QuickTime™TIFF (Uncompressed) deare needed to see thiand acompress picture.

TENEO

ENTRAL

PERATIONS

2007

Civil Law

SUMMER REVIEWER

—Adviser:

Dean Cynthia del Castillo

Head:

Joy Ponsaran, Eleanor Mateo

; Understudy:

Joy Tajan, John Paul Lim;

Subject Head:

Jomi Legaspi

;

sor

TORTS AND DAMAGESCHAPTER 1: CONCEPT OF TORTSArt. 2176

. Whoever by act or omission causesdamage to another, there being fault ornegligence, is obliged to pay for the damagedone. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties,is called a quasi-delict and is governed by theprovisions of this Chapter. (1902a)

ELEMENTS OF QUASI DELICT/TORTS:

1. Act or omission2. Damage or injury is caused to another3. Fault or negligence is present4. There is no pre-existing contractual relationsbetween the parties5. Causal connection between damage done andact/omission

NEGLIGENCE

•

The omission of that degree of diligence which isrequired by the nature of the obligation andcorresponding to the circumstances of thepersons, time and place. (Art. 1173, NCC)

KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE

1. Quasi delict (Art. 2176 NCC)2. Criminal negligence (Art. 356 RPC)3. Contractual negligence (NCC provisions oncontracts particularly Arts. 1170 to 1174)

DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER SOURCES OFOBLIGATION:CONTRACT QUASI DELICTVinculumJuris

Contract Negligent act/ omission (culpa,imprudence)

ProofNeeded

Preponderanceof evidencePreponderanceof evidence

Defenseavailable

Exercise ofextraordinarydiligence (incontract ofcarriage), ForceMajeureExercise ofdiligence ofgood father of afamily in theselection andsupervision ofemployees

CONTRACT QUASI DELICTPre-existingcontract

There is a pre-existing contractNo pre-existingcontract

Burden ofproof

Contractualparty.Prove the ff.:1. existence ofa contract2. breachVictim.Prove the ff.:damage1. negligence2. causalconnectionbetweennegligence anddamage done

CONTRACT DELICTVinculumJuris

Contract Act / omissioncommitted bymeans of dolo(deliberate,malicious, in badfaith)

ProofNeeded

Preponderanceof evidenceProof beyondreasonable doubt

Defenseavailable

Exercise ofextraordinarydiligence (incontract ofcarriage), ForceMajeure

Pre-existingcontract

There is a pre-existing contractNo pre-existingcontract

Burden ofproof

Contractualparty.Prove the ff.:1. existence ofa contract2. breachProsecution.Accused ispresumedinnocent until thecontrary isproved.

CIVIL LIABILITY IN QUASI-DELICT VS. DELICTQUASIDELICTDELICTLiability ofEmployer

Solidary Subsidiary

ReservationRequirement

Civil aspect ofthe quasi-delictis impliedlyinstituted withcriminal action,Civil aspect isImpliedlyinstituted withcriminalaction

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Civil Law Summer Reviewer

TENEO

ENTRAL

PERATIONS

2007

Page 237 of 297

but under 2000Crimpro Rulesit isindependentand separate

Effect ofjudgment ofacquittal in acriminalcaseinvolvingsameact/omission

Not a bar torecover civildamagesEXCEPT when judgmentpronouncesthat thenegligencefrom whichdamage ariseis non-existentNot a bar torecover civildamages

•

NOTE:

It is an existing doctrine that the failure ofthe court to make any pronouncement, favorableor unfavorable, as to the civil liability of theaccused amounts to a reservation of the right tohave the civil liability litigated and determined in aseparate action. The rules nowhere provide that ifthe court fails to determine the civil liability itbecomes no longer enforceable

TESTS OF NEGLIGENCE

•

Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligentact use the reasonable care and caution whichan ordinary prudent person would have used inthe same situation?

•

If not, then he is guilty of negligence

•

Could a prudent man, in the case underconsideration, foresee harm as a result of thecourse pursued?

•

If so, it as the duty of the actor to takeprecautions to guard against harm

CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSIDER

•

Time

•

Place

•

Personal circumstances of the Actors

GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY (

pater familias

)

•

The only standard of conduct used in thePhilippines (Art. 1173 NCC)

•

A reasonable man is deemed to have knowledgeof the facts that a man should be expected toknow based on ordinary human experience.

Corliss v. Manila Railroad

– The lawpresumes or requires a man to possessordinary capacity to avoid harming hisneighbors unless a clear and manifestincapacity is shown and the law does nothold him liable for unintentional injury unless,possessing such capacity, he might andought to have foreseen the danger.

Corliss v. Manila Railroad

– The law worksonly within the sphere of the senses. Moralconsideration are not normally accordedgreat weight.The knowledge and experienceof the actor is also considered in determiningwhether he observed due diligence.

Castillo v. CA, 176 SCRA 591

– A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legalinstitution under the Civil Code with asubstantivity all its own, and individuality thatis entirely apart and independent from a delictor crime — a distinction exists between thecivil liability arising from a crime and theresponsibility for quasi-delicts or culpa extra-contractual.

CHAPTER 2: SPECIAL RULES1. CHILDREN

•

The action of the child will not necessarily be judged according to the standard of an adult. Butif the minor is mature enough to understand andappreciate the nature and consequences of hisactions, he will be considered negligent if he failsto exercise due care and precaution in thecommission of such acts.

Taylor v. Meralco, 16 Phil 8 –

The law fixesno arbitrary age at which a minor can be saidto have the necessary capacity to understandand appreciate the nature and consequencesof his acts

•

NOTE:

Applying the provisions of the RPC,Judge Sangco takes the view that a child who is9 or below is conclusively presumed to beincapable of negligence. On the other hand, ifthe child is above 9 years but below 15, there is adisputable presumption of absence ornegligence.

•

Absence of negligence does not necessarilymean absence of liability. A child under 9 years

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Civil Law Summer Reviewer

TENEO

ENTRAL

PERATIONS

2007

Page 238 of 297

can still be subsidiarily liable with his property(Art. 100 RPC)

•

Absence of negligence of the child may notexcuse the parents from their vicarious liabilityunder Art. 2180 NCC or Art. 221 FC.

2. PHYSICAL DISABILITY

•

GENERAL RULE

: a weak or accident proneperson must come up to the standard of areasonable man, otherwise, he will be consideredas negligent

•

Exception

: If the defect amounts to a realdisability, the standard of conduct is that of areasonable person under like disability.

3. EXPERTS AND PROFESSIONALS4. NATURE OF ACTIVITY

•

There are activities which by nature imposeduties to exercise a higher degree of diligence(ex. Banks, Common Carriers)

5. INTOXICATION

•

GENERAL RULE:

•

EXCEPTION:

Under Art. 2185 of the NCC it ispresumed that a person driving a motor vehiclehas been negligent if at the time of the mishap,he was violating any traffic regulation

6. INSANITY

•

An insane person is exempt from liability.However, by express provision of law, there maybe civil liability even when the perpetrator is heldto be exempt from criminal liability. The insanityof a person does not excuse him or his guardianfrom liability based on quasi delict (Art. 2180 and2182 NCC)

CHAPTER 3: WHAT MUST BE PROVED1. NEGLIGENCE

- plaintiff must prove negligenceof defendant

Exceptions

a. In cases where negligence is presumed orimputed by law - this is onlyrebuttable/presumption

juris tantum

b. Principle of

res ipsa loquitur

(the thingspeaks for itself) - grounded on the difficultyin proving thru competent evidence, publicpolicy considerations

2. DAMAGE / INJURY3. CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEENNEGLIGENCE AND DAMAGE

– Defendant’snegligence must be the proximate cause of theinjury sustained by the plaintiff to enable plaintiffto recover. Thus, if plaintiff’s own conduct is thecause of the injury there can be no recovery.

Fernando v. CA –

They should exhibit thecase and skill of one who is ordinarily skilledin the particular field that he is in; The ruleregarding experts is applicable not onlytoprofessionals who have undergone formaleducation

•

NOTE:

If plaintiff's negligence is only

contributory

, he is considered partlyresponsible only. Plaintiff may still recoverfrom defendant but the award may bereduced by the courts in proportion to hisown negligence

Proximate Cause

– the adequate andefficient cause which in the natural order ofevents and under the particularcircumstances surrounding the case, wouldnaturally produce the event

Wright v. Manila Electric –

Mere intoxicationis not negligence nor establishes want ofordinary care. But it may be considered toprove negligence.

CHAPTER 4: DEFENSES

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

- the plaintiffwas also negligent together with the defendant;to constitute a defense, proximate cause ofinjury/damage must be the negligence ofdefendant2.

CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE

–

if both partiesare equally negligent the courts will leave themas they are; there can be no recovery3.

DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE

eventhough a person’s own acts may have placed himin a position of peril and an injury results, theinjured is entitled to recover if the defendant thruthe exercise of reasonable care and prudencemight have avoided injurious consequences tothe plaintiff. This defense is available only in an