Torts.magic Notes1 | Tort | Negligence

TORTS

AND

DAMAGES
HELD: Under the Corporation Code, Naguait is liable 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 case. Our jurisprudence is wanting to the definite scope of ―corporate tort.‖ Essentially, “tort” consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a duty imposed by law. Simply stated, it is a breach of legal duty.

PAGE 1
-includes assault, batter, false imprisonment, defamation, invasion of privacy and interference of property *Negligence: involves voluntary acts or omissions which result in injury to others, without intending to cause the same -actor fails to exercise due care in performing such acts or omissions *Strict Liability: where the person is made liable independent 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 is twisted conduct or conduct that departs from the existing norm - a legal wrong that causes harm for which the violator is subject to civil liability -fundamental concept of tort: wrongful act or omission + resulting in breach of a private legal duty (distinguished from a mere breach of contractual duty) + damage from said breach of duty (of such character as to afford a right of redress at law in favor of the injured party against the wrongdoer) Note (explained definition in Naguiat vs. NLRC): the term ―tort‖ used by SC has same meaning as tort in common law jurisdictions, as it was used in cases involving 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 to the victim for harmful wrongdoing and correspondingly Art. 2176, NCC Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. the victim‘s potential fro compensation or other relief

CLASS NOTES

Torts: not defined in the NCC nor in any Philippine Law BUT many scattered provisions on tortuous acts -usually defines as: (1) what it is not; (2) remedies granted; (3) social/public policy protected Damages: much longer treatment in the NCC; more practical importance on damages Practical Legal Relevance: vehicular accidents Intentional tort: not a delict (any act or omission punishable by law) Why? Intentional act causing damage to another, not a crime Act: intentional, voluntary -damage -may or may not violate a crime Negligence: any act or omission causing damage to another 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 make you liable

CLASS NOTES

CORPORATE TORT: in regards to liability of President of CFTI: no definition of corporate tort 2 definitions: long and short (legal basis) Short definition: from a law dictionary What‘s wrong with the definition in Naguiat? TOO BROAD. Any breach of legal duty becomes a tort (so it would include crimes, QD, breach of contract) …very sloppy definition but it‘s the only case that defines Tort Why SC gave definition of Tort? They had to determine the liability of the officers (Naguiat) so is it part of the ratio of the case? NO. Obiter. They already found CFTI liable under the Labor Code so SC did not need to establish 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, not created 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 the said act or omission may be said to be a natural outgrowth 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 to result from it.

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Definitions 1. Tort and Quasi-delict a. Tort Naguiat v NLRC
FACTS: Naguiat is the president and a stockholder of Clark Field Taxi, Inc. (CFT). Due to the phase-out of the US bases in the country, Clark Air Base was closed and the taxi drivers of CFTI were separated from service. The drivers filed a complaint for the payment of sep. pay due to the termination/phase-out. NLRC held Naguiat and the company solidarily liable for the payment of sep. pay. ISSUE: WON Naguait should be held solidarily liable with CFTI. YES.

Jec 

TORTS

AND

DAMAGES
-so in this case, emphasize scope of culpa aquiliana and delict; why needed? Barredo was arguing that he was not solidarily liable and should only be subsidiarily liable -if applied today, would the result be the same? YES through stare decisis + QD definition changed, removed phrase ―not punishable by law‖

PAGE 2
suspension of the civil case pending the determination of the crim case. ISSUE: WON there can be an independent civil action for damage to property during the pendency of the criminal action. YES. HELD: Liability being predicated on a QD, the civil case may proceed as a separate and independent civil action as specifically provided for in Art. 2177 of the CC. Art. 2176 of the CC is so broad that it includes not only injuries to persons but also damage to property. It makes no distinction bet. Damage to persons and damage to property.

b. Quasi-delict

CLASS NOTES

A 2176 explanation: First sentence refers to ALL CIVIL LIABILITIES. Second sentence limits QD.

Elcano v Hill
FACTS: In criminal case where Reginald Hill was charged with the killing of Agapito Elcano, the former was acquitted for ―lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake.‖ The deceased‘s parents thereafter sued Reginald and his father for dmages. CFI dismissed the civil cases on the ground of res judicata. ISSUE: WON the civil action for damages is barred by Hill‘s acquittal in the crim case. NO. HELD: Hill‘s acquittal in the crim case has not extinguished his liability for QD, hence the acquittal is not a bar to the instant civil action. Art. 2176 where it refers to “fault or negligence,” covers not only acts “not punishable by law” but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.

Barredo v Garcia
FACTS: A Head-on collision between a taxi and carretela resulted in the death of a 16-yr old boy who was a passenger of the carretela. The taxi driver was convicted in a crim case but the right to file a sep civil action was reserved. The parents of the boy sued Barredo, the driver‘s employer for damages. Barredo contends that under the RPC, his liability is only subsidiary, hence he cannot be held liable as no civil action has been filed against the driver. ISSUE: WON the plaintiffs, may bring this separate civil action against Barredo, making him primarily liable as employer under the CC. YES. HELD: The same negligent act causing damage may produce civil liability arising from a crim under the RPC or create an action for quasi-delict under the CC. Thus, there were 2 liabilities of Barredo: a subsidiary one arising from the driver‘s crim negligence nd a primary one as employer under the CC. The plaintiffs were free to choose which course to take, and they preferred the second remedy. They were acting within their rights in doing so.

CLASS NOTES

Relevance: clarified that QD includes damage to property (same highlight in reviewer) Problem: A2191(2) gave example where QD and damage to property [liability of proprietors of excessive smoke]; but this is a Tort on STRICT LIABILITY, not QD!

Baksh v CA
FACTS: Baksh was sued for damages for his breach of promise to marry. CA affirmed TC‘s award of damages, relying on Art. 21 CC. ISSUE: WON damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry based on Art. 21 of the CC. YES. HELD: Art. 21 may be applied in a breach of promise to marry where the woman is a victim of moral seduction. Art. 21 is designed to expand the concept of torts or QD in 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 in the statute books. 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 culpa aquiliana bec. it includes not only negligence, but intentional criminal acts as well.

CLASS NOTES

CLASS NOTES

-during that time, culpa aquiliana (QD) doesn‘t cover acts against law? A1903, old CC expressly exclude acts not punishable by law -SC needed to have very strong reason not to follow what the old law says because if A1903 applied literally there would be no culpa aquiliana, if read together with RPC (all acts would be under criminal negligence and imprudence)

-why make intentional acts under QD? To make father and son liable -A 2177, NCC expressly points out that there‘s a separate civil liability from criminal negligence BUT it seems to apply to QD only so court dealt with this limitation by upholding the construction that upholds “the spirit that giveth life rather than that which is literal that killeth the intent of the lawmaker” (A2176 is not just QD, so A2177 really has no problem)

Cinco v Canonoy
FACTS: Cinco‘s car and a eepney collided. Cinco filed a civil action for damage to property against the eepney‘s driver and operators. Thereafter, he also filed a crim case against the eepney driver. CFI upheld the

Jec 

TORTS

AND

DAMAGES
-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 as not 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 a consequence of a breach of a contractual obligation or a tortious act -pecuniary consequences which law imposes for breach of some duty or violation of some right. Kinds: compensatory, punitie, liquidated damages (damages recoverable upon breach of a contract, as stipulated by the parties), nominal damages (given in vindication of a breach of duty which does not result in any actual or pecuniary damages) Damage, damages, injury: material distinctions Injury: Illegal invasion of a legal right Damage: loss, hurt, or harm which results from an injury; in a popular sense, it is the depreciation in value, regardless if caused by a wrongful or legal act; as defined by statutes providing for damages: actionable loss, injury or harm which results from unlawful act, omission or negligence of another -not synonymous to example, fine, penalty, punishment, revenge, discipline, chastisement Damages: recompense or compensation awarded for damages suffered. Pecuniary loss: loss of money or something by which money or something of money value may be acquired

PAGE 3
Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained. The party claiming such must present the best evidence available such as receipts. Moral damages may be invoked when the complainant has experienced mental anguish, serious anxiety, physical suffering, moral shock and so forth, and had furthermore shown that these were the proximate result of the offender‘s wrongful act or omission.

CLASS NOTES

so what‘s correct? Include or not to include intentional acts? In Baksh, Davide showed role of A21, so he limited A2176 to negligent acts or omissions. A2176 discussion is not necessary for the disposition of the case (OBITER) THEREFORE, QD still includes intentional acts! ***Issue: WON QD covers intentional acts or not? If it covers intentional acts.. Fr litigation pt of view: it doesn‘t matter Fr academic pt of view: it matters!

Custodio v CA
FACTS: Custodio et al built an adobe fence making the passageway to Mabasa‘s apartment narrower. Mabasa filed 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. ISSUE: WON award of damages was proper. NO HELD: 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. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right. Damage is the loss, hurt or harm, which results from the injury. Damages are the recompense or compensation awarded fro the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria. In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured person alone.

2. Damages
AQUINO (pp. 842-843) -Reason behind the NCC Title on Damages: to see to it that 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 to all obligations regardless of source (delict, QD, contract, or quasi-contract). -A2196: rules under title of damages are w/o prejudice to special provisions on damages provided elsewhere in the Code. -A2198: principles of general law on damages are adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with the NCC. -Indemnity has to be proportionate to the fault and to the loss caused thereby. -In actions for damages, courts should award an amount (money value) to the winning party and not its equivalent in property. SANCO, (pp. 940-941) Basis of Law: introduced in NCC mostly from American Law 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 sources enumerated in A1157, NCC, without prejudice to special provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in said code.

People v Ballesteros
FACTS: Ballesteros et al were convicted of murder. They were ordered to pay actual, compensatory, and moral damages to the heirs of the deceased. ISSUE: WON damages were correctly awarded. YES HELD: Damages may be defined as the pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury sustained, or as otherwise expressed, the pecuniary consequences which the law imposes for the breach of some duty or the violation of some right.

b. Damnum absque injuria
AQUINO (pp. 843-845) -―There is no liability even if there is damage because there was no injury.‖ Mere damage without injury does not result in liability. -A related maxim is qui jure suo utitir nullum damnum facit – one who exercises a right does no injury.

Jec 

TORTS

AND

DAMAGES
available are embodied in different provisions of the code. E.g. Arts. 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36; A2199 on contributory negligence and proximate cause (however, a blending of American and Spanish-Philippine Law) NCC

PAGE 4
-When Penal Code revised, RPC retained what is now contained in A100; Rules on CRimPro retained what is contained in Rule 107 (check if still correct) 2. Civil Liability arising from QD A1902: Any person who by an act or omission causes damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be liable fro the damage done In re: A1903: punish wrongful acts or omissions not punishable by law -said articles are not applicable to acts of negligence which constitute either punishable offenses(delicts) or breach of contract. -thus, the liability of employers, et. al. under now A2180 are only subsidiary (in accordance with penal laws) -QD or culpa aquiliana or extra-contractual culpa: causative act or omission not punished by law and is done ONLY negligently, where civil liability could arise as governed by the Civil Code (not by penal laws), and the party aggrieved could file an ordinary civil action for damages using only preponderance of evidence. It gives rise only to civil liability. Here, the employer‘s liability for his employee‘s NONCRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE is direct and primary and not subsidiary, and he could be directly imputed in an action for recovery of damages. -an act or omission will give rise to civil liability only if it causes damage or injury to another or others.

Custodio v CA, supra
―Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria.‖

SANGCO (pp. xxxi-xl) B. History and Development AQUINO (pp.1-5)
―Tort‖ provisions in our NCC were derived from Spanish, French and Anglo-American Law. Therefore, RP SC borrows heavily from decisions of the Court in other countries especially Spain and US and relies from annotation of foreign author. Roman Law served as main inspiration of NCC, as quite evident in the field of QD: it added 4 new category of obligations that arise quasi ex delicto (a. liability of a judge who misconducts a case or gives a wrong decision; b. liability of an occupier of a building for double the damage caused by anything thrown or forced out of the building, no matter by whom, on to a public place[A2193]; c. liability of the occupier if he keeps any object suspended from the building which would do damage if it fell; and d. the liability of the shop keeper, innkeeper, or keeper of a stable for any theft or damage caused by slaves or employees, or in case of the innkeepers, of permanent residents [A2000].) -Code Commission initially wanted to adopt the word ―tort‖ in our NCC but decided later against it because “tort” in Anglo-American law “is much broader (includes negligence, intentional criminal acts, false imprisonment, deceit) than the Spanish-Philippine concept of obligations arising from non-contractual negligence. Intentional acts would be governed by RPC. However, some provisions used ―tort‖ and therefore recognize it as a source of liability [Sec22 & 100, Corporation Code; Art.68 Child and Youth Welfare Code; Sec. 17(a)(6) of the Ship Mortgage Decree]. Even SC used the term tort in deciding cases involving negligent acts or omissions as well as involving intentional acts. They defined it in Naguiat vs. NLRC. -There is an evident intent to adopt the common law concept of tort and to incorporate the different, intentional and unintentional common law torts in the NCC. Tortious conduct for which civil remedies are Civil Code of the Philippines: based on Civil Code of 1889 (Spanish and French in origin); but many provisions from codes of other countries were adopted. Rules from Anglo-American law were adopted because of element of American culture that has been incorporated into Fil life during US occupation; because economic relations that continue between US and RP; and because US and English Courts have developed certain equitable rules that are not recognized in the 1889 Civil Code 1889 Civil Code 1. Civil Liability Arising From Criminal Offenses A1089: Civil obligations arise only from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, acts or omissions punished by law and quasi-delicts. -civil obligations from crime or misdemeanor was governed only by Penal Code (A1092) so when criminal action was instituted, the civil action arising from the crime is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves his right to institute it separately (A122, Law of CrimPro) -right to recover damages arising from crime is completely dependent on the result of the criminal case. If an earlier civil action is instituted, upon start of criminal case, the civil action is suspended and would be determined by the result of the criminal case. If criminal action is dismissed, civil action is also deemed dismissed, regardless if instituted with the criminal action or separately. Civil liability is treated as purely incidental to the criminal liability of the offender. The cases of Springer vs. Odin, Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., US vs. Guy Sayco, US vs. Bernardo, and Wise & Co. vs. Larion were ruled using this principle. As ruled in rakes, any civil action not predicated on offense committed or charged (based on law, contract, quasicontract, or QD) cannot be instituted with the criminal action.

DE LEON (pp.4-8)
Tort law emerged out of criminal law; originally concerned principally with violent breaches of the place. (1) Common law tort – judges usually define what counts as torts and how compensation is to be measured. Still, a statute or even Consti may make certain conduct legally wrongful and may permit recovery of damages for such conduct. (2) No clear distinction between tort and crime – initially, this was the case sine the development of anything like a clearly formulated conception of a tort is comparatively recent. (3) Notion of tort as a specific wrong – there was an attempt in 1720 to consider several specific wrongs in a work consolidating them under the general heading of torts. Torts of a specific character have been increasing. (4) Place of torts in the Philippine law – even if RP was a civil law country, some of the provisions

Jec 

(3) physical injuries and other damages sustained by petitioners as a result of the collision. (2) presence of fault or negligence or lack of due care in the operation of the passenger bus by its driver resulting in the collision. (2) negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally. was guilty. resulting in an explosion which led to David‘s loss of his right eye. The chief of police filed a criminal case against the bus driver. (4) no preexisting contractual relation. or some person for whose acts it must respond. a number of laws patterned after Anglo-American models have been passed amplifying the field of torts in Philippine legal system. ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the case was proper. liability imposed when and only when it is ―right‖ to do so (2) Social utility or policy – a good-for-all-of-us view: provide a system of rules that works toward the good of society (3) Legal process – litigation process is a good to be preserved rather than abstract ideal of justice or social utility (4) potential conflicts – between justice and policy outlook and legal process outlook (5) distribution of loss – the cost of loss suffered by plaintiff is not simply transferred to the defendant but is distributed through the defendant to a large number of individuals (6) redress of social grievances – tort law a popular mechanism that permits ordinary people to put authority on trial (7) a mixed system – tort law a ―mixed‖ set of functions CLASSES OF TORTS: Property torts and Personal torts   CLASS NOT E Important: Take note of 3 elements of QD: (1) damages suffered by plaintiff. property of the Andamo spouses. ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the civil case was proper. Garcia et al filed a civil action for damages against the owners and drivers of both vehicles.TORTS AND DAMAGES FACTS: A public utility car and a bus collided. and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage. there being fault or negligence. THE CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT A. Excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear indication of negligence. The civil action was based on QD and may proceed independently of the criminal case. CFI dismissed the civil action holding that the right to file a separate civil action was not reserved and that the action was not based on QD. in the 1889 CC dealth with cases of the nature of torts + with US occupation.    CLASS NOT E II. (2) damage. namely: (1) act or omission of private respondents. or some other person for whose acts he must respond. In order to recover damages. Functions or goals of tort law Medieval England: discourage violence and revenge Today: compensation of injured persons and deterrence of undesirable behavior: System of thoughts (sorry. All the elements of QD are present in the complaint. David and Manuel ignited the contents of the cap. (4) existence of direct causal connection between the damage or prejudice and the fault or negligence of private respondents. the following must be established: (1) damages to the plaintiff. (3) fault of defendant caused damages suffered by plaintiff Taylor v MERALCO FACTS: 15-year old David Taylor with 2 others (Manuel and Jessie) experimented with detonating caps were taken from the premises of MERALCO. (2) fault or negligence of defendant. NCC Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. resulting in injuries to Garcia et al. as the crim case was field ahead of it. The civil case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. PAGE 5 in its compound. HELD: NO. 2176. Elements Art. (2) fault or negligence of the defendant. Andamo v CA FACTS: The Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette caused the construction of waterpaths and contrivances Garcia v Florido Jec  . no parallelism in the enumeration of de leon): (1) Morality or corrective justice – defendants should be liable fro harms they wrongfully caused and no others. The case mentions 5 elements but Prof. HELD: NO. and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. and (5) the absence of preexisting contractual relations between the parties. to wit: (1) damages suffered by the plaintiff. This allegedly caused flooding and damage to the adjacent lot. David‘s father filed an action for damages. Important: Take note of 4 elements of QD: (1) acts or omission constituting negligence. ISSUE: WON the plaintiff can recover damages in this case. Bus company and driver filed a motion to dismiss. The essential averments for a QD action are present in this case. is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence. NO HELD: The action was based on QD and it may proceed independently. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. The Andamos filed a criminal case for destruction by means of inundation. and later also filed a civil action for damages against respondent corporation. The allegation that private respondents violated traffic rules does not detract from the nature and the character of the actions as one based on culpa aquiliana. (3) direct causal connection between damage and act or omission. Casis mentioned 4.

His heirs sued the bus owner and driver for damages. with a substantially all its own. Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate not he danger clearly manifest. based upon what society demands of the individual rather than upon his own notion of what is proper. cause damage I SANGCO (pp. There is merely a risk of such consequences sufficiently great to lead a reasonable man in his position to anticipate them. ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the civil case was proper. NCC Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. physical condition and other circumstance regarding persons. Intentional omissions must not be treated as cases of negligence. who must prove it. namely: 1) Act or omission constituting fault or negligence on the part of private respondent. 2) Damage caused by the said act or omission.TORTS AND DAMAGES NOT E Liability in tort may be predicated upon an injury resulting from an unlawful or illegal act or omission. fault or negligence I SANGCO (p5-7) Negligence is the ―failure to observe. All the essential averments for a QD action are present. Tayag v Alcantara FACTS: Tayag who was riding on a bicycle along McArthur Highway was bumped by a bus and died. Imprudence and Negligence. and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care. The petitioner‘s COA being based on a QD. These are not cases of omissions. nor does he know that they are substantially to occur. whether injury is on property or person - PAGE 6 the same time. common sense. 3) Direct causal relation between the damage and the act or omission. Distinguished A. or direct and immediate consequence of defendant‘s culpable act or omission Proximate cause is determined on the facts of each case upon mixed considerations of logic.‖ The standard must be one of conduct. rather than consequences. At  Barredo v Garcia. they are cases of positive action. was the natural and probable. degree of intelligence. the standard imposed must be an external one. 3. B. 87-90) QD liability presupposes 2 conditions: (1) a connection of cause and effect between the person liable and the fact from which damage results. and to guard against them. act or omission I SANGCO (pp. or believe they will.   CLASS Important: Qualification of negligence – fault or negligence is a source of obligation when between such negligence and the injury there exists the relation of cause and effect 2. that degree of care. of cognizable danger of injury. or contrary to law It must be shown that the damage to the plaintiff. The culpability of the actor‘s conduct must be judged in the light of the possibilities apparent to him at the time and not by looking backward ―with the wisdom born of the event. Negligence is a matter of risk – that is to say. Quasi-delict v Delict Art 2177. doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act. but without malice. taking into consideration his employment or occupation. Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily. The actor does not desire to bring about the consequences which follow. which implies at once an act of intelligent volition that is illicit. A crim case was also filed against the bus driver. Art 365. policy and precedent. RPC. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. and 4) No pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from crime. 1-4) Conduct may be legally described in terms of action and inaction or ―misfeasance‖ or ―nonfeasance.‖ Negligence is conduct. (2) a fault of this person. precaution and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably impose. the acquittal of the driver in the crim case is not a bar to the civil case for damages based on QD. When the danger is great a high degree of care is necessary. for the protection of the interest of another person. not a state of mind or the use of sound judgment. HELD: No. CLASS NOT E Important: There must exist a direct causal connection 1.‖ Misfeasance is active misconduct working positive injury to others. while nonfeasance is passive inaction or failure to take steps to protect them from harm  CLASS NOT ES Quasi-Delict Private interest Civil Code Any kind of negligence Delict Public interest Penal Code Punished only by penal law fault of Jec  . The bus driver was acquitted in the crim case on the ground of reasonable doubt. CFI sustained private respondents‘ MTS the civil case on the ground of lack of COA due to the acquittal of the bus driver in the crim case. supra RULE: A QD or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the CC. time and place.

The civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal where the acquittal is based on reasonable count as only a preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases. or institutes it prior to the crim action. The judgment of acquittal extinguishes civil liability only when it includes a declaration that the facts from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. are liable for damages.. the Court finds her civilly liable for the death of Lydia Umali. 1170.CC in the rendition of a judgment of acquittal and a judgment awarding damages in the same criminal action. a municipal mayor. a surgeon.   CLASS NOT ES   CLASS NOT E Need to indemnify heirs even if not criminally liable. Phil Rabbit‘s notice of appeal was dismissed. (4) material damage results from the reckless imprudence. negligence. may be enforced by execution on the basis of the judgment of conviction meted out to the employee. only a preponderance of evidence is required to establish civil liability. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. Jec  . FACTS: Ninevetch Cruz. (3) without malice. extinguish the civil liability unless there is a clear showing that the act from which civil liability might arise did not exist. Quasi-Delict v. degree of intelligence. HELD: NO. pursuant to a municipal ordinance. time and place   CLASS NOT E Important: Clarified 2000 Rules of Court B. taking into consideration his employment or occupation. Rabbit is incidental to and dependent on the pecuniary civil liability of the accused-employee. (2) doing or failure to do the act is voluntary. only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil action for damages. 34 & 2176 of the CC shall remain separate. The two can stand side by side. or delay. Padilla v CA FACTS: Padilla. Important: elements of reckless imprudence: (1) the offender does or fails to do an act. for while a conviction requires proof BRD. While the guilt of the accused in a criminal case must be established BRD. ISSUE: WON Gabat‘s guilt was proven BRD. Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void. physical condition. The 2000 Rules of Crim Proc deleted the requirement of reserving independent civil actions and allowed these to proceed separately from criminal actions. reserves the rt to institute it separately. 33. Guilt beyond reasonable doubt People v Ligon FACTS: Based on the testimony of a taxi driver. CA acquitted them of the charge of grave coercion based on reasonable doubt but ordered them to pay damages. demolished a store and took away its contents. RPC. together with policemen and a civilian. and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof. with fault and negligence. however. Since the civil liability of the latter has become final and executory by reason of his flight. Art. Gabat‘s guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. It does not. It does not follow that a person who is not criminally liable is also free from civil liability. NO. the civil actions referred to in Arts 32. but preponderance of evidence establishes that by his ct or omission. Cruz v CA HELD: NO. multiple physical injuries and damage to property. he caused damage to the victim and should answer civilly for the damage done. ISSUE: WON CA erred in requiring petitioners to pay damages after acquitting them of the criminal charge. and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment and to pay damages. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud. HELD: The subsidiary liability of Phil. distinct and independent of any crim prosecution based on the same act. was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. (5) there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender.TORTS AND DAMAGES Preponderance evidence of There is nothing contrary to Art 29. the subsidiary liability of the employer under Art 103. then the former‘s subsidiary civil liability has also become immediately enforceable. ISSUE: WON an employer who dutifully participated in the defense of its accused employee may appeal the judgment of conviction independently of the accused. ISSUE: WON Cruz‘s conviction is supported by the evidence. Gabat was convicted of Robbery with Homicide committed against a 17-yo student working as a cigarette vendor. Under the 2000 Rules of Crim Proc. the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime is deemed impliedly instituted in a crim action unless the offended party waives the action. Breach of Contract Art. 1171. Thus. A judgment of acquittal operates to extinguish the criminal liability. However. Philippine Rabbit v People FACTS: Philippine Rabbit‘s employee was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in triple homicide. PAGE 7 The driver jumped bail. and other circumstances regarding persons. HELD: Her guilt was not proved BRD. Hence.

the obligor may break the contract by means of an act which would have constituted a violation of an extracontractual obligation had no contract existed. 1172. there is still a quasi-delict. of the time and of the place. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons. Art. Held: MR is liable. and [2] under Art 1756. When a contractual relation exists. Moral damages are not recoverable for actions based on BoC unless there is bad faith. and QDs are broader. 1173. If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance. defendant employer‘s defense PAGE 8 True of False-a breach of contract is not a basis for QD: FALSE Court in Sangco said that the circle is CONCENTRIC: QD is larger and that culpa contractual is the yolk So Cangco doesn‘t say that the two are mutually exclusive and therefore Cangco is consistent with Air France Vinculum juris distinction doesn‘t matter because here the act & the breach coincided Art. the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201. Art. 1903 not applicable in cases where there is preexisting relationship Cangco did not pay for his fare so why is a contract of carriage at issue? It should be a contract of employment. The contract to transport carries with it the duty to provide safe means of entering and leaving the train. His foot alighted upon a melon at the moment he stepped upon the platform. what plaintiff needs to prove What is the breach of contract committed? Negligence. shall apply. but such liability may be regulated by the courts. CA awarded him with moral damages. When negligence shows bad faith. 2178. the presumption is that common carriers acted negligently (and not maliciously) Doctrine: case: Differences between QD and BoC in this Under QD Anywhere there are physical injuries (Art 2219[2]) Under BoC Recoverable only if passenger dies or there is malice or bad faith (proof of due diligence not available) Injury to passenger. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable. MERALCO was held liable for breach of contract. if you sue for negligence.Therefore. Sir took note of the 4 main differences of QD and BoC in this case: Under QD Presumptive liability Rebut presumption through proof of the exercise of due care in selection and supervision Created by the wrongful or negligent act/omission itself Defendant‘s fault or negligence Under BoC Direct and immediate Prove performance contract contributory negligence     1.‖ Notes: SC held there was a contract of carriage even if Cangco did not pay for a ticket. Notes: Negligence for BoC and QD are defined in the same way as provided by Art 2178. delict. Also. paragraph 2. according to the circumstances. liability of defendant employer 2. There was no bad faith because: [1] mere carelessness of the driver does not justify the inference of bad faith. vinculum juris (legal tie) Independent the breach of the duty assumed by the parties The contract and its nonperformance.TORTS AND DAMAGES Doctrine: QD and BoC are concentric. defendant carrier‘s defense 3. MR argues that [1] the breach was due to negligence of servant and [2] it exercised due diligence in selection and supervision. or contract. you can base the action on quasi-delict. what a plaintiff needs to prove Cangco v Manila Railroad FACTS: Cangco‘s arm was amputated because he was drawn from under a railroad car. HELD: SC deleted moral damages. that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required. The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict. It is unnecessary for plaintiff for BoC to prove the breach was due to negligence. He sues under contract of carriage. What was the breach? Failure to exercise due diligence This is a landmark case because there is a glaring statement in Cangco that contradicts the other cases Proof of due diligence in selection and supervision Carrier‘s fault or negligence  CLASS NOT ES Jec  . moral damages        CLASS NOT ES 2. 1. failure to exercise due care Art. Fores v Miranda FACTS: Miranda was a passenger of a jeep which hit a wall and fractured his right humerus. No need to prove it was carrier‘s Fault of or 3. The negligence need not be proven 4. Plaintiff with a pre-existing contractual relation may still sue for QD so long as ―had there been a no contract. He sues for negligence in the performance of a contract.

RTC awarded him moral and exemplary damages. it ruled that A2176 can apply if a contract exists. not ratio. malice (Art 2231) reckless. RTC and CA denied motion to dismiss. it does not mean that there is no existing relationship Notes: Differences between QD and BoC in this case: Unde QD Under BoC 1. This statement (can‘t have QD if there‘s a contract) contradicts Air France yet later on it cites Air France Jec  . damages approximate fraudulent. His parents sued PSBA and its officers under A2180 for ther negligence. award for Gross negligence Act that is exemplary as to wanton. award for Injury If there was bad moral damages faith or gross negligence 2. Defendants argue that they are not covered by 2180 as they are an academic institution. HELD: Complaint is based on contract because without the contract. without a preexisting contract between 2 parties. which is a QD. But even if there is a pre-existing contractual relationship. The ruling on the interpretation of A2176 is not ratio.     CLASS NOT E Far East v CA FACTS: Plaintiff Luna got a Far East credit card which was dishonored at a despedida party due to a hotlist policy compelled by the loss of the complementary card. HELD: The school is not liable under QD because [1] A2180 applies only if damage was caused by students or pupils [2] a 2176 applies only if there isno contractual relation. the court said that A2176 only applies if no contract exists. just obiter. which is a violation of a public duty. If there is no contract. PAGE 9 Passengers have a right to be treated by the carrier‘s employees with kindness. Moral damages were deleted because negligence in failing to give personal notice to Luna is not gross as to amount to malice or bad faith. This is tort not QD PSBA v CA FACTS: A PSBA student was stabbed and killed by non-students while in the school premises. RTC and CA awarded moral damages.TORTS   AND DAMAGES He sues for damages.   Does not say that when there is a contract. you can‘t sue for QD. oppressive or malevolent (Art. But in the latter part. However. Court already decided that employee is liable Art 1092 & 1903 come from pre existing relationship Rakes is not the basis of the doctrine that quasi-delict may arise from breach of contract. Casis. good customs or public policy) Rakes v Atlantic FACTS: Rakes‘s leg was amputated because it was crushed by an iron rail he was carrying on a hand car for Atlantic. Air France argues that there was no finding of bad faith to justify the award of moral damages HELD: Although there was a pre-existing contract. A2176 expressly excludes cases where there is a pre-existing contractual relationship. Case is not basis of mutual exclusivity  CLASS NOT ES Doctrine: The act that breaks the contract may also be a tort. Doctrine: Qualified Air France v Carrasco‘s pronouncement by saying the phrase. 2232) Air France v Carrasco FACTS: Carraso was told by the manager that he must st vacate his 1 class seats because a white man who had a better right to it. He sues for damages because of Atlantic‘s negligence in not repairing the weakened track. QD not applicable when there is a contract According to Prof. recklessness and lack of security measures. Atlantic argues that remedey for injuries through negligence lies only in a criminal action HELD: Atlantic‘s liability to Rakes ariss out of the contract of employment because failure to provide or maintain safe appliances for its workmen Doctrine: Employer‘s liability arising out of negligence in contract of employment may be enforced separate from criminal action. an act or omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself.  why discuss this? To determine damages  contradicts A2176? No. there is still a cause of action for quasi-delict since it is not expressly prohibited. Exemplary damages were deleted because DOCTRINE: The test to determine whether QD can be deemed to underlie the BoC s where.   CLASS NOT E Qualifies Air France case: QD should be independent of BoC       CLASS NOT ES Statement that you can‘t sue for QD when there is a contract is mere obiter. respect. ―the act that breaks the contract may also bea tort‖ only applies if the 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. the stress of the action was put on the wrongful expulsion. his employer. the SC ordered the remand of the case because there was a contractual obligation to provide both education and security. courtesy and due consideration. Trial must proceed to determine if the breach was due to negligence. the act or omission complained of cannot by itself be an actionable tort.

―the existence of a contract does not preclude the commission of a QD. it said ―tort‖ referring to first sentence of 2176 such that if there is preexisting contractual relationship there can still be a tort. the diligence to be observed in the performance of a contractual obligation is that which is expected of a good father of a family. Plus. Employer‘s responsibility presumptive 3. the second statement of 2176 defines a QD but it is not laying down a rule that when there is a pre-existing contractual relationship. Contractual responsibility and extracontractual liability exclude each other and cannot be cumulated. Negligence is not presumed. or BoC) . delict. Damage or injury to plaintiff d.TORTS  AND DAMAGES Culpa Aquiliana (QD) Independent contract Defense is available Culpa Contractual (BoC) Foundation of liability is the contract and its breach No defense of diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of employees employer‘s liability is direct and immediate 2. the breach of which being merely incidental to the commission of the tort. Fault or negligence by defendant c. Concurrence of Causes of Action . QD. Falls on the person claiming damages b.‖ b. Culpa Aquiliana Distinguished from Culpa Contractual De Leon (pp. CA – a single act or omission may give rise to two or more causes of action (i. Requisites of QD: a. There is no stipulation that the vault would be waterproof.1174 governed by Art. not QD. Syquia v CA FACTS: The parents and siblings of the deceased Syquia file suit for damages arising from BoC and/or QD against Manila Memorial Park Cemetery because the coffin was flooded due to a hole in the wall of the concrete vault placed by defendants. HELD: Action is based on BoC. 2180. where an act which constitutes a breach would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability has the contract not existed. is 2. The Deed of Sale and Certificate of Perpetual Care govern the relation of the parties and defined their rights and obligations.e.include all acts Narrow – punished where any fault or only if there is a penal negligence intervenes law punishing it Employer‘s liability is Employer‘s liability is direct and primary subsidiary 3. No pre-existing contractual relationship Jec  . Memorial exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in preventing the accumulation of the water inside the vault which would have resulted in the caving in of earth around the grave filling the same with earth. then any negligence would be actionable under BoC. where tirt us that which breaks the contract. Culpa Aquiliana and Culpa Contractual Distinguished Culpa Aquiliana (QD) Culpa Contractual (BoC) Wrongful or negligent The act or omission is act or omission itself merely an incident in the source of the the performance of an obligation obligation Plaintiff has burden to Plaintiff need not prove the defendant plead or prove it was was at fault or defendants fault or negligent negligence No presumption that Mere proof of defendant was at fault existence of a contract or negligent and its breach raises presumption of fault or negligence Governed by Art. CA determined that there was no negligence.. 2176.liability for a tort may arise even under a contract. Based on the cases. and also 1170. 2178 Based on voluntary act or omission which has caused damage to another Requires only preponderance of evidence 4. 1172-1174 under Art. there can be no QD. Doctrines:[1] If there is a pre-existing contractual relation. To be established with satisfactory evidence c. Casis asks how putting a hole in the vault would prevent water from entering it. Governed by Arts. An act or omission by defendant b. Only under Arts. Air France is safer. PAGE 10 Burden of Proof a. Tort liability arises from BoC when the is act or omission is in itself wrongful independent of the contract. [2] If there is no stipulation or legal provision to the contrary.157-160) 1. 25-26) 1.   CLASS NOT ES The notes in this case are rather confusing. Direct relation of cause and effect between act or omission and the damage e.Far East Banc v. Prof. and 2191 is presumed and burden of proof shifts to defendant QD arising from BoC a. Culpa Aquiliana Distinguished from Crimes Culpa Aquiliana (QD) Crimes Affect Private Public Interest Concerns Indemnification Penal Code Punishes Repairs Damage or Corrects Broad. 2183. AQUINO (pp.

A prudent man ―would have recognized that the course which he was pursuing was fraught with risk. veering away only when the car was only a few feet away from the horse. quasi-delict or delict. Slowed down or 3. Take note however. Notes: The car was on the proper side of the bridge. [2] a prudent man under similar circumstances would have heeded the siren of the oncoming train. that a person can be expected to take care only when there is something before them to suggest or warn of danger. Doctrine: Negligence is defined as the ―want of care required by the circumstances. Elements Art. would ordinarily be sufficient to throw a sober man from the vehicle. Test of negligence – ―would a prudent man… foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued?‖ 3. HELD: Complaint is dismissed. and would have foreseen harm to the horse and rider as a reasonable consequence of that course. 23-27) Actionable negligence may either be culpa contractual. Both appealed. Sir thinks that the ruling is problematic because had the car veered away. Jec  . it would then be on the improper side of the road. Thus.  - CLASS NOTES mere intoxication is not in itself negligence inconclusive factor Corliss v Manila FACTS: Plaintiff orliss‘ husband died of some serious burns because the jeep he was driving collided with Manila Railroad‘s train at the railroad crossing because of his eagerness to beat the locomotive and reach the other side. stopped and allowed the train to pass.TORTS AND DAMAGES NOT ES HELD: Smith is liable for damages because applying the standard of a prudent man.‖ It is not an absolute term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which  CLASS NOT ES AQUINO on negligence (pp. 2. paragraph 2 shall apply. [3] the train driver had already applied its brakes and was running at 23-30kph. culpa aquiliana and criminal negligence. The horse got spooked and got killed. it is immaterial whether hi is drunk or sober. NEGLIGENCE A. would an intoxicated driver be held liable for hitting a man?   CLASS Note from discussion: (hindi ko alam kung saang case to related) if there is a pre-existing contractual relation. The bases of liability are separate and distinct from each other even if only one act or omission is involved.   CLASS NOTES definition: conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against its consequences. Doctrine: If a person‘s conduct is characterized by s proper degree of care and prudence. Definition. When negligence shows bad faith.‖ Smith should have: 1. III. followed by the ignoring of the admonition born of this pre-vision. Wright v MERALCO FACTS: An intoxicated Wright was thrown off his calesa after it was pitched forward by Meralco‘s protruding railtrack. he was negligent. an action for damages for the negligent acts of the defendant may be based on contract. Notes: Sir asks the question following the doctrine: If this happened today. Husband was negligent because [1] one approaching a railroad crossing do so cautiously and carefully. If the law or contact does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance. Concept of Negligence 1. Stopped 2. Omniscience of the future is not a requirement. and [4] he had the duty to stop his jeep to avoid a collision because the driver of the locomotive was not qualified to do so at the time. Doctrines: 1. that which is expected of a good father of a father of a family shall be required. of the time and of the place. base action on Art. 21. HELD: Wright was not negligent because the sudden falling of the horse. 1173 The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons. He should look and listen and do everything that a reasonably prudent man would do before he attempts to cross the track. CFI awarded him damages but apportioned the same since he was negligent as well. the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201. PAGE 11 although not as negligent as Meralco in failing to maintain the tract. Test: prudent man o fictitious character: ordinary prudent man o can be reasonably foreseen o knowledge of tortfeasor at that time  Picart v Smith FACTS: Picart improperly pulled his horse on the right side (wrong side of the road) of the bridge. Smith drove his car toward the horse. The Constitutive fact of negligence is the reasonable foresight of harm. Veered to the right.

we cannot provide a standard for all specific cases because it is difficult. or that it was the result of an inevitable accident. There is no formula to determine negligence.TORTS AND DAMAGES FACTS: While on compulsory pilotage for docking. Notes: SC took into consideration ―normal human circumstances‖ in determining WON defendant was negligent. Where the danger is great.) 1. just like in Valenzuela v. the collision was the fault of the stationary object.‖ Nevertheless as provided by the SC in this case. Doctrines: [1] An object can still be placed negligently even if it has a ‗legitimate purpose‘ for being there. look and listen. This also might mean Art 80 RPC)???   CLASS NOT ES Far Eastern v CA The new law on negligence of children would still not affect the laws on negligence outlined by Sangco because it does not expressly repeal the provisions of the RPC. Children Article 8. etc. the prudent men children experts. precaution and vigilance which the circumstance justly demand. (this was in Taylor. the standard of care required for crossing railroads is ―stop. The compulsory pilot is liable because he failed to react (or reacted too late) and because he miscalculated the bulk and size of the vessel. Professionals intoxication insanity Valenzuela v CA FACTS: Plaintiff Valenzuela was hit by defendant‘s car while she was attending to a flat tire. CA. ―what if the planes had already landed?‖ the circumstances reasonably require. took into consideration ―normal human circumstances‖ (i. Doctrines: [1] Unmindful disregard or neglectful relinquishment of duty is tantamount to negligence [2] Extraordinary risk demands extraordinary diligence. He argues that he is not liable because of her contributory negligence in parking in a no-park zone and he was driving at a safe speed of 55kph.law. the vessel rams into pier because anchor did not take hold HELD: Both the shipmaster and compulsory pilot are liable. that a.in. 5. The Prudent Man Picart v Smith Doctrines: [1] The standard of care is that of a ―prudent man‖ [2] the conduct of a prudent man is determined ―in the light of human experience an in the particular case‖ I Sangco (pp. the same for all persons iii.7-8) – 1) STANDARD OF CONDUCT . He filled an action for damages based on QD. HELD: Defendant is liable for exemplary damages since there was gross negligence in failing in its duty to insure the safety of the viewers because the tendency of the viewers on the deck would be to look to where the planes and the incoming passengers are and not to look down on the floor or pavement. Therefore his failure to be alert must be due either to his intoxication or his speeding. 3. whereby such other person suffers injury [2]the emergency rule can be considered a defense. must make allowance for the risk apparent to the act for his capacity to meet it and for the circumstances under which he must act Civil Aeronautics v CA FACTS: The plaintiff broke his thigh bone because he slipped over a 4-inch elevation at the end of the viewing deck of the airport since he wanted a better view of the incoming passengers including his future son.standard of conduct must be: i. 2. RPC A minor fifteen years of age is presumed to be capable of committing a crime and is to be held criminally liable therefore. 2. visibility of the street 100 meters away. HELD: The average motorist alert to road conditions would have had no difficulty applying the brakes to a car traveling at the speed claimed by him. Also there was no contributory negligence because the Emergency Rule exempts plaintiff from negligence since the time for reflective thought or opportunity to weight the situation was absent because she was confronted by danger. external and objective ii.e. She sued for damages based on QD. Jec  . Every case must be dependent of its facts. Notes: Sir says that based on jurisprudence.it is impossible to fix in advance definite rules for all conceivable human conduct because of the infinite variety of situations which may arise . (Examples: the light rainfall. PAGE 12 people would be looking up) in determining WON defendant was negligent. [3] The presumption of fault against a moving vessel that strikes a stationary object is rebuttable by proof that the driver was without fault. 4. Doctrines: [1] adds to the definition in Corliss v. But sir asks. Standard of conduct 1. The shipmaster is liable because of his blind reliance on the compulsory pilot and because he ―supinely stood by‖ with no watchful vigilance on his part. a higher degree of care is necessary. [2] Definition of gross negligence as equivalent to ―notorious negligence‖ which ―consists in the failure to exercise even slight care‖ Notes: SC. Notes: The defense of liability of another person is not available to join tortfeasors. Manila negligence is conduct which creates an undue risk of harm to others it is the failure to observe that degree of care.

enters upon the railroad company's premises. either criminal or civil. there is an analogy between the RPC and the new Civil Code. the owner of the premises was held liable because of the doctrine 1 of implied invitation . if above 15. it affects Art. under our law. where they would be likely to gather for that purpose. PAGE 13 child‘s own act of climbing into the structure that was the proximate cause of the fall of the counter. Stout which held that while it is the general rule in regard to an adult that to entitle him to recover damages for an injury resulting from the fault or negligence of another he must have been free from fault. that of a prudent child or adult. 6. Plaintiff was sui juris in the sense that his age and his experience qualified him to understand and appreciate the necessity for the exercise of that degree of caution which would have avoided the injury which resulted for his own deliberate act. However. In these. may be equivalent to an invitation to them to make use of it. was pinned by the bulk of the department store‘s gift-wrapping counter/structure and died. by analogy. conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence. David‘s father filed a complaint for damages. and other persons not fully sui juris. if one were to throw upon his premises. presumed incapable of negligence (conclusive presumption). an implied license might sometimes arise when it not on behalf of others.TORTS  AND DAMAGES be determines in each case by the circumstances of the case. or had a good reason to suppose. such as a turntable left in such condition as to make it probable that children in playing with it would be exposed to accident or injury therefrom and where the infant did in fact suffer injury in playing with such machine. This doctrine. and there found explosive signal torpedoes left exposed by the railroad company's employees. HELD: In the Turntable and Torpedo cases. The law fixes no arbitrary age at which a minor can be said to have the necessary capacity to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of his own acts. and perhaps. exploded and injured him. therefore. rebuttable presumption of incapacity of negligence. at a place where the railroad company's premises. The court did not cite him correctly. QD can still be filed because negligence is not equal to liability Difference between accident and negligence: an accident cannot be foreseen while negligence can be foreseen. negligence and accident cannot coincide. Thus leaving a tempting thing for children to play with exposed. 2180. So in this case. the same implication should arise. plaintiff‘s own act was the principal and proximate cause of the accident. near the common way. you don‘t stop at age. HELD: (Citing Sangco) Since negligence may be a felony and a quasi-delict and required discernment as a condition of liability. one of which when carried away by the visitor.‖ In citing Sangco. and this is to be determined in each case by the circumstances of the case. the great weight of authority holds the owner of the premises liable. RULE: A child under 9 years of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Examples: What if it‘s a 25-year old with the mental capacity of a 9-year old? What if it‘s a 9-year old with the mental capacity of a 25-year old? Would the doctrine still apply?    CLASS NOTES    In the case of young children. Taylor v Manila Railroad FACTS: David Taylor. If below 9. Casis asks what about a child who is exactly 9 years old? Apply the rules on above Jec  . RA 9344 does not affect presumptions of negligence. The care and caution required of a child is according to his maturity and capacity only. or where such infant found upon the premises a dangerous machine. Sangco had the standard of an ordinary prudent child. Company‘s counterargument: ―It never happened before. RULE: The care and caution required of a child is according to his maturity and capacity only and this is to      CLASS NOTES  when children trespass child & adult: not same appreciation with regard to contributory negligence for children. it exploded causing injuries. at a place where the railroad company knew. or for purposes of amusement. however was overturned by Railroad Company vs. 1 Jarco Marketing v CA FACTS: Zhieneth. Casis: Does this mean that Sangco did not set a standard of conduct for children but merely a formula? No. Prof. The department store contended that it was the  Make a distinction between children as a tortfeasor and children as a victim If a child is 8 years old and makes a counter fall over another person who dies. things tempting to children. 15. Although the owner of the premises was negligent leaving the caps exposed n its premises. and that the presumption of lack of discernment or incapacity for negligence in the case of a child over 9 but under 15 years of age is rebuttable. such is not the rule in regard to an infant of tender years. and MANUEL. so as to make it negligence on his part to fail to exercise due care and precaution in the commission of such acts. is that the child under 9 years of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law. CC. who from mere idle curiosity. and in a great variety of similar cases. 12. if above 9 and below 15. children who would likely to come. a child under 9 years of age is. were experimenting with fulminating caps they found lying around the company‘s premises. you look at circumstances as well 2 cases: ―Torpedo (flare gun cases)‖ and ―Turntable‖ (DJ stuff) cases: the question involved has been whether a railroad company is liable for an injury received by an infant of tender years. After applying a lighted match to an opened cap. The rule.

When. was found guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. exclaiming ―Ay! Madre‖. this does not mean that he was exonerated from the crime charged. it is a factor for liability Del Rosario v Manila Electric FACTS: Alberto Del Rosario. They. depending upon his mental development and other circumstances (rebuttable presumption) OVER 15 YEARS  presumed to have sufficient capacity and understanding to be sensible of danger with the power to avoid it (STANDARD is still that of a child his age and capacity. not of punishment but of compensation. TEST as to whether an infant can be subjected to the same standard of care as an adult: 1. WHERE CHILD IS HELD TO THE STANDARD OF    CLASS NOTES Different from Taylor: o Taylor – contributory negligence. But even supposing that the contributory negligence could in some measure be properly imputed to the deceased. his sentence was suspended until he reached majority. playfully jumped into the pit and caused the top of the concrete block to fall towards the opening. put out his index finger and touched a fallen electrical wire. child as tortfeasor o Del Rosario – victim only Immaturity and natural curiosity taken into account   Ylarde v Aquino CLASS NOTES FACTS: Edgardo Aquino ordered his students to dig beside a 1 ton concrete block in order to make a whole to bury huge stones. Ylarde wasn‘t able to climb out and he died because of the injuries sustained. he was pronounced dead. He immediately fell face Jec  . RULE: Liability of an infant in a civil action for his torts is imposed as a mode.TORTS  AND DAMAGES downwards. after saying that he had been in the habit of touching wires. capacity. owing to his immature years and natural curiosity which a child would feel to do something out of the ordinary. The standard of conduct to which a child must conform for his own protection is that degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same age. Later. HELD: The suspension of sentence did not wipe out his guilt. intelligence and experience under like or similar circumstances or that degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same age. capacity. the criminal case was dismissed. but simply that he would suffer no penalty. A minor should not be held to the same degree of care as Minority is not a factor to escape liability because even though minority is not a factor for negligence. CFI dismissed but reversed the right of the heirs to recover damages in a civil action.    CLASS NOTES Kid was 10/11 yo: *disputable presumption under Sangco* *in a case between children and adults. Being under 18. knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances. but his conduct should be judged according to the average conduct of persons of his own age and experience. therefore. Is there mutual exclusivity between negligence and accident? According to the Jarco case. but merely put off the imposition of the corresponding penalty in order to give the delinquent minor a chance to be reformed.) STANDARD: ORDINARILY PRUDENT CHILD  The standard of conduct which a child must conform for his own protection is that of a reasonable person of like age. and the mere fact that the deceased ignored the caution of a companion of the age of 8 years does not alter the case. adult-oriented‖ instrument. HELD: It is doubtful whether contributory negligence can be properly imputed to the deceased. the infant tort-feasor is liable in a civil action to the injured person in the same manner and in the same extent as an adult. 9. and not that of an adult. his lawyer recommended the dismissal of his case. discretion. The end of the wire remained in contact with his body which fell near the post. For every tortuous act of violence or other pure tort. however. none. like a car. discretion. Upon being taken to the hospital. yet such negligence would not be wholly fatal to the right of action in this case. under 18. HELD: The child Ylarde cannot be charged with reckless imprudence. the trend is that adults should know better* SANGCO (pp. Magtibay v Tiangco FACTS: Rowel Tiangco. Nor did such dismissal of the case obliterate is civil liability for damages. despite the warning of one of his companions. in view of his conduct. knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances. (citing Sangco) The degree of care required to be exercised must vary with the capacity of the person engendered to care for himself. after he had observed good conduct. one involving the use of ―potentially dangerous. type of activity involved is one that is usually engaged in by children 2. RULE: It is doubtful whether contributory negligence can be properly imputed to the deceased. owing to his immature years and natural curiosity. 70-74) UNDER 9 YEARS  conclusively presumed to have acted without discernment and is exempt from criminal liability OVER 9 BUT UNDER 15  may or may not be guilty of contributory negligence. He left four of them to level the loose soil around the open hole but allegedly telling them ―not to touch the stone‖. PAGE 14 an adult. (RULE) 9 below 15 because the law should be construed in favor of the accused.not having been the determining cause of the accident.

The care required must be commensurate with the danger involved. a pharmacist. ―care of a specially high degree‖. his violation of a statute or other enactment entails the same consequences as those of an adult. Quest is experienced in fixing car and tractor engines. ―care of a specially high degree‖.   CLASS NOT ES Plaintiff has burden of proof. Expert testimony should have been offered to prove that the circumstances cited are constitutive of conduct falling below the standard of care employed by other physicians in good standing when performing the same operation. The question of negligence or ignorance is irrelevant. and the skill employed must correspond with the superior knowledge of the business which the law demands. US v Pineda FACTS: Pineda. RULE: When a person holds himself out as being competent to do things requiring professional skill. where she died. professionals Culion v Phil. in the generality of cases. When a person holds himself out as being competent to do things requiring professional skill.     CLASS NOTES  o pharmacist: knowledgeable o buyer: can‘t check for himself Consider nature of work and danger involved 3. vigilance. the tube connecting the carburetor and the fuel tank was not well-fitted. Motors FACTS: When Culion wanted to get his motor schooner repaired. PMC‖s manager decided to oversee the repairs. which a prudent mechanic. Experts. and the most exact and reliable safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct of business. he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he attempts to do. there was a backfire and burned the boat. a matter of expert opinion. Quest attention was called on this but he took it lightly. this conclusion is best arrived at not through the educated surmises nor conjectures of laymen. such that the fuel mixture leaked and dripped down to the engine compartment. RULE: The profession of pharmacy is one demanding care and skill. a backfire from an engine would not be followed by any disaster. thoughtfulness. Quest did not use the skill that would have been exhibited by one ordinarily expert in repairing gasoline engine on boats. For whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his patient is. HELD: The profession of pharmacy is one demanding care and skill. The deference of courts to the expert opinion of qualified physicians stems from its realization that the latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in most instances are capable of intelligently evaluating. blood and oxygen that the patient had to be transferred to another hospital. he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he attempts to do. The phony Fernando deposited the two BPI checks to China Bank and   CLASS NOTES Relationship: danger Jec  . Apparently. but by the unquestionable knowledge of expert witnesses.TORTS AND DAMAGES PAGE 15 CARE OF AN ADULT. Johnny Quest when a person who holds himself out as being competent to do things. but here the leak along the pipeline and the flooding of the carburetor created a dangerous situation. present expert testimony BPI v CA FACTS: BPI‘s money market people pre-terminated Fernando‘s placement through a phone call and only verified her identity by phone. he went to PMC where Quest. including judges. HELD: Ordinarily. The responsibility to use care has been variously qualified as ―ordinary care‖. HELD: While it may be true that the circumstances seemed beyond cavil to constitute reckless imprudence on the part of the surgeon. A person skilled in dealing with boats would have been sufficiently warned by the circumstances to cause him to take precaution against the danger. The responsibility to use care has been variously qualified as ―ordinary care‖. When the engine was started. he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care & skill of an expert high degree of care Cruz v CA FACTS: Lydia Umali underwent a surgery under Dr. Ninevetch Cruz wherein the untidy clinic ran out of medicine. which is ―the highest practicable degree of prudence. versed in repairs of boat engines. RULE: The deference of courts to the expert opinion of qualified physicians stems from its realization that the latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in most instances are capable of intelligently evaluating. but not that of boats. in order that human life may not constantly be exposed to danger flowing from the substitution of deadly poison for harmless medicine‖. ―the highest degree of care known to practical men”. would have taken precaution to avoid. The druggist is responsible as an absolute guarantor of what he sells. sold barium chlorate(poisonous) instead of potassium chlorate which killed 2 horses. ―the highest degree of care known to practical men‖.

2182 If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardian. Even though the former are nor engaged in any business or industry. Since defendant was suffering from mental aberration. PAGE 16 Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. is still reasonably and justly liable with his property for the consequences of his acts. the mother. (1903a) Art. For obvious reasons. HELD: In the case of a lunatic or insane person who. HELD: By the very nature of their work the degree of responsibility. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. in spite of his unfortunate condition. from which she died. the vehicle crashing against the rails with such force as to break a wheel. without provocation attacked a woman with a bolo on her head . they cannot erase the fact that they were both guilty in not exercising extraordinary diligence in the selection and supervisions of employees. According to law. including his own mother. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. The father and. If one‘s conduct is characterized by a proper degree of care and prudence. The state is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent. trial court rendered him exempt from criminal liability but was obligated to indemnify the heirs of the murdered woman. Lastly. is to draw a conclusion which enters the realm of speculation and guesswork. NCC The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's acts or omissions. in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. this might be sufficient to throw a person from the vehicle no matter what his condition. It is impossible to say that a sober man would not have fallen from the vehicle under the conditions. A horse crossing the tracks with not only the rails but a portion of the ties themselves aboveground. BPI claimed reimbursement from China Bank under its clear warranty. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. HELD: Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does the mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary Jec  . in spite of his irresponsibility on account of the deplorable condition of his deranged mind. causing the vehicle to strike out of the rails with great force. RULE: Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does the mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary care. The tops of the rails appear to be 5 or 6 inches more above the level of the street. the minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. the person in the first place liable are those who have the insane party under their care or guardianship. but if the demented person or imbecile lack a    CLASS Mere intoxication is not in itself negligence Inconclusive factor Not negligence in itself but it can be a factor *questions to ask: (1) how do you know if a person is intoxicated or not? (2) when is it a factor enough that it impairs your judgment?* 5. for the reason that his fellows ought not to suffer from the disastrous results of his harmful acts more than is necessary. Baggay suddenly. Plaintiff was intoxicated at the time. General rule: it is immaterial whether a man is drunk or sober if no want of ordinary care or prudence can be imputed to him. it is immaterial whether he is drunk or sober. the banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. Wright v Manila Electric FACTS: Plaintiff drove home in a calesa and in crossing the tracks to enter his premises the horse stumbled. Intoxication  NOTES   CLASS NOTES US v Baggay FACTS: In a song service. and no greater degree of care is required to be exercised by an intoxicated man for his own protection than by a sober one. so long as they remain in their custody. thereafter withdrew it all. even though performed unwittingly. leaped forward. and to conclude that a sober man would not have fallen while a drunken man did.TORTS AND DAMAGES care. 2180. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. care and trustworthiness expected of their employees and officials is far greater than those of ordinary clerks and employees. in case of his death or incapacity. and fell. throwing the plaintiff from the vehicle and causing injuries. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. unless they prove that there was no blame or negligence on their part. but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains. No matter how many justifications both banks present to avoid responsibility. stumbling by reason of unsure footing and falling. He likewise inflicted various wounds on other women with the same bolo. RULE: The banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of employees (stems from the nature of their industry)   CLASS NOTES Nature of banks: imbued with public interest so there is a higher degree of diligence required 4. Insanity Art.

his bill merely fell from his pocket. the danger which it entails being clear. the laborer could not be declared to have acted with negligence since the prohibition had nothing to do with the personal safety of riders. and as he picked it up from the floor something accidentally fell upon him and injured him. a lunatic or imbecile is still held civilly liable. exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. -      CLASS NOTES Grossly negligent vs slightly negligent  degree of danger  cf. HELD: He failed to exercise ―even the slightest care and diligence‖. which is want of even slight care and diligence.TORTS AND DAMAGES safety of his person. It was not a case of the money falling off someone‘s pocket to the floor. Getting or accepting a free ride on the company's haulage truck couldn't be gross negligence. guardian or some person charged with his care. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE: SLIGHT NEGLIGENCE . When the truck tried to overtake another truck. value  RA 9044 Sec. he would surely be entitled to compensation. The person in the first place liable is those who have the insane party under their care or guardianship. RULE: Although he may not be held criminally liable. to the danger of his injury‖. Violation of a rule promulgated by a commission or board is not negligence per se. the danger is apparent and imminent because the shore is 1½ miles away from the location of the ship. what determines if an act if negligent is the danger of an act the nature of the act of jumping into the sea involves danger CLASS NOTES PAGE 17 FACTS: Mamador hitched a ride together with other laborers on a company-owned truck. There was a company prohibition against laborers riding the haulage trucks. (failure to exercise care) Marinduque Iron Mines v Workmen's Compensation Jec  . under the law. which resulted in his death. that he could not have been but conscious of the probable consequences‖ of his carelessness and that he was ―indifferent. He drowned. HELD: Mere riding on a haulage truck or stealing a ride thereon is not negligence. There is more reason to hold that his death was caused by his notorious negligence. or worse. He is not said to be a good swimmer but he jumped into the water as opposed to Cuervo vs. then his own property must meet the civil liability.   CLASS NOTES Exemption form criminal liability doesn‘t mean exemption from civil liability B. The nature of the act of jumping into the sea involves danger per se. that he displayed a ―reckless disregard of the What determines if an act if negligent is the danger of an act. potent and obvious. Barretto wherein the emoloyer ordered him to jump into the water to protect the property of the company. Petitioner claims that such violation was the laborer's ―notorious negligence‖ which. If while he was working. RULE: Violation of a rule promulgated by a commission or board is not negligence per se. precludes recovery. Jumping into the sea. because ―no danger or risk was apparent‖. ordinarily.an absence of that degree of vigilance which persons of extraordinary prudence and foresight are accustomed to use. however. 2231 In quasi-delicts. Under the circumstances. Why notorious negligence? Because compared with other cases. jumped overboard from his ship into the water to retrieve a 2peso bill that was blown by the breeze to the sea. is entirely different. his act being obviously innocent. RULE: ―Notorious negligence‖ has been held to be tantamount to ―gross negligence‖. but it may be evidence of negligence. but it may be evidence of negligence. What determines the grossness of negligence? The degree of danger and other factors which would justify the dangerous act. Degrees of Negligence Art. a seaman. 6: child 15 & below-incapable of negligence  question still to be resolved is the law‘s effect on 2180 CC Amedo v Rio  FACTS: Filomeno Manguit. or if the latter be insolvent.    CLASS NOTES There‘s only an alleged prohibition on part of employer Even if there was indeed a prohibition. it collided with a coconut tree. violation of policy is not necessarily negligence per se but it may be an evidence of negligence SANGCO (10-12) The amount of care demanded by the standard of reasonable conduct must be proportionate to the apparent risk.

4. the owner is solidarily liable with his driver. or deterioration of the goods. whether international or civil.Each party must prove his own affirmative allegations. if he had been found guilty or reckless   CLASS NOTES Art 2184 CC disputable presumption: Jec  . (n) That a court. 2188 There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances. 4. Sec. 6. Conclusive presumptions. Sec.The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted. prevented the misfortune. 1. but less than conscious indifference to consequences. Presumption Art. WANTON. (p) That private transactions have been fair and regular. Sec. (c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733. (a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong. - 1. by the use of the due diligence. (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers. (extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care) WILFUL. C. 2. 2184 In motor vehicle mishaps. he was violating any traffic regulation. (m) That official duty has been regularly performed. if the goods are lost. destroyed or deteriorated. or other natural disaster or calamity. (q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed. differing in QUALITY rather than in DEGREE from ordinary lack of care. Burden of proof in criminal cases. Art. but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. or judge acting as such . Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation. 5. (5) Order or act of competent public authority. but the probability is that it signifies more than ordinary inadvertence or inattention. If the owner was not in the motor vehicle. 3. and 5 of the preceding article. and the two have tended to merge and take on the same meaning as an AGGRAVATED form of negligence. and so great as to make it highly probably that harm would follow). (ff) That the law has been obeyed. Evidence need not be given in support of a negative allegation except when such negative allegation is an essential part of the statement of the right or title on which the cause of action or defense is founded. could have. They apply to conduct which is still merely negligent but which is so far from a proper state of mind that it is treated in many respects as if it were intended (actor has intentionally done an act of unreasonable character in disregard of a risk known to him or so obvious that he must be taken to have been aware of it. if the former. . (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. (2) Act of the public enemy in war. storm. (b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent. nor even in such case when the allegation is a denial of the existence of a document the custody of which belongs to the opposite party.TORTS AND DAMAGES Sec. such as firearms and poison. destruction. (3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods. GROSS NEGLIGENCE – described as failure to exercise even that care which a careless person would use. lightning. the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable. 2. Art. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. Art. 2185 Unless there is proof to the contrary. lying between intent to do harm and the mere reasonable risk of harm to another. ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that nature. 1735 In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: (1) Flood. Burden of proof in civil cases. except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent. There is no generally accepted meaning. There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after three hundred days following the dissolution of the marriage or the separation of the spouses. was acting in the lawful exercise of his jurisdiction. who was in the vehicle. Sec. earthquake. 1734 Common carriers are responsible for the loss. . Art. 3. There is often NO CLEAR DISTINCTION between the above and ―gross‖. Quasi-conclusive presumptions of legitimacy. AND RECKLESS – ―quasi-intent‖. it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap. 1. Proof of Negligence 1. whether in the Philippines or elsewhere. The burden of proof lies on the party who would be defeated if no evidence were given on either side. Disputable presumptions. Burden of Proof RULE 131: BURDEN OF PROOF PRESUMPTIONS BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS AND Sec. PAGE 18 driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy.

It can be involved when and only when. although  CLASS NOTES Jec  . anything over which the defendant has no control and which places him or an instrumentality that he is operating in a position contrary to that required by the statute or ordinance 3. anything that would make it impossible to comply with the statute or ordinance 2. Defendant contends that the proximate cause was the failure of the driver of the parked truck to install an early warning device. such as peace officers or armed forces. The law on averages under the Code of Commerece cannot be applied in determining negligence. a professional driver permits any unlicensed person to drive the car placed under his responsibility 2. under the circumstances involved. direct evidence is absent and not readily available. under the circumstances involved. in the absence of an explanation by the defendant. 3. gives rise to a presumption of lack of ordinary care PRESUMPTION IS REBUTTABLE FOUR GENERAL GROUNDS OR EXCUSES FOR VIOLATION OF A STATUTE: 1. the plaintiff was negligent. The presumption DOES NOT APPLY to those whose occupation or business REQUIRES the possession or use of a firearm. IAC concluded that under the doctrine. Art 2185 CC  disputable presumption: violate traffic regulation o no conviction required o however. The question is whether the doctrine was applicable. Res Ipsa Loquitor Layugan v IAC FACTS: A truck bumped into the plaintiff while he and a companion were repairing the tire of their parked truck along the right side of the highway. or in the case of poison.TORTS  AND o DAMAGES he should have due regard for the rights of motor vehicles and should exercise due care for his own safety. except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation/business Arts 1734 & 1735  common carriers  loss. driving a motor vehicle without a license. that the accident arose from want of care. it affords reasonable evidence. the drug companies or stores. at a high rate of speed and under the influence of alcohol Where there is NO local regulation restricting the pedestrian‘s rights in the use of a street. liability PAGE 19 where there is  2x w/in the next preceeding 2 mos: guilty of reckless driving / violation of traffic rules if the owner is not in the car. does the disputable presumption apply? o n/a when the owner is not in the car / common carrier requires conviction IN ALL CASES. It cannot be availed of when the plaintiff has knowledge and testifies or presents evidence as to the specific act of negligence which is the cause of injury complained of or where there is direct evidence as to the precise cause of the accident and all the facts and circumstances attendant to the occurrence appear. deteriorate  presume negligence common carrier o UNLESS prove extraordinary diligence SANGCO (18-27) It is NEGLIGENCE PER SE when: 1. Where proof of violation makes: 1. The doctrine does not apply. Sangco says this also requires conviction  ** but when is one ―found guilty‖ of traffic violation? Art 2188  prima facie presumption o injury results from possession of dangerous weapons/ substances. direct evidence is absent and not readily available. RULE: Res ipsa can be involed when and only when. destroyed. The care required is a great or high degree. a pedestrian HAS THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL upon roads and streets WHETHER THERE BE SIDEWALKS OR NOT. an emergency not of the actor‘s own making which causes him to fail to obey the enactment 4. The absence of want of care of the driver has been established by clear and convincing evidence. It is not rule of substantive law but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience. HELD: Res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself) – Where the thing which causes the injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant. or the HIGHEST degree of precaution. WRT to COMMON CARRIERS Common carriers from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy are bound to observe EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE in the vigilance over the goods and safety of passengers transported by them according to all circumstances of each case. a prima facie case of negligence 2. and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have he management use proper care. conduct which comes within an excuse or exception provided in the statute One who has in his possession or under his control an instrumentality EXTREMELY DANGEROUS in character is bound to take EXCEPTIONAL precautions to prevent injury being done thereby. He sustained injuries. violation of an ordinance prohibiting pedestrians from crossing a street in places other than regular cross-walks 3. violation must be the PROXIMATE CAUSE.

and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management used proper care. may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence. in the absence of an explanation by the defendant. The doctrine is generally restricted to            CLASS NOTES           RIL applicable: No expert testimony Court adjudicated based on common knowledge fund The foundation of RIL is common knowledge evidentiary rule: doesn‘t do away with presenting evidence must prove these elements: accident doesn‘t occur w/o person‘s negligence defendant has exclusive control over the instrumentality no contributory negligence on plaintiff‘s part RIL & malpractice suits: o Gen rule: expert testimony needed (Cruz v CA) o Exception: If case can be gleaned from common knowledge (Ramos v CA) in Cruz. CA). that the accident arose from ordinary want of care. she was found to be feverish. it affords reasonable evidence. Dr. when the doctrine is availed of by the plaintiff. Afterwards. IAC ruled RIL as the basis for holding Layugan negligent. can use common knowledge medical malpractice domain of medical science: expert needed RIL common knowledge: no need for expert preparation for procedure if there‘s failure / didn‘t get the results expected. it is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants 3. the court is permitted to find a physician negligent upon proper proof of injury to the patient. it affords reasonable evidence. Generally. But if common knowledge can be applied. that the accident arose from want of ordinary care. Ramos v CA FACTS: Ramos. RIL applies. and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care. RIL n/a *question: when is a medical malpractice case common knowledge or in the domain of medical science?* RIL is NA in malpractice suits if the only showing is that the desired result was not    CLASS NOTES RIL applies. as a matter of common knowledge and observation. they didn‘t provide expert testimony therefore they lost in Ramos. use evidence / facts so that judgment will be based on facts and not presumptions Batiguin v CA FACTS: Dr. Batiquin performed a caesarian operation on a patient. RULE: Res ipsa – Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the Defendant. (2) The patient underwent no other operation which could habe caused the offending piece of rubber to appear in her uterus. RIL N/A because there‘s direct (clear & convincing) evidence Why? Because the mode of proof only. (1) The entire proceedings of the caesarian were under the exclusive control of Dr. In cases where the doctrine is applicable. that the consequences of professional care were not as such as would ordinarily have followed if due care had been exercised. or make out a plaintiff‘s prima facie case. taken with the surrounding circumstances. PAGE 20 accomplished if the problem is based on medical science (Cruz vs. HELD: Res ipsa – Where the thing which causes the injury is shown to under the management of the defendant. all elements present: o entire C-section under control & management of doctor o no other operation after C-section although there is no proof directly linking Dr.TORTS     AND DAMAGES situations in malpractice cases where a layman is able to say. the court is permitted to find a physician negligent upon proper proof of injury to patient. so when there‘s evidence. All the requisites are present in this case. Batiquin. without aid of expert testimony. RIL made a special defense by Isidro to allege negligence of the truck driver and Layugan. expert testimony is relied upon in malpractice suits to prove a physician has done a negligent act or that he has deviated from the standard medical procedure. where the court from its common knowledge can determine the proper standard of care. Batiquin to the rubber. When the patient submitted herself to another surgery. is liable Jec  . went comatose because she was incorrectly intubated. the need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence. Requisites are: 1. it stands to reason that it could habe only been a by-product of the caesarian section. where the court from its fund of common knowledge can determine the proper standard of care. without aid of expert testimony. applying RIL. the possibility of contributing conduct which would make plaintiff responsible is eliminated. in the absence of an explanation by the defendant. The fundamental element is ―control of instrumentality‖ which caused the damage. RULE: In cases where the doctrine is applicable. and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation. the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone‘s negligence 2. she was found to have an ovarian cyst on the left and right side of the ovaries and a piece of rubber material was embedded on the right side of the uterus. HELD: Res ipsa (The thing or transaction speaks for itself) – the fact of the occurrence of the injury. undergoing a gall bladder operation.

NCC When the plaintiff‘s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury. HELD: Court said Meralco was not negligent. It is like saying that even if there is evidence. praying for damages SANCO (27-32) RES IPSA LOQUITOR – the facts or circumstances attending an injury may be such as to raise a presumption.. proximate cause: negligence of repairman in turning with GI sheet difference between this & Astudillo v. The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured COURTS ADD A FURTHER CONDITION: 4. Manila Electric v Remonquillo FACTS: Magno was repairing the ―media agua‖ when he was electrocuted to death. It is a rule of necessity. that the necessary evidence is not available. 5. But if his negligence was only contributory. he cannot recover damages. the plaintiff may recover Bernardo v Legaspi FACTS: CFI dismissed the complaint filed in an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff‘s automobile by reason of defendant‘s negligence in causing a collision. 4. Manila Electric Co.e. Rule: The theoretical basis for the doctrine is its necessity. for any explanation of care exercised by the defendant in respect of the matter of which the plaintiff complains. Prof. he was qualified to do the job. testimony & affidavit). i.: o Meralco would‘ve had to have been more careful if public place * The son could have sued stepbrother of his father for building the house so close to the wire* 1. but is DESCRIPTIVE of a class of cases wherein the initial presumption is overcome by evidence inherently carrying with it implications of negligence without the necessity of proof of specific facts or conduct. the immediate and proximate cause being the defendant‘s lack of due care. Theoretical basis for RIL: The proof should come from the defendant (RIL is the ―bridge‖ which allows the plaintiff to reach the defendant). of negligence on Jec  . The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with negligence 3. Plaintiff‟s Negligence Art. It is assumed that due to his age and experience. Casis thinks that it is the victim‘s fault for falling off the platform. Plaintiff‘s negligence Contributory negligence Fortuitous event Assumption of risk Due diligence Damnum absque injuria Prescription Double recovery  RIL applies theoretical basis: o proof is in exclusive control of defendant o bridge that connects plaintiff to the proof Prof. Plaintiff had no knowledge or means of knowledge as to the cause of the accident PAGE 21 damages. Court also dismissed a crosscomplaint filed by the defendant. 6. Casis‘s problem: there‘s evidence (police report. But assuming it was Magno‘s heirs still can‘t recover because the proximate cause of the electrocution was not the electric wire but the reckless and negligent act of Magno in turning around and swinging the galvanized iron sheet without precaution. It is NOT an exception to the rule of initial presumption of negligence. It relates to the MODE rather than the BURDEN of establishing negligence. 2. 2179. but the court shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. The galvanized iron sheet he was holding came in contact with the electric wire. 7. one could still argue RIL to win the case. without knowledge of the cause. DM Consunji v CA Facts: A construction worker fell from the 14 floor when the platform assembly he was standing on fell down. Held: The theoretical basis for the doctrine is its necessity. It furnishes a bridge by which the plaintiff. or some other person who is charged with negligence. WHEN DOES IT APPLY? Upon the satisfaction of 3 conditions: 1. reaches over to defendant who knows or should know the cause. The accident was of a kind which ordinarily does not occur unless someone is negligent 2. 8. 3. or permit an inference. The defendant in charge of the instrumentality which causes the injury either knows the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of ascertaining it and the plaintiff has no such knowledge.         CLASS NOTES CLASS NOTES F. DEFENSES 1. th   CLASS NOTE Applies only when both parties are negligent.TORTS  AND DAMAGES the part of the defendant.

on the ground that the injuries sustained by his automobile.o. Court held that Rakes had been working for less than 2 days. less a sum deemed an equitable equivalent for his own imprudence. RULE: When the negligence of both the plaintiff and the defendant is the proximate cause of the accident. = Recovery Jec  . HELD: The accident was due to the lack of diligence of Antonio. – Plaintiff‘s contrib. an Genobiagon v CA accident v. to primary event o injury: may recover  Defendant‘s contrib. Later. lady who was crossing the street. only mitigates   CLASS NOTE Contributory negligence is a mitigating factor in awarding damages. he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence only contributed to his injury. The Court made a distinction between the accident and the injury. There was nothing abnormal in letting a child run along a few paces ahead of the mother. As to the second. If the plaintiff‘s negligence contributed to the accident. HELD: As to the first. TC and CA found him guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. Art. they cannot recover from each other. She got startled by an automobile and ran back to her mother. Court also found that the jeep was running too fast. but goes to the very cause of the occurrence of the accident and thereby precludes their right to recover damages. but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. the plaintiff may recover damages. injury o accident: can‘t recover  contrib. 2214. The defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases committed through reckless imprudence since one cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence. Proximate cause was the unexplained and abrupt swerving of the jeep. he cannot recover. and those to the plaintiff‘s car were caused by plaintiff‘s own negligence. But if his negligence was only contributory. PAGE 22 FACTS: Rig driven by appellant bumped an 81 y. The disobedience of the plaintiff in placing himself in danger contributed in some degree to the injury as a proximate. Bernal v House 2.TORTS AND DAMAGES excavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT for the installation of its underground conduit system. causing the jeep to hit the mound. The rails that they were transporting slid off the truck and caught his lag. Mother and child had a right to be on that street. He could not have known that one rail was lower than the other or that the stringers and rails joined in the same place. it is not a bar to recovery. the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant‘s lack of due care. he may recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the accident should pay fpr the injury. HELD: SC held they were not.   CLASS NOTES PLDT v CA FACTS: Antonio and Gloria Esteban‘s jeep ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench. Court found that there was a general prohibition against walking by the side of the car. the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. (n) Art. if any. His defense was that it was the old lady who bumped his car. NCC When the plaintiff‘s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury. does not exonerate accused. his leg was amputated. Rakes v Atlantic FACTS: The truck plaintiff was riding fell because the track sagged. if any. CFI denied damages to parents because they were negligent. HELD: Court said that the alleged contributory negligence of the victim. although not its primary cause. Contributory Negligence FACTS: Mother and child were walking along a street. Contributory negligence of the child and her mother. with the child a few steps ahead. The negligence of Antonio was not only contributory to his injuries and those of his wife. does not operate as a bar to recovery but could only result in reduction of damages. he cannot recover. NCC In quasi-delicts. The Estebans passed that mound several times. She fell into a ditch with hot water and later died. and (2) he walked on the ends of the ties at the side of the car instead of along the boards.    CLASS NOTES No contributory negligence of mother & kid Even if they did have contributory negligence. Company said Rakes was negligent because: (1) he continued his work despite having noticed the depression in the track. HELD: Court found that both plaintiff and defendant were negligent in handling their automobile so both cannot recover. 2179. His jeep was running along the inside lane of the street but it swerved abruptly. NOTES: negligence imputed included knowledge of the place. Where plaintiff in a negligence action by his own carelessness contributes to the principal occurrence as one of the determining causes thereof.

NOTES: Sir said force majeure is not the same as Acts of God. NCC Except in cases expressly specified by the law. It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito. Many possibilities were pposed by the Court to justify that the tire blowing up was not a fortuitous event. Obligor must be free from participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. while it was on a busy highway.TORTS  AND DAMAGES PAGE 23 2 kinds of contribution: (1) contribution to the principal event. something that could not have reasonably be foreseen though it could have happened. Jeep was running at a very fast speed and was overloaded. but was only able to apprehend one. In this case. 2 robbers boarded the jeep and took the money. This omission by RMC amounts to contributory negligence which shall mitigate the damages that may be awarded to it. or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk. Bank of Commerce v CA FACTS: For over a year. it is impossible to avoid. Court found that RMC was also negligent in not checking its monthly statements of account for more than one year. It was a fortuitous event. Juntilla v Funtanar FACTS: Plaintiff was seated in the front passenger seat of a public utility jeepney when the right tire blew up. Important: memorize characteristics of caso fortuito Hernandez v COA FACTS: Hernandez encashed 2 checks – salaries of employees and operating expenses of the project. (2) contribution to his own injury        CLASS NOTES  ** Is this really a defense? ** there‘s only one case cited because in Transpo course. the 2 robbers attacked him in broad daylight in the jeep. He chose to bring the money with him to his house in Bulacan instead of returning to the office in Cavite. without the company noticing it. HELD: Court held that the proximate cause was the negligence of the bank. it cannot be said that all this was a result of his imprudence and negligence. 1174. Cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence. the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was not independent of human will. 3. were inevitable. NOTES: This case doesn‘t say that robberies are fortuitous events. or if it can be foreseen. On his way home. He ran after them. HELD: SC held in favor of Hernandez. He also lost his omega watch. and it did. HELD: SC said that there are specific acts of negligence on the part of the respondents. Fortuitous Event Art. 2. COA denied the request. RMC sued PBC to collect the money. and PBC was negligent in the selection and supervision of employees. as it happened. It just said that this particular robbery was a fortuitous event. or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation must be independent of human will. The bank teller was negligent in validating the duplicate copy of the deposit slip even if ccount name was left blank. contrary to the bank‘s selfimposed procedure. and in the presence of other passengers.     CLASS NOTES robbery in this case was FE o but not all robberies are FE‘s some human acts can be considered FE it may be an accident but not really FE Gotesco Investment v Chato FACTS: Chato and 15 yo daughter went to see a movie Jec  . though foreseen.40 ratio in damages. or which. He filed a request for relief from money accountability.     CLASS NOTES Both negligent but proximate cause is the teller allowing the practice of validating incomplete form Solution to proximate cause issue: 60-40 *Sir has doubts as to the use of the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance in this case* 3. He was thrown out of the jeep and suffered injuries. or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation. no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen. The decision he made seemed logical at that time and one that could be expected of a reasonable and prudent person. Therefore: 60 . RMC‘s secretary had been depositing the company‘s money to her husband‘s bank account. The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner 4. It was caused either through the negligence of the driver or because of the mechanical defects in the tire. However. CHARACTERISTICS OF CASO FORTUITO: 1. Court was not always consistent whether a tire blowout is a fortuitous event or not *how different is a tire blowout from a fire?* *memorize elements of Fortuitous Event* CLASS NOT ES Phil. And if.

specs and design of the school building were defective. Bulacan. landing on and destroying portions of the roofing of respondent‘s house. storms. Respondents did not even show that the plans. it is an unexpected event or act of God which could neither be foreseen nor resisted. negligently and recklessly opened 3 of the dam‘s spillways. there was not a shred of proof that the cause of the fire was in any way           CLASS NOTES CLASS NOTES the flooding of the Angat River was not FE but due to the negligence of NPC is typhoon a force majeure? No because in this case there was negligence *so is force majeure really a defense then?* typhoon is FE flying roof is FE typhoon was proximate cause of damage to neighboring house *take this case for definition of force majeur* *credibility of ocular inspection discredited so this is strange because this runs counter to Gotesco* Jec  . exclusively without human intervention. directly. no investigation was conducted to determine the real cause of the incident. By nature. NOTE: event. and that no complaints have been lodged in the past. By the act of man. Caso fortuito – an event that takes place by accident and could not have been foreseen. 2 GENERAL CAUSES: 1. Gotesco is still liable because there‘s implied warranty in public places o still negligent Just because you cannot explain it. Servando v Philippine Steam FACTS: Plaintiffs loaded their cargo on board appellant‘s vessel. annual maintenance inspection and repair of the school building was regularly undertaken. school‘s roof was partly ripped off and blown away. HELD: SC did not accept defense of force majeure. same official gave go signal for repairs of damage of typhoon th and subsequently authorized the use of the entire 4 floor of the building. the whole occurrence is thereby humanized. When the effect. This Gotesco did not do. even which we could neither foresee nor resist. 2.    CLASS NOTES fire was FE *it was taken for granted that a fire is a fortuitous event (there was no explanation given why fire was a fortuitous event)* National Power v CA FACTS: Respondents filed a complaint for damages against NPC for loss of lives and property caused by the flooding of Norzagaray. pains and care reasonably to have been expected. governmental prohibition. or failure to act. attack by bandits. is found to be in part the result of the participation of man. at the theater owned by Gotesco. whether to be from active intervention or neglect. PRINCIPLE OF ACT OF GOD strictly requires that the act must be one occasioned exclusively by the violence of nature and all human agencies are to be excluded from creating or entering inot the cause of the mischief. (3) Assuming that the cause was force majeure. NPC suddenly. Typhoon was the proximate cause. obligor is exempt from liability for non-performance. In this case. floods. NPC failed to exercise due diligence in monitoring the water level so when the water level went beyond the maximum allowable limit. Gotesco‘s defense: force majeure. They claimed that despite knowledge of the impending entry of the typhoon Kading. etc. Gotesco could still be held liable because it was guilty of negligence. Gotesco had the burden to prove that the collapse was indeed caused by force majeure. city building official testified that the school obtained both building permit and certificate of occupancy. A team of engineers conducted an ocular inspection and found that the causes may have been the U-shaped formation of the building and the improper anchorage of the trusses to the roof beams.TORTS AND DAMAGES attributable to the negligence of the appellant or its employees. Balcony collapsed and they sustained injuries. destroying the remaining cargo. Therefore. the cause of which is to be considered. HELD: Court found that other than the report submitted by the engineers. HELD: (1) Having interposed force majeure as a defense. Its own witness admitted that he could not give any reason why the ceiling collapsed. NOTE: Res ipsa loquitur applies in this case. such as could not have been prevented by any kind of oversight.     CLASS NOTES  Ong‘s incompetence is not equal to Act of God not necessarily Act of God just because there are no / unknown explanations even assuming that there‘s FE.armed invasion. it does not necessarily mean that it is fortuitous. CASO FORTUITO – event which takes place by accident and could not have been reasonably foreseen.earthquakes. etc. (2) Force majeure – inevitable accident or casualty. HELD: Court said that where the fortuitous event is the immediate and proximate cause of the loss. A fire of unknown origin razed the warehouse. petitioner has not been shown negligent or at fault regarding the construction and maintenance of the school building. On the other hand. Chato even went to Illinois for further treatment. Cargoes were discharged unto the warehouse of Bureau of Customs. any accident due to natural causes. This case established that fire is a fortuitous PAGE 24 Southeastern College v CA FACTS: During a typhoon.

HELD: SC held that testimonial evidence of due diligence. he should not be satisfied with the mere possession of a professional driver‘s license. or when he seeks to rescue his endangered property. *they could have used RIL*   CLASS NOTES 4. HELD: Court said A1905 makes possessory user of animal liable for any damages it may cause. the animal was under the control of the caretaker. It was his business to try to prevent the animal from causing injury to anyone. It is not enough that it is alleged. Isabel should not be punished for exercising her right to protect her property from the floods by imputing upon her the unfavorable presumption that she assumed the risk of personal in injury. PRESCRIPTION Jec  . either in the selection of servant/ employee or in their supervision.81-84) NOTES: VIOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA: applies to noncontractual relations. In this case. physical exam. previous experience. Being injured by the animal under these circumstances was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences. A person is excused from the force of the rule.) *SANGCO (pp. 3 requisites: (1) plaintiff had actual knowledge of the damage. Isabel went out of her house to check on her grocer store. According to the NPC Engr. he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family. In order that defendant may be considered as having exercised all diligence of a good father of a family. without showing documentary proof that they were being followed or complied with is not sufficient to exempt petitioner from liability arising from negligence of its employees. (3) he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk. ASSUMPTION OF RISK Afialda v Hisole FACTS: Caretaker of carabaos was gored by a carabao and he later died as a consequence of his injuries. Rule is the Emergency Rule: A person is excused from the force of the assumption of risk rule. HELD: SC found Bonifacio negligent. in order to hold sway. (Sir: MMTC said that it was not enough to issue manuals etc. Mere formulation of various company policies on safety (as testified by Christian Bautista). The presumption of negligence on the part of the master or employer. NOTES: defense of due diligence is plausible when defendant has presented enough evidence to overcome the presumption of negligence. (2) he understood an appreciated the risk from danger. the maxim ―violenti non fit injuria‖ does not apply here. Action was predicated on Art 1905 CC. HELD: Court said that contrary to petitioner‘s claim. PAGE 25 qualifications. Their owners refused to pay damages to the injured passenger. clearance. that when he voluntarily assents to a    CLASS NOTES it is not enough that the company provides manuals there has to be proof of enforcement and actual application 6. he must abide by the consequence. but implementation or actual enforcement is more important. but absolved Pepsi for having sufficiently proven that it exercised due diligence in the selection of its driver (background check. if an emergency is found to exist or if the life or property of another is in peril.   CLASS NOTES inherent risks voluntarily & knowingly assumed by caretaker when he agreed to be caretaker 5. including himself. he should have carefully examined the applicant for employment as to his Ilocos Norte v CA FACTS: After a 2-day typhoon. She waded in waistdeep flood and got electrocuted.theoretical and practical driving exams). or if the life or property of another is in peril or when he seeks to rescue his endangered property. his experience and record of service. must be corroborated by documentary evidence. if an emergency is found to exist. Metro Manila v CA FACTS: A jeep and a bus collided. that when he voluntarily assents to a known danger he must abide by the consequences. there were no INELCO linemen who were going around.TORTS  AND DAMAGES known danger. driver‘s exam. when an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant/employee may be rebutted if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in the selection and supervision. DUE DILIGENCE Ramos v PEPSI FACTS: Ramos‘ car collided with Pepsi truck driven by Andres Bonifacio. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA 7.

Respondent relies on the Doctrine of Relations or Relations Bank Doctrine to support his claim that the rd cause of action as against the proposed 3 party defendant accrued only on Dec 12. Definition Bataclan v Medina FACTS: A bus speeding on its way to Pasay City at 2am when one of its front tires burst. each having a A. fell into a canal or ditch. Since it was founded on tortuous interference. At 2:30am. Complainant should have filed before Mar 25. 1976 – Yujuico obtained loan fr GenBank payable on or before Apr 1. ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident? HELD: The overturning of the bus. it must be deemed to have been    CLASS NOTES Take note of Relations Bank Doctrine *Not sure if Relations Bank Doctrine is ratio in this case* 8. NCC Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. Thus. PAGE 26 The longer version can be shortened by removing ―sufficient intervening cause‖ *memorize definition of proximate cause* FACTS: 1976: 2 vessels collided . DOUBLE RECOVERY Art. the gasoline began to leak and escape from the gasoline tank. rd . Medina: Proximate cause is that cause which. Motion to dismiss was filed on the basis of prescription. 1977. saying that according to Art. the trapping of the passengers and the call for outside help.Mar 25. resp was prevented from performing his obligation under the loan. although of equitable origin.1987 – in the course of the proceedings. It appears that as the bus overturned. a fierce fire started.Petitioner claims that cause of action has already prescribed. HELD: SC dismissed the case. Prescriptive period begins from the day the quasi-delict was committed. 1980 when the Monetary Board ordered the GenBank to rd desist fr doing biz in the Phils.   CLASS NOTES IV. produces the injury. When they approached the bus. 1979. 1977 . and without which the result would not have occurred. has a well recognized application to proceedings at law. It is a doctrine which. 1987. 1. So for our purpose-shorter version Jec  . 1987 the action has prescribed. 2177. NOTE.RTC denied admission of 3 party complainant. spreading over the bus and the ground under it. the date when Monetary Board ordered GenBank to desist from doing business in the Philippines. Petitioner believes that the cause of action accrued on Mar 25. it prescribes in 4 yrs. the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury either immediately or by setting other events in motion. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. MEMORIZE ME (in footnote so not doctrine)! “Relations Bank Doctrine” – principle of law by which an act done at one time is considered by a fiction of law to have been done at some antecedent period.Feb 7. HELD: Action for damages arising from QD should be filed within 4 yrs from the day cause of action accrued. all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events. Allied Banking v CA FACTS: Apr 1. 4 passengers were unable to get out of the bus. 1986 when the decision became final and executory. It was alleged that by reason of the tortous interference by the CB with affairs of GenBank. . a legal fiction invented to promote the ends of justice or to prevent injustice and the occurrence of injuries where otherwise there would be no remedy.TORTS AND DAMAGES Kramer v CA instituted on Feb 7. and turned turtle. and not the fire that burned the bus. it is rd contended that while the 3 party complaint was filed only on Jun 17. in natural and continuous sequence. . 1977 – Monetary Board issued resolution forbidding GenBank from doing business in Phils. and that the lighted torch set it on fire. CAUSATION  Definition #1 of proximate cause according to Bataclan v. burning the bus and the 4 passengers. resp sought rd to implead Central Bank and Aurellano as 3 party defendants. is the proximate cause. action based on quasi-delict must be instituted within 4 yrs. Calls and shouts for help were made in the neighborhood. The coming of the men with the torch was to be expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning of the bus. while 3 party complaint was filed only on Jun 17. 10 men came. Definition #2 of proximate cause according to Bataclan vs.1981: Phil Coast Guard concluded that the collision was due to M/V Asia‘s negligence nd -1982: Coast Guard suspended 2 mate of M/V Asia. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. . when the complain in the case was filed. 1979 – Allied filed complaint against resp Joselita for collection of a sum of money . as a result of which the vehicle zigzagged.Allied acquired all assets and assumed all liabilities of GenBank . 1981. Proximate cause  CLASS NOTES Usually it‘s the shorter definition that‘s being cited in the other cases. The cause of action in this case accrued on Mar 25. one of them carrying a lighted torch made of bamboo with a wick fueled with petroleum. Medina: More comprehensively. -1985: Petitioners instituted complaint for damages against respondent. 1146.

close causal connection with its immediate predecessor. he died of tetanus. ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the injury to Reyes? HELD: The proximate cause of the injury is the negligence of Pilipinas Bank‘s employee in erroneously positing the cash deposit of Reyes in the name of another depositor who had a similar first name. especially one which has not been cleaned for years. who made the deposit. have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an in jury to some person might probably result therefrom. ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident? HELD: The wrongful and negligent parking of the truck. an old hand in this kind of service. The infection was. or the defendant may e negligent only for that reason. an ordinarily prudent person would undoubtedly be aware of the attendant risks. Before the award was made (he lost). To cover the face value of the checks. Casis included the case to show that it is not necessary to attend school to be an expert. More so with Bertulano. Foreseeable intervening forces are within the scope of the original risk. he requested PCIB to effect a withdrawal from his savings account there and have it deposited with his current account with Pilipinas Bank. which had not been cleaned for 19 years. The truck driver‘s negligence was far from being a passive and static condition and was rather an indispensable and efficient cause. ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the death of the victims? HELD: The proximate cause of the death of the victims was their failure to take precautionary measures for their safety. ---NO. PAGE 27 driver‘s negligence. or one which the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances. Quoted Taylor.TORTS AND DAMAGES Urbano v IAC FACTS: On October 23. The collision of Dionisio‘s car with the dump truck was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the truck Pilipinas Banking v CA FACTS: Florencio Reyes issued two post-dated checks. HELD: The tetanus.. but it should have been Rakes Jec  . the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted. He switched his headlights on ―bright‖ and saw the truck looming 2 ½ meters away from his car. distinct and foreign to the crime. seeing that the account number coincided with the name Florencio. Considering the nature of the task of emptying a septic tank. The employee should have continuously gone beyond mere assumption. Fernando v CA FACTS: Bertulano was invited to bid for the reemptying of a septic tank. and hence of the defendant‘s negligence. wrote the wrong account number on the deposit slip. A higher degree of diligence is expected from an expert. At 1:30AM. Dionisio was on his way home when his car headlights allegedly suddenly failed. under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should. 1980. without clearance from the market master. Note: Court mentioned foreseeability. There were no early warning devices placed near the truck. Prof. partly blocking the way of oncoming traffic. deposited the amount in the account of Florencio Amador. Santos. v IAC FACTS: A dump truck. The Current Account Bookkeeper of Pilipinas Bank. On November 14. owned by Phoenix. therefore. the defendant may be negligent xxx because of failure to guard against it. The claimant must establish that he had no negligence. Javier was brought to a doctor who issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9 days. he and 4 companions surreptitiously entered the septic tank. Quoting Posser and Keeton on “Foreseeable intervening causes”: If the intervening cause is one which in ordinary human experience is reasonable to be anticipated. What the petitioners describe as an ―intervening cause‖ was no more than a foreseeable consequence of the risk created by the negligent manner in which the truck driver had parked the dump truck. and not the negligence of Dionisio. They died in the septic tank due to the intake of toxic gas produced from the waste matter therein. not the hacking. natural and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused (People v Cardenas). as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person. Medical findings lead to a distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time Javier was wounded to the time of his death.       CLASS NOT ES Government negligence was not the proximate cause because it was not continuing. On November 5. Note: The court adopted the Bataclan definition of proximate cause. but wrote the name of Florencio Reyes as the depositor‘s name. was the proximate cause of Javier‘s death. was the proximate cause of the accident. The improper parking of the truck created an unreasonable risk of injury for anyone driving down General Lacuna St. and for having so created this risk. was parked askew on the right hand side of the street in such a manner as to stick out onto General Lacuna St. Phoenix Construction Inc. Javier was seen catching fish in dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. Note: The court adopted the Bataclan definition of proximate cause. the truck driver must be held liable. who is presumed to know the hazards of the job. Urbano hacked Javier in his right palm. His car smashed into the dump truck. The death of the victim must be the direct. ISSUE: WON the hacking by Urbano of Javier was the proximate cause of Javier‘s death.

ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident? HELD: The negligence of the Quezon City Government was the proximate cause of the accident. Note: Followed Bataclan‘s definition. and Araneta cannot be charged with liability for the accident resulting from the action of the horse thereafter. moved away. if there‘s a case similar to Pilipinas Bank. free form the control of the bit. 1980.  CLASS NOT ES *Sir said that there is a problem with foreseeability as an element. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. HELD: Araneta‘s act of stopping the rig was too remote from the accident to be considered the legal or proximate cause thereof. the driver was the person primarily responsible for the control of the animal. Casis’s opinion: There‘s no basis for this additional element. On November 5. 2202. in natural and continuous sequence. by getting out and taking his post at the head of the horse. 2. Moreover.   It is not the counting of the time but the SERIES CLASS NOT ES An admission by the court that proximate cause is what they think is fair in each case. Concurrent Far Eastern Shipping Company v CA   CLASS NOT ES Classical description of remote cause with series of events. saying he hailed the carromata first. upon a combined consideration of logic. This case adds the element of foreseeability. On November 14. foreseeability should not be a factor. unrelated and efficient cause of the injury. Citing Manila Electric v. apply Pilipinas Bank definition* Quezon City v Dacara FACTS: At about 1AM. Remote Gabeto v Araneta FACTS: Gayetano (husband of plaintiff) and Ilano took a carromata to go to a cockpit. Pagnaya fixed the bridle on the curb. HELD: There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent infection. successive. Javier was brought to a doctor who issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9 days. while driving a Toyota Corolla. FACTS: A ship owned by FESC rammed into the apron of the pier. Distinguished from other kinds a. The horse. policy and precedent. Urbano hacked Javier in his right palm. Gavino was the compulsory pilot. Kavankov was the master of the vessel. causing the carromata to hit a telephone booth and caused it to crash.   CL ASS NOTE The remote cause was noted to be the wound of Urbano.TORTS AND DAMAGES  PAGE 28 Proximate cause is any cause which. he died of tetanus. for failure to take necessary precautions. (son of petitioner). would result therefrom as a natural and probable cause. Under Art. b. Javier was seen catching fish in dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. Proximate cause is determined from the facts of each case. Note: Different definition of PC from Bataclan case. After Pagnaya alighted. Gayetano jumped or fell from the rig. --NO. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. as a result of which. even though such injury would not have happened except but for such condition or occasion. Jec  . The lower court found that no evidence was presented that sufficient and adequate precautionary signs were placed in the said street. the bit came off the horse‘s mouth. Driver Pagnaya pulled the reins to take it away from Araneta‘s control. Prof. with tetanus may have been the proximate cause of Javier‘s death with which Urbano had nothing to do. if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct. the horse was conducted to the curb and an appreciable interval of time elapsed before the horse started to career up to the street. Remoquillo: A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible. Dacara. rammed into a pile of earth/street diggings (accident mound) found at Matahimik St. ISSUE: WON Araneta is liable for Gayetano‘s death. So as a solution. ---NO. This frightened the horse and caused it to run up the street with Gayetano still inside the carromata. such that the result would not have occurred otherwise. Urbano v IAC FACTS: On October 23. causing injuries from which he soon died. Proximate cause is defined as any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence. ISSUE: WON the hacking was the proximate cause of Javier‘s death. common sense. Araneta held the reins of the horse. When the carromata was about to move. produces the result complained of and without which would not have occurred and from which it ought to have been foreseen or reasonably anticipated by a person of ordinary care that the injury complained of or some similar injury.

it was still within the speed limit allowed in highways. While the bus was negotiating a sharp curve of a bumpy and downward slope. PAGE 29 lane. There is no contribution between joint tortfeasors whose liability is solidary since both of them are liable for the whole damage. Note: Liability of concurrent negligence = solidary. it being sufficient that the negligence of the person charged with injury is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have resulted to as great an extent. A Philippine Rabbit Bus from the opposite lane bumped the rear portion of the jeep. Reason: It is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury and either of them is responsible for the whole injury. Kavankov was negligent in leaving the entire docking procedure up to Gavino instead of being vigilant. not the only cause Important : memorize the test *This is the only case that defines substantial factor test* *Also see Pilipinas Bank* b. the degree of participation does not matter. “But for” Bataclan v Medina  CL ASS NOTE Proximate cause is that cause which. in order to render a person liable need not be the sole cause of an injury. The driver stepped on the brake. 3. and that such cause is not attributable to the person injured. Gavino was negligent for failing to react on time. already near the canal) or to the left (it would have it the jeep head-on). although acting independently of each other. Even though the bus was driving at 80-90 kph. Although the negligence of the carrier and its driver is independent. causing it to be unbalanced. courts have used the term proximate cause as descriptive of the actual ―cause in fact‖ relation which must exist Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v IAC FACTS: A jeep was carrying passengers to Pangasinan when its right rear wheel became detached. was hanging onto its left side. in combination. of the negligence of the truck driver and its owner. which made the jeep turn around. ISSUE: Who was negligent --. 103-114) Tests of proximate cause 1. a person is not relieved from liability because he is responsible for only one of them.Gavino or Kvankov? --BOTH.TORTS AND DAMAGES HELD: The carrier and its driver were negligent for allowing Custodio to hang by the side of the bus. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the injury. Tests a. Negligence.   CL ASS NOTE Prof. who died as a result thereof. encroaching on the opposite Jec  . in natural and continuous sequence. in its execution. Where several causes combine to produce injuries. The bus driver had little time to react and had no options available: it could not swerve to the right (western shoulder was narrow and had tall grasses. or the same damage might have resulted from the acts of the other tortfeasor. a speeding truck going in the opposite direction side-swiped Custodio. the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person.  What is the rule on liability? –liability is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury Sabido v Custodio FACTS: Custodio. a passenger of a bus. HELD: Both Gavino (compulsory pilot) and Kavankov (master of the vessel) were concurrently negligent. and without which the result would not have occurred. The truck driver was also negligent for speeding through the middle portion of the road. It applied the substantial factor test: It is a rule under this test that if the actor’s conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm to another. are. only the CA did. Note: Italicized phrase=‖but for‖ test       CL ASS N O T E S () If the concurrent act was the proximate cause. the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it occurred does not prevent him from being liable. Casis thinks that this case should not be cited for the substantial factor test because the SC did not apply the test. even though his act alone might not have caused the entire injury. Note: The substantial factor test contains no element of foreseeability. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. both acts of negligence are the proximate cause of Custodio‘s death. ISSUE: Who was negligent and what is the extent of liability? ---BOTH solidarily liable. ISSUE: Who is liable?-Jeep. Substantial factor = Main cause. HELD: The Supreme Court was not convinced by the application of the substantial factor test. Substantial Factor 1 SANGCO (pp. The Court of Appeals ruled that the bus driver was negligent. Casis thinks that this is a problematic case because the facts would indicate that the victim was at fault because he was negligent. Three passengers of the jeep died as a result. either is responsible for the whole injury. produces the injury. Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of two or more persons. and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury. Cause in fact  Traditionally.    CL ASS NOTE Refers to absolute cause This is the strictest test Prof.

  PAGE 30 The consequence of the negligent act must be within the range of probability as viewed by the ordinary man. an essential element of actionable negligence is lacking. if they had been suggested to his mind. 7.  If the foreseeable risk to plaintiff created a duty which the defendant breached. liability is imposed for any resulting injury within the orbit or scope of such injury. The Restatement adopts the rule that if the actor‘s conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm to another.TORTS   AND DAMAGES  which his negligence has resulted in the harm It is preferable to use the ‗but for‘ test in connection with the substantial factor test since the former is the adverse of the restatement formulation.  This is based on the principle that in tort. the liability of the wrongdoer extends to all the injurious consequences. where it in fact resulted as a direct consequence of the defendant‘s act. as a matter of legal policy. Foreseeability test  Negligence involves a foreseeable risk. If the injury as to causes. 6. fully acquainted with all the circumstances which in fact exist. the wrongdoer is liable for all the consequences which naturally flow from his wrongful act. the matter ends there. For this purpose. it is not the unusual nature of the of the act resulting in injury to plaintiff that is the test of foreseeability but whether the result of the act is within the ambit Jec  . or not.  Foreseeability becomes a test in an effort to limit liability to a consequence which has a reasonably close connection with the defendant‘s conduct and the harm which it originally threatened. The first step is to determine whether the defendant‘s conduct was a factor in causing plaintiff‘s damage. Substantial factor test under Restatement  Question to ask: Was the defendant‘s conduct a substantial factor in producing the plaintiff‘s injuries?  The actor‘s negligent conduct is a legal cause of harm to another if: a) his conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm b) there is no law relieving the actor of liability because of the manner in 4. or such as. between a defendant‘s conduct and a plaintiff‘s injury before liability may arise. but rather. Effectiveness of the cause. 8. 5. The natural and probable consequences have been said to be those which human foresight can anticipate because they happen so frequently they may be expected to recur.‖  An injury is deemed the natural and probable result of a negligent act if after the event. „but for‟ rule  Whether such conduct is a cause without which the injury would not have taken place (referred to as the sine qua non rule) or is the efficient cause which set in motion the chain of circumstances leading to the injury  A cause need not be the sole cause of the injury but it is enough that it should be the concurrent proximate cause  It is useful and generally adequate for determining whether specific conduct actually caused the harmful result in question but it cannot be indiscriminately used as an unqualified measure of the defendant‘s liability because an actor‘s negligence is not a substantial factor in bringing about harm to another if the harm was sustained even if the actor were negligent. But if it shows that his conduct was a factor in causing such damage then the further question is whether his conduct played such a part in causing the damage as would make him the author of such damage and be liable in the eyes of the law. according to common experience and the usual course of events. 3. and that as far as proximate cause is concerned. the term ―probable‖ is used in the sense of ―foreseeable.  When the result complained of is not reasonably foreseeable in the exercise of ordinary care under all the facts as they existed. the injury appears to be the reasonable rather than the extraordinary consequence of the wrong. would have thought at the time of the negligent act as reasonably possible to follow. a threatened danger or injury and conduct unreasonable in proportion to danger. in fact show that the defendant‘s conduct was not a factor in causing plaintiff‘s damage. Ordinary and natural or direct consequences  This test states that. if negligence is a cause in fact of the injury under the criteria previously discussed.  The converse of the rule: a negligent act cannot be said to be the proximate cause of an accident unless the accident could have been avoided without such negligent act. whether they could have been ascertained by reasonable diligence. and viewing the event in retrospect to the act.  2. Natural and probable consequence test  This test is designed to limit the liability of a negligent actor by holding him responsible only for injuries which are the probable consequences of his conduct as distinguished from consequences that are merely possible. the question is not whether the damage was foreseen or foreseeable. the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it occurred does not prevent him from being liable. might reasonably have been anticipated.  The foreseeability test is applied in conjunction with the natural and probable consequences test. Orbit of the risk test  This was intended to be a test of duty and not a test of proximate cause. Hindsight test  The hindsight test eliminates foreseeability as an element. provided only that they are not too remote.  A party guilty of negligence or omission of duty is responsible for all the consequences which a prudent and experienced party.

this fact would not justify the defendant in negligently destroying it. Rodrigueza‘s  The efficient intervening cause destroys the link between the negligent act and injury. Rodrigueza‘s house was partly within the property of the Manila Railroad. The fact that Rodrigueza‘s house was partly on the defendant‘s property is an antecedent condition that may have made the fire possible but cannot be imputed as contributory negligence because: (1) that condition was not created by himself. its edge. Casis thinks that the 8 tests mentioned in Sangco are not practical and relevant because they are all similarly described and the courts never use them.   CL ASS NOTE Prof. any violation of administrative ordinances and the like would either be seen as 1) negligence per se or 2) prima facie evidence of negligence. In the course of the repair. It is not the distinction which is important. of the hazards covered by the duty imposed upon the defendant. but the nature of the risk and the character of the intervening cause. causing his death by electrocution. it is quite impossible to distinguish between active forces and passive situations. It should occur after the purported proximate cause because it would then be a condition. in violation of the regulation of the City of Manila requiring 3 feet. The distance from the electric wire to the media agua was only 2 ½ feet. The condition was the too close proximity of the media agua.    CLASS NOTES Rodrigueza was not guilty of contributory negligence Even if condition was created. or rather. 4.  CLASS NOTES   The cause is the active aspect whereas the condition is the passive action that may produce the injury. owned by Phoenix. His car smashed into the dump truck. the end of the iron sheet he was holding came into contact with an uninsulated electric wire of Manila Electric. Cause = the sparks on the train which was the negligent act of the defendant. Manila Electric v Remonquillo FACTS: Efren Magno repaired the media agua below Peñaloza‘s 3-storey house. Cause and Condition Phoenix v CA FACTS: A dump truck. Note: Condition = plaintiff‘s house was partly within the defendant‘s property. (2) his house remained on this ground by the tolerance. ISSUE: WON Manila Railroad‘s negligence was the proximate cause of the fire HELD: Yes. Posser and Keeton: So far as the fact of causation is concerned. the company is not going to be justified in negligently destroying the house c. He switched his headlights on ―bright‖ and saw the truck looming 2 ½ meters away from his car. ISSUE: What was the cause and condition of the accident? HELD: The cause was Magno‘s own negligence. At 1:30 am. McKee v IAC FACTS: A cargo truck and a Ford Escort were traveling in opposite directions. to the electrical wire of the company by reason of the violation of the original permit given by the city and the subsequent approval of said illegal construction of media agua. Although there is still lack of a definite ruling by the Court. It is difficult to distinguish between a cause and a condition because of the time element. The efficient intervening cause is actually a proximate cause. and thus consent of the train company. (3) even supposing the house to be improperly there. HELD: The distinctions between cause and condition have already been almost entirely discredited. was parked askew on the right hand side of the street.TORTS AND DAMAGES  A condition was a cause at some point in time. Negligence of the defendant if pre-empted by the negligence of the plaintiff. partly blocking the way of oncoming traffic. particularly since the latter are the result of other active forces which have gone before. in the sense of necessary antecedents which have played an important part in producing the result. It cannot be cited in saying that cause and condition are no longer applicable in our jurisdiction because it only said that it is discredited. Dionisio was on his way home when his car headlights allegedly suddenly failed. When the car was 10 meters Jec  . Efficient Intervening cause      CLASS NOT ES Rodrigueza v Manila Railroad FACTS: The house of Rodrigueza and 3 others were burned when a passing train emitted a great quantity of sparks from its smokestack. in such a manner as to stick out onto General Lacuna Street. Even the lapse of a considerable time during which the ―condition‖ remains static will not necessarily affect liability. There were no early warning devices placed near the truck. It is not an efficient intervening cause when it is already in existence during the happening of the proximate cause. PAGE 31 house was built on the same spot before the defendant laid its tracks over the land.

ISSUE: WON there was an efficient intervening cause – YES. ISSUE: WON there was an independent intervening cause – NO. ISSUE: WON there was an efficient intervening cause – YES. The distance from the electric wire to the media agua was only 2 ½ feet. his car collided with the truck. a fierce fire started. It appears that as the bus overturned. causing his death by electrocution. as a result of which the vehicle zigzagged. or if some highway men after looting the vehicle sets it on fire. It was the truck driver‘s subsequent negligence in failing to take the proper measure and degree of care necessary to avoid the collision. if through some event. Four passengers were unable to get out of the bus. Calls and shouts for help were made in the neighborhood. the overturned bus is set on fire. He then switched on the headlights. HELD: The coming of the men with the torch was to be expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning of the bus. In the course of the repair. Four students died. HELD: Although it may be said that the act of the car driver. which was the actual cause of the tragedy.You might be able to use argument by analogy* The IC here was the ―turning‖ What could have been the IC now becomes the remote cause Teague v Fernandez Urbano v IAC Jec  . the gasoline began to leak and escape from the gasoline tank.TORTS AND DAMAGES by lightning. which was the proximate cause of the tragedy. However. away from the bridge. the court did not specifically identify the violation itself as the PC. b) prima facie proof of negligence. was the very thing which the stature or ordinance was intended to prevent. the violation of the statute can be considered negligence per se and is the proximate cause. considering the latter‘s length of 6 feet. the violation was a continuing violation in that the ordinance was a measure of safety designed to prevent the specific situation of undue crowding in case of evacuation. ISSUE: WON there was an efficient intervening cause – NO. in violation of an ordinance requiring 2 stairways. the trapping of passengers and the call for outside help.   CLASS NOT ES 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 act of rescue and hence cannot be considered as negligence Manila Electric v Remonquillo FACTS: Efren Magno repaired the media agua below Penaloza‘s 3-story house. was the initial act in the chain of events. and turned turtle.    CLASS NOT ES     CLASS NOT ES Rule: if the injury was caused by an act which the statute violated tended to prevent. spreading over the bus and the ground under it. in violation of the regulation of the City of Manila requiring 3 feet. when a passenger bus overturns. it cannot be said that the same caused the eventual injuries and deaths because of the occurrence of a sufficient intervening event. In the present case. such as looking back toward the street and at the wire to avoid its contacting the said iron sheet. c) rebuttable proof of negligence. Bataclan v Medina FACTS: A bus was speeding on its way to Pasay City at 2AM when one of its front tires burst. It may be that ordinarily. say. When they approached the bus. But this is only of limited application and is not yet settled. The car driver blew the horn. Before he could do so. Can you apply this if what is involved is a national statute?. in the manner in which it happened. Note: The PC of the deaths is the overcrowding brought about by the violation. one of them carrying a lighted torch made of bamboo with a wick fueled in petroleum. the negligent act of the truck driver. unexpected and extraordinary. Effects of violation of statute is not settled. fell into a canal or ditch. braked. It can be: a) negligence per se. the end of the iron sheet he was holding came into contact with an uninsulated electric wire of Manila Electric. d) proof of negligence *Limited application because it‘s municipal ordinance. one might still contend that the proximate cause of his death was the fire and not the overturning of the vehicle. PAGE 32 FACTS: A vocational school for hair and beauty culture had only one stairway. 10 men came. HELD: Efficient intervening cause: the negligent and reckless act of MAgno in turning around and swinging the galvanized iron sheet without taking any precaution. A fire broke out in a nearby store and the students panicked and caused a stampede. swerved to the left and entered the truck‘s lane. and pins down a passenger. merely causing him physical injuries. 2 boys suddenly darted into the car‘s lane. and attempted to return to his lane. burning the bus and the 4 passengers. At 2:30AM. and that the lighted torch set it on fire. and the passenger is burned to death. if at all negligent. HELD: the violation of a stature or ordinance is not rendered remote as the cause of an injury by the intervention of another agency if the occurrence of the accident.

include joint tortfeasors (according to Americn Jurisprudence). or should have been aware of it in the reasonable exercise of due care. The doctrine also cannot be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a test whether one of them should be liable to the injured person. Dionisio filed an action for damages against Phoenix. show that the infection of the wound by the tetanus was an effacing intervening cause later or between the time Javier was wounded to the time of death. many were killed and injured. natural. Smith driving his car stayed on his right lane and so both Picart and Smith were on the same lane. had in fact had an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident FACTS: Collision between a truck and a bus when the bus tried to overtake a hand tractor. or even to a plaintiff who has been grossly negligent in placing himself in peril. by exercising reasonable care and prudence. bus driver did not mind and instead applied more speed. the statements made on the Last Clear Chance Doctrine were merely obiter FACTS: Dionisio was on his way home from a cocktails and dinner-meeting when he collided with the dumptruck of Phoenix which was parked askew at the side of the road. ON November 14. Bus saw that the truck‘s wheels were wiggling and that truck was heading towards his lane. Last clear chance contemplates a series of negligent acts. must bear his own injuries alone Picart v Smith *Provides for the classic definition of Last Clear Chance: the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences. HELD: The death must be the direct. Pony became frightened and lost control and Picart was thrown out of the pony and got injured. Urbano hacked Javier in his right palm. Picart then filed a case against Jec  . Smith stayed on his lane and swerved to the other lane quickly. however. 3) concurrent negligence Phoenix Construction v IAC . This negligence of Smith was the immediate and determining cause of the accident and the antecedent negligence of Picart was a more remote factor -Applied the LCCD and made the defendant liable PAGE 33 import (stated above) provides that negligent defendant shall be liable to negligent plaintiff. he died of tetanus. Thus. ISSUE: WON there was efficient intervening cause – YES. The medical findings. The practical  4. Phoenix invoked the Last Clear Chance Doctrine: Dionisio had the Last Clear Chance of avoiding the accident and so Dionisio. might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff‘s negligence. Negligence of Smith succeeded the negligence of Picart by an appreciable interval. 1980. the doctrine cannot apply in this case because this is NOT a suit between owners and drivers but a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles . Javier was seen catching fish in dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. having failed to take the last clear chance. Thus. t take into consideration the NATURE OF HORSES and the ANIMAL NOT BEING ACQUAINTED TO CARS. thereby almost hitting the pony. was his duty to avoid the threatened harm by bringing the car to a stop or taking the other lane to avoid the collision. if he. Victims‘ heirs filed this case to claim damages from bus and truck RATIO: Last Clear Chance Doctrine: negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears that the defendant.TORTS AND DAMAGES Smith RATIO: The negligent acts of both parties were NOT contemporaneous. ligence of Smith: when it exposed Picart and pony to danger. Still.    CLASS N O T E S ()     CLASS NOT E CLASS NOT E Important: there should be a sequence of events Was there expert testimony here or did they use RIL?-no discussion in the case Bustamante v CA . without reference to the prior negligence of the other party. th saw the pony when he was still far and he had control of the situation. Last Clear Chance CLASS NOT ES    Take note of the definition of last clear chance in all the cases. Thus. 2179.did not apply LCCD FACTS: On October 23. On November 5. 2) joint tortfeasors.Practical importance of LCCD  The negligent defendant is held liable to a negligent plaintiff. The definition of last clear chance in the case of Bustamante is deemed to be the common definition (from the point of view of recovery of plaintiff) and is defined as an exception to a rule. However. FACTS: Picart riding his pony was on the wrong side of the road. Exceptions.basis for saying that there is doubt in the application of the Last Clear Chance Doctrine because of Art. Last clear chance cannot apply when there are: 1) contractual relations. in the case at bar. So. aware of the plaintiff‘s peril. The doctrine of last clear chance would apply even if the plaintiff is grossly negligent. and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. the LCCD does not arise where the passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. Javier was brought to a doctor who issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9 days.

RMC‘s funds were now in Secretary‘s husband‘s account.  The truck stopped 30 m away from the jeep and so by this time. last clear chance was deemed to be a valid defense.The truck driver was not negligent and so cannot be held liable. the court in this case stated that it does not believe so that the general concept of Last Clear Chance has been utilized in our jurisdiction. court said that RMC was also negligent in not checking its monthly statements of account. or to what extent.did not apply the doctrine of last clear chance because the other party was not negligent RATIO: The Last Clear Chance doctrine of the Common Law was imported into our jurisdiction by Picart vs. it turns out that the Secretary would leave blank the duplicate copy of the deposit slip where the bank‘s teller would validate it. Applied 2179 of CC on contributory negligence. Furthermore. 2) appreciable time bet. RMC discovered this after 7 yers and then filed a case against PBC to return its money RATIO: PBC was negligent when its employee. Smith but it is still a matter of debate whether. Thus.The doctrine of Last Clear Chance provides a valid and complete defense to accident liability today as it did when invoked and applied in the 1918 case of Picart vs. Thus. not sequence of events Does the last clear chance doctrine still stand? Yes. the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequence thereof The bank had the last clear opportunity to avert the injury incurred by its client. Article 2179 on contributory negligence is 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 such act or omission for the rest of the community.apply the last Clear Chance Doctrine when fault or negligence is difficult to attribute Elements: 1) 2 parties negligent. which involved a similar state of facts .Even assuming that the truck driver was negligent. Still.TORTS AND DAMAGES FACTS: RMC had an account in PBC and Secretary of RMC was tasked to deposit its money. timing is of the essence. In last clear chance. However. this ruling would clearly apply to exonerate truck driver . validated a blank duplicate copy of the deposit slip. simply by faithfully observing their self-imposed validation procedure. PBC was also lackadaisical in its selection and supervision on the teller since it never knew that blank deposit slips were validated until this incident . the truck driver‘s parking askew led to an increased diligence for the driver of the car.  court should allocate risks (policy of consideration) Historical function of last clear chance: mitigate harshness of doctrine of contributory negligence Nature of negligent act should determine liability. not the order of events. 60-40 ratio! 40% of the damages shall be borne by RMC.Thus. Instead of writing the account number of the company in the original copy retained by the bank. BUT in the Philippines we have Article 2179 of the Civil Code which rejects the Common Law doctrine of contributory negligence. To say that Phoenix should be absolved from liability would come close to wiping out the fundamental law that a man must respond for the foreseeable consequences of his own negligent act or omission. because it was still used in later cases Phoenix-1987. The doctrine was applied by Common Law because they had a rule that contributory negligence prevented any recovery at all by a negligent plaintiff. -LCCD was not applied because the court thinks that it is not applicable in our jurisdiction    CLASS NOT ES     The issue on the element of foreseeability: There is no general concept of last clear chance. what is more important is the nature. but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other.may be used as basis against the ruling made on Last Clear Chance Doctrine in the case of Phoenix FACTS  jeep and cargo truck collided  jeepney driver came from a beach party  jeep was zigzagging  cargo truck was staying on his lane because the line in the road was wrongly painted  case filed by heirs of the driver of the jeep who died as a result of the collision RATIO: . PBC-1997: appreciably later in time    CLASS NOT ES Philippine Bank of Commerce v CA . 60% by PBC -applied LCCD in knowing whether PBC was negligent PAGE 34 Glan People‟s Lumber & Hardware v IAC . Court also applied Last Clear Chance Doctrine in saying that PBC was really negligent. the jeep should have stopped or swerved  Jeep driver had the last clear chance to avoid the accident  It was the jeep‘s driver who had the duty to seize the opportunity of avoidance and not merely rely on a supposed right to expect that the truck would swerve and leave him a clear path . Rather. the doctrine of Last Clear Chance would still absolve him from any actionable responsibility for the accident because both drivers had full view of each other‘s vehicle. LAST CLEAR CHANCE  Aka supervening negligence or discovered peril  Where both parties are negligent. In the case at hand. Smith. Jec  . or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident. Secretary would write the account number of husband. teller. it has found its way into the Civil Code of the Philippines. 2 negligent acts and it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused injury Problem: overlaps with doctrine of concurrent negligence   CLASS NOT ES How did the case of Glan People’s Lumber affect the case of Phoeix? In the case of Glan. the doctrine of Last Clear Chance also cannot apply because there is no negligence of the other party .

Pantranco raises the doctrine in order to escape liability . the truck was guilty of greater negligence which was the efficient cause of the collision RATIO:  Disagreed with the CA and held that both the truck and jeepney were liable  The principle of Last Clear Chance would call for the application in a suit between the owners and drivers of the 2 colliding vehicles.  In this case. PAGE 35  Doctrine of Last Clear Chance: negligence of a claimant does not preclude recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears that the latter.Thus.Sole and proximate cause of the accident: Pantranco‘s driver in encroaching into the lane of the incoming jeepney and in failing to return the bus to its own lane immediately upon seeing the jeepney coming from the opposite direction . this case was filed by the heirs of the deceased and of the injured to recover damages from the driver and owner of the truck and the owner of the jeepney  CA: applied the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance and held that only the truck was liable because although the jeepney was guilty of antecedent negligence. have been aware of it  In this case. It also appears that the lifeguard responded to the call for held and immediately made all efforts to resuscitate the kid  There is no room in this case for the application of the doctrine! LCCD not applied because no negligence on the part of Metropolitan Water District was proven Pantranco North express Inc v Baesa .did not apply LCCD because there was no opportunity to avoid the accident and the jeepney driver was not aware of the peril. It does NOT arise where a Jec  . it was unknown how the kid got into the pool and whether the kid violated one of the regulations of Metropolitan Water District because he went unaccompanied. jeepney driver did not know of the impending danger because he must have assumed that the bus driver will return to its own lane upon seeing the jeepney approaching from the opposite direction .For the doctrine to be applicable.awareness and opportunity FACTS:  Passenger jeepney and Pantranco bus collided when Pantranco bus encroached on the jeepney‘s lane  Heirs of passengers in jeepney who died filed this case against Pantranco  Pantranco wants the court to apply the doctrine of Last Clear Chance against the jeepney driver saying that the jeepney driver had the last clear chance in avoiding the collision. and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered. Pantranco bus was speeding and at the speed of the approaching bus prevented jeepney driver from swerving to avoid collision  Jeepney driver had NO opportunity to avoid it .TORTS AND DAMAGES means at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered  In this case. the last clear chance doctrine is invoked for the purpose of making a defendant liable to a plaintiff who was guilty of prior or antecedent negligence. then bumped into the jeepney from behind with such violence that 3 passengers died  Thus. although it may also be raised as a defense to defeat claim for damages . it is necessary to show that the person who allegedlty had the last opportunity to avert the accident was aware of the existence of the peril or should.However. speeding. the court said that the doctrine of last clear chance cannot be applied in this case! .Court said that the doctrine can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all    CLASS NOT E Do not apply last clear chance under the emergency rule Important: memorize emergency rule Ong v Metropolitan Water District Anuran v Buno -Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied in this case because there was no negligence on the part of the Metropolitan Water District FACTS  Kid drowned in one of the pools of Metropolitan Water District  Reason why the kid drowned is unknown  Employees of the Metropolitan Water District acted as soon as calls for help were heard and tried to revive the kid but he still died  Case filed by parents of kid who drowned claiming damages against Metropolitan Water District  Parents of kid claim that Metropolitan Water District may still be held liable for the doctrine of Last Clear Chance because it had the last opportunity to save the kid RATIO:  There is sufficient evidence to show that Metropolitan Water District had taken all necessary precautions to avoid danger to the lives of its patron or prevent accidents which may cause their deaths FACTS:  A passenger jeepney was parked at the side of the road since one of the passengers alighted  A motor truck. might have avoided injurious consequences to claimant notwithstanding his negligence  The Last Clear Chance doctrine can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously.Generally. by exercising reasonable care and prudence. RATIO: . with exercise of due care.

or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident.did not apply LCCD because there was a contractual obligation on the part of the carrier to transport its passengers safely Canlas v CA -Last Clear Chance Doctrine can apply in commercial transactions FACTS:  2 parcels of land owned by Canlas were sold to Manosca  Manosca issued 2 check that bounced  Manosca was then granted a loan by Asian Savings Bank with the 2 parcels of land as security  2 impostors used who introduced themselves as the spouses Canlas  mortgage was foreclosed  Canlas wrote to Asian Savings Bank regarding the mortgage of Manosca of the 2 properties without their consent  Canlas filed this case for annulment of the deed of real estate mortgage against ASB RATIO:  ASB was negligent in not exerting more effort to verify the identity of the sps Canlas  The Bank should have required additional proof of the true identity of the impostor aside from their residence certificate  Applied the doctrine of Last Clear Chance which states that:  Where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciable later in a point of time that      CLASS NOT ES The Canlas sps. but here. it took 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) and was able to withdraw P300. ASB has to bear the loss sued upon -applied the LCCD PAGE 36  CA: found that Solidbank was negligent and it had the last clear chance to avoid the injury if it had only called up LC Diaz to verify the withdrawal RATIO:  In this case. in this case.  Thus. the Court talked about 2 definitionsshort and long: take note of these Consolidated Bank & Trust Corporation v CA . ASB had the last clear chance to prevent fraud. they failed to do this. Solidbank was negligent in not returning the passbook to messenger of LC Diaz  proximate cause  CA wrongly applied the doctrine of last clear chance…  Last Clear Chance Doctrine is not applied in this case because Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due to negligence in the performance of contractual obligation to LC Diaz  This case of culpa contractual.00 from its account. would exonerate the defendant from liability  Such contributory negligence or last clear chance by the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery of damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from his breach of contract  LC Diaz guilty of contributory negligence in allowing withdrawal slip signed by its authorized signatories to fall into the hands of an impostor and so liability of Solidbank should be reduced.  Solidbank was supposed to return the passbook only to the depositor or his authorized representative. With regard to the special power of attorney: the SPA given to Mañosca was to mortgage so the presence of the Canlas sps.TORTS AND DAMAGES that of the other. is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom  In this case. LC Diaz filed this case for the recovery of sum of money against Solidbank   CLASS NOT E Implied that the last clear chance doctrine is not applicable to culpa contractual Jec  . were negligent in giving their title to the property to Mañosca.000. was actually not a requirement. where neither the contributory negligence of plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss. by simple expedient of faithfully complying with the requirements of banks to ascertain the identity of the persons transacting with them  For not observing the degree of diligence required of banking institutions. the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so.LCCD not applied passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due to negligence or culpa contractual  The bank is under the obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care. However.Last Clear Chance Doctrine is NOT applicable in culpa contractual FACTS:  LC Diaz had a savings account with Solidbank. Solidbank through teller gave it to someone else  Solidbank breached its contractual obligation to return the passbook only to the authorized representative of LC Diaz  Thus. always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. Was there really negligence on the part of the bank even if Manosca had an SPA and the land title? In Canlas.—40-60 .  After messenger of LC Diaz deposited amount.  For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence .

Parties who invoke doctrine  Many courts take the view that the doctrine of last clear chance is not available to defendant.  Although the defendant may not invoke the doctrine.  The doctrine embraces successive acts of negligence: primary negligence on the part of the defendant then contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff which creates a situation of inextricable peril to him and then becomes passive or static followed by the subsequent negligence of the defendant in failing to avoid injury to the plaintiff. Isuzu did not slow down  Iran. either because it became physically impossible for him to do so or because he was totally unaware of the danger. should have been aware of it in the reasonable exercise of due care. doctrine of supervening negligence.Isuzu abandoned his lane and did not first see to it that the opposite lane was free from on-coming traffic and was available for safe passage. by exercising reasonable care and prudence. instead applied the emergency rule. 2. driver of Isuzu guilty! . only operative in those cases where. humanitarian doctrine. FACTS  Iran driving a tamaraw jeepney  In the other lane was an isuzu pick-up that was speeding. LCC can only be invoked in favor of the person injured.Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied. There was no clear chance to speak of  Thus. it not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better solution. since it implies contributory negligence on his part. it does not preclude him from proving that the plaintiff had the last clear opportunity to avert the injury complained of and thus establish that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence which proximately caused the accident and consequently bars plaintiff‘s recovery. the pleader must disclose: o The exposed condition brought about by the negligence of plaintiff or the injured party o The actual discovery by the defendant of the perilous situation of the person or property injured in time to avert injury o Defendant‘s failure thereafter to exercise ordinary care to avert the injury . or in the 3. another person wantonly.Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied because there was no clear chance –emergency situation.However.  Right signal light was flashing but swerved to the left and encroached on the lane of tamaraw jeepney  Tamaraw jeepney tried to avoid the Isuzu pick-up but Isuzu pick-ip swerved to where tamaraw jeepney was going and so they collided  Information was then filed against the driver of the Isuzu pick-up charging him with serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence RATIO:  It was the Isuzu pick-up truck‘s negligence that was the proximate cause of the collision .Furthermore. 74-81) The Doctrine of Last Clear Chance  Also known as the doctrine of discovered peril. the doctrine cannot be applied because there was no time or opportunity to ponder the situation at all.TORTS AND DAMAGES Engada v CA acts of his opponent. (pp.  Between the defendants. 1. aware of the plaintiff‘s peril. and is. or with knowledge of the perilous situation of the person injured carelessly or recklessly injured him.  The failure to avoid injuring a person occupying a position of peril may be a supervening cause. had in fact an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident. unless the emergency was brought by his own negligence  Defense of Isuzu: invoked Last Clear Chance Doctrine  SC: The doctrine of last clear chance states that a person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding the accident. . if he. o The defendant knew that the plaintiff was in a position of danger and further knew. Jec  . tamaraw driver. . or according to some authorities. might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff‘s negligence. the doctrine cannot be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of them should be held liable to the injured person by reason of his discovery of the latter‘s peril and it cannot be invoked as between defendants concurrently negligent. is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of the accident .  A negligent defendant is held liable to a negligent plaintiff or even to a plaintiff who has been grossly negligent in placing himself in peril. doctrine of gross negligence  The negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears that the defendant. notwithstanding the injured person‘s want of care. could not be faulted when he swerved to the lane of Isuzu to the lane of Isuzu to avoid collision  Isuzu driver‘s acts had put tamaraw driver in an emergency situation which forced him to act quickly  EMERGENCY RULE: an individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of danger and is required to act without much time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger. notwithstanding the negligent  1 Sangco. generally speaking. As a phase of proximate cause principle  The doctrine of last clear chance negatives an essential element of the defense of contributory negligence by rendering plaintiff‘s negligence a mere condition or remote cause of the accident. Elements and conditions of doctrine  Facts required: o That the plaintiff was in a position of danger and by his own negligence became unable to escape from such position by the use of ordinary care.After seeing the tamaraw. no convincing evidence was adduced to support this defense .did not apply LCCD because no clear chance PAGE 37 exercise of ordinary care should have known that the plaintiff was unable to escape therefrom o That thereafter the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident by the exercise of ordinary care but failed to exercise such last clear chance and the accident occurred as a proximate result of such failure To state a cause of action.

the last clear chance doctrine is a phase of contributory negligence.TORTS  AND DAMAGES Pantranco Baesa v the parties who caused the collision) Heirs of the passengers of jeepney (no contract) was negligent No not     There was no opportunity to avoid the accident and driver was not aware of the peril Defendant was not negligent There was contractual relation Defendant bank had the last clear chance to prevent the fraud Note: there was no contractual relation between Canlas and the bank Liability of bank arose from culpa contractual and so doctrine cannot be applied There was no clear chance in avoiding the accident because it was an emergency situation PAGE 38 and should only apply when there is a time sequence. NCC The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause. The elements of the doctrine of last clear chance: a) the plaintiff is in danger b) the defendant knew of plaintiff‘s state c) the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident Who may invoke? Solely for plaintiff‘s benefit LCC applies in a suit between the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles.‖ Consolidated Bank v CA No   CLASS NOT E Test: when the conditions provided in the law exist. It is considered in determining proximate cause Jec  . although it may escape or be lost. Other names: doctrine of discovered peril. Summary on Last Clear Chance The Last Clear Chance Doctrine renders plaintiff‘s contributory negligence as a mere condition Invoked by the plaintiff Cannot be invoked by joint tortfeasors Case Plaintiff WON Why? applied the LCCD Picart vs. the dog of Vestil‘s father. you are already liable A. Possessor of animals Art. doctrine of supervening negligence. It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. 2183. Picart (one YES Smith had a Smith of the clear parties who opportunity caused the to avoid the collision) accident Bustamante Passengers NO No Picart v Picart (one Yes Smith had clear Smith of the opportunity to parties who avoid the caused the accident collision) Bustamante v Passengers No No negligent CA of the bus plaintiff because the plaintiff in the case are the passengers of the bus who are asking for damages Phoenix v Phoenix No Doctrine was IAC (one of the not carried over parties who to the CC caused the collision) Philippine RMC (one of Yes Just to know if Bank of the parties PBC was Commerce v who caused negligent but CA the damages were accident) divided 40-60 Glan v IAC Heirs of the No Truck driver driver of the (other party in jeep (one of the collision) - Ong v Metropolitan Anuran Buno v Canlas v CA Parents of the deceased Heirs of the passengers of jeep (with contract) Canals (one of the parties who caused the incident) – for the annulment of the deed LC Diaz – for the recovery of the sum of money No No  Yes V. Last clear chance doctrine considered to determine the proximate cause. humanitarian doctrine. when the victim was playing with Vestil‘s According to Sangco. It is also known as ―absolute liability‖ or ―liability without fault. It most often applies either to ultra hazardous activities or in product liability cases. STRICT LIABILITY Black‟s Law Dictionary definition: Liability does not depend on actual negligence or intent to harm. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage. Engada v CA Inured party (owner of the Tamaraw) No   CLASS NOT ES Vestil v IAC FACTS: Theness Uy was bitten by Andoy. Last clear chance doctrine should not apply when there is a time sequence. doctrine of gross negligence. but that is based on the breach of an absolute duty to make something safe.

Dingcong is not the head of a family. the employer shall not be liable for compensation. Echevarria. This is a strict liability case. employees Under what conditions? Death or illness arising out of the course of employment     CLASS NOT ES Remote control argument does not lie. Does it matter if the dog is tame? No. Art. Kanaan. the petitioners forget that Theness was only three years old at the time she was attacked and can hardly be faulted for whatever she might have done to the animal. Vestils claimed that they don‘t own the dog. the latter and the employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation. who was only 3 yrs old. mechanics or other employees. . while riding his bicycle was run over and killed by a truck. . is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same. which was still part of Vicente Miranda's estate. -Uys sued Vestil for being the possessor of Andoy. caused the water to spill to the ground and wet the articles and merchandise of the plaintiffs. The next day she died of broncho-pneumonia. At the time of his death he was returning home after making some collections. that it was a tame animal. et. Theness. Dingcong v Kanaan FACTS: -The Dingcongs rented a house and established Central Hotel. even though the event may have been purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause. and that Theness provoked the dog so it bit her. -Dingcong. -One night.It does not matter that the dog was tame and was merely provoked by the child into biting her. 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 or second storey of his building. by his negligence in leaving open the faucet. If a fellow worker's intentional malicious act is the only cause of the death or injury. Law covers even tame animals as long as they produce injury Dog follows the house: accessory follows the principal (so would a rat living in the house make the house owners liable if the rat bites a guest and causes the latter‘s death?)    CLASS NOT E B. causing the water to run off and spill to the ground.al. or voluntary act.  CLASS NOT ES  This provision applies regardless of how things fell from the house.TORTS AND DAMAGES PAGE 39 child in their compound. being a co-tenant and manager of the hotel. Kanaans filed complaint for damages against Echevarria and Dingcongs.     CLASS NOT ES Who is liable? Employers. but after 9 days she was readmitted for exhibiting signs of hydrophobia and vomiting of saliva. there is no doubt that she and her husband were its possessors at the time of the incident in question. the compensation shall be equitably reduced. rented the ground floor of house where they established the ―American Bazaar‖.CC applicable in this case? Prof. As for the alleged provocation. with complete possession of the house. Leopoldo Madlangbayan. -The widow and children of Madlangbayan brought an action to recover from the defendant corporation under C. 2193 The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof. Echeverria rented room in the hotel. HELD: The obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal causing the damage. Death/Injuries in the course of employment Jec  . despite his power and authority to cause the repair of the pipes. The law does not speak only of vicious animals but covers even tame ones as long as they cause injury. When the employee's lack of due care contributed to his death or injury. unless it should be shown that the latter did not exercise due diligence in the selection or supervision of the plaintiff's fellow worker. 1711 Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to pay compensation for the death of or injuries to their laborers. wetting the articles and merchandise of the Kanaan's "American Bazaar" in the ground floor. If the mishap was due to the employee's own notorious negligence.While it is true that she is not really the owner of the house. a collector for the Singer Sewing Machine Company. Afable v Singer Sewing Machine FACTS: -One Sunday afternoon. Can water be considered as a thing thrown or falling? Art. workmen. Things thrown or falling from a building Art. must also be responsible for the damages caused. or drunkenness. It is based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility. HELD: -Echevarria is liable for being the one who directly. owners of establishment Who are they liable to? Laborers. carelessly left the faucet open when retiring to bed. if the death or personal injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. Is A2193. the employer shall not be answerable. He failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent these damages. was brought to the hospital and was later discharged. The employer is also liable for compensation if the employee contracts any illness or disease caused by such employment or as the result of the nature of the employment. 1712 If the death or injury is due to the negligence of a fellow worker. pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such animal may cause.

place. assembly and erection. A product is defective when it does not offer the safety rightfully expected of it. Art. 3428. Penalties. Any person who shall violate any provision of this Chapter or its implementing rules and regulations with respect to any consumer product which is not food. 3812. cosmetic. and circumstances under which the accident takes place. 107. he did not do so in pursuance of his employment. (b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it. and accidents in which it is possible to trace the injury to some risk or hazard to which the employee is exposed in a special degree by reason of such employment. shall be liable for redress. builder. (c) that the consumer or a third party is solely at fault. 99. or hazardous substance shall upon conviction. as well as for insufficient or inadequate information on the fruition and hazards thereof. The complaint was subsequently amended. including but not limited to: (a) presentation of product. drinks. RATIO: -The phrase "due to and in the pursuance of" used in section 2 of Act No. -If the deceased saw fit to change his residence from San Francisco del Monte to Manila and to make use a bicycle in going back and forth. if there is more than one person responsible for the cause of the damage.The service supplier is liable for redress. independently of fault. Jec  . as the defendant company did not furnish him a bicycle or require him to use one. 106. (b) that the consumer or third party is solely at fault. is hereby prohibited. (b) the result of hazards which may reasonably be expected of it. Case distinguishes ―arising out of‖ and ―in the course of. Liability for Defective Services. 3428. Risks to which all persons similarly situated are equally exposed and not traceable in some special degree to the particular employment are excluded. as provided for in this and in the preceding Articles. taking the relevant circumstances into consideration. but only for such injuries arising from or growing out of the risks peculiar to the nature of the work in the scope of the workman's employment of incidental to such employment. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation. b) voluntary act of the employee and c) drunkenness. A service is not considered defective because of the use or introduction of new techniques. be subject to a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos Act No.    CLASS NOT E Defenses available to an employer: a) notorious negligence. and are descriptive of its character. Liability for the Defective Products. if the damage is caused by a component or part incorporated in the product or service. its manufacturer. Art. although no contractual relation exists between them and the consumers. and if he made collections on Sunday. formulas and handling and making up. for damages caused to consumers by defects relating to the rendering of the services. . 3812 to "arising out of and in the course of". for damages caused to consumers by defects resulting from design. producer or importer shall not be held liable when it evidences: (a) that it did not place the product on the market. The manufacturer. D. The supplier of the services shall not be held liable when it is proven: (a) that there is no defect in the service rendered. -The words "arising out of" refer to the origin or cause of the accident. because such an accident does no arise out of and in the course of his employment. By the use of these words it was not the intention of the legislature to make the employer an insurer against all accidental injuries which might happen to an employee while in the course of the employment.‖ The first refers to the origin or cause of the accident. including but not limited to: (a) the manner in which it is provided. and they sought to recover under sections 8 and 10 of Act No. PAGE 40 (b) that although it did place the product on the market such product has no defect. builder or importer and the person who incorporated the component or part are jointly liable.TORTS AND DAMAGES place. while the words "in the course of" refer to the time.     CLASS NOT ES Who is liable? Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs. 3428 was changed in Act No. -As a general rule an employee is not entitled to recover from personal injuries resulting from an accident that befalls him while going to or returning from his place of employment. presentation or packing of their products. and circumstances under which the accident takes place. independently of fault. they shall be jointly liable for the redress established in the pertinent provisions of this Act. taking relevant circumstances into consideration. However. No. The stipulation in a contract of a clause preventing. and his employer is not liable for any injury sustained by him. and any importer. as well as for the insufficient or inadequate information on the use and hazards thereof. exonerating or reducing the obligation to indemnify for damages effected. The service is defective when it does not provide the safety the consumer may rightfully expect of it. Product liability Art. drinks. Art. The latter refers to the time. 2187 Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs. . as amended by Act. he did so at his own risk. toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used. producer. A product is not considered defective because another better quality product has been placed in the market. manufacture. construction.Any Filipino or foreign manufacturer. (c) the time it was put into circulation. toilet articles Under what circumstances? Death or injuries caused by noxious or harmful substances Who are they liable to? Anyone who consumed goods (even if goods were stolen) Consumer Act Art. (c) the time when it was provided. 97.

 However. toilet articles and similar goods. 2187 does not preclude an action based on negligence for the same act of using noxious or harmful substance in the manufacture or processing of the foodstuff. The vendee may also ask for the annulment of the contract upon proof of error or fraud in which case the ordinary rule on obligations shall be applicable. The vendee‘s remedies against a vendor with respect to the Jec  .TORTS AND DAMAGES is held for sale (whether or not the first sale) and results in such article being adulterated or misbranded. or the doing of any other act with respect to. Prohibited Acts and Penalties (RA3720 – Food. toilet articles. 2. drinks. drinks. manager or head. be deported without further deportation proceedings. processors What do you mean by similar goods?-Sangcoconsumed by humans. Drug. a food. Neither does this article preclude an action for breach of contract and warranty. or cosmetic or the giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to in Section twelve (b) which guaranty or undertaking is false. and it is not affected by any disclaimer or other agreement. or falsely representing or without proper authority using any mark. in labeling. counterfeiting. you can use 2187 on strict liability which is a powerful provision except against sellers (law on SALES will be the basis in this case) Elements of 2187: 1) causal link 2) manufacturers. In case of judicial persons. (b) The adulteration or misbranding of any food. and Cosmetic Act) Sec. or revealing. She brought an action for damages against Coca-cola and the trial court ruled that the complaint was based on a contract. drinks. the bottles were found to be adulterated. A group of parents complained that fibrous materials were found in the softdrink bottles bought by their children. If basis is not Consumer Act. PAGE 41 warranties against hidden defects or encumbrances upon the thing sold are not limited to those prescribed in A1567. and Coca-Cola v CA FACTS: Geronimo sold food and softdrinks in a school canteen. Precisely why it is called strict liability Requisites of 2187: 1) death or injury caused by noxious substance and 2) by manufacturer or processor What is ―similar goods?‖ – Anything intended to be consumed by humans. (e) Forging. tag label. drug. 714-734) Product Liability 1. The following acts and the causing thereof are hereby prohibited: (a) The manufacture. device. not quasi-delict and should have been filed within 6 months from the delivery of the softdrinks. device. on the labeling of any drug or in any advertising relating to such drug. advertising or other sales promotion of any reference to any report or analysis furnished in compliance with Section twenty-six hereof. ( f ) The using by any person to his own advantage. Upon inspection by the DOH. or that such drug complies with the provisions of such section. (2) He use noxious or harmful substances in the manufacture or processing of the foodstuff. or concerning any method or process which as a trade secret is entitled to protection. device or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded. II SANGCO (p. of any representation or suggestion that an application with respect to such drug is effective under Section twenty-one hereof. sale. offering for sale or transfer of any food. drug. if the injured party opts to recover on that theory. Requisites of liability under Art. NCC  The elimination in this article of both fault or negligence and contract as the basis of liability thereunder are the essence of strict liability. after payment of fine and service of sentence. (c) The refusal to permit entry or inspection as authorized by Section twenty-seven hereof or to allow samples to be collected. A106 of the Consumer Act. device. drug. (P5. (d) The giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to in Section twelve (b) hereof which guaranty or undertaking is false. Art. or cosmetic. Geronimo argues that her case is based on quasi-delict and should prescribe in 4 years. obliteration. (3) Plaintiff‘s death or injury was caused by the product so consumed or used. except by a person who relied upon a guaranty or undertaking to the same effect signed by. the penalty shall be imposed upon its president. or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of. other than to the Secretary or officers or employees of the Department or to the courts when relevant in any judicial proceeding under this Act. if such act is done while such article     CLASS NOT ES    CLASS NOT ES    Is a restaurant owner a seller or a processor? Could the company stipulate limited liability? No. simulating. or other identification device authorized or required by regulations promulgated under the provisions of this Act. The sales of Geronimo drastically dropped and she was forced to close shop.000.00) and by imprisonment of not more that one (1) year or both upon the discretion of the court. Question: What about those consumed by animals? Do you apply strict liability even if defendant exercised due diligence? Yes. CHAPTER VI. and containing the name and address of. 11. HELD: The Court sided with Geronimo. The consumer‘s cause of action does not depend upon the validity of his contract with the person from whom he acquires the product. (h) The use. or similar goods which caused the death or injury complained of. or cosmetic. the person residing in the Philippines from whom he received in good faith the food. What if the person who consumed the goods did not buy them but stole them? – The manufacturer/processor may still be held liable. toilet articles consumed or used by the plaintiff. 2187. he shall. Civil Code (1) Defendant is a manufacturer or processor of foodstuff. (g) The alteration. (i) The use. Governing law: Art. any information acquired under authority of Section nine. stamp. mutilation. 2187. If the offender is an alien. destruction. drug.

Unavoidably unsafe product  The seller of unavoidably unsafe products. is not to be held to strict liability for unfortunate consequences attending their use.  Expert testimony is generally necessary to prove the defect in the product. unless the product is one whose character and content must necessarily have remained unchanged since it left the manufacturer‘s possession. Proof that food product was defective or unwholesome  The one seeking to recover is under the duty of proving with reasonable certainty that the food eaten was in fact deleterious. yes. can you still sue for breach of contract? Sangco says. Duty of care of restaurant operator A restaurateur has no duty to serve ―perfect‖ products. and proper warning is given. merely because he has undertaken to supply the public with apparently reasonable risk. by inspection or taste. it would seem contributory negligence would diminish recovery. PAGE 42 b. the vendor is liable to him. Who may recover 7. which is at least as high a duty of care as the consumer expects or has the right to expect of his groceryman or food dealer. and did not come into existence thereafter. could not have discovered himself. (4) The damages sustained and claimed by the plaintiff and the amount thereof. c.    CLASS NOT ES Important: Requisites of 2187 in Sangco If it falls under A2187. testing. The test of commodities required is no more than that commonly or usually practised by careful dealers under the same conditions and circumstances. Note: The seller is not liable when he delivers the product in a safe condition and subsequent mishandling or other causes makes it harmful by the time it is consumed. A manufacturer or seller of a product which. and for what products  Manufacturers and processors who used noxious or harmful substances may be held liable. no duty to warn arises with respect to a product which is not in fact dangerous.  It must appear that the unwholesome or unsound quality of the food product in question existed at the time the defendant sold it. Compensable Damages  Expressly limited to ―death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substance used‖ by ―manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs. advertising.  To constitute negligence an act must be one from which a reasonably careful person would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him to forego the act or to do it in a more careful manner.‖ The plaintiff must allege and prove that he was using the product in the way it was intended to be used. and delivered to the purchaser for his immediate use is bound to know the peril that the provisions are sound and wholesome and fit for immediate use. 8. involves danger to users has a duty to give warning of such danger.  Proof of a defect in the product may not be supplied by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. But the law of negligence requires him to exercise a care proportionate to the serious consequences that may follow from a want of care. d.  Whether recovery is sought under strict liability or on fault or negligence. This precludes claims for purely pecuniary or commercial losses in absence of personal injuries.‖  Applicable only to personal injuries. toilet articles and similar goods‖ 4. Duty of warning. Persons who may be held liable. The burden of proof that the product was in a defective condition at the time it left the hands of the manufacturer and particular seller is upon the injured plaintiff. toilet articles and similar goods. As a matter of elementary logic. -sellers of the enumerated goods which turn out to be injuriously defective CANNOT be held liable for the obvious reason that they have nothing to do either with the defect or with the manufacture of such product  Products: limited to ―foodstuffs. Proof of causation  One seeking recovery has the burden of proof that the resulting illness was caused by the deleterious food. drinks. 3. and the purchaser is injured thereby. with qualification that they are properly prepared and marketed. 6. A vendor of provisions selected. A high degree of care is required of the producer of foods (in the production of such product. to his actual or constructive knowledge. and only damages arising therefrom. The vendor of food should indemnify his vendee against latent defects contained in the product which the vendee. The duty owed to the consumer by the manufacturer of food products intended for human consumption is commensurate with the danger and the possible and probable result of a lack of care. inspecting. where the situation calls for it. Jec  .  A manufacturer‘s strict liability in tort should be defined in terms of the safety of the product ―in normal and proper use. Liability for negligence in food products. inspecting the ingredients and warning the consumers of possible injury from consumption of a food). drinks.TORTS  AND DAMAGES  A purchasing and non-purchasing consumer or user of a defective food product or toilet article is entitled to recover damages for physical injuries caused thereby. which includes death. a. 5. Duty of seller other than restaurant operator. sold. Duty of care of manufacturer or processor of food. and if they turn out to be unsound and not wholesome.

ISSUE: WON So Ping Bun was guilty of tortuous interference of contract HELD: Yes. No such knowledge is required in order that the injured party may recover for the damages suffered.The provision in the Civil Code with regard tortuous interference is Article 1314.elements of tort interference: a) existence of a valid contract b) knowledge on the part of the third party of its existence c) interference of the third party is without legal justification or excuse . . Sir said as guidance: If we apply Gilchrist and So Ping Bun. FACTS: Tek Hua Trading originally entered into a lease agreement with DC Chuan covering stalls in Binondo. Nothing on the record imputes deliberate wrongful motives or malice on the part of So. PAGE 43 unreasonable or unintentional and actionable under the general negligence rules. ISSUE: WON Espejo and Zaldarriaga are liable for interfering with the contract between Gilchrist and Cuddy. The action of Trendsetter in asking DC Chuan to execute the contracts in their favor was unlawful interference. Cuddy returned the money already paid by Gilchrist so that he can lease the film to Espejo and Zaldarriaga instead and receive P350 for the film for the same period. and as a result petitioner deprived respondent of the latter‘s property right. they not knowing at the time the identity of the parties HELD: YES. There is nothing in this article which requires as a condition precedent to the liability of the tortfeasor that he must know the identity of a person to whom he causes damage. SO PING BUN SECURED A NEW LEASE AGEEMENT WITH DC CHUAN. although not signed. So Ping Bun was okay had it not cited Gilchrist Sir said that it seems this is the case right now: You can compete in Business Contracts as long as intention is financial interest and there is no malice. It stated that it is sufficient that the impetus of his conduct lies in a proper business interest rather than in wrongful motives to conclude that So was not a malicious interferer. . They entered into a contract whereby Cuddy leased to Gilchrist the ―Zigomar‖ for exhibition in his theatre for a week for P125.TORTS AND DAMAGES   No damages were due from Espejo because no malice was proven (the motive was only to make profit). there should be malice but it was never mentioned in Gilchrist in the first place. . A duty which the law on torts is concerned with is respect for the property of others.One becomes liable in an action for damages for a nontrespassory invasion of another‘s interest in the private use and enjoyment of asset if: a) the other has property rights and privileges with respect to the use or enjoyment interfered with. He also prayed for damages against Espejo and Zaldarriaga for interfering with the contract between Gilchrist and Cuddy. Espejo and Zaldarriaga.The SC handled the question of whether the interference may be justified considering that So acted solely for the purpose of furthering his own financial or economic interest. -Gilchrist filed a case for specific performance against Cuddy. Then discussed Gilchrist in saying that to award damages. petitioner. If this is the case. But if question is just on the elements. Implied malice as an element.Damage is the loss. shall be obliged to pay for the damage done. Trendsetter asked DC Chuan to execute lease contracts in its favor. we need malice in 1314. Jec  . Is malice required to apply A1314? Did not include malice as one of the elements under A1314. In the case at bar. by act or omission causes damage to another when there is fault or negligence. the stalls were occupied by the grandson (So Ping Bun) of one of the original incorporators of Tek Hua under business name Trendsetter Marketing. -ART 1902 CC provides that a person who. Appellants have the legal liability for interfering with the contract and causing its breach. d) the invasion is either intentional and  CLASS  NOT ES         CLASS NOT ES Had legal liability but not under A1314. Tek Hua was dissolved. -Days before the delivery date. c) the defendant‘s conduct is a legal cause of the invasion. -THE through Tiong asked So Ping Bun to vacate the stalls so THE would be able to go back to business BUT instead. E. Hence the lack of malice precludes the award of damages. then one cannot recover from 1314 as against the third party. However. 1314 Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.Since there were existing lease contracts between Tek Hua and DC Chuan. The contracts were initially for 1 year but were continued on month to month basis upon expiration of the 1 yr. b) the invasion is substantial. Tek Hua in fact had property rights over the leased stalls. hurt. original members of Tek Hua formed Tek Hua Enterprises (THE) with Manuel Tiong as one of the incorporators. Interference with contractual relations Art. Is malice an element of tortuous interference? Court does not say that it is. De Leon included malice as an element. just answer the three elements given by So Ping Bun. or harm which results from injury. and a cause of action ex delicto may be predicated upon an unlawful interference by one party of the enjoyment of the other of his private property. Gilchrist was the owner of a theatre in Iloilo. . This liability arises from unlawful acts and not from contractual obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his contract with Gilchrist. So Ping Bun v CA Gilchrist v Cuddy FACTS: Cuddy was the owner of the film ―Zigomar‖. . -new lease contracts with increase in rent were sent to THE. and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered.

. However. any person Jec  . It was held that mere competition is not sufficient unless it is considered unfair competition or the dominant purpose is to inflict harm or injury. The charter only lays down general rules regulating that liability of the city. In fact. bridges. it is possible for the contracting party to be not liable at all. city or municipality for liability to attach. PAGE 44 by reason of the defective condition of roads. Liability of local government units Art. thus was hospitalized.In this case. streets. there is authority for the view that an action for interference can be maintained even if the contract is unenforceable. Elements: 1. any person by reason of the defective condition of roads. However. bridges.‖ AQUINO. or injuries suffered by. Existence of a valid contract: This existence is necessary and the breach must occur because of the alleged act of interference. as in the case where the defendant prevented him from performing his obligation through force or fraud. is equally reprehensible in an unenforceable one. The theory is that a right derived from a contract is a property right that entitles each party to protection against all the world and any damage to said property should be compensated. 2. the party who breached the contract is only liable for consequence that can be foreseen. She fractured her right leg. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. 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. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. D. Knowledge on the part of the third party of the existence of the contract: The elements do not include malice as a necessary act in interference. On the other hand. public buildings and other public works.It is not even necessary for the defective road or street to belong to the province. C. History: This particular tort started in the UK in Lumley vs. 795-801) Interference with contracts: A. article 2189 applies in particular to the liability arising from ―defective streets. control or supervision is provided for in the charter of Dagupan and is exercised through the City Engineer. However. No tort is committed if the party had already broken the contract. This is consistent with Article 2202 if the contracting party who was induced to break the contract was in bad faith. . The view is that inducement. Such interference is considered tortious because it violates the rights of the contacting parties to fulfill the contract and to have it fulfilled. 2189 Provinces. the Supreme Court in its various rulings have held that the aggrieved party will only be entitled to damages if malice was present in the commission of the tortious act. and other public works under their control or supervision. which is owned by the national Government. Gye in 1853 and was first adopted in the Philippines in 1915 in Gilchrist vs Cuddy. City Engineer testified that he supervises the maintenance of said manholes and sees to it that they are properly covered. (pp. and confined. and other public works under their control or supervision.The liability of private corporations for damages arising from injuries suffered by pedestrians from the defective condition of roads is expressed in the Civil Code as follows: Article 2189. social policy permits a privilege or justification to intentionally invade the legally protected interests of others only if the defendant acts to promote the interests of others or himself if the interest which he seeks to advance is superior to the interest invaded in social importance.TORTS AND DAMAGES Competition in business also affords a privilege to interfere provided that the defendant‘s purpose is a justifiable one and the defendant does not employ fraud or deception which are regarded as unfair. to reap the profits resulting therefrom. Interference of the third party without legal justification or excuse: In general. a third party may sue a third party not for breach of contract but for inducing another to commit such breach. This tort is known as interference with contractual relations. 3. streets. public buildings. public buildings. and to compel the performance by the other party. Neither can action be maintained if the contract is void. fell into a manhole at Perez Blvd. The article only requires that either control or supervision is exercised over the defective road or street. HELD: City liable . Statutory provision and rationale: Under Article 1314 of the Civil Code. City Charter of Dagupan also says that the city supervises and manages National roads and national sidewalks.    CLASS NOT ES F. Sir said it is wise to apply this to the case of PLDT and the accident mound case (DACARA) Guilatco v City of Dagupan FACTS: Guilatco. B. a court interpreter. Extent of liability: The rule is that the defendant found guilty of interference with contractual relations cannot be held liable for more than the amount for which the party who was induced to break the contract can be held liable. when there is good faith. if reprehensible in an enforceable contracts. Provinces. operated on. or injuries suffered by.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.