Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
10Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Course Outline - Torts and Damages

Course Outline - Torts and Damages

Ratings: (0)|Views: 587|Likes:
Published by Kent Garcia

More info:

Published by: Kent Garcia on Jun 17, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

07/31/2014

pdf

text

original

 
SAN BEDACOLLEGE OF LAW
 Alabang, Muntinlupa
TORTS AND DAMAGES(1st Semester SY 2012-2013)Textbook : Aquino, T.A., TORTS AND DAMAGES 2
nd
Edition, 2005.COURSE OUTLINECONCEPT OF TORTS; HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF PHILIPPINE LAW ON TORTS
Sangco, pp. XXXI to XLV, pp. 1 to 10 Aquino, pp. 1 to 10 
II.THE CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICTA. Elements
 Article 2176, CCBarredo vs. Garcia, 73 Phil 607Elcano vs. Hill, 77 SCRA 98Cinco vs. Canonoy, 90 SCRA 369Baksh vs. CA, 219 SCRA 115Dulay vs. CA, 243 SCRA 220 (1995)Garcia vs. Florido, 52 SCRA 420 Andamo vs. IAC, 191 SCRA 195Taylor vs. Manila Electric Company, 16 Phil 8Tayag vs. Alcantara, 98 SCRA 723 
B.Distinctions
1.Quasi-delict v. Delic
 Article 2177, CC Article 365, RPCBarredo vs. Garcia, 73 Phil 607Padilla vs. CA, 129 SCRA 558Cruz vs. CA, 282 SCRAPhilippine Rabbit vs. People, GR No. 147703 (2004)People vs. Ligon, 152 SCRA 419 (1987) Aquino, pp 24-26I Sangco, pp. 115-120
2.Quasi-delict v. Breach of contract 
 Articles 1170-1174, CC Article 1174, CC Article 2178, CCCangco vs. Manila Railroad, 38 Phil 768Fores vs. Miranda, 105 Phil 266Far East vs. CA, 241 SCRA 671 Air France vs. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155PSBA vs. CA, 205 SCRA 729Syquia vs. CA, 217 SCRA 624Calalas vs. Sunga, 332 SCRA 356 (2000) Aquino, pp. 25-26
III.NEGLIGENCEA.Concept of Negligence
Definition; Elements
 Article 20, CC Article 1173 CCPicart vs. Smith, 37 Phil 809V. Tolentino, pp. 506-507
2.Standard of Conduc
2.1.
Ordinary prudent person
I Sangco, pp. 7-82.2
Special Cases
Children
 Article 12, RPC & Comprehensive Juvenile Justice LawTaylor vs. Manila Railroad, 16 Phil 8Jarco Marketing vs. CA, GR No. 129792Del Rosario vs. Manila, 57 Phil 478Ylarde vs. Aquino, 163 SCRA 697II Sangco, pp. 7-8
Experts/Professionals
 Article 2187,CCCulion vs. Philippine, GR No. 32611US vs. Pineda, 37 Phil 456BPI vs. CA, 216 SCRA 51
Intoxication
Wright vs. Manila Electric, 28 Phil 122
1
 
Insanity 
 Articles 2180, 2182, CCUS vs. Baggay, 20 Phil 142
A.
Degrees of Negligence
 Article 2231, CCMarinduqe vs. Workmen’s, 99 Phil 48
B.
Proof of Negligence
1.Burden of proo
Rule 131, Rules of Court (“ROC”)
2.Presumption
 Articles 2184-2185, 2188, 1734-1735, CC
3.Res ipsa loquitu
Layugan vs. IAC, 167 SCRA 363Ramos vs. CA, 321 SCRA 584Batiquin vs. CA, 258 SCRA 334DM Consunji vs. CA, 357 SCRA 249
D. Defenses
1.Plaintiffs Negligence
 Article 2179, CCManila Electric vs. Remonquillo, 99 Phil 117 GR No. L-8328 (1956)Bernardo vs. Legaspi, 29 Phil 12Bernal vs. House, 54 Phil 327PLDT vs. CA, GR No 57079, 178 SCRA 94 (September 29, 1989)
1.
Contributory Negligence
 Articles 2179, 2214, CCGenobiagon vs. CA, 178 SCRA 422Rakes vs. Atlantic, GR No 1719 (1907)Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. CA, 269 SCRA 695
3.Fortuitous Even
 Article 1174, CCJuntilla vs. Funtanar, 136 SCRA 624Hernandez vs. COA, 179 SCRA 39Gotesco Investment vs. Chatto, 210 SCRA 18Servando vs. Phil Steam, 117 SCRA 832National Power vs. CA, GR Nos. 103442-45 (1993)Southeastern College vs. CA, GR No. 126389, 292 SCRA 422 (July 10, 1998)
4.Assumption of Ris
 Afialda vs. Hisole, 85 Phil 67Ilocos Norte vs. CA, 179 SCRA 5
5.Due diligence
Ramos vs. Pepsi, 19 SCRA 289Metro Manila vs. CA, 223 SCRA 521
6.Prescription
Kramer vs. CA, 178 SCRA 518 Allied Banking vs. CA, 178 SCRA 526
7.Double recover
 Article 2177, CC
IV. CAUSATIONProximate Cause
1. Definition
Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil 181(L-10126) (1957)Fernando vs. CA, 208 SCRA 714 (92087) (1992)Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1 (L-72964) (1988)Phoenix Construction vs. IAC, 148 SCA 353 (L-652095) (1987)Pilipinas Bank vs. CA, 234 SCRA 435 (105410) (1994)Quezon City vs. Dacara, (150304) (June 15, 2005)
2. Distinguished from other kinds
Remote
 Gabeto vs. Araneta, 42 Phil 252 (15674) (1921)Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1 (L-72964) (1988)
Concurrent
2
 
Far East Shipping vs. CA, 297 SCRA 30 (130068) (1998)Sabido vs. Custodio, L-21512 (Aug 31, 1966)
3.Tests
“But for”
Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil 181
Substantial Factor 
Philippine Rabbit vs. IAC, 189 SCRA 158 (66102-04) (1990)
Cause v. Condition
Phoenix vs. IAC, supraManila Electric vs. Remoquillo, 99 Phil 117 (L-8328) (1956)Rodrigueza vs. Manila Railroad, (15688) (November 19, 1921)
B.Efficient Intervening Cause
McKee vs. IAC, 211 SCRA 517 (68102) (1992)Manila Electric vs. Remoquillo, 99 Phil 117 (L-8328) (1956Teague vs. Fernandez, 51 SCRA 181 (L-29745) (1973)Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1 (L-72964) (1988)
C. Last Clear Chance
 Aquino, pp. 311-329Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil 809Bustamante vs. CA, 193 SCRA 603 (89880) (1991)Phoenix vs. IAC, 148 SCA 353 (L-652095) (1987)Glan vs. IAC, GR No. 70493 (May 18, 1989)Pantranco vs. Baesa, 179 SCRA 384 (79050-51) (1989)Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. CA, 269 SCRA 695 (97626) (1997)Ong vs. Metropolitan, 104 Phil 397 (L-7664) (1958) Anuran vs. Buno, (L-21353) (May 20, 1966)Raynera vs. Hiceta, 306 SCRA 102 (April 21, 1999)Canlas vs. CA, GR No 112160 (February 28 2000)Consolidated Bank vs. CA, GR No 138569 (September 11, 2003)Engada vs. CA, GR No. 140698 (June 20, 2003)
V.LIABILITY
 A.Possessor of Animals
 Article 2183, CCVestil vs. IAC, 179 SCRA 47
B.Things thrown or falling from a buildin
 Article 2193, CCDingcong vs. Kanaan, 72 Phil 14
C.Death/Injuries in the course of employmen
 Article 1711, CC cf 1712 Afable vs. Singer Sewing Machine, 58 Phil 39
D.Strict Liability/Product Liability 
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6
th
Edition, p. 142 Article 2187, CC Articles 50 –52, 97, 99, 106-107, Consumer ActSec. 11 RA 3720Coca-cola vs. CA, 227 SCRA 293II Sangco, pp. 714-734
E.Interference With Contractual Relations
 Article 1314, CCGilchrist vs. Cuddy, 29 Phil 542So Ping Bun vs. CA, (120554) (September 21, 1999) Aquino, pp. 795-801
F.Liability of Local Government Units
 Article 2189, CCGuilatco vs. City of Dagupan, (61516) 171 SCRA 382
G.Presumption of Negligence
 Articles 2185, 2188, 2190 to 2193, Civil Code
VI. PERSONS LIABLE
 A. The Tortfeasor 
 Articles 2176, 2181, 2194, CCWorcester vs. Ocampo, (5932) 22 Phil 42 (1912) Article 2184, CCChapman vs. Underwood, (9010) 27 Phil 374 (1914)Caedo vs. Yu Khe Thai, G.R. No. L-20392 (Dec 18 1968)Rodriguez Luna vs. IAC, 135 SCRA 242 (1995)
B.Vicarious Liabilit
Quasi-tort – Black’s Law Dictionary, 6
th
Edition, p.1489
3

Activity (10)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Clavel Tuason added this note
Thanks a lot.
rltugade liked this
Emerson Balgos liked this
jeesup9 liked this
Paolo Adalem liked this
Rea Nina Ocfemia liked this
Rea Nina Ocfemia liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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