• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
TORTS MIDTERM REVIEWER
I. INTRODUCTION: TORTS AND DAMAGES
1. Classes of Torts
Art. 1156. An obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do.Art. 1157. Obligations arise from:
 
(1) Law;
 
(2) Contracts;
 
(3) Quasi-contracts;
 
(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and
 
(5) Quasi-delicts.Art. 1158. Obligations derived from law are not presumed. Only those expressly determined in thisCode or in special laws are demandable, and shall be regulated by the precepts of the law whichestablishes them; and as to what has not been foreseen, by the provisions of this Book.Art. 1159. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting partiesand should be complied with in good faith.Art. 1160. Obligations derived from quasi-contracts shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 1,Title XVII, of this Book.Art. 1161. Civil obligations arising from criminal offenses shall be governed by the penal laws,subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of the pertinent provisions of Chapter 2, PreliminaryTitle, on Human Relations, and of Title XVIII of this Book, regulating damages.Art. 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 2,Title XVII of this Book, and by special laws.Tort –
A civil wrong, other than breach of contract for which the court will provide a remedy in the form of anaction for damages (Jarencio’s definition)Atty. Abaño’s definition: A tort is an act which causes damage to another person. [
Therefore, under his definition,a tort encompasses a broader concept than a quasi-delict; it also includes breach of contract and crimes
]
 
The tort is the cause, while the effect is manifested in damages.
Classes of Actions
1.
Quasi-Delict
: based on negligence
2.
Breach of Contract
:
 
based on the existence of a contract
3.
Torts in Human Relations
: based on intentional acts of the tort-feasor
4.
Crime
: based on a violation of a penal statute2. Twofold Meaning of Damages
1.
Damages as the
loss, prejudice, or injury
resulting from the act of a person; and
2.
Damages as
compensation
for such loss, prejudice, or injury3. Culpa Aquiliana/Contractual/CriminalDigests by Sheryl, Cayo, Rosa1Lecture Notes and Notes from Jona Bautista’s Reviewer
 
Problem: A bus falls off a cliff due to the driver’s fault. What actions may be filed by the heirs of the passengerswho died in the accident?Answer: Three actions may be filed based on culpa aquiliana, culpa contractual, and culpa criminal. Thedistinctions among the three are as follows:
CULPA AQUILIANACULPA CONTRACTUALCRIMINALPROSECUTIONOBJECT
Complaint is againstnegligenceViolation of contract of carriageCriminal negligence
ACTION
Damages for quasi-delictBreach of contract withdamagesCriminal prosecution,which includes civilliability under Art. 100of the RPC
AGAINST
Driver,Bus Company, orBothEmployer bus companyDriver
QUANTUM OFEVIDENCE
Preponderance of Evidence*once the driver isproven negligent,employer is presumednegligent (rebuttablepresumption)Preponderance of EvidenceProof beyondreasonable doubt
DEFENSES
Exercise of ordinarydiligence on the part of the driver;Exercise of diligence inthe selection andsupervision of the driveron the part of theemployerExercise of extraordinary diligence(in contract of carriage,the diligence required of the common carrier isextraordinary)If driver cannot pay thecivil damages, theemployer is subsidiarilyliable. The employerdoes not have anydefense in this case.The negligence of theemployee is
conclusive
as to the employer forpurposes of subsidiaryliability
Note:
You can file more than one of these cases. You can file any or all, depending on the circumstances. Theonly limitation is against double recovery. (See
Imson
case).
CASESCancio v. Isip
Cancio filed 3 counts of violation of BP22 against Isip, who had issued 3 bad checks. The case was dismissed.Subsequently, 3 cases for estafa were filed. The case was dismissed again. Cancio then filed a civil case forcollection of sum of money to recover the value of the 3 checks from Isip. Isip moved to dismiss on the groundthat the action is barred by res judicata and that Cancio was guilty of forum shopping.
ISSUES:
1.Whether the civil action for collection is barred by res judicata.2.Whether there was forum shopping.
HELD:
No to both.An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities:1.ex delicto under Art. 100 of the RPC; and2.independent civil liabilities such as:a.those not arising from an act or omission complained of as a felony, such as culpa contractual,violations of Articles 31, 32, and 34 of the Civil Code, and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of theCivil Code;b.where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminalaction (ex: Art. 33 of the Civil Code)Digests by Sheryl, Cayo, Rosa2Lecture Notes and Notes from Jona Bautista’s Reviewer
 
Either may be enforced against the offender, but the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the sameact or omission or under both causes. Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, civil liability ex delicto is deemedinstituted with the criminal action, but the offended party may file the separate civil action before the prosecutionstarts to present evidence. However, the independent civil actions may be filed separately and prosecutedindependently even without any reservation in the criminal action.In this case, the basis of the complaint is culpa contractual. It is an independent civil action which is based onIsip’s breach of a contractual obligation. This may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings, regardlessof the result of the latter. There is no res judicata because there is no identity of causes of action.
Imson v. CA
This case arose from a vehicular collision involving Imson’s car and a truck registered under the names of FNCBand Holiday Hills. The collision seriously injured Imson and totally wrecked his car. Imson filed a complaint fordamages against:1.the owners of the truck2.the truck driver3.the beneficial owners of the truck4.the truck insurerAll the defendants, except the insurer, defaulted. Imson and the insurer entered into a compromise, whereby theinsurer paid him 70K in full settlement of his claims against the insurer. The RTC thus dismissed the claim againstthe insurer.Holiday Hills, as owner of the truck, then moved to dismiss the case against all the other defendants on theground that they were all indispensable parties under a common cause of action. It argued that the dismissal of the case against the insurer must result in the dismissal of the case against all of them.
ISSUE:
Whether the action should be dismissed as against the other defendants.
HELD:
No. The action should not be dismissed against the other defendants because there is no identity in thecauses of action against them.The rule is where the complaint alleges a common cause of action against defendants who are all indispensableparties to the case, its dismissal against any one of them by virtue of a compromise agreement with the plaintiff results in a dismissal of the case against the others, including those in default. For this doctrine to apply,however, the requisites are:1.there must be a common cause of action; and2.all defendants are indispensable parties.This doctrine is NOT applicable in this case because there is no identity of cause of action. The causes of actionagainst each of the defendants are different. They are as follows:1.against the driver: quasi-delict under 21762.against the owners of the truck: quasi-delict under 2180 (vicarious liability)3.against the insurance company: contract (third party liability clause of its insurance contract with theowners of the truck allows the third party to collect directly from the insurer even if there is really notcontractual relationship between them).Moreover, the defendants are not all indispensable parties. The truck driver is the only one who is indispensable.All the others are merely necessary or proper parties.
BLTB v. CA
Quasi-delict is different from criminal negligence; it is an independent source of obligation.
Aboitiz Shipping v. CA
A common carrier is bound to observe extraordinary diligence. If a passenger dies or is injured in the course of the voyage, there is a presumption of fault or negligence. This gives rise to an action for breach of contract of carriage.
Dangwa Transport v. CA
Digests by Sheryl, Cayo, Rosa3Lecture Notes and Notes from Jona Bautista’s Reviewer
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...