Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Torts Porras

Torts Porras

Ratings: (0)|Views: 0 |Likes:
Published by Winston Abajero

More info:

Published by: Winston Abajero on Jun 28, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/28/2013

pdf

text

original

 
I.Principles
A.Abuse of Right; Elements
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of hisduties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.Velayo v. Shell Co.
Shell was one of the creditors of CALI. CALI became insolvent and called all of its creditors, includingShell, to a meeting. CALI told the creditors that it was broke but that it had an airplane in the US,which it was planning to sell to PAL so that it could raise more money to pay its debts. On the sameday, acting upon the knowledge of (1) the insolvency of CALI, and (2) the existence of the plane, Shellassigned its credit to Shell USA. Shell USA then sued CALI in a California court and attached the planeas security. Thus, the plane was placed beyond the reach of CALI and the other creditors. Theassignee in insolvency of CALI filed an action against Shell for damages for taking advantage of theinformation that it acquired to the prejudice of CALI and the other creditors.
ISSUE:
Whether Shell is liable for damages.
HELD:
Shell is liable for damages.Shell took advantage of its knowledge that insolvency proceedings were to be instituted by CALI if thecreditors did not come to an understanding as to the distribution of the insolvent’s assets amongthem. Believing that it was improbable for the creditors to arrive at such an understanding, itschemed and effected the transfer of credit to its sister corporation in the US, thereby disposing of CALI’s plane and depriving CALI of the opportunity to recover it. It is liable for damages under Article19 of the Civil Code, which provides that any person must, in the exercise of his rights and in theperformances of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and goodfaith. This is implemented by Article 21 which prescribes that any person who wilfully causes loss orinjury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shallcompensate the latter for the damage.
B.Unjust Enrichment
Art. 22. Every person who through an act or performance by another, or any other means,acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without justor legal ground, shall return the same to him.Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due tothe fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if throughthe act or event he was benefited.
Elements of Unjust Enrichment:1. There must be enrichment on the part of the defendant.2. There is a concomitant injury to the plaintiff.3. There is no just cause or legal ground for the enrichment.
Pecson v. CA
Pecson owned a commercial lot on which he built a four-door two-storey apartment building. Forfailure to pay realty taxes amounting to 12K, the lot was sold at public auction by the City Treasurerto Nepomuceno. Nepomuceno in turn sold the property to the spouses Nuguid. Pecson filed a casequestioning the validity of the auction sale. The trial court dismissed the complaint but held that thesale did not include the apartment building. The Nuguid spouses filed a motion for delivery of possession of the lot and the apartment building, citing Article 546 of the Civil Code (rules on builderin good faith). The spouses offered to pay the cost of construction spent by Pecson in 1965 asindemnity under Art. 448 and 546 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE:
How much indemnity should be paid by the Nuguid spouses to Pecson?
HELD:
The Nuguid spouses should pay the
current market value
of the apartment bulding on the
 
lot. For this purpose, the parties should be allowed to present evidence on the current market value.The objective of Article 546 of the Civil Code is to administer justice between the parties involved. Itwas formulated in trying to adjust the rights of the owner and possessor in good faith of a piece of land, to administer complete justice to both of them in such a way as neither one nor the other mayenrich himself of that which does not belong to him. Guided by this precept, it is therefore the currentmarket value of the improvements which should be made the basis of reimbursement. A contraryruling would unjustly enrich the Nuguid spouses who would otherwise be allowed to acquire a highlyvalued income-yielding four-unit apartment building for a measly amount.
II.Classification of Torts
A. According to manner of commission: intentional, negligentand strict liability
III.The Tortfeasor
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being no fault or negligence isobliged to pay for the damage done (art 2176)
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, isobliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractualrelation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of thisChapter.
A.The Direct Tortfeaso1. In Generala. Quasi-delicts under Article 2180, how interpreted – Family Code, Arts. 218-219, 221
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s ownacts 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 thedamages caused by the minor children who live in their company.Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who areunder their authority and live in their company.The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible fordamages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employedor on the occasion of their functions.Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpersacting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in anybusiness or industry.The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when thedamage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case whatis provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damagescaused 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 mentionedprove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
(1)Elements; definition
Elements
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 contractualrelation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of thisChapter.
The elements of a quasi-delict are:1. Fault or Negligence2. Damage3. Causal connection between the negligence and the damageProblem: X was driving a car when he ran over a stone. The stone hit a pedestrian on the head. The pedestriandied. Is X liable for quasi-delict?Answer: No, because there was no negligence on the part of X.Problem: A supplier’s employees went on strike, as a result of which the supplier failed to deliver his goods to hisclient. Can the client sue the supplier for quasi-delict?Answer: No. Although there was damage, there was no negligence. [
Client should sue based on breach of contract instead 
]
CASES:Andamo v. IAC
Emmanual and Natividad Andamo owned a parcel of land adjacent to that of the Missionaries of Our Lady of LaSallette. Within the land or Our Lady, waterpaths and an artificial lake were constructed, allegedly inundating anderoding the Andamos’ land. This caused a young man to drown, damaged the Andamos’ crops and fences, andendangered their lives. The Andamos instituted a criminal action against the officers and directors of Our Lady fordestruction by means of inundation under Art. 324 of the RPC. Subsequently, they filed a civil case for damagesagainst the respondents. Upon motion of respondents, the civil case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, sincethe criminal case instituted ahead of the civil case was still unresolved. This was based on the provision of theRules of Court which provides that criminal and civil actions arising from the same offense may be institutedseparately, but after the criminal action has been commenced, the civil action cannot be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action.
ISSUE:
Whether the civil action should have been dismissed.
HELD:
No. The civil action should not have been dismissed since it was based, not on crime, but on quasi-delict.All the elements of a quasi-delict are present:1. damages suffered by the plaintiff;2. fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and3. connection of the cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damagesincurred by the plaintiff.In this case, the waterpaths and contrivances built by respondent are alleged to have inundated the land of petitioners. This was caused by the failure of the defendant to install drainage pipes that could have preventedthe inundation. There is therefore a causal connection between the act of building the waterpaths withoutproviding for an adequate drainage system and the damage sustained by the petitioners.Article 2176 covers not only acts “not punishable by law” but also acts criminal in character, whether intentionaland voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action lies 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 notallowed to recover damages on both scores and would only be entitled to the bigger award of the two.
(2) Distinguished from culpa contractual and culpacriminal
CULPA AQUILIANACULPA CONTRACTUALOBJECT
Complaint is againstnegligenceViolation of contract of carriage
ACTION
Damages for quasidelictBreach of contract withdamages
QUANTUM OFEVIDENCE
Evidence*once the driver isproven negligent,employer is presumednegligent (rebuttablepresumption)Preponderance of Evidence
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)
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 for

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->