Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,956|Likes:
Published by cmv mendoza
A2010 legendary digests ^_^ from the work, effort, and money (from fines) of Class A2010. Go go go!
A2010 legendary digests ^_^ from the work, effort, and money (from fines) of Class A2010. Go go go!

More info:

Published by: cmv mendoza on May 05, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





)o PAGE 1
C L A S S N O T E STorts:
not defined in the NCC nor in any Philippine LawBUT many scattered provisions on tortuous acts-usually defines as: (1) what it is not; (2) remediesgranted; (3) social/public policy protected
much longer treatment in the NCC; morepractical importance on damagesPractical Legal Relevance: vehicular accidents
Intentional tort:
not a delict (any act or omissionpunishable by law)Why? Intentional act causing damage to another, not acrime
intentional, voluntary-damage-may or may not violate a crime
any act or omission causing damage toanother but w/o intent (only difference w/intentional tort)
Strict liability:
it doesn’t matter if you’re negligent or if you intended it as long as sets of circumstances makeyou liable
A. Definitions1. Tort and Quasi-delicta. TortNaguiat v NLRC
Naguiat is the president and a stockholder of Clark Field Taxi, Inc. (CFT). Due to the phase-out of theUS bases in the country, Clark Air Base was closed andthe taxi drivers of CFTI were separated from service.The drivers filed a complaint for the payment of sep. paydue to the termination/phase-out. NLRC held Naguiatand the company solidarily liable for the payment of sep.pay.
WON Naguait should be held solidarily liablewith CFTI. YES.
Under the Corporation Code, Naguait is liablebec: (1) he actively managed the business; (2) therewas evidence that CFTI obtained reasonably adequateinsurance; and (3) there was a corporate tort in thiscase.Our jurisprudence is wanting to the definite scope of “corporate tort.”
Essentially, “tortconsists in theviolation of a right given or the omission of a dutyimposed by law. Simply stated, it is a breach of legalduty.
in regards to liability of Presidentof CFTI: no definition of corporate tort2 definitions: long and short (legal basis)
Short definition:
from a law dictionaryWhat’s wrong with the definition in Naguiat?
. Any breach of legal duty becomes a tort (so itwould include crimes, QD, breach of contract)…very sloppy definition but it’s the only case thatdefines TortWhy SC gave definition of Tort? They had to determinethe liability of the officers (Naguiat) so is it part of theratio of the case? NO. Obiter. They already found CFTIliable under the Labor Code so SC did not need toestablish liability through tort
AQUINO (pp. 1-2)Tort:
taken directly from the French and is derivation of the Latin word “torquere” meaning “to twist”-common law: an unlawful violation of private right, notcreated by contract, and which gives rise to an action for damages-an act or omission producing an injury to another,without any previous existing lawful relation of which thesaid act or omission may be said to be a naturaloutgrowth or incident (other definitions not discussed)-no universal formula for torts liability-includes intentional tort, negligence, and strict liability
*Intentional tort:
includes conduct where the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act or believes the consequences are substantially certain toresult from it.-includes assault, batter, false imprisonment,defamation, invasion of privacy and interference of property
involves voluntary acts or omissionswhich result in injury to others, without intending tocause the same-actor fails to exercise due care in performing such actsor omissions
*Strict Liability:
where the person is made liableindependent of fault or negligence upon submission of proof of certain facts
DE LEON (pp. 1-3)Tort:
common law expression-used in French to mean “wrong”, derived from Latin“tortus” meaning twisted, as if to say tortuous conduct istwisted conduct or conduct that departs from the existingnorm- a legal wrong that causes harm for which the violator issubject to civil liability-fundamental concept of tort: wrongful act or omission +resulting in breach of a private legal duty (distinguishedfrom a mere breach of contractual duty) + damage fromsaid breach of duty (of such character as to afford aright of redress at law in favor of the injured partyagainst the wrongdoer)Note (explained definition in Naguiat vs. NLRC): theterm “tort” used by SC has same meaning as tort incommon law jurisdictions, as it was used in casesinvolving QD and delicts
Tortious act:
a wrongful act-commission or omission of duty of an act by one,without right, whereby another receives some injury,directly or indirectly, in person, property, or reputation(74 Am. Jur. 2d 620)
Essence of tort:
defendant’s potential for civil liability tothe victim for harmful wrongdoing and correspondinglythe victim’s potential fro compensation or other relief 
b. Quasi-delict
Art. 2176, NCC
Whoever by act or omission causes damage toanother, there being fault or negligence, is obliged topay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence,if there is no pre-existing contractual relationbetween the parties, is called a quasi-delict and isgoverned by the provisions of this Chapter.
)o PAGE 2
A 2176 explanation:
First sentence refers to ALL CIVILLIABILITIES. Second sentence limits QD.
Barredo v Garcia
A Head-on collision between a taxi andcarretela resulted in the death of a 16-yr old boy whowas a passenger of the carretela. The taxi driver wasconvicted in a crim case but the right to file a sep civilaction was reserved. The parents of the boy suedBarredo, the driver’s employer for damages. Barredocontends that under the RPC, his liability is onlysubsidiary, hence he cannot be held liable as no civilaction has been filed against the driver.ISSUE: WON the plaintiffs, may bring this separate civilaction against Barredo, making him primarily liable asemployer under the CC. YES.
HELD: The same negligent act causing damage mayproduce civil liability arising from a crim under theRPC or create an action for quasi-delict under theCC.
Thus, there were 2 liabilities of Barredo: asubsidiary one arising from the driver’s crim negligencend a primary one as employer under the CC. Theplaintiffs were free to choose which course to take, andthey preferred the second remedy. They were actingwithin their rights in doing so.
C L A S S N O T E S-during that time, culpa aquiliana (QD) doesn’t cover acts against law?
A1903, old CC expressly excludeacts not punishable by law
-SC needed to have very strong reason not to followwhat the old law says because if A1903 applied literallythere would be no culpa aquiliana, if read together withRPC (all acts would be under criminal negligence andimprudence)-so in this case,
emphasize scope of culpa aquilianaand delict
; why needed? Barredo was arguing that hewas not solidarily liable and should only be subsidiarilyliable-if applied today, would the result be the same? YESthrough stare decisis + QD definition changed, removedphrase “not punishable by law”
Elcano v Hill
In criminal case where Reginald Hill wascharged with the killing of Agapito Elcano, the former was acquitted for “lack of intent to kill, coupled withmistake.” The deceased’s parents thereafter suedReginald and his father for dmages. CFI dismissed thecivil cases on the ground of res judicata.
WON the civil action for damages is barred byHill’s acquittal in the crim case. NO.
Hill’s acquittal in the crim case has notextinguished his liability for QD, hence the acquittal isnot a bar to the instant civil action.
Art. 2176 where it refers to “fault or negligence,”covers not only acts “not punishable by law” butalso acts criminal in character, whether intentionaland voluntary or negligent.
C L A S S N O T E S-why make intentional acts under QD? To make father and son liable-
A 2177, NCC
expressly points out that there’s aseparate civil liability from criminal negligence BUT itseems to apply to QD only so court dealt with thislimitation by upholding the construction that upholds
“the spirit that giveth life rather than that which isliteral that killeth the intent of the lawmaker”
(A2176is not just QD, so A2177 really has no problem)
Cinco v Canonoy
Cinco’s car and a eepney collided. Cinco filed acivil action for damage to property against the eepney’sdriver and operators. Thereafter, he also filed a crimcase against the eepney driver. CFI upheld thesuspension of the civil case pending the determinationof the crim case.
WON there can be an independent civil actionfor damage to property during the pendency of thecriminal action. YES.
Liability being predicated on a QD, the civil casemay proceed as a separate and independent civil actionas specifically provided for in Art. 2177 of the CC.
Art. 2176 of the CC is so broad that it includes notonly injuries to persons but also damage toproperty. It makes no distinction bet. Damage topersons and damage to property.
C L A S S N O T E SRelevance: clarified that QD includes damage toproperty (same highlight in reviewer)Problem:
A2191(2) gave example where QD anddamage to property
[liability of proprietors of excessivesmoke]; but this is a Tort on STRICT LIABILITY, not QD!
Baksh v CA
Baksh was sued for damages for his breach of promise to marry. CA affirmed TC’s award of damages,relying on Art. 21 CC.
WON damages may be recovered for a breachof promise to marry based on Art. 21 of the CC. YES.
Art. 21 may be applied in a breach of promise tomarry where the woman is a victim of moral seduction.Art. 21 is designed to expand the concept of torts or QDin this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold no. of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish inthe statute books.
Art. 2176 which defined a QD is limited to negligentacts or omissions and excludes the notion of willingness or intent. Torts is much broader thanculpa aquiliana bec. it includes not only negligence,but intentional criminal acts as well.
C L A S S N O T E Sso what’s correct? Include or not to include intentionalacts? In Baksh, Davide showed role of A21, so helimited A2176 to negligent acts or omissions.
A2176discussion is not necessary for the disposition of the case (OBITER) THEREFORE, QD still includesintentional acts!
***Issue: WON QD covers intentional acts or not? If itcovers intentional acts..Fr litigation pt of view: it doesn’t matter 
)o PAGE 3
Fr academic pt of view: it matters!
2. Damages
AQUINO (pp. 842-843)
-Reason behind the NCC Title on Damages: to see to itthat whenever a right is transgressed, every manner of loss or injury is compensated for in some way or another.-A2195, NCC: provisions on damages are applicable toall obligations regardless of source (delict, QD, contract,or quasi-contract).-A2196: rules under title of damages are w/o prejudiceto special provisions on damages provided elsewhere inthe Code.-A2198: principles of general law on damages areadopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with theNCC.-Indemnity has to be proportionate to the fault and to theloss caused thereby.-In actions for damages, courts should award an amount(money value) to the winning party and not its equivalentin property.
SANCO, (pp. 940-941)Basis of Law:
introduced in NCC mostly from AmericanLaw since they were either not expressly recognized or rarely allowed under old code, particularly on subject of moral damages
Scope of applicability of provisions on damages:
applicable to all obligations arising from sourcesenumerated in A1157, NCC, without prejudice to specialprovisions on damages formulated elsewhere in saidcode.-don’t apply to compensation of workmen and other employees in cases of death, injury or illness-in other special laws: same rules observed insofar asnot in conflict with Civil Code
Concept of damages:Damages:
the sum of money which the law awards or imposes as pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury done or a wrong sustained as aconsequence of a breach of a contractual obligation or atortious act-pecuniary consequences which law imposes for breachof some duty or violation of some right.
compensatory, punitie, liquidated damages(damages recoverable upon breach of a contract, asstipulated by the parties), nominal damages (given invindication of a breach of duty which does not result inany actual or pecuniary damages)
Damage, damages, injury: material distinctionsInjury:
Illegal invasion of a legal right
loss, hurt, or harm which results from aninjury; in a popular sense, it is the depreciation in value,regardless if caused by a wrongful or legal act; asdefined by statutes providing for damages: actionableloss, injury or harm which results from unlawful act,omission or negligence of another -not synonymous to example, fine, penalty, punishment,revenge, discipline, chastisement
recompense or compensation awarded for damages suffered.
Pecuniary loss:
loss of money or something by whichmoney or something of money value may be acquired
People v Ballesteros
Ballesteros et al were convicted of murder.They were ordered to pay actual, compensatory, andmoral damages to the heirs of the deceased.
WON damages were correctly awarded. YES
may be defined as the pecuniarycompensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injurysustained, or as otherwise expressed, the pecuniaryconsequences which the law imposes for the breach of some duty or the violation of some right.
are those awardedin satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injurysustained. The party claiming such must present thebest evidence available such as receipts.
may be invoked when the complainanthas experienced mental anguish, serious anxiety,physical suffering, moral shock and so forth, and hadfurthermore shown that these were the proximate resultof the offender’s wrongful act or omission.
Custodio v CA
Custodio et al built an adobe fence making thepassageway to Mabasa’s apartment narrower. Mabasafiled a civil action for the grant of easement of right of way against them. CA, aside from granting right of way,awarded damages to Mabasa.
WON award of damages was proper. NO
In the case at bar, although there was damage,there was no legal injury. Custodio et al’s act of constructing a fence within their lot is a valid exercise of their right as owners.
is the illegal invasion of a legal right.
isthe loss, hurt or harm, which results from the injury.
are the recompense or compensationawarded fro the damage suffered. Thus, there can bedamage without injury in those instances in which theloss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legalduty. These situations are often called
damnumabsque injuria
. In such cases, the consequences mustbe borne by the injured person alone.
b. Damnum absque injuria
AQUINO (pp. 843-845)
-“There is no liability even if there is damage becausethere was no injury.” Mere damage without injury doesnot result in liability.-A related maxim is
qui jure suo utitir nullum damnumfacit –
one who exercises a right does no injury.
Custodio v CA,
“Thus, there can be damage without injury in thoseinstances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. These situations are oftencalled
damnum absque injuria
B. History and DevelopmentAQUINO (pp.1-5)
“Tort” provisions in our NCC were derived from Spanish,French and Anglo-American Law. Therefore, RP SCborrows heavily from decisions of the Court in other countries especially Spain and US and relies fromannotation of foreign author.

Activity (114)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Alyssa Nezren PM liked this
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
anajuanito liked this
Sonal Kapoor liked this
anajuanito liked this
Kat Pichay liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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