Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HELD: Under the Corporation Code, Naguait is liable *Negligence: involves voluntary acts or omissions
CLASS NOTES
bec: (1) he actively managed the business; (2) there
was evidence that CFTI obtained reasonably adequate
insurance; and (3) there was a corporate tort in this
which result in injury to others, without intending to
cause the same
-actor fails to exercise due care in performing such acts
Torts: not defined in the NCC nor in any Philippine Law
BUT many scattered provisions on tortuous acts case. or omissions
-usually defines as: (1) what it is not; (2) remedies *Strict Liability: where the person is made liable
granted; (3) social/public policy protected Our jurisprudence is wanting to the definite scope of independent of fault or negligence upon submission of
“corporate tort.” Essentially, “tort” consists in the proof of certain facts
Damages: much longer treatment in the NCC; more violation of a right given or the omission of a duty
practical importance on damages imposed by law. Simply stated, it is a breach of legal DE LEON (pp. 1-3)
duty. Tort: common law expression
Practical Legal Relevance: vehicular accidents -used in French to mean “wrong”, derived from Latin
RPC or create an action for quasi-delict under the -why make intentional acts under QD? To make father HELD: Art. 21 may be applied in a breach of promise to
CC. Thus, there were 2 liabilities of Barredo: a and son liable marry where the woman is a victim of moral seduction.
subsidiary one arising from the driver’s crim negligence -A 2177, NCC expressly points out that there’s a Art. 21 is designed to expand the concept of torts or QD
nd a primary one as employer under the CC. The separate civil liability from criminal negligence BUT it in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for
plaintiffs were free to choose which course to take, and seems to apply to QD only so court dealt with this the untold no. of moral wrongs which is impossible for
they preferred the second remedy. They were acting limitation by upholding the construction that upholds human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in
within their rights in doing so. “the spirit that giveth life rather than that which is the statute books.
literal that killeth the intent of the lawmaker” (A2176
CLASS NOTES
is not just QD, so A2177 really has no problem)
Cinco v Canonoy
Art. 2176 which defined a QD is limited to negligent
acts or omissions and excludes the notion of
willingness or intent. Torts is much broader than
-during that time, culpa aquiliana (QD) doesn’t cover
acts against law? A1903, old CC expressly exclude culpa aquiliana bec. it includes not only negligence,
acts not punishable by law FACTS: Cinco’s car and a eepney collided. Cinco filed a but intentional criminal acts as well.
-SC needed to have very strong reason not to follow civil action for damage to property against the eepney’s
what the old law says because if A1903 applied literally
there would be no culpa aquiliana, if read together with
driver and operators. Thereafter, he also filed a crim
case against the eepney driver. CFI upheld the
suspension of the civil case pending the determination
CLASS NOTES
RPC (all acts would be under criminal negligence and so what’s correct? Include or not to include intentional
imprudence) of the crim case. acts? In Baksh, Davide showed role of A21, so he
-so in this case, emphasize scope of culpa aquiliana limited A2176 to negligent acts or omissions. A2176
and delict; why needed? Barredo was arguing that he ISSUE: WON there can be an independent civil action discussion is not necessary for the disposition of
was not solidarily liable and should only be subsidiarily for damage to property during the pendency of the the case (OBITER) THEREFORE, QD still includes
liable criminal action. YES. intentional acts!
-if applied today, would the result be the same? YES
through stare decisis + QD definition changed, removed HELD: Liability being predicated on a QD, the civil case ***Issue: WON QD covers intentional acts or not? If it
phrase “not punishable by law” may proceed as a separate and independent civil action covers intentional acts..
as specifically provided for in Art. 2177 of the CC. Fr litigation pt of view: it doesn’t matter
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 3
Fr academic pt of view: it matters! Kinds: compensatory, punitie, liquidated damages FACTS: Custodio et al built an adobe fence making the
(damages recoverable upon breach of a contract, as passageway to Mabasa’s apartment narrower. Mabasa
2. Damages stipulated by the parties), nominal damages (given in filed a civil action for the grant of easement of right of
AQUINO (pp. 842-843) vindication of a breach of duty which does not result in way against them. CA, aside from granting right of way,
-Reason behind the NCC Title on Damages: to see to it any actual or pecuniary damages) awarded damages to Mabasa.
that whenever a right is transgressed, every manner of
loss or injury is compensated for in some way or Damage, damages, injury: material distinctions ISSUE: WON award of damages was proper. NO
another. Injury: Illegal invasion of a legal right
-A2195, NCC: provisions on damages are applicable to Damage: loss, hurt, or harm which results from an HELD: In the case at bar, although there was damage,
all obligations regardless of source (delict, QD, contract, injury; in a popular sense, it is the depreciation in value, there was no legal injury. Custodio et al’s act of
or quasi-contract). regardless if caused by a wrongful or legal act; as constructing a fence within their lot is a valid exercise of
-A2196: rules under title of damages are w/o prejudice defined by statutes providing for damages: actionable their right as owners.
to special provisions on damages provided elsewhere in loss, injury or harm which results from unlawful act,
the Code. omission or negligence of another Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right. Damage is
-A2198: principles of general law on damages are -not synonymous to example, fine, penalty, punishment, the loss, hurt or harm, which results from the injury.
adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with the revenge, discipline, chastisement
NCC. Damages: recompense or compensation awarded for Damages are the recompense or compensation
-Indemnity has to be proportionate to the fault and to the damages suffered. awarded fro the damage suffered. Thus, there can be
loss caused thereby. Pecuniary loss: loss of money or something by which damage without injury in those instances in which the
-In actions for damages, courts should award an amount money or something of money value may be acquired loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal
(money value) to the winning party and not its equivalent duty. These situations are often called damnum
in property. People v Ballesteros absque injuria. In such cases, the consequences must
be borne by the injured person alone.
SANCO, (pp. 940-941) FACTS: Ballesteros et al were convicted of murder.
Basis of Law: introduced in NCC mostly from American They were ordered to pay actual, compensatory, and b. Damnum absque injuria
Law since they were either not expressly recognized or moral damages to the heirs of the deceased.
rarely allowed under old code, particularly on subject of AQUINO (pp. 843-845)
moral damages ISSUE: WON damages were correctly awarded. YES -“There is no liability even if there is damage because
there was no injury.” Mere damage without injury does
Scope of applicability of provisions on damages: HELD: Damages may be defined as the pecuniary not result in liability.
applicable to all obligations arising from sources compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury -A related maxim is qui jure suo utitir nullum damnum
enumerated in A1157, NCC, without prejudice to special sustained, or as otherwise expressed, the pecuniary facit – one who exercises a right does no injury.
provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in said consequences which the law imposes for the breach of
code. some duty or the violation of some right. Custodio v CA, supra
-don’t apply to compensation of workmen and other
employees in cases of death, injury or illness Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded “Thus, there can be damage without injury in those
-in other special laws: same rules observed insofar as in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of
not in conflict with Civil Code sustained. The party claiming such must present the a violation of a legal duty. These situations are often
best evidence available such as receipts. called damnum absque injuria.”
Concept of damages:
Damages: the sum of money which the law awards or Moral damages may be invoked when the complainant B. History and Development
imposes as pecuniary compensation, recompense, or has experienced mental anguish, serious anxiety,
satisfaction for an injury done or a wrong sustained as a physical suffering, moral shock and so forth, and had AQUINO (pp.1-5)
consequence of a breach of a contractual obligation or a furthermore shown that these were the proximate result
“Tort” provisions in our NCC were derived from Spanish,
tortious act of the offender’s wrongful act or omission.
French and Anglo-American Law. Therefore, RP SC
-pecuniary consequences which law imposes for breach
borrows heavily from decisions of the Court in other
of some duty or violation of some right. Custodio v CA countries especially Spain and US and relies from
annotation of foreign author.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 4
Roman Law served as main inspiration of NCC, as quite damages using only preponderance of evidence. It gives
evident in the field of QD: it added 4 new category of 1889 Civil Code rise only to civil liability. Here, the employer’s liability for
obligations that arise quasi ex delicto (a. liability of a 1. Civil Liability Arising From Criminal Offenses his employee’s NONCRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE is direct
judge who misconducts a case or gives a wrong A1089: Civil obligations arise only from law, contracts, and primary and not subsidiary, and he could be directly
decision; b. liability of an occupier of a building for quasi-contracts, acts or omissions punished by law and imputed in an action for recovery of damages.
double the damage caused by anything thrown or forced quasi-delicts. -an act or omission will give rise to civil liability only if it
out of the building, no matter by whom, on to a public -civil obligations from crime or misdemeanor was causes damage or injury to another or others.
place[A2193]; c. liability of the occupier if he keeps any governed only by Penal Code (A1092) so when criminal
object suspended from the building which would do action was instituted, the civil action arising from the DE LEON (pp.4-8)
damage if it fell; and d. the liability of the shop keeper, crime is impliedly instituted with the criminal action Tort law emerged out of criminal law; originally
innkeeper, or keeper of a stable for any theft or damage unless the offended party expressly waives the civil concerned principally with violent breaches of the place.
caused by slaves or employees, or in case of the action or reserves his right to institute it separately (1) Common law tort – judges usually define what
innkeepers, of permanent residents [A2000].) (A122, Law of CrimPro) counts as torts and how compensation is to be
-Code Commission initially wanted to adopt the word -right to recover damages arising from crime is measured. Still, a statute or even Consti may
“tort” in our NCC but decided later against it because completely dependent on the result of the criminal case. make certain conduct legally wrongful and may
“tort” in Anglo-American law “is much broader If an earlier civil action is instituted, upon start of criminal permit recovery of damages for such conduct.
(includes negligence, intentional criminal acts, false case, the civil action is suspended and would be (2) No clear distinction between tort and crime –
imprisonment, deceit) than the Spanish-Philippine determined by the result of the criminal case. If criminal initially, this was the case sine the development
concept of obligations arising from non-contractual action is dismissed, civil action is also deemed of anything like a clearly formulated conception
negligence. Intentional acts would be governed by dismissed, regardless if instituted with the criminal of a tort is comparatively recent.
RPC. However, some provisions used “tort” and action or separately. Civil liability is treated as purely (3) Notion of tort as a specific wrong – there was
therefore recognize it as a source of liability [Sec22 incidental to the criminal liability of the offender. The an attempt in 1720 to consider several specific
& 100, Corporation Code; Art.68 Child and Youth cases of Springer vs. Odin, Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and wrongs in a work consolidating them under the
Welfare Code; Sec. 17(a)(6) of the Ship Mortgage Pacific Co., US vs. Guy Sayco, US vs. Bernardo, and general heading of torts. Torts of a specific
Decree]. Even SC used the term tort in deciding Wise & Co. vs. Larion were ruled using this principle. As character have been increasing.
cases involving negligent acts or omissions as well ruled in rakes, any civil action not predicated on offense (4) Place of torts in the Philippine law – even if RP
as involving intentional acts. They defined it in committed or charged (based on law, contract, quasi- was a civil law country, some of the provisions
Naguiat vs. NLRC. contract, or QD) cannot be instituted with the criminal in the 1889 CC dealth with cases of the nature
-There is an evident intent to adopt the common law action. of torts + with US occupation, a number of laws
concept of tort and to incorporate the different, -When Penal Code revised, RPC retained what is now patterned after Anglo-American models have
intentional and unintentional common law torts in the contained in A100; Rules on CRimPro retained what is been passed amplifying the field of torts in
NCC. Tortious conduct for which civil remedies are contained in Rule 107 (check if still correct) Philippine legal system.
available are embodied in different provisions of the
code. E.g. Arts. 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36; A2199 on 2. Civil Liability arising from QD Functions or goals of tort law
contributory negligence and proximate cause (however, A1902: Any person who by an act or omission causes Medieval England: discourage violence and revenge
a blending of American and Spanish-Philippine Law) damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be Today: compensation of injured persons and deterrence
NCC liable fro the damage done of undesirable behavior:
In re: A1903: punish wrongful acts or omissions not System of thoughts (sorry, no parallelism in the
SANGCO (pp. xxxi-xl) punishable by law enumeration of de leon):
Civil Code of the Philippines: based on Civil Code of -said articles are not applicable to acts of negligence (1) Morality or corrective justice – defendants should
1889 (Spanish and French in origin); but many which constitute either punishable offenses(delicts) or be liable fro harms they wrongfully caused and no
provisions from codes of other countries were adopted. breach of contract. others; liability imposed when and only when it is “right”
Rules from Anglo-American law were adopted because -thus, the liability of employers, et. al. under now A2180 to do so
of element of American culture that has been are only subsidiary (in accordance with penal laws) (2) Social utility or policy – a good-for-all-of-us view:
incorporated into Fil life during US occupation; because -QD or culpa aquiliana or extra-contractual culpa: provide a system of rules that works toward the good of
economic relations that continue between US and RP; causative act or omission not punished by law and is society
and because US and English Courts have developed done ONLY negligently, where civil liability could arise (3) Legal process – litigation process is a good to be
certain equitable rules that are not recognized in the as governed by the Civil Code (not by penal laws), and preserved rather than abstract ideal of justice or social
1889 Civil Code the party aggrieved could file an ordinary civil action for utility
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 5
(4) potential conflicts – between justice and policy (4) existence of direct causal connection between the Important: Take note of 3 elements of QD: (1)
outlook and legal process outlook damage or prejudice and the fault or negligence of damages suffered by plaintiff; (2) fault or
(5) distribution of loss – the cost of loss suffered by private respondents; and negligence of defendant; (3) fault of defendant
plaintiff is not simply transferred to the defendant but is (5) the absence of preexisting contractual relations caused damages suffered by plaintiff
distributed through the defendant to a large number of between the parties.
individuals Taylor v MERALCO
(6) redress of social grievances – tort law a popular The allegation that private respondents violated traffic
mechanism that permits ordinary people to put authority rules does not detract from the nature and the character FACTS: 15-year old David Taylor with 2 others (Manuel
on trial of the actions as one based on culpa aquiliana. and Jessie) experimented with detonating caps were
(7) a mixed system – tort law a “mixed” set of functions Excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear taken from the premises of MERALCO. David and
indication of negligence. Manuel ignited the contents of the cap, resulting in an
CLASSES OF TORTS: Property torts and Personal torts explosion which led to David’s loss of his right eye.
CLASS NOT E
the acquittal of the driver in the crim case is not a bar to
the civil case for damages based on QD.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 6
All the essential averments for a QD action are - Negligence is the “failure to observe, for the physical condition and other circumstance regarding
present, namely: protection of the interest of another person, that persons, time and place.
1) Act or omission constituting fault or negligence degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the Simple imprudence consists in the lack of
on the part of private respondent; circumstances reasonably impose. When the precaution displayed in those cases in which the
2) Damage caused by the said act or omission; danger is great a high degree of care is necessary, damage impending to be caused is not immediate not
3) Direct causal relation between the damage and and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary he danger clearly manifest.
the act or omission; and care.”
4) No pre-existing contractual relation between - Negligence is conduct, not a state of mind or the Barredo v Garcia, supra
the parties. use of sound judgment.
- Negligence is a matter of risk – that is to say, of RULE: A QD or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal
CLASS NOT E
cognizable danger of injury. The actor does not
desire to bring about the consequences which
follow, nor does he know that they are substantially
institution under the CC, with a substantially all its own,
and individuality that is entirely apart and independent
Important: There must exist a direct causal connection from crime.
to occur, or believe they will. There is merely a risk
1. act or omission of such consequences sufficiently great to lead a
reasonable man in his position to anticipate them, CLASS NOT ES
I SANGCO (pp. 1-4) and to guard against them.
- The culpability of the actor’s conduct must be Delict Quasi-Delict
- Conduct may be legally described in terms of action
judged in the light of the possibilities apparent to Public interest Private interest
and inaction or “misfeasance” or “nonfeasance.”
him at the time and not by looking backward “with Penal Code Civil Code
Misfeasance is active misconduct working positive
injury to others; while nonfeasance is passive the wisdom born of the event.” The standard must Punished only by penal Any kind of fault of
inaction or failure to take steps to protect them from be one of conduct, rather than consequences. At law negligence
harm the same time, the standard imposed must be an Guilt beyond reasonable Preponderance of
- Liability in tort may be predicated upon an injury external one, based upon what society demands of doubt evidence
resulting from an unlawful or illegal act or omission, the individual rather than upon his own notion of
whether injury is on property or person what is proper. People v Ligon
- Intentional omissions must not be treated as cases
2. cause damage of negligence. These are not cases of omissions; FACTS: Based on the testimony of a taxi driver, Gabat
they are cases of positive action.
was convicted of Robbery with Homicide committed
I SANGCO (pp. 87-90) against a 17-yo student working as a cigarette vendor.
- QD liability presupposes 2 conditions: (1) a B. Distinguished
connection of cause and effect between the person A. Quasi-delict v Delict ISSUE: WON Gabat’s guilt was proven BRD.
liable and the fact from which damage results; (2) a
fault of this person, which implies at once an act of Art 2177, NCC HELD: NO. Gabat’s guilt has not been established
intelligent volition that is illicit, or contrary to law Responsibility for fault or negligence under the beyond reasonable doubt, but preponderance of
- It must be shown that the damage to the plaintiff, preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from evidence establishes that by his ct or omission, with
who must prove it, was the natural and probable, or the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal fault and negligence, he caused damage to the victim
direct and immediate consequence of defendant’s Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for and should answer civilly for the damage done.
culpable act or omission the same act or omission of the defendant.
- Proximate cause is determined on the facts of each It does not follow that a person who is not criminally
case upon mixed considerations of logic, common Art 365, RPC. Imprudence and Negligence. liable is also free from civil liability. While the guilt of the
sense, policy and precedent. Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but accused in a criminal case must be established BRD,
without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil
material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack action for damages. The judgment of acquittal
of precaution on the part of the person performing or extinguishes civil liability only when it includes a
failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his declaration that the facts from which the civil liability
3. fault or negligence employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, might arise did not exist.
I SANGCO (p5-7)
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 7
34 & 2176 of the CC shall remain separate, distinct and
CLASS NOT ES
malevolent (Art.
2232)
BoC was done in [1] bad faith and [2] in violation of Art
21 (willfully causing loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy)
Statement that you can’t sue for QD when
there is a contract is mere obiter, not ratio.
Court already decided that employee is liable
Art 1092 & 1903 come from pre existing
relationship
Rakes is not the basis of the doctrine that
Air France v Carrasco
CLASS NOT ES
De Leon (pp.157-160)
1. Requisites of QD:
a. An act or omission by defendant
2176;
governed
and
by
also
Art.
1172-1174 under Art.
1170- 1174
3. Concurrence of Causes of Action act or omission itself merely an incident in AQUINO on negligence (pp. 23-27)
- Far East Banc v. CA – a single act or the source of the the performance of an
omission may give rise to two or more causes obligation obligation Actionable negligence may either be culpa contractual,
of action (i.e. delict, QD, or BoC) Plaintiff has burden to Plaintiff need not culpa aquiliana and criminal negligence. Thus, an action
- liability for a tort may arise even under a prove the defendant plead or prove it was for damages for the negligent acts of the defendant may
contract, where tirt us that which breaks the was at fault or defendants fault or be based on contract, quasi-delict or delict. The bases
contract, where an act which constitutes a negligent negligence
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 11
of liability are separate and distinct from each other Test: prudent man siren of the oncoming train, stopped and allowed the
even if only one act or omission is involved. o fictitious character: ordinary prudent train to pass; [3] the train driver had already applied its
man brakes and was running at 23-30kph; and [4] he had the
o can be reasonably foreseen duty to stop his jeep to avoid a collision because the
o knowledge of tortfeasor at that time driver of the locomotive was not qualified to do so at the
time.
Picart v Smith Wright v MERALCO Doctrine: Negligence is defined as the “want of care
required by the circumstances.” It is not an absolute
FACTS: Picart improperly pulled his horse on the right FACTS: An intoxicated Wright was thrown off his term and its application depends upon the situation of
side (wrong side of the road) of the bridge. Smith drove calesa after it was pitched forward by Meralco’s the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which
his car toward the horse, veering away only when the protruding railtrack. CFI awarded him damages but the circumstances reasonably require. Where the
car was only a few feet away from the horse. The horse apportioned the same since he was negligent as well, danger is great, a higher degree of care is necessary.
got spooked and got killed. although not as negligent as Meralco in failing to
maintain the tract. Both appealed. Notes: Sir says that based on jurisprudence, the
HELD: Smith is liable for damages because applying standard of care required for crossing railroads is “stop,
the standard of a prudent man, he was negligent. A HELD: Wright was not negligent because the sudden look and listen.” Nevertheless as provided by the SC in
prudent man “would have recognized that the course falling of the horse, would ordinarily be sufficient to this case, we cannot provide a standard for all specific
which he was pursuing was fraught with risk, and would throw a sober man from the vehicle. cases because it is difficult. There is no formula to
have foreseen harm to the horse and rider as a Doctrine: If a person’s conduct is characterized by s determine negligence. Every case must be dependent of
reasonable consequence of that course.” Smith should proper degree of care and prudence, it is immaterial its facts.
have: 1. Stopped 2. Slowed down or 3. Veered to the whether hi is drunk or sober.
right. Valenzuela v CA
Doctrines: 1. The Constitutive fact of negligence is the Notes: Sir asks the question following the doctrine: If
reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of this happened today, would an intoxicated driver be held FACTS: Plaintiff Valenzuela was hit by defendant’s car
the admonition born of this pre-vision. liable for hitting a man? while she was attending to a flat tire. She sued for
2. Test of negligence – “would a prudent man… foresee damages based on QD. He argues that he is not liable
harm to the person injured as a reasonable because of her contributory negligence in parking in a
consequence of the course about to be pursued?”
3. Take note however, that a person can be expected to
take care only when there is something before them to
CLASS NOTES
no-park zone and he was driving at a safe speed of
55kph.
suggest or warn of danger. Omniscience of the future is HELD: The average motorist alert to road conditions
not a requirement. - mere intoxication is not in itself negligence
would have had no difficulty applying the brakes to a car
- inconclusive factor
traveling at the speed claimed by him. Therefore his
Notes: The car was on the proper side of the bridge. failure to be alert must be due either to his intoxication
Sir thinks that the ruling is problematic because had the Corliss v Manila or his speeding. Also there was no contributory
car veered away, it would then be on the improper side negligence because the Emergency Rule exempts
of the road. FACTS: Plaintiff orliss’ husband died of some serious plaintiff from negligence since the time for reflective
burns because the jeep he was driving collided with thought or opportunity to weight the situation was absent
Manila Railroad’s train at the railroad crossing because because she was confronted by danger.
CLASS NOTES
of his eagerness to beat the locomotive and reach the
other side.
Doctrines: [1] adds to the definition in Corliss v. Manila
negligence is conduct which creates an undue risk of
harm to others it is the failure to observe that degree of
definition: conduct is said to be negligent when
HELD: Complaint is dismissed. Husband was negligent care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstance
a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor
because [1] one approaching a railroad crossing do so justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury
would have foreseen that an effect harmful to
cautiously and carefully. He should look and listen and [2]the emergency rule can be considered a defense.
another was sufficiently probable to warrant his
do everything that a reasonably prudent man would do
foregoing conduct or guarding against its
before he attempts to cross the track; [2] a prudent man Notes: SC took into consideration “normal human
consequences.
under similar circumstances would have heeded the circumstances” in determining WON defendant was
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 12
negligent. (Examples: the light rainfall, visibility of the Doctrines: [1] An object can still be placed negligently
street 100 meters away, etc.) even if it has a ‘legitimate purpose’ for being there. [2]
Definition of gross negligence as equivalent to
“notorious negligence” which “consists in the failure to
CLASS NOT ES
The new law on negligence of children would
exercise even slight care” still not affect the laws on negligence outlined
by Sangco because it does not expressly
Notes: SC, just like in Valenzuela v. CA, took into repeal the provisions of the RPC.
Far Eastern v CA consideration “normal human circumstances” (i.e. that
RA 9344 does not affect presumptions of
people would be looking up) in determining WON
negligence. However, it affects Art. 2180, CC.
FACTS: While on compulsory pilotage for docking, the defendant was negligent. But sir asks, “what if the
vessel rams into pier because anchor did not take hold planes had already landed?”
Taylor v Manila Railroad
HELD: Both the shipmaster and compulsory pilot are 2. Standard of conduct
FACTS: David Taylor, 15, and MANUEL, 12, were
liable. The shipmaster is liable because of his blind
experimenting with fulminating caps they found lying
reliance on the compulsory pilot and because he 1. the prudent men around the company’s premises. After applying a lighted
“supinely stood by” with no watchful vigilance on his 2. children match to an opened cap, it exploded causing injuries.
part. The compulsory pilot is liable because he failed to 3. experts. Professionals David’s father filed a complaint for damages.
react (or reacted too late) and because he miscalculated
the bulk and size of the vessel.
4. intoxication
5. insanity HELD: In the Turntable and Torpedo cases, the owner
of the premises was held liable because of the doctrine
Doctrines: [1] Unmindful disregard or neglectful
1. The Prudent Man of implied invitation1. This doctrine, however was
relinquishment of duty is tantamount to negligence [2]
overturned by Railroad Company vs. Stout which held
Extraordinary risk demands extraordinary diligence. [3]
that while it is the general rule in regard to an adult that
The presumption of fault against a moving vessel that Picart v Smith
to entitle him to recover damages for an injury resulting
strikes a stationary object is rebuttable by proof that the
from the fault or negligence of another he must have
driver was without fault, the collision was the fault of the Doctrines: [1] The standard of care is that of a “prudent
been free from fault, such is not the rule in regard to an
stationary object, or that it was the result of an inevitable man” [2] the conduct of a prudent man is determined “in
infant of tender years. The care and caution required of
accident. the light of human experience an in the particular case”
a child is according to his maturity and capacity only,
and this is to be determined in each case by the
Notes: The defense of liability of another person is not I Sangco (pp.7-8) –
circumstances of the case. The law fixes no arbitrary
available to join tortfeasors. 1) STANDARD OF CONDUCT
age at which a minor can be said to have the necessary
- it is impossible to fix in advance definite rules for all
capacity to understand and appreciate the nature and
Civil Aeronautics v CA conceivable human conduct because of the infinite
consequences of his own acts, so as to make it
variety of situations which may arise
negligence on his part to fail to exercise due care and
FACTS: The plaintiff broke his thigh bone because he - standard of conduct must be:
precaution in the commission of such acts. Plaintiff was
slipped over a 4-inch elevation at the end of the i. external and objective
sui juris in the sense that his age and his experience
viewing deck of the airport since he wanted a better ii. the same for all persons
qualified him to understand and appreciate the necessity
view of the incoming passengers including his future iii. must make allowance for the risk apparent to
for the exercise of that degree of caution which would
son- in- law. He filled an action for damages based on the act for his capacity to meet it and for the
have avoided the injury which resulted for his own
QD. circumstances under which he must act
deliberate act. Although the owner of the premises was
CLASS NOTES
liability
OVER 9 BUT UNDER 15 may or may not be guilty
of contributory negligence, depending upon his mental
HELD: Ordinarily, a backfire from an engine would
not be followed by any disaster, but here the leak
along the pipeline and the flooding of the
development and other circumstances (rebuttable carburetor created a dangerous situation, which a
Different from Taylor: presumption) prudent mechanic, versed in repairs of boat
o Taylor – contributory negligence, child OVER 15 YEARS presumed to have sufficient engines, would have taken precaution to avoid.
as tortfeasor capacity and understanding to be sensible of danger When a person holds himself out as being
o Del Rosario – victim only with the power to avoid it competent to do things requiring professional skill,
Immaturity and natural curiosity taken into (STANDARD is still that of a child his age and capacity, he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to
account and not that of an adult.) exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in
STANDARD: ORDINARILY PRUDENT CHILD the particular work which he attempts to do. Quest
Ylarde v Aquino The standard of conduct which a child must is experienced in fixing car and tractor engines, but
conform for his own protection is that of a not that of boats. A person skilled in dealing with
FACTS: Edgardo Aquino ordered his students to dig reasonable person of like age, intelligence and boats would have been sufficiently warned by the
beside a 1 ton concrete block in order to make a whole experience under like or similar circumstances circumstances to cause him to take precaution
to bury huge stones. He left four of them to level the or that degree of care ordinarily exercised by against the danger. Quest did not use the skill that
loose soil around the open hole but allegedly telling children of the same age, capacity, discretion, would have been exhibited by one ordinarily expert
them “not to touch the stone”. They, however, playfully knowledge and experience under the same or in repairing gasoline engine on boats.
jumped into the pit and caused the top of the concrete similar circumstances.
block to fall towards the opening. Ylarde wasn’t able to TEST as to whether an infant can be subjected to the RULE: When a person holds himself out as being
climb out and he died because of the injuries sustained. same standard of care as an adult: competent to do things requiring professional skill,
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 15
he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to FACTS: BPI’s money market people pre-terminated
exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in
the particular work which he attempts to do. CLASS NOTES
Fernando’s placement through a phone call and only
verified her identity by phone. The phony Fernando
deposited the two BPI checks to China Bank and
o buyer: can’t check for himself HELD: By the very nature of their work the degree of
Johnny Quest
Consider nature of work and danger involved responsibility, care and trustworthiness expected of their
when a person who holds himself out as being
employees and officials is far greater than those of
competent to do things, he will be held liable
for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care & Cruz v CA ordinary clerks and employees. For obvious reasons,
the banks are expected to exercise the highest degree
skill of an expert
of diligence in the selection and supervision of
high degree of care
FACTS: Lydia Umali underwent a surgery under Dr. employees. No matter how many justifications both
Ninevetch Cruz wherein the untidy clinic ran out of banks present to avoid responsibility, they cannot erase
medicine, blood and oxygen that the patient had to be the fact that they were both guilty in not exercising
US v Pineda transferred to another hospital, where she died. extraordinary diligence in the selection and supervisions
of employees.
FACTS: Pineda, a pharmacist, sold barium HELD: While it may be true that the circumstances RULE: The banks are expected to exercise the highest
chlorate(poisonous) instead of potassium chlorate seemed beyond cavil to constitute reckless imprudence degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of
which killed 2 horses. on the part of the surgeon, this conclusion is best employees (stems from the nature of their industry)
arrived at not through the educated surmises nor
HELD: The profession of pharmacy is one demanding
care and skill. The responsibility to use care has
been variously qualified as “ordinary care”, “care of
conjectures of laymen, including judges, but by the
unquestionable knowledge of expert witnesses. For
whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the
CLASS NOTES
a specially high degree”, “the highest degree of requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his
care known to practical men”, which is “the highest patient is, in the generality of cases, a matter of expert Nature of banks: imbued with public interest so
practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness, opinion. The deference of courts to the expert opinion there is a higher degree of diligence required
vigilance, and the most exact and reliable of qualified physicians stems from its realization that the
safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in
of business, in order that human life may not most instances are capable of intelligently evaluating. 4. Intoxication
constantly be exposed to danger flowing from the Expert testimony should have been offered to prove that
substitution of deadly poison for harmless medicine”.
The care required must be commensurate with the
danger involved, and the skill employed must
the circumstances cited are constitutive of conduct
falling below the standard of care employed by other
physicians in good standing when performing the same
CLASS NOTES
the ties themselves aboveground, stumbling by reason and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their
of unsure footing and falling, the vehicle crashing pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they
Exemption form criminal liability doesn’t mean
against the rails with such force as to break a wheel, this remain in their custody. exemption from civil liability
might be sufficient to throw a person from the vehicle no The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease
matter what his condition; and to conclude that a sober when the persons herein mentioned prove that they
man would not have fallen while a drunken man did, is observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
to draw a conclusion which enters the realm of prevent damage. (1903a)
speculation and guesswork.
Art. 2182
If the minor or insane person causing damage has no B. Degrees of Negligence
RULE: Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does the
mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be
care. answerable with his own property in an action against Art. 2231
him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if
the defendant acted with gross negligence.
US v Baggay
CLASS NOTES
FACTS: In a song service, Baggay suddenly, without CLASS NOTES
Mere intoxication is not in itself negligence provocation attacked a woman with a bolo on her head ,
from which she died. He likewise inflicted various Grossly negligent vs slightly negligent
Inconclusive factor
wounds on other women with the same bolo, including degree of danger
his own mother. Since defendant was suffering from cf. value
5. Insanity mental aberration, trial court rendered him exempt from RA 9044 Sec. 6: child 15 & below-incapable of
criminal liability but was obligated to indemnify the heirs negligence
Art. 2180, NCC of the murdered woman.
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable question still to be resolved is the law’s effect
not only for one's acts or omissions, but also for those of on 2180 CC
HELD: In the case of a lunatic or insane person who, in
persons for whom one is responsible. spite of his irresponsibility on account of the deplorable
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the condition of his deranged mind, is still reasonably and
mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the Amedo v Rio
justly liable with his property for the consequences of his
minor children who live in their company. acts, even though performed unwittingly, for the reason
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the that his fellows ought not to suffer from the disastrous FACTS: Filomeno Manguit, a seaman, jumped
minors or incapacitated persons who are under their results of his harmful acts more than is necessary, in overboard from his ship into the water to retrieve a 2-
authority and live in their company. spite of his unfortunate condition. According to law, the peso bill that was blown by the breeze to the sea. He
person in the first place liable are those who have the drowned.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 17
Marinduque Iron Mines v Workmen's foresight are accustomed to use. (failure to exercise
HELD: He failed to exercise “even the slightest care and Compensation care)
diligence”, that he displayed a “reckless disregard of the
safety of his person, that he could not have been but FACTS: Mamador hitched a ride together with other GROSS NEGLIGENCE – described as failure to
conscious of the probable consequences” of his laborers on a company-owned truck. When the truck exercise even that care which a careless person would
carelessness and that he was “indifferent, or worse, to tried to overtake another truck, it collided with a coconut use. There is no generally accepted meaning, but the
the danger of his injury”. There is more reason to hold tree, which resulted in his death. There was a company probability is that it signifies more than ordinary
that his death was caused by his notorious negligence. prohibition against laborers riding the haulage trucks. inadvertence or inattention, but less than conscious
If while he was working, his bill merely fell from his Petitioner claims that such violation was the laborer's indifference to consequences. (extreme departure from
pocket, and as he picked it up from the floor something “notorious negligence” which, under the law, precludes the ordinary standard of care)
accidentally fell upon him and injured him, he would recovery.
surely be entitled to compensation, his act being WILFUL, WANTON, AND RECKLESS – “quasi-intent”,
obviously innocent. Jumping into the sea, however, is HELD: Mere riding on a haulage truck or stealing a ride lying between intent to do harm and the mere
entirely different, the danger which it entails being clear, thereon is not negligence, ordinarily. Violation of a rule reasonable risk of harm to another. They apply to
potent and obvious. promulgated by a commission or board is not conduct which is still merely negligent but which is so far
negligence per se; but it may be evidence of negligence. from a proper state of mind that it is treated in many
RULE: “Notorious negligence” has been held to be Under the circumstances, the laborer could not be respects as if it were intended (actor has intentionally
tantamount to “gross negligence”, which is want of declared to have acted with negligence since the done an act of unreasonable character in disregard of a
even slight care and diligence. prohibition had nothing to do with the personal safety of risk known to him or so obvious that he must be taken to
riders. Getting or accepting a free ride on the company's have been aware of it, and so great as to make it highly
- what determines if an act if negligent is the haulage truck couldn't be gross negligence, because “no probably that harm would follow).
danger of an act danger or risk was apparent”.
- the nature of the act of jumping into the sea There is often NO CLEAR DISTINCTION between the
involves danger RULE: Violation of a rule promulgated by a above and “gross”, and the two have tended to merge
commission or board is not negligence per se; but it and take on the same meaning as an AGGRAVATED
CLASS NOTES
may be evidence of negligence. form of negligence, differing in QUALITY rather than in
DEGREE from ordinary lack of care.
pedestrians from crossing a street in
Art. 2184 places other than regular cross-walks
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable CLASS NOTES
3. driving a motor vehicle without a license,
with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, Art 2184 CC at a high rate of speed and under the
could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented influence of alcohol
the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver disputable presumption: Where there is NO local regulation restricting the
was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless pedestrian’s rights in the use of a street, a pedestrian
HAS THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL upon roads and streets
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 19
WHETHER THERE BE SIDEWALKS OR NOT, although determining liability where there is RIL made a special defense by Isidro to allege
he should have due regard for the rights of motor negligence. negligence of the truck driver and Layugan.
vehicles and should exercise due care for his own IAC ruled RIL as the basis for holding Layugan
safety. IN ALL CASES, violation must be the PROXIMATE negligent.
CAUSE.
Where proof of violation makes:
RIL N/A because there’s direct (clear &
1. a prima facie case of negligence convincing) evidence
3. Res Ipsa Loquitor
2. gives rise to a presumption of lack of Why? Because the mode of proof only, so
ordinary care Layugan v IAC when there’s evidence, use evidence / facts so
PRESUMPTION IS REBUTTABLE that judgment will be based on facts and not
FACTS: A truck bumped into the plaintiff while he and a presumptions
FOUR GENERAL GROUNDS OR EXCUSES FOR companion were repairing the tire of their parked truck
VIOLATION OF A STATUTE: along the right side of the highway. He sustained
1. anything that would make it impossible to injuries. Defendant contends that the proximate cause Ramos v CA
comply with the statute or ordinance was the failure of the driver of the parked truck to install
2. anything over which the defendant has no an early warning device. IAC concluded that under the FACTS: Ramos, undergoing a gall bladder operation,
control and which places him or an doctrine, the plaintiff was negligent. The question is went comatose because she was incorrectly intubated.
instrumentality that he is operating in a whether the doctrine was applicable.
position contrary to that required by the HELD: Res ipsa (The thing or transaction speaks for
statute or ordinance HELD: Res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself) – itself) – the fact of the occurrence of the injury, taken
3. an emergency not of the actor’s own Where the thing which causes the injury is shown to be with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an
making which causes him to fail to obey under the management of the defendant, and the inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make
the enactment accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a question
4. conduct which comes within an excuse or not happen if those who have he management use of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation.
exception provided in the statute proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the Requisites are:
absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the 1. the accident is of a kind that ordinarily
One who has in his possession or under his control an accident arose from want of care. It is not rule of does not occur in the absence of
instrumentality EXTREMELY DANGEROUS in character substantive law but merely a mode of proof or a mere someone’s negligence
is bound to take EXCEPTIONAL precautions to prevent procedural convenience. It can be involved when and 2. it is caused by an instrumentality within the
injury being done thereby. only when, under the circumstances involved, direct exclusive control of the defendant or
- The care required is a great or high evidence is absent and not readily available. It cannot defendants
degree, or the HIGHEST degree of be availed of when the plaintiff has knowledge and 3. the possibility of contributing conduct
precaution. testifies or presents evidence as to the specific act of which would make plaintiff responsible is
- The presumption DOES NOT APPLY to negligence which is the cause of injury complained of or eliminated.
those whose occupation or business where there is direct evidence as to the precise cause of
REQUIRES the possession or use of a the accident and all the facts and circumstances The fundamental element is “control of instrumentality”
firearm, such as peace officers or armed attendant to the occurrence appear. The absence of which caused the damage. Generally, expert testimony
forces, or in the case of poison, the drug want of care of the driver has been established by clear is relied upon in malpractice suits to prove a physician
companies or stores. and convincing evidence. The doctrine does not apply. has done a negligent act or that he has deviated from
the standard medical procedure, when the doctrine is
WRT to COMMON CARRIERS RULE: Res ipsa can be involed when and only when, availed of by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical
Common carriers from the nature of their business and under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself
for reasons of public policy are bound to observe absent and not readily available. provides the proof of negligence. In cases where the
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE in the vigilance over doctrine is applicable, the court is permitted to find a
the goods and safety of passengers transported by them physician negligent upon proper proof of injury to
according to all circumstances of each case.
- The law on averages under the Code of
Commerece cannot be applied in
CLASS NOTES
patient, without aid of expert testimony, where the court
from its common knowledge can determine the proper
standard of care. The doctrine is generally restricted to
situations in malpractice cases where a layman is able
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 20
to say, as a matter of common knowledge and accomplished if the problem is based on Theoretical basis for RIL: The proof should
observation, that the consequences of professional care medical science (Cruz vs. CA). But if common come from the defendant (RIL is the “bridge”
were not as such as would ordinarily have followed if knowledge can be applied, RIL applies. which allows the plaintiff to reach the
due care had been exercised. defendant).
Batiguin v CA
RULE: In cases where the doctrine is applicable, the
court is permitted to find a physician negligent upon FACTS: Dr. Batiquin performed a caesarian operation DM Consunji v CA
proper proof of injury to the patient, without aid of expert on a patient. Afterwards, she was found to be feverish.
testimony, where the court from its fund of common When the patient submitted herself to another surgery, Facts: A construction worker fell from the 14th floor
knowledge can determine the proper standard of care. she was found to have an ovarian cyst on the left and when the platform assembly he was standing on fell
right side of the ovaries and a piece of rubber material down.
CLASS NOTES
was embedded on the right side of the uterus.
6. Damnum absque injuria * The son could have sued stepbrother of his
7. Prescription father for building the house so close to the No contributory negligence of mother & kid
wire*
8. Double recovery Even if they did have contributory negligence, it
is not a bar to recovery; only mitigates
1. Plaintiff’s Negligence
the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may stringers and rails joined in the same place. As to the
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the second, Court found that there was a general prohibition
Both negligent but proximate cause is the teller
allowing the practice of validating incomplete
damages to be awarded. (n) against walking by the side of the car. The disobedience
form
of the plaintiff in placing himself in danger contributed in
Art. 2214, NCC some degree to the injury as a proximate, although not Solution to proximate cause issue: 60-40
In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the its primary cause. The Court made a distinction between
plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. the accident and the injury. If the plaintiff’s negligence *Sir has doubts as to the use of the Doctrine of
contributed to the accident, he cannot recover. But if his Last Clear Chance in this case*
negligence only contributed to his injury, he may recover
CLASS NOTE the amount that the defendant responsible for the
accident should pay fpr the injury, less a sum deemed 3. Fortuitous Event
Contributory negligence is a mitigating factor in an equitable equivalent for his own imprudence.
awarding damages. Art. 1174, NCC
CLASS NOTES
Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when
it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the
nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk,
accident v. injury
o accident: can’t recover no person shall be responsible for those events which
contrib. to primary event could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were
o injury: may recover inevitable.
Defendant’s contrib. –
Genobiagon v CA Plaintiff’s contrib. = Recovery
2 kinds of contribution: (1) contribution to the
FACTS: Rig driven by appellant bumped an 81 y.o. lady principal event; (2) contribution to his own
who was crossing the street. His defense was that it was
the old lady who bumped his car. TC and CA found him
guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence.
injury
Juntilla v Funtanar
HELD: SC held in favor of Hernandez. The decision he
made seemed logical at that time and one that could be
expected of a reasonable and prudent person. And if,
CLASS NOTES
Ong’s incompetence is not equal to Act of God
FACTS: Plaintiff was seated in the front passenger seat as it happened, the 2 robbers attacked him in broad
not necessarily Act of God just because there
of a public utility jeepney when the right tire blew up. He daylight in the jeep, while it was on a busy highway, and
are no / unknown explanations
was thrown out of the jeep and suffered injuries. He in the presence of other passengers, it cannot be said
even assuming that there’s FE, Gotesco is still
also lost his omega watch. that all this was a result of his imprudence and
liable because there’s implied warranty in
negligence. It was a fortuitous event, something that
public places
HELD: SC said that there are specific acts of could not have reasonably be foreseen though it could
o still negligent
negligence on the part of the respondents. Jeep was have happened, and it did.
Just because you cannot explain it, it does not
running at a very fast speed and was overloaded. In necessarily mean that it is fortuitous.
this case, the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected NOTES: This case doesn’t say that robberies are
occurrence was not independent of human will. It was fortuitous events. It just said that this particular robbery
was a fortuitous event. Servando v Philippine Steam
caused either through the negligence of the driver or
because of the mechanical defects in the tire.
FACTS: Plaintiffs loaded their cargo on board
CHARACTERISTICS OF CASO FORTUITO:
1. Cause of the unforeseen and unexpected CLASS NOTES
appellant’s vessel. Cargoes were discharged unto the
warehouse of Bureau of Customs. A fire of unknown
origin razed the warehouse, destroying the remaining
occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with robbery in this case was FE cargo.
his obligation must be independent of human will. o but not all robberies are FE’s
2. It must be impossible to foresee the event which some human acts can be considered FE HELD: Court said that where the fortuitous event is the
constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it is it may be an accident but not really FE immediate and proximate cause of the loss, obligor is
impossible to avoid.
exempt from liability for non-performance. Caso fortuito
3. The occurrence must be such as to render it
– an event that takes place by accident and could not
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a Gotesco Investment v Chato have been foreseen. In this case, there was not a shred
normal manner
of proof that the cause of the fire was in any way
4. Obligor must be free from participation in the FACTS: Chato and 15 yo daughter went to see a movie attributable to the negligence of the appellant or its
aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. at the theater owned by Gotesco. Balcony collapsed employees.
and they sustained injuries. Chato even went to Illinois
CLASS NOT ES
for further treatment.
majeure.
Gotesco’s defense: force NOTE:
event.
This case established that fire is a fortuitous
CLASS NOTES
Engr, there were no INELCO linemen who were going
around.
CLASS NOTES
typhoon is FE
flying roof is FE
HELD: Court said that contrary to petitioner’s claim, the
maxim “violenti non fit injuria” does not apply here.
the flooding of the Angat River was not FE but typhoon was proximate cause of damage to Isabel should not be punished for exercising her right to
due to the negligence of NPC neighboring house protect her property from the floods by imputing upon
is typhoon a force majeure? No because in this *take this case for definition of force majeur* her the unfavorable presumption that she assumed the
case there was negligence *credibility of ocular inspection discredited so risk of personal in injury. A person is excused from the
this is strange because this runs counter to force of the rule, that when he voluntarily assents to a
*so is force majeure really a defense then?*
Gotesco* known danger, he must abide by the consequence, if an
*they could have used RIL* emergency is found to exist, or if the life or property of
Southeastern College v CA another is in peril or when he seeks to rescue his
endangered property.
FACTS: During a typhoon, school’s roof was partly
ripped off and blown away, landing on and destroying
portions of the roofing of respondent’s house. A team of
engineers conducted an ocular inspection and found
CLASS NOTES
that the causes may have been the U-shaped formation
of the building and the improper anchorage of the Rule is the Emergency Rule: A person is
trusses to the roof beams. excused from the force of the assumption of
4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK risk rule, that when he voluntarily assents to a
known danger he must abide by the
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 25
consequences, if an emergency is found to Allied Banking v CA
exist or if the life or property of another is in FACTS: A jeep and a bus collided. Their owners
peril, or when he seeks to rescue his refused to pay damages to the injured passenger. FACTS: Apr 1, 1976 – Yujuico obtained loan fr
endangered property. GenBank payable on or before Apr 1, 1977
HELD: SC held that testimonial evidence of due - Mar 25, 1977 – Monetary Board issued resolution
diligence, in order to hold sway, must be corroborated forbidding GenBank from doing business in Phils.
*SANGCO (pp.81-84) by documentary evidence. Mere formulation of various - Allied acquired all assets and assumed all liabilities of
company policies on safety (as testified by Christian GenBank
NOTES: Bautista), without showing documentary proof that they - Feb 7, 1979 – Allied filed complaint against resp
VIOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA: applies to non- were being followed or complied with is not sufficient to Joselita for collection of a sum of money
contractual relations; exempt petitioner from liability arising from negligence of - 1987 – in the course of the proceedings, resp sought
3 requisites: its employees. to implead Central Bank and Aurellano as 3rd party
(1) plaintiff had actual knowledge of the defendants. It was alleged that by reason of the tortous
damage; NOTES: defense of due diligence is plausible when interference by the CB with affairs of GenBank, resp
(2) he understood an appreciated the risk from defendant has presented enough evidence to overcome was prevented from performing his obligation under the
danger; the presumption of negligence. It is not enough that it is loan.
(3) he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk. alleged. - RTC denied admission of 3rd party complainant.
- Petitioner claims that cause of action has already
5. DUE DILIGENCE (Sir: MMTC said that it was not enough to issue prescribed. Since it was founded on tortuous
manuals etc, but implementation or actual enforcement interference, it prescribes in 4 yrs. Petitioner believes
Ramos v PEPSI is more important.) that the cause of action accrued on Mar 25, 1977, the
date when Monetary Board ordered GenBank to desist
FACTS: Ramos’ car collided with Pepsi truck driven by
Andres Bonifacio. CLASS NOTES
from doing business in the Philippines. Complainant
should have filed before Mar 25, 1981.
- Respondent relies on the Doctrine of Relations or
HELD: SC found Bonifacio negligent, but absolved it is not enough that the company provides Relations Bank Doctrine to support his claim that the
Pepsi for having sufficiently proven that it exercised due manuals cause of action as against the proposed 3rd party
diligence in the selection of its driver (background there has to be proof of enforcement and defendant accrued only on Dec 12, 1986 when the
check, clearance, previous experience, physical exam, actual application decision became final and executory. Thus, it is
driver’s exam- theoretical and practical driving exams). contended that while the 3rd party complaint was filed
In order that defendant may be considered as having only on Jun 17, 1987, it must be deemed to have been
6. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
exercised all diligence of a good father of a family, he instituted on Feb 7, 1979, when the complain in the case
should not be satisfied with the mere possession of a was filed.
professional driver’s license; he should have carefully 7. PRESCRIPTION
examined the applicant for employment as to his HELD: Action for damages arising from QD should be
qualifications, his experience and record of service. The Kramer v CA filed within 4 yrs from the day cause of action accrued.
presumption of negligence on the part of the master or The cause of action in this case accrued on Mar 25,
employer, either in the selection of servant/ employee or FACTS: 1976: 2 vessels collided 1980 when the Monetary Board ordered the GenBank to
in their supervision, when an injury is caused by the - 1981: Phil Coast Guard concluded that the collision desist fr doing biz in the Phils, while 3 rd party complaint
negligence of a servant/employee may be rebutted if the was due to M/V Asia’s negligence was filed only on Jun 17, 1987 the action has
employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in -1982: Coast Guard suspended 2nd mate of M/V Asia. prescribed.
the selection and supervision, he has exercised the care -1985: Petitioners instituted complaint for damages
and diligence of a good father of a family. against respondent. Motion to dismiss was filed on the NOTE, MEMORIZE ME (in footnote so not doctrine)!
basis of prescription. “Relations Bank Doctrine” – principle of law by which
an act done at one time is considered by a fiction of law
HELD: SC dismissed the case, saying that according to to have been done at some antecedent period. It is a
Art. 1146, action based on quasi-delict must be doctrine which, although of equitable origin, has a well
instituted within 4 yrs. Prescriptive period begins from recognized application to proceedings at law; a legal
Metro Manila v CA the day the quasi-delict was committed. fiction invented to promote the ends of justice or to
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 26
prevent injustice and the occurrence of injuries where tank, spreading over the bus and the ground under it, ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the death of
otherwise there would be no remedy. and that the lighted torch set it on fire. the victims?
ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident? HELD: The proximate cause of the death of the victims
CLASS NOTES HELD: The overturning of the bus, and not the fire that
burned the bus, is the proximate cause. The coming of
was their failure to take precautionary measures for their
safety. Considering the nature of the task of emptying a
septic tank, especially one which has not been cleaned
Take note of Relations Bank Doctrine
the men with the torch was to be expected and was a for years, an ordinarily prudent person would
*Not sure if Relations Bank Doctrine is ratio in
natural sequence of the overturning of the bus, the undoubtedly be aware of the attendant risks. More so
this case*
trapping of the passengers and the call for outside help. with Bertulano, an old hand in this kind of service, who
is presumed to know the hazards of the job.
8. DOUBLE RECOVERY
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, Government negligence was not the proximate
for the same act or omission of the defendant.
and without which the result would not have cause because it was not continuing.
occurred. The claimant must establish that he had no
IV. CAUSATION negligence.
A higher degree of diligence is expected from
Definition #2 of proximate cause according to an expert.
A. Proximate cause Bataclan vs. Medina:
Prof. Casis included the case to show that it is
More comprehensively, the proximate legal
not necessary to attend school to be an expert.
CLASS NOTES
cause is that acting first and producing the
injury either immediately or by setting other
events in motion, all constituting a natural and
Quoted Taylor, but it should have been Rakes
Usually it’s the shorter definition that’s being cited in the Urbano v IAC
other cases. So for our purpose-shorter version continuous chain of events, each having a
The longer version can be shortened by removing close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor, the final event in the chain FACTS: On October 23, 1980, Urbano hacked Javier in
“sufficient intervening cause” his right palm. Javier was brought to a doctor who
*memorize definition of proximate cause* immediately effecting the injury as a natural
and probable result of the cause which first issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9
acted, under such circumstances that the days. On November 5, Javier was seen catching fish in
1. Definition person responsible for the first event should, as dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. On
an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, November 14, he died of tetanus.
Bataclan v Medina have reasonable ground to expect at the
moment of his act or default that an in jury to ISSUE: WON the hacking by Urbano of Javier was the
FACTS: A bus speeding on its way to Pasay City at some person might probably result therefrom. proximate cause of Javier’s death. ---NO.
2am when one of its front tires burst, as a result of which
the vehicle zigzagged, fell into a canal or ditch, and HELD: The tetanus, not the hacking, was the proximate
Fernando v CA
turned turtle. 4 passengers were unable to get out of cause of Javier’s death. The death of the victim must be
the bus. Calls and shouts for help were made in the the direct, natural and logical consequence of the
FACTS: Bertulano was invited to bid for the re-
neighborhood. At 2:30am, 10 men came, one of them wounds inflicted upon him by the accused (People v
emptying of a septic tank, which had not been cleaned
carrying a lighted torch made of bamboo with a wick Cardenas). Medical findings lead to a distinct possibility
for 19 years. Before the award was made (he lost), he
fueled with petroleum. When they approached the bus, that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an
and 4 companions surreptitiously entered the septic
a fierce fire started, burning the bus and the 4 efficient intervening cause later or between the time
tank, without clearance from the market master. They
passengers. It appears that as the bus overturned, the Javier was wounded to the time of his death. The
died in the septic tank due to the intake of toxic gas
gasoline began to leak and escape from the gasoline produced from the waste matter therein.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 27
infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the
crime.
Note: The court adopted the Bataclan definition of Pilipinas Banking v CA Quezon City v Dacara
proximate cause.
FACTS: Florencio Reyes issued two post-dated checks. FACTS: At about 1AM, Dacara, (son of petitioner), while
Phoenix Construction Inc. v IAC To cover the face value of the checks, he requested driving a Toyota Corolla, rammed into a pile of
PCIB to effect a withdrawal from his savings account earth/street diggings (accident mound) found at
FACTS: A dump truck, owned by Phoenix, was parked there and have it deposited with his current account with Matahimik St. The lower court found that no evidence
askew on the right hand side of the street in such a Pilipinas Bank. Santos, who made the deposit, wrote the was presented that sufficient and adequate
manner as to stick out onto General Lacuna St., partly wrong account number on the deposit slip, but wrote the precautionary signs were placed in the said street.
blocking the way of oncoming traffic. There were no name of Florencio Reyes as the depositor’s name. The
early warning devices placed near the truck. At 1:30AM, Current Account Bookkeeper of Pilipinas Bank, seeing ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident?
Dionisio was on his way home when his car headlights that the account number coincided with the name
allegedly suddenly failed. He switched his headlights on Florencio, deposited the amount in the account of HELD: The negligence of the Quezon City Government
“bright” and saw the truck looming 2 ½ meters away Florencio Amador. was the proximate cause of the accident.
from his car. His car smashed into the dump truck. Proximate cause is defined as any cause that produces
ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the injury to injury in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident? Reyes? by any efficient intervening cause, such that the result
would not have occurred otherwise.
HELD: The wrongful and negligent parking of the truck, HELD: The proximate cause of the injury is the Proximate cause is determined from the facts of each
and not the negligence of Dionisio, was the proximate negligence of Pilipinas Bank’s employee in erroneously case, upon a combined consideration of logic, common
cause of the accident. positing the cash deposit of Reyes in the name of sense, policy and precedent.
The truck driver’s negligence was far from being a another depositor who had a similar first name. The
passive and static condition and was rather an employee should have continuously gone beyond mere Note: Followed Bataclan’s definition.
indispensable and efficient cause. assumption.
The collision of Dionisio’s car with the dump truck was a Proximate cause is any cause which, in natural
natural and foreseeable consequence of the truck
driver’s negligence. The improper parking of the truck
created an unreasonable risk of injury for anyone driving
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the result complained of
and without which would not have occurred and from
CLASS NOT ES
An admission by the court that proximate
down General Lacuna St. and for having so created this which it ought to have been foreseen or reasonably cause is what they think is fair in each case.
risk, the truck driver must be held liable. anticipated by a person of ordinary care that the injury
What the petitioners describe as an “intervening cause” complained of or some similar injury, would result 2. Distinguished from other kinds
was no more than a foreseeable consequence of the therefrom as a natural and probable cause.
risk created by the negligent manner in which the truck a. Remote
driver had parked the dump truck. Note: Different definition of PC from Bataclan case. This
Quoting Posser and Keeton on “Foreseeable Gabeto v Araneta
case adds the element of foreseeability.
intervening causes”: If the intervening cause is one
which in ordinary human experience is reasonable to be FACTS: Gayetano (husband of plaintiff) and Ilano took a
Prof. Casis’s opinion: There’s no basis for this additional
anticipated, or one which the defendant has reason to carromata to go to a cockpit. When the carromata was
element. Under Art. 2202, foreseeability should not be a
anticipate under the particular circumstances, the about to move, Araneta held the reins of the horse,
factor.
defendant may be negligent xxx because of failure to saying he hailed the carromata first. Driver Pagnaya
guard against it; or the defendant may e negligent only pulled the reins to take it away from Araneta’s control,
as a result of which, the bit came off the horse’s mouth.
for that reason. Foreseeable intervening forces are
within the scope of the original risk, and hence of the
defendant’s negligence.
CLASS NOT ES
Pagnaya fixed the bridle on the curb. The horse, free
form the control of the bit, moved away, causing the
carromata to hit a telephone booth and caused it to
*Sir said that there is a problem with foreseeability as an crash. This frightened the horse and caused it to run up
Note: Court mentioned foreseeability.
element. So as a solution, if there’s a case similar to the street with Gayetano still inside the carromata.
Pilipinas Bank, apply Pilipinas Bank definition*
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 28
Gayetano jumped or fell from the rig, causing injuries furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by
from which he soon died.
FACTS: A ship owned by FESC rammed into the apron ISSUE: Who was negligent and what is the extent of
liability? ---BOTH solidarily liable.
CLASS NOT ES
of the pier. Kavankov was the master of the vessel.
Gavino was the compulsory pilot.
HELD: The carrier and its driver were negligent for
Classical description of remote cause with ISSUE: Who was negligent --- Gavino or Kvankov? allowing Custodio to hang by the side of the bus. The
series of events. ---BOTH. truck driver was also negligent for speeding through the
It is not the counting of the time but the middle portion of the road.
SERIES HELD: Both Gavino (compulsory pilot) and Kavankov Although the negligence of the carrier and its driver is
(master of the vessel) were concurrently negligent. independent, in its execution, of the negligence of the
Gavino was negligent for failing to react on time; truck driver and its owner, both acts of negligence are
Urbano v IAC Kavankov was negligent in leaving the entire docking the proximate cause of Custodio’s death.
procedure up to Gavino instead of being vigilant. Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or
FACTS: On October 23, 1980, Urbano hacked Javier in Negligence, in order to render a person liable need not omission of two or more persons, although acting
his right palm. Javier was brought to a doctor who be the sole cause of an injury. Where several causes independently of each other, are, in combination, the
issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9 combine to produce injuries, a person is not relieved direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third
days. On November 5, Javier was seen catching fish in from liability because he is responsible for only one of person, and it is impossible to determine in what
dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. On them, it being sufficient that the negligence of the proportion each contributed to the injury, either is
November 14, he died of tetanus. person charged with injury is an efficient cause without responsible for the whole injury, even though his act
which the injury would not have resulted to as great an alone might not have caused the entire injury, or the
ISSUE: WON the hacking was the proximate cause of extent, and that such cause is not attributable to the same damage might have resulted from the acts of the
Javier’s death. ---NO. person injured. other tortfeasor.
Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and
HELD: There is a likelihood that the wound was but the
remote cause and its subsequent infection, for failure to
take necessary precautions, with tetanus may have
is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the
injury. There is no contribution between joint tortfeasors
whose liability is solidary since both of them are liable
CL ASS NOTE
Prof. Casis thinks that this is a problematic
been the proximate cause of Javier’s death with which for the whole damage. case because the facts would indicate that the
Urbano had nothing to do. Reason: It is impossible to determine in what proportion victim was at fault because he was negligent.
each contributed to the injury and either of them is 3. Tests
Citing Manila Electric v. Remoquillo: A prior responsible for the whole injury.
a. “But for”
and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an
action if such remote cause did nothing more than Note: Liability of concurrent negligence = solidary.
Bataclan v Medina
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 29
Prof. Casis thinks that this case should not be because an actor’s negligence is not a
Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and cited for the substantial factor test because substantial factor in bringing about harm to
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient the SC did not apply the test; only the CA another if the harm was sustained even if the
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without did. actor were negligent.
which the result would not have occurred. Substantial factor = Main cause, not the only The converse of the rule: a negligent act
Note: Italicized phrase=”but for” test cause cannot be said to be the proximate cause of an
accident unless the accident could have been
Important : memorize the test
CL ASS NOTE *This is the only case that defines substantial
factor test*
avoided without such negligent act.
CL ASS N O T E S ()
cannot be indiscriminately used as an
unqualified measure of the defendant’s liability
negligence is lacking.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 30
The foreseeability test is applied in conjunction prudent and experienced party, fully result, it is quite impossible to distinguish between active
with the natural and probable consequences acquainted with all the circumstances which in forces and passive situations, particularly since the latter
test. fact exist, whether they could have been are the result of other active forces which have gone
ascertained by reasonable diligence, or not, before. Even the lapse of a considerable time during
5. Natural and probable consequence test would have thought at the time of the negligent which the “condition” remains static will not necessarily
This test is designed to limit the liability of a act as reasonably possible to follow, if they had affect liability. It is not the distinction which is important,
negligent actor by holding him responsible only been suggested to his mind. but the nature of the risk and the character of the
for injuries which are the probable intervening cause.
consequences of his conduct as distinguished 8. Orbit of the risk test
from consequences that are merely possible.
For this purpose, the term “probable” is used in
the sense of “foreseeable.”
This was intended to be a test of duty and not a
test of proximate cause.
CLASS NOTES
If the foreseeable risk to plaintiff created a duty The cause is the active aspect whereas the
An injury is deemed the natural and probable which the defendant breached, liability is condition is the passive action that may
result of a negligent act if after the event, and imposed for any resulting injury within the orbit produce the injury.
viewing the event in retrospect to the act, the or scope of such injury, it is not the unusual It is difficult to distinguish between a cause
injury appears to be the reasonable rather than nature of the of the act resulting in injury to and a condition because of the time element.
the extraordinary consequence of the wrong, or plaintiff that is the test of foreseeability but A condition was a cause at some point in
such as, according to common experience and whether the result of the act is within the ambit time.
the usual course of events, might reasonably of the hazards covered by the duty imposed It cannot be cited in saying that cause and
have been anticipated. upon the defendant. condition are no longer applicable in our
The consequence of the negligent act must be jurisdiction because it only said that it is
within the range of probability as viewed by the
ordinary man.
The natural and probable consequences have
CL ASS NOTE
discredited.
7. Hindsight test HELD: The distinctions between cause and condition Rodrigueza v Manila Railroad
The hindsight test eliminates foreseeability as have already been almost entirely discredited.
an element. Posser and Keeton: So far as the fact of causation is
FACTS: The house of Rodrigueza and 3 others were
A party guilty of negligence or omission of duty concerned, in the sense of necessary antecedents
burned when a passing train emitted a great quantity of
is responsible for all the consequences which a which have played an important part in producing the
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 31
sparks from its smokestack. Rodrigueza’s house was as 1) negligence per se or 2) prima facie tank, spreading over the bus and the ground under it,
partly within the property of the Manila Railroad. evidence of negligence. and that the lighted torch set it on fire.
It is not an efficient intervening cause when it is
ISSUE: WON Manila Railroad’s negligence was the already in existence during the happening of ISSUE: WON there was an efficient intervening cause –
proximate cause of the fire the proximate cause. NO.
HELD: Yes. The fact that Rodrigueza’s house was HELD: The coming of the men with the torch was to be
partly on the defendant’s property is an antecedent expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning
condition that may have made the fire possible but of the bus, the trapping of passengers and the call for
cannot be imputed as contributory negligence because: outside help.
(1) that condition was not created by himself; (2) his McKee v IAC It may be that ordinarily, when a passenger bus
house remained on this ground by the tolerance, and overturns, and pins down a passenger, merely causing
thus consent of the train company; (3) even supposing FACTS: A cargo truck and a Ford Escort were traveling him physical injuries, if through some event, unexpected
the house to be improperly there, this fact would not in opposite directions. When the car was 10 meters and extraordinary, the overturned bus is set on fire, say,
justify the defendant in negligently destroying it. away from the bridge, 2 boys suddenly darted into the by lightning, or if some highway men after looting the
Rodrigueza’s house was built on the same spot before car’s lane. The car driver blew the horn, swerved to the vehicle sets it on fire, and the passenger is burned to
the defendant laid its tracks over the land. left and entered the truck’s lane. He then switched on death, one might still contend that the proximate cause
the headlights, braked, and attempted to return to his of his death was the fire and not the overturning of the
Note: Condition = plaintiff’s house was partly within the lane. Before he could do so, his car collided with the vehicle.
defendant’s property. Cause = the sparks on the train truck.
which was the negligent act of the defendant.
ISSUE: WON there was an efficient intervening cause –
YES. CLASS NOT ES
CLASS NOTES HELD: Although it may be said that the act of the car
driver, if at all negligent, was the initial act in the chain of
The Court did not agree with the theory of the
defense that it was the bringing of the torch
which was the proximate cause as it was an
Rodrigueza was not guilty of contributory events, it cannot be said that the same caused the act of rescue and hence cannot be considered
negligence eventual injuries and deaths because of the occurrence as negligence
Even if condition was created, the company is of a sufficient intervening event, the negligent act of the
not going to be justified in negligently truck driver, which was the actual cause of the tragedy.
destroying the house It was the truck driver’s subsequent negligence in failing Manila Electric v Remonquillo
to take the proper measure and degree of care
necessary to avoid the collision, which was the FACTS: Efren Magno repaired the media agua below
4. Efficient Intervening cause proximate cause of the tragedy. Penaloza’s 3-story house. In the course of the repair,
the end of the iron sheet he was holding came into
CLASS NOT ES
Bataclan v Medina
CLASS NOT ES
able to use argument by analogy*
FACTS: Picart riding his pony was on the wrong side of
the road. Smith driving his car stayed on his right lane
The IC here was the “turning” and so both Picart and Smith were on the same lane.
Smith stayed on his lane and swerved to the other lane
What could have been the IC now becomes the
quickly, thereby almost hitting the pony. Pony became
remote cause
frightened and lost control and Picart was thrown out of
the pony and got injured. Picart then filed a case against
Smith
Teague v Fernandez Urbano v IAC
FACTS: A vocational school for hair and beauty culture RATIO: The negligent acts of both parties were NOT
FACTS: On October 23, 1980, Urbano hacked Javier in
had only one stairway, in violation of an ordinance contemporaneous. Negligence of Smith succeeded the
his right palm. Javier was brought to a doctor who
requiring 2 stairways. A fire broke out in a nearby store negligence of Picart by an appreciable interval. th saw
issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9
and the students panicked and caused a stampede. the pony when he was still far and he had control of the
days. On November 5, Javier was seen catching fish in
Four students died. situation. was his duty to avoid the threatened harm by
dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. ON
bringing the car to a stop or taking the other lane to
November 14, he died of tetanus.
ISSUE: WON there was an independent intervening avoid the collision. t take into consideration the
cause – NO. NATURE OF HORSES and the ANIMAL NOT BEING
ISSUE: WON there was efficient intervening cause –
ACQUAINTED TO CARS. ligence of Smith: when it
YES.
HELD: the violation of a stature or ordinance is not exposed Picart and pony to danger. This negligence of
rendered remote as the cause of an injury by the Smith was the immediate and determining cause of the
HELD: The death must be the direct, natural, and logical
intervention of another agency if the occurrence of the accident and the antecedent negligence of Picart was a
consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the
accident, in the manner in which it happened, was the more remote factor
accused. The medical findings, in the case at bar, show
very thing which the stature or ordinance was intended -Applied the LCCD and made the defendant liable
that the infection of the wound by the tetanus was an
to prevent. In the present case, the violation was a effacing intervening cause later or between the time
continuing violation in that the ordinance was a measure
of safety designed to prevent the specific situation of
undue crowding in case of evacuation.
Javier was wounded to the time of death.
CLASS NOT E
Important: there should be a sequence of
Bustamante v CA
specifically identify the violation itself as the PC. Was there expert testimony here or did they
use RIL?-no discussion in the case
- Practical importance of LCCD
CLASS NOT ES 4. Last Clear Chance • The negligent defendant is held liable to a
negligent plaintiff, or even to a plaintiff who has
been grossly negligent in placing himself in
Rule: if the injury was caused by an act which
the statute violated tended to prevent, the
violation of the statute can be considered
CLASS NOT ES peril, if he, aware of the plaintiff’s peril, or
should have been aware of it in the reasonable
negligence per se and is the proximate cause. Take note of the definition of last clear chance exercise of due care, had in fact had an
But this is only of limited application and is not in all the cases. opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to
yet settled. avoid an accident
Effects of violation of statute is not settled. It Picart v Smith FACTS: Collision between a truck and a bus when the
bus tried to overtake a hand tractor. Bus saw that the
can be: a) negligence per se, b) prima facie
*Provides for the classic definition of Last Clear Chance: truck’s wheels were wiggling and that truck was heading
proof of negligence, c) rebuttable proof of
the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the towards his lane. Still, bus driver did not mind and
negligence, d) proof of negligence
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 33
instead applied more speed. Thus, many were killed FACTS: Dionisio was on his way home from a cocktails Nature of negligent act should determine
and injured. Victims’ heirs filed this case to claim and dinner-meeting when he collided with the dumptruck liability, not sequence of events
damages from bus and truck of Phoenix which was parked askew at the side of the Does the last clear chance doctrine still stand?
road. Thus, Dionisio filed an action for damages against Yes, because it was still used in later cases
RATIO: Last Clear Chance Doctrine: negligence of the Phoenix. Phoenix invoked the Last Clear Chance
plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence Doctrine: Dionisio had the Last Clear Chance of
Phoenix-1987, PBC-1997: appreciably later in
of the defendant where it appears that the defendant, by avoiding the accident and so Dionisio, having failed to time
exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have take the last clear chance, must bear his own injuries
avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff alone Philippine Bank of Commerce v CA
notwithstanding the plaintiff’s negligence. The practical - apply the last Clear Chance Doctrine when fault or
import (stated above) provides that negligent defendant RATIO: The Last Clear Chance doctrine of the negligence is difficult to attribute
shall be liable to negligent plaintiff. Thus, the LCCD Common Law was imported into our jurisdiction by
does not arise where the passenger demands Picart vs. Smith but it is still a matter of debate whether, FACTS: RMC had an account in PBC and Secretary of
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual or to what extent, it has found its way into the Civil Code RMC was tasked to deposit its money. However, it
obligations. The doctrine also cannot be extended into of the Philippines. The doctrine was applied by turns out that the Secretary would leave blank the
the field of joint tortfeasors as a test whether one of Common Law because they had a rule that contributory duplicate copy of the deposit slip where the bank’s teller
them should be liable to the injured person. So, the negligence prevented any recovery at all by a negligent would validate it. Instead of writing the account number
doctrine cannot apply in this case because this is NOT a plaintiff. BUT in the Philippines we have Article 2179 of of the company in the original copy retained by the
suit between owners and drivers but a suit brought by the Civil Code which rejects the Common Law doctrine bank, Secretary would write the account number of
the heirs of the deceased passengers against both of contributory negligence. Thus, the court in this case husband. Thus, RMC’s funds were now in Secretary’s
owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles stated that it does not believe so that the general husband’s account. RMC discovered this after 7 yers
- did not apply LCCD concept of Last Clear Chance has been utilized in our and then filed a case against PBC to return its money
jurisdiction. Article 2179 on contributory negligence is
CLASS N O T E S ()
not an exercise in chronology or physics but what is
important is the negligent act or omission of each party
and the character and gravity of the risks created by
RATIO: PBC was negligent when its employee, teller,
validated a blank duplicate copy of the deposit slip.
PBC was also lackadaisical in its selection and
Last clear chance contemplates a series of supervision on the teller since it never knew that blank
negligent acts. such act or omission for the rest of the community. To
say that Phoenix should be absolved from liability would deposit slips were validated until this incident . Court
The definition of last clear chance in the case come close to wiping out the fundamental law that a also applied Last Clear Chance Doctrine in saying that
of Bustamante is deemed to be the common man must respond for the foreseeable consequences of PBC was really negligent.
definition (from the point of view of recovery of his own negligent act or omission. LAST CLEAR CHANCE
plaintiff) and is defined as an exception to a -LCCD was not applied because the court thinks • Aka supervening negligence or discovered
rule. that it is not applicable in our jurisdiction peril
The doctrine of last clear chance would apply • Where both parties are negligent, but the
even if the plaintiff is grossly negligent.
Exceptions, however, include joint tortfeasors
(according to Americn Jurisprudence).
CLASS NOT ES
negligent act of one is appreciably later in time
than that of the other, or when it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence should be
The issue on the element of foreseeability:
Last clear chance cannot apply when there are: attributed to the incident, the one who had the
There is no general concept of last clear
1) contractual relations, 2) joint tortfeasors, 3) last clear opportunity to avoid the impending
chance. Rather, what is more important is the
concurrent negligence harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the
nature, not the order of events. In last clear
consequence thereof
chance, timing is of the essence.
Phoenix Construction v IAC The bank had the last clear opportunity to avert the
In the case at hand, the truck driver’s parking injury incurred by its client, simply by faithfully observing
- basis for saying that there is doubt in the application of askew led to an increased diligence for the their self-imposed validation procedure. Still, court said
the Last Clear Chance Doctrine because of Art. 2179. driver of the car. court should allocate risks that RMC was also negligent in not checking its monthly
However, the statements made on the Last Clear (policy of consideration) statements of account. Applied 2179 of CC on
Chance Doctrine were merely obiter Historical function of last clear chance: mitigate contributory negligence. 60-40 ratio! 40% of the
harshness of doctrine of contributory damages shall be borne by RMC; 60% by PBC
negligence
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 34
-applied LCCD in knowing whether PBC was - Thus, this ruling would clearly apply to exonerate existence of the peril or should, with exercise of due
negligent truck driver care, have been aware of it
- did not apply the doctrine of last clear chance • In this case, jeepney driver did not know of the
CLASS NOT ES
because the other party was not negligent impending danger because he must have assumed
that the bus driver will return to its own lane upon
Elements: 1) 2 parties negligent, 2) appreciable
time bet. 2 negligent acts and it is impossible to CLASS NOT ES
seeing the jeepney approaching from the opposite
direction
- Court said that the doctrine can never apply where the
determine whose fault or negligence caused How did the case of Glan People’s Lumber
injury party charged is required to act instantaneously and if
affect the case of Phoeix? In the case of Glan, the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all
Problem: overlaps with doctrine of concurrent last clear chance was deemed to be a valid
negligence means at hand after the peril is or should have been
defense. discovered
Glan People’s Lumber & Hardware v IAC • In this case, Pantranco bus was speeding and at
the speed of the approaching bus prevented
jeepney driver from swerving to avoid collision
- may be used as basis against the ruling made on Last
Clear Chance Doctrine in the case of Phoenix • Jeepney driver had NO opportunity to avoid it
- Sole and proximate cause of the accident:
FACTS Pantranco’s driver in encroaching into the lane of the
• jeep and cargo truck collided incoming jeepney and in failing to return the bus to its
own lane immediately upon seeing the jeepney
• jeepney driver came from a beach party
coming from the opposite direction
• jeep was zigzagging Pantranco North express Inc v Baesa
• cargo truck was staying on his lane because the line - did not apply LCCD because there was no
in the road was wrongly painted - awareness and opportunity opportunity to avoid the accident and the jeepney
• case filed by heirs of the driver of the jeep who died driver was not aware of the peril.
as a result of the collision FACTS:
RATIO:
- The truck driver was not negligent and so cannot be
• Passenger jeepney and Pantranco bus collided when
Pantranco bus encroached on the jeepney’s lane
• Heirs of passengers in jeepney who died filed this
CLASS NOT E
held liable. Furthermore, the doctrine of Last Clear case against Pantranco Do not apply last clear chance under the
Chance also cannot apply because there is no emergency rule
• Pantranco wants the court to apply the doctrine of
negligence of the other party Last Clear Chance against the jeepney driver saying Important: memorize emergency rule
- Even assuming that the truck driver was negligent, the that the jeepney driver had the last clear chance in
doctrine of Last Clear Chance would still absolve him avoiding the collision. Ong v Metropolitan Water District
from any actionable responsibility for the accident
because both drivers had full view of each other’s RATIO: -Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied in this
vehicle. - Generally, the last clear chance doctrine is invoked for case because there was no negligence on the part of
• The truck stopped 30 m away from the jeep and so by the purpose of making a defendant liable to a plaintiff the Metropolitan Water District
this time, the jeep should have stopped or swerved who was guilty of prior or antecedent negligence,
• Jeep driver had the last clear chance to avoid the although it may also be raised as a defense to defeat FACTS
accident claim for damages • Kid drowned in one of the pools of Metropolitan Water
• It was the jeep’s driver who had the duty to seize the - Thus, Pantranco raises the doctrine in order to District
opportunity of avoidance and not merely rely on a escape liability • Reason why the kid drowned is unknown
supposed right to expect that the truck would swerve - However, the court said that the doctrine of last clear • Employees of the Metropolitan Water District acted as
and leave him a clear path chance cannot be applied in this case! soon as calls for help were heard and tried to revive
- The doctrine of Last Clear Chance provides a valid - For the doctrine to be applicable, it is necessary to the kid but he still died
and complete defense to accident liability today as it show that the person who allegedlty had the last • Case filed by parents of kid who drowned claiming
did when invoked and applied in the 1918 case of opportunity to avert the accident was aware of the damages against Metropolitan Water District
Picart vs. Smith, which involved a similar state of facts
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 35
• Parents of kid claim that Metropolitan Water District truck was guilty of greater negligence which was the • ASB was negligent in not exerting more effort to verify
may still be held liable for the doctrine of Last Clear efficient cause of the collision the identity of the sps Canlas
Chance because it had the last opportunity to save • The Bank should have required additional proof of the
the kid RATIO: true identity of the impostor aside from their residence
• Disagreed with the CA and held that both the truck certificate
RATIO: and jeepney were liable • Applied the doctrine of Last Clear Chance which
• There is sufficient evidence to show that Metropolitan • The principle of Last Clear Chance would call for the states that:
Water District had taken all necessary precautions to application in a suit between the owners and drivers • Where both parties are negligent but the negligent
avoid danger to the lives of its patron or prevent of the 2 colliding vehicles. It does NOT arise where a act of one is appreciable later in a point of time that
accidents which may cause their deaths passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to that of the other, or where it is impossible to
• Doctrine of Last Clear Chance: negligence of a enforce its contractual obligations. determine whose fault or negligence brought about
claimant does not preclude recovery for the • For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the
negligence of the defendant where it appears that the driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm
latter, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence but failed to do so, is chargeable with the
might have avoided injurious consequences to - did not apply LCCD because there was a consequences arising therefrom
claimant notwithstanding his negligence contractual obligation on the part of the carrier to • In this case, ASB had the last clear chance to prevent
• The Last Clear Chance doctrine can never apply transport its passengers safely fraud, by simple expedient of faithfully complying with
where the party charged is required to act the requirements of banks to ascertain the identity of
instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided the persons transacting with them
by the application of all means at hand after the peril • For not observing the degree of diligence required of
is or should have been discovered. banking institutions, ASB has to bear the loss sued
• In this case, it was unknown how the kid got into the upon
pool and whether the kid violated one of the
regulations of Metropolitan Water District because he -applied the LCCD
went unaccompanied. It also appears that the
lifeguard responded to the call for held and
immediately made all efforts to resuscitate the kid Canlas v CA
• There is no room in this case for the application of the
doctrine! -Last Clear Chance Doctrine can apply in commercial
transactions
CLASS NOT ES
The Canlas sps. were negligent in giving their
LCCD not applied because no negligence on the title to the property to Mañosca.
part of Metropolitan Water District was proven FACTS:
With regard to the special power of attorney:
• 2 parcels of land owned by Canlas were sold to
the SPA given to Mañosca was to mortgage so
Anuran v Buno Manosca
the presence of the Canlas sps. was actually
• Manosca issued 2 check that bounced
not a requirement.
FACTS: • Manosca was then granted a loan by Asian Savings
Was there really negligence on the part of the
• A passenger jeepney was parked at the side of the Bank with the 2 parcels of land as security
bank even if Manosca had an SPA and the
road since one of the passengers alighted • 2 impostors used who introduced themselves as the land title?
• A motor truck, speeding, then bumped into the spouses Canlas
In Canlas, the Court talked about 2 definitions-
jeepney from behind with such violence that 3 • mortgage was foreclosed short and long: take note of these
passengers died • Canlas wrote to Asian Savings Bank regarding the
• Thus, this case was filed by the heirs of the deceased mortgage of Manosca of the 2 properties without their Consolidated Bank & Trust Corporation v CA
and of the injured to recover damages from the driver consent
and owner of the truck and the owner of the jeepney • Canlas filed this case for annulment of the deed of - Last Clear Chance Doctrine is NOT applicable in
• CA: applied the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance and real estate mortgage against ASB culpa contractual
held that only the truck was liable because although
the jeepney was guilty of antecedent negligence, the RATIO: FACTS:
• LC Diaz had a savings account with Solidbank.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 36
• After messenger of LC Diaz deposited amount, it took • Defense of Isuzu: invoked Last Clear Chance
so long so he had to leave the passbook
• Turns out that the passbook was given to somebody
else (not the messenger or any employee of LC Diaz)
CLASS NOT E
Doctrine
• SC: The doctrine of last clear chance states that a
person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of
Implied that the last clear chance doctrine is
and was able to withdraw P300,000.00 from its not applicable to culpa contractual avoiding the accident, notwithstanding the negligent
account. acts of his opponent, is considered in law solely
• Thus, LC Diaz filed this case for the recovery of sum responsible for the consequences of the accident
of money against Solidbank Engada v CA - However, no convincing evidence was adduced to
• CA: found that Solidbank was negligent and it had the support this defense
last clear chance to avoid the injury if it had only - Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied; instead - Furthermore, the doctrine cannot be applied
called up LC Diaz to verify the withdrawal applied the emergency rule. because there was no time or opportunity to ponder
- Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied because the situation at all. There was no clear chance to
RATIO: there was no clear chance –emergency situation. speak of
• In this case, Solidbank is liable for breach of contract • Thus, driver of Isuzu guilty!
due to negligence or culpa contractual FACTS - did not apply LCCD because no clear chance
• The bank is under the obligation to treat the accounts • Iran driving a tamaraw jeepney
of its depositors with meticulous care, always having • In the other lane was an isuzu pick-up that was 1 Sangco, (pp. 74-81)
in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. speeding.
However, in this case, they failed to do this. • Right signal light was flashing but swerved to the left The Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
• Solidbank was supposed to return the passbook only and encroached on the lane of tamaraw jeepney Also known as the doctrine of discovered peril,
to the depositor or his authorized representative, but • Tamaraw jeepney tried to avoid the Isuzu pick-up but doctrine of supervening negligence, humanitarian
here, Solidbank through teller gave it to someone else Isuzu pick-ip swerved to where tamaraw jeepney was doctrine, doctrine of gross negligence
• Solidbank breached its contractual obligation to return going and so they collided The negligence of the plaintiff does not
the passbook only to the authorized representative of • Information was then filed against the driver of the preclude a recovery for the negligence of the
LC Diaz Isuzu pick-up charging him with serious physical defendant where it appears that the defendant, by
• Thus, Solidbank was negligent in not returning the injuries and damage to property through reckless exercising reasonable care and prudence, might
imprudence have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff
passbook to messenger of LC Diaz proximate
notwithstanding the plaintiff’s negligence.
cause
RATIO: A negligent defendant is held liable to a
• CA wrongly applied the doctrine of last clear chance…
• It was the Isuzu pick-up truck’s negligence that was negligent plaintiff or even to a plaintiff who has been
• Last Clear Chance Doctrine is not applied in this case grossly negligent in placing himself in peril, if he,
because Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due the proximate cause of the collision
- Isuzu abandoned his lane and did not first see to it aware of the plaintiff’s peril, or according to some
to negligence in the performance of contractual authorities, should have been aware of it in the
obligation to LC Diaz that the opposite lane was free from on-coming
traffic and was available for safe passage. reasonable exercise of due care, had in fact an
• This case of culpa contractual, where neither the opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an
contributory negligence of plaintiff nor his last clear - After seeing the tamaraw, Isuzu did not slow down
• Iran, tamaraw driver, could not be faulted when he accident.
chance to avoid the loss, would exonerate the 1. As a phase of proximate cause principle
defendant from liability swerved to the lane of Isuzu to the lane of Isuzu to
avoid collision The doctrine of last clear chance negatives an
• Such contributory negligence or last clear chance by essential element of the defense of contributory
the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery of • Isuzu driver’s acts had put tamaraw driver in an
emergency situation which forced him to act quickly negligence by rendering plaintiff’s negligence a
damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the mere condition or remote cause of the accident.
defendant from his breach of contract • EMERGENCY RULE: an individual who suddenly
finds himself in a situation of danger and is required to The failure to avoid injuring a person occupying
act without much time to consider the best means that a position of peril may be a supervening cause.
LC Diaz guilty of contributory negligence in allowing 2. Elements and conditions of doctrine
withdrawal slip signed by its authorized signatories to may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, it not
guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what Facts required:
fall into the hands of an impostor and so liability of o That the plaintiff was in a position of
Solidbank should be reduced.—40-60 subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a
better solution, unless the emergency was brought by danger and by his own negligence became
his own negligence unable to escape from such position by the use
- LCCD not applied
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 37
of ordinary care, either because it became Between the defendants, the doctrine cannot Philippine RMC (one of Yes Just to know
physically impossible for him to do so or be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a Bank of the parties if PBC was
because he was totally unaware of the danger. test of whether only one of them should be held Commerce v who caused negligent
o The defendant knew that the plaintiff liable to the injured person by reason of his CA the accident) but
was in a position of danger and further knew, discovery of the latter’s peril and it cannot be damages
or in the exercise of ordinary care should have invoked as between defendants concurrently were divided
known that the plaintiff was unable to escape negligent. 40-60
therefrom LCC applies in a suit between the owners and Glan v IAC Heirs of the No Truck driver
o That thereafter the defendant had the drivers of colliding vehicles. It does not arise where driver of the (other party
last clear chance to avoid the accident by the a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier jeep (one of in the
exercise of ordinary care but failed to exercise to enforce its contractual obligations. the parties collision)
such last clear chance and the accident who caused was not
occurred as a proximate result of such failure Summary on Last Clear Chance the collision) negligent
To state a cause of action, the pleader must - The Last Clear Chance Doctrine Pantranco v Heirs of the No There was
disclose: renders plaintiff’s contributory negligence as a mere Baesa passengers no
o The exposed condition brought about condition of jeepney opportunity
by the negligence of plaintiff or the injured party - Invoked by the plaintiff (no contract) to avoid the
o The actual discovery by the defendant - Cannot be invoked by joint tortfeasors accident and
of the perilous situation of the person or Case Plaintiff WON Why? driver was
property injured in time to avert injury applied not aware of
o Defendant’s failure thereafter to the the peril
exercise ordinary care to avert the injury LCCD Ong v Parents of No Defendant
Picart vs. Picart (one YES Smith had a Metropolitan the was not
3. Parties who invoke doctrine Smith of the parties clear deceased negligent
who caused opportunity Anuran v Heirs of the No There was
Many courts take the view that the doctrine of
the collision) to avoid the Buno passengers contractual
last clear chance is not available to defendant. of jeep (with relation
accident
LCC can only be invoked in favor of the person contract)
Bustamante Passengers NO No
injured, since it implies contributory negligence on Canlas v CA Canals (one Yes Defendant
his part, and is, generally speaking, only operative Picart v Picart (one Yes Smith had
Smith of the clear of the bank had
in those cases where, notwithstanding the injured parties who the last clear
person’s want of care, another person wantonly, or parties who opportunity
caused the to avoid the caused the chance to
with knowledge of the perilous situation of the incident) – prevent the
person injured carelessly or recklessly injured him. collision) accident
Bustamante v Passengers No No negligent for the fraud
The doctrine embraces successive acts of annulment Note: there
CA of the bus plaintiff
negligence: primary negligence on the part of the of the deed was no
because the
defendant then contributory negligence on the part contractual
plaintiff in
of the plaintiff which creates a situation of relation
the case are
inextricable peril to him and then becomes passive between
the
or static followed by the subsequent negligence of Canlas and
passengers
the defendant in failing to avoid injury to the plaintiff. the bank
of the bus
Although the defendant may not invoke the Consolidated LC Diaz – No Liability of
who are
doctrine, it does not preclude him from proving that Bank v CA for the bank arose
asking for
the plaintiff had the last clear opportunity to avert recovery of from culpa
damages
the injury complained of and thus establish that the the sum of contractual
Phoenix v Phoenix No Doctrine
plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence which money and so
IAC (one of the was not
proximately caused the accident and consequently doctrine
parties who carried over
bars plaintiff’s recovery. cannot be
caused the to the CC
collision) applied
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 38
Engada v CA Inured party No There was A. Possessor of animals Remote control argument does not lie. This is a
(owner of no clear strict liability case.
the chance in Art. 2183, NCC Does it matter if the dog is tame? No. Law
Tamaraw) avoiding the The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use covers even tame animals as long as they
accident of the same is responsible for the damage which it may produce injury
because it cause, although it may escape or be lost. This
was an responsibility shall cease only in case the damage Dog follows the house: accessory follows the
should come from force majeure or from the fault of the principal (so would a rat living in the house
emergency
person who has suffered damage. make the house owners liable if the rat bites a
situation
guest and causes the latter’s death?)
CLASS NOT E
diligence in the selection or supervision of the plaintiff's
fellow worker.
Sunday, he did not do so in pursuance of his
employment, and his employer is not liable for any injury
sustained by him.
Is A2193,CC applicable in this case? Prof.
Casis seems to believe otherwise since A2193
speaks of the liability of a head of family when
a structure or similar object falls off the balcony FACTS:
Afable v Singer Sewing Machine
CLASS NOT E
CLASS NOT ES
some risk or hazard to which the employee is exposed
in a special degree by reason of such employment.
Risks to which all persons similarly situated are equally
Consumer Act
Who is liable? Employers, owners of Art. 97. Liability for the Defective Products. - Any
establishment exposed and not traceable in some special degree to Filipino or foreign manufacturer, producer, and any
Who are they liable to? Laborers, employees the particular employment are excluded. importer, shall be liable for redress, independently of
Under what conditions? Death or illness arising -As a general rule an employee is not entitled to recover fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects
out of the course of employment from personal injuries resulting from an accident that resulting from design, manufacture, construction,
befalls him while going to or returning from his place of assembly and erection, formulas and handling and
employment, because such an accident does no arise making up, presentation or packing of their products, as
Art. 1712 If the death or injury is due to the negligence
out of and in the course of his employment. well as for the insufficient or inadequate information on
of a fellow worker, the latter and the employer shall be
-If the deceased saw fit to change his residence from the use and hazards thereof.
solidarily liable for compensation. If a fellow worker's
San Francisco del Monte to Manila and to make use a
intentional malicious act is the only cause of the death
bicycle in going back and forth, he did so at his own risk,
or injury, the employer shall not be answerable, unless it
as the defendant company did not furnish him a bicycle
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 40
A product is defective when it does not offer the safety established in the pertinent provisions of this Act. ( f ) The using by any person to his own advantage, or
rightfully expected of it, taking relevant circumstances However, if the damage is caused by a component or revealing, other than to the Secretary or officers or
into consideration, including but not limited to: part incorporated in the product or service, its employees of the Department or to the courts when
(a) presentation of product; manufacturer, builder or importer and the person who relevant in any judicial proceeding under this Act, any
(b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it; incorporated the component or part are jointly liable. information acquired under authority of Section nine, or
(c) the time it was put into circulation. concerning any method or process which as a trade
Art. 107. Penalties. secret is entitled to protection.
A product is not considered defective because another Any person who shall violate any provision of this (g) The alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration,
better quality product has been placed in the market. Chapter or its implementing rules and regulations with or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of, or
respect to any consumer product which is not food, the doing of any other act with respect to, a food, drug,
The manufacturer, builder, producer or importer shall cosmetic, or hazardous substance shall upon conviction, device, or cosmetic, if such act is done while such article
not be held liable when it evidences: be subject to a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos is held for sale (whether or not the first sale) and results
(P5,000.00) and by imprisonment of not more that one in such article being adulterated or misbranded.
(a) that it did not place the product on the market; (1) year or both upon the discretion of the court. (h) The use, on the labeling of any drug or in any
(b) that although it did place the product on the advertising relating to such drug, of any representation
market such product has no defect; In case of judicial persons, the penalty shall be imposed or suggestion that an application with respect to such
(c) that the consumer or a third party is solely at upon its president, manager or head. If the offender is drug is effective under Section twenty-one hereof, or
fault. an alien, he shall, after payment of fine and service of that such drug complies with the provisions of such
sentence, be deported without further deportation section.
Art. 99. Liability for Defective Services. - The service proceedings. (i) The use, in labeling, advertising or other sales
supplier is liable for redress, independently of fault, for promotion of any reference to any report or analysis
damages caused to consumers by defects relating to furnished in compliance with Section twenty-six hereof.
the rendering of the services, as well as for insufficient CHAPTER VI. Prohibited Acts and Penalties (RA3720
or inadequate information on the fruition and hazards – Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
thereof.
CLASS NOT ES
Can last clear chance apply? Wasn’t it
Guilatco’s fault that she was negligent in
alighting a tricycle? No because it is under
strict liability.
Sir said it is wise to apply this to the case of
PLDT and the accident mound case (DACARA)