over the students and not direct control and
influence exerted by the teacher placed in-charge of particular classes. 

In the absence of a teacher- in charge, dean of boys should probably be held liable considering that
he had earlier confiscated an unlicensed gun from a student and later returned to him without taking
disciplinary action or reporting the matter to the higher authorities.  Though it was clear negligence
on his part, no proof was shown to necessarily link this gun with the shooting incident. Collegio San
Jose-Recoletos cannot directly be held liable under the provision because only the teacher of the
head of school of arts and trade is made responsible for the damage caused by the student. 
Hence, under the facts disclosed, none of the respondents were held liable for the injury inflicted
with Alfredo resulting to his death.

Petition was denied.

Comment:
In accordance with the provision of Article 2180 which states that 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 Supreme Court in this case interpreted
the provision in favor of the respondents. Although, educational institutions serve as the second
home of the students and must protect and secure their safety, they cannot, at all times, be the
insurer of risk and danger befall upon each and everyone of them. In this case, the head Collegio
San Jose-Recoletos cannot be considered as liable because as stated in the case he is not the
head of school of arts and trade.