This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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.
-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
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
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.
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.
-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‖
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.
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.
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.
-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
-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
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.
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.
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.
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
-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
THE CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT A. HELD: NO. David and Manuel ignited the contents of the cap. property of the Andamo spouses. CLASS NOT E II. resulting in injuries to Garcia et al. or some other person for whose acts he must respond. (4) existence of direct causal connection between the damage or prejudice and the fault or negligence of private respondents. (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. NCC Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. Bus company and driver filed a motion to dismiss. Andamo v CA FACTS: The Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette caused the construction of waterpaths and contrivances Garcia v Florido Jec . ISSUE: WON the plaintiff can recover damages in this case. and later also filed a civil action for damages against respondent corporation. 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. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. 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. (3) physical injuries and other damages sustained by petitioners as a result of the collision. the following must be established: (1) damages to the plaintiff. HELD: NO. 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. and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. The civil action was based on QD and may proceed independently of the criminal case. David‘s father filed an action for damages. Casis mentioned 4. Garcia et al filed a civil action for damages against the owners and drivers of both vehicles. namely: (1) act or omission of private respondents. This allegedly caused flooding and damage to the adjacent lot. if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. 2176. there being fault or negligence. 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. Such fault or negligence. ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the case was proper. (3) direct causal connection between damage and act or omission. Important: Take note of 4 elements of QD: (1) acts or omission constituting negligence. and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage. In order to recover damages. was guilty. The chief of police filed a criminal case against the bus driver. The essential averments for a QD action are present in this case. ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the civil case was proper. The case mentions 5 elements but Prof. as the crim case was field ahead of it. NO HELD: The action was based on QD and it may proceed independently. The civil case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (2) damage. (2) fault or negligence of defendant. (4) no preexisting contractual relation. Excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear indication of negligence. (2) negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally. and (5) the absence of preexisting contractual relations between the parties. PAGE 5 in its compound. (2) fault or negligence of the defendant. The Andamos filed a criminal case for destruction by means of inundation. is obliged to pay for the damage done. in the 1889 CC dealth with cases of the nature of torts + with US occupation. to wit: (1) damages suffered by the plaintiff. 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.TORTS AND DAMAGES FACTS: A public utility car and a bus collided. All the elements of QD are present in the complaint. 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) 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. Elements Art. resulting in an explosion which led to David‘s loss of his right eye.
Tayag v Alcantara FACTS: Tayag who was riding on a bicycle along McArthur Highway was bumped by a bus and died. 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.TORTS AND DAMAGES NOT E Liability in tort may be predicated upon an injury resulting from an unlawful or illegal act or omission. and to guard against them. 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. 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. who must prove it. Negligence is a matter of risk – that is to say. rather than consequences.‖ Negligence is conduct. act or omission I SANGCO (pp. common sense. physical condition and other circumstance regarding persons. and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from crime. the acquittal of the driver in the crim case is not a bar to the civil case for damages based on QD. taking into consideration his employment or occupation. Art 365. 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. the standard imposed must be an external one. 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. At Barredo v Garcia. whether injury is on property or person - PAGE 6 the same time. of cognizable danger of injury. 1-4) Conduct may be legally described in terms of action and inaction or ―misfeasance‖ or ―nonfeasance. for the protection of the interest of another person. The actor does not desire to bring about the consequences which follow. B. 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. and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care. supra RULE: A QD or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the CC. CLASS NOT E Important: There must exist a direct causal connection 1. nor does he know that they are substantially to occur. or believe they will. (2) a fault of this person. All the essential averments for a QD action are present. A crim case was also filed against the bus driver. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. 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. degree of intelligence. with a substantially all its own. based upon what society demands of the individual rather than upon his own notion of what is 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. 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.‖ The standard must be one of conduct. RPC. and 4) No pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. that degree of care. HELD: No. 2) Damage caused by the said act or omission. These are not cases of omissions. or contrary to law It must be shown that the damage to the plaintiff. policy and precedent. Distinguished A. but without malice. Imprudence and Negligence. Intentional omissions must not be treated as cases of negligence. not a state of mind or the use of sound judgment. Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily. 3. When the danger is great a high degree of care is necessary. was the natural and probable. fault or negligence I SANGCO (p5-7) Negligence is the ―failure to observe. 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. namely: 1) Act or omission constituting fault or negligence on the part of private respondent. The petitioner‘s COA being based on a QD.‖ Misfeasance is active misconduct working positive injury to others. precaution and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably impose. Quasi-delict v Delict Art 2177. His heirs sued the bus owner and driver for damages. 3) Direct causal relation between the damage and the act or omission. which implies at once an act of intelligent volition that is illicit. time and place. they are cases of positive action. ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the civil case was proper.
Hence. or delay. 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. reserves the rt to institute it separately. was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.TORTS AND DAMAGES Preponderance evidence of There is nothing contrary to Art 29. ISSUE: WON Cruz‘s conviction is supported by the evidence. and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment and to pay damages. (2) doing or failure to do the act is voluntary. CLASS NOT ES CLASS NOT E Need to indemnify heirs even if not criminally liable. Since the civil liability of the latter has become final and executory by reason of his flight. It does not follow that a person who is not criminally liable is also free from civil liability. Under the 2000 Rules of Crim Proc. the civil actions referred to in Arts 32. together with policemen and a civilian. HELD: Her guilt was not proved BRD. 1171. he caused damage to the victim and should answer civilly for the damage done. PAGE 7 The driver jumped bail. time and place CLASS NOT E Important: Clarified 2000 Rules of Court B. Phil Rabbit‘s notice of appeal was dismissed. The 2000 Rules of Crim Proc deleted the requirement of reserving independent civil actions and allowed these to proceed separately from criminal actions. only a preponderance of evidence is required to establish civil liability. may be enforced by execution on the basis of the judgment of conviction meted out to the employee. NO. and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof. (4) material damage results from the reckless imprudence. FACTS: Ninevetch Cruz. While the guilt of the accused in a criminal case must be established BRD. HELD: NO. and other circumstances regarding persons. are liable for damages. ISSUE: WON Gabat‘s guilt was proven BRD. then the former‘s subsidiary civil liability has also become immediately enforceable. HELD: The subsidiary liability of Phil. (5) there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender. RPC. 34 & 2176 of the CC shall remain separate. Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void. Art. ISSUE: WON an employer who dutifully participated in the defense of its accused employee may appeal the judgment of conviction independently of the accused. Padilla v CA FACTS: Padilla. Cruz v CA HELD: NO. The two can stand side by side. 33. Jec . Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. 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. the subsidiary liability of the employer under Art 103. ISSUE: WON CA erred in requiring petitioners to pay damages after acquitting them of the criminal charge. Important: elements of reckless imprudence: (1) the offender does or fails to do an act.CC in the rendition of a judgment of acquittal and a judgment awarding damages in the same criminal action. negligence. extinguish the civil liability unless there is a clear showing that the act from which civil liability might arise did not exist. However. degree of intelligence. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud. a municipal mayor. physical condition. Gabat‘s guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. for while a conviction requires proof BRD. demolished a store and took away its contents. multiple physical injuries and damage to property. a surgeon.. distinct and independent of any crim prosecution based on the same act. Breach of Contract Art. It does not. 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. the Court finds her civilly liable for the death of Lydia Umali. taking into consideration his employment or occupation. Rabbit is incidental to and dependent on the pecuniary civil liability of the accused-employee. A judgment of acquittal operates to extinguish the criminal liability. (3) without malice. Thus. Philippine Rabbit v People FACTS: Philippine Rabbit‘s employee was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in triple homicide. Guilt beyond reasonable doubt People v Ligon FACTS: Based on the testimony of a taxi driver. only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil action for damages. pursuant to a municipal ordinance. with fault and negligence. Gabat was convicted of Robbery with Homicide committed against a 17-yo student working as a cigarette vendor. CA acquitted them of the charge of grave coercion based on reasonable doubt but ordered them to pay damages. 1170. or institutes it prior to the crim action. Quasi-Delict v. however. but preponderance of evidence establishes that by his ct or omission.
vinculum juris (legal tie) Independent the breach of the duty assumed by the parties The contract and its nonperformance. what plaintiff needs to prove What is the breach of contract committed? Negligence. you can base the action on quasi-delict. according to the circumstances. 1173. 1. 2178. 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. and QDs are broader. He sues under contract of carriage. or contract. The contract to transport carries with it the duty to provide safe means of entering and leaving the train. 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. 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. Moral damages are not recoverable for actions based on BoC unless there is bad faith. 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. delict. 1172. paragraph 2. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable. 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. When negligence shows bad faith. Fores v Miranda FACTS: Miranda was a passenger of a jeep which hit a wall and fractured his right humerus. 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) Under BoC Recoverable only if passenger dies or there is malice or bad faith (proof of due diligence not available) Injury to passenger.‖ Notes: SC held there was a contract of carriage even if Cangco did not pay for a ticket. The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict. Plaintiff with a pre-existing contractual relation may still sue for QD so long as ―had there been a no contract. No need to prove it was carrier‘s Fault of or 3. Art. There was no bad faith because:  mere carelessness of the driver does not justify the inference of bad faith. shall apply. 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. HELD: SC deleted moral damages. failure to exercise due care Art. there is still a quasi-delict. Art. MR argues that  the breach was due to negligence of servant and  it exercised due diligence in selection and supervision. He sues for negligence in the performance of a contract. It is unnecessary for plaintiff for BoC to prove the breach was due to negligence.TORTS AND DAMAGES Doctrine: QD and BoC are concentric. and  under Art 1756. but such liability may be regulated by the courts. of the time and of the place. MERALCO was held liable for breach of contract. defendant carrier‘s defense 3. that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required.Therefore. moral damages CLASS NOT ES 2. If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance. CA awarded him with moral damages. the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201. Held: MR is liable. 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 . Notes: Negligence for BoC and QD are defined in the same way as provided by Art 2178. if you sue for negligence. When a contractual relation exists. liability of defendant employer 2. Also. The negligence need not be proven 4. His foot alighted upon a melon at the moment he stepped upon the platform.
not ratio. RTC and CA awarded moral damages. the SC ordered the remand of the case because there was a contractual obligation to provide both education and security. you can‘t sue for QD. award for Gross negligence Act that is exemplary as to wanton. the act or omission complained of cannot by itself be an actionable tort. which is a violation of a public duty. Exemplary damages were deleted because DOCTRINE: The test to determine whether QD can be deemed to underlie the BoC s where. oppressive or malevolent (Art. HELD: Complaint is based on contract because without the contract. 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. respect. award for Injury If there was bad moral damages faith or gross negligence 2. 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. Defendants argue that they are not covered by 2180 as they are an academic institution. HELD: The school is not liable under QD because  A2180 applies only if damage was caused by students or pupils  a 2176 applies only if there isno contractual relation. recklessness and lack of security measures. But in the latter part. just obiter. it does not mean that there is no existing relationship Notes: Differences between QD and BoC in this case: Unde QD Under BoC 1. 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. Does not say that when there is a contract.TORTS AND DAMAGES He sues for damages. without a preexisting contract between 2 parties. 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. which is a QD. Trial must proceed to determine if the breach was due to negligence. ―the act that breaks the contract may also bea tort‖ only applies if the BoC was done in  bad faith and  in violation of Art 21 (willfully causing loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. But even if there is a pre-existing contractual relationship. The ruling on the interpretation of A2176 is not ratio. his employer. Casis. A2176 expressly excludes cases where there is a pre-existing contractual relationship. This statement (can‘t have QD if there‘s a contract) contradicts Air France yet later on it cites Air France Jec . it ruled that A2176 can apply if a contract exists. If there is no contract. the stress of the action was put on the wrongful expulsion. Doctrine: Qualified Air France v Carrasco‘s pronouncement by saying the phrase. 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. damages approximate fraudulent. 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. 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. His parents sued PSBA and its officers under A2180 for ther negligence. an act or omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself. malice (Art 2231) reckless. Case is not basis of mutual exclusivity CLASS NOT ES Doctrine: The act that breaks the contract may also be a tort. there is still a cause of action for quasi-delict since it is not expressly prohibited. This is tort not QD PSBA v CA FACTS: A PSBA student was stabbed and killed by non-students while in the school premises. courtesy and due consideration. QD not applicable when there is a contract According to Prof. However. why discuss this? To determine damages contradicts A2176? No. 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. PAGE 9 Passengers have a right to be treated by the carrier‘s employees with kindness. RTC awarded him moral and exemplary damages. RTC and CA denied motion to dismiss. He sues for damages because of Atlantic‘s negligence in not repairing the weakened track. the court said that A2176 only applies if no contract exists.
Fault or negligence by defendant c. 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. 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. where tirt us that which breaks the contract. 2176. Negligence is not presumed.e. Casis asks how putting a hole in the vault would prevent water from entering it. where an act which constitutes a breach would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability has the contract not existed. Contractual responsibility and extracontractual liability exclude each other and cannot be cumulated. and 2191 is presumed and burden of proof shifts to defendant QD arising from BoC a. then any negligence would be actionable under BoC. CA determined that there was no negligence. To be established with satisfactory evidence c. 1172-1174 under Art. Plus. 2180. Only under Arts. is 2. CA – a single act or omission may give rise to two or more causes of action (i. Governed by Arts. it said ―tort‖ referring to first sentence of 2176 such that if there is preexisting contractual relationship there can still be a tort.‖ b. Direct relation of cause and effect between act or omission and the damage e.liability for a tort may arise even under a contract. Concurrence of Causes of Action . An act or omission by defendant b. AQUINO (pp. Falls on the person claiming damages b. and also 1170. Based on the cases. Tort liability arises from BoC when the is act or omission is in itself wrongful independent of the contract. PAGE 10 Burden of Proof a. Culpa Aquiliana Distinguished from Crimes Culpa Aquiliana (QD) Crimes Affect Private Public Interest Concerns Indemnification Penal Code Punishes Repairs Damage or Corrects Broad. Damage or injury to plaintiff d. Doctrines: If there is a pre-existing contractual relation. or BoC) .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. 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. the breach of which being merely incidental to the commission of the tort. No pre-existing contractual relationship Jec .. the diligence to be observed in the performance of a contractual obligation is that which is expected of a good father of a family. Culpa Aquiliana Distinguished from Culpa Contractual De Leon (pp. Air France is safer.1174 governed by Art. Requisites of QD: a.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. 25-26) 1. The Deed of Sale and Certificate of Perpetual Care govern the relation of the parties and defined their rights and obligations.  If there is no stipulation or legal provision to the contrary. ―the existence of a contract does not preclude the commission of a QD. QD. There is no stipulation that the vault would be waterproof. there can be no QD.Far East Banc v.157-160) 1. 2183. 2178 Based on voluntary act or omission which has caused damage to another Requires only preponderance of evidence 4. not QD. Employer‘s responsibility presumptive 3. CLASS NOT ES The notes in this case are rather confusing. Prof. delict. 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.
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. 23-27) Actionable negligence may either be culpa contractual. Stopped 2. stopped and allowed the train to pass. followed by the ignoring of the admonition born of this pre-vision. it would then be on the improper side of the road. HELD: Complaint is dismissed. HELD: Wright was not negligent because the sudden falling of the horse. - 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. base action on Art. Notes: The car was on the proper side of the bridge. 21. the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201. A prudent man ―would have recognized that the course which he was pursuing was fraught with risk. 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. Doctrine: Negligence is defined as the ―want of care required by the circumstances. Veered to the right. PAGE 11 although not as negligent as Meralco in failing to maintain the tract. III. Both appealed. of the time and of the place. an action for damages for the negligent acts of the defendant may be based on contract. CFI awarded him damages but apportioned the same since he was negligent as well. Slowed down or 3. 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. If the law or contact does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance. culpa aquiliana and criminal negligence. Doctrine: If a person‘s conduct is characterized by s proper degree of care and prudence. would ordinarily be sufficient to throw a sober man from the vehicle. Thus.  a prudent man under similar circumstances would have heeded the siren of the oncoming train. Wright v MERALCO FACTS: An intoxicated Wright was thrown off his calesa after it was pitched forward by Meralco‘s protruding railtrack. Concept of Negligence 1. The Constitutive fact of negligence is the reasonable foresight of harm. When negligence shows bad faith. Notes: Sir asks the question following the doctrine: If this happened today. 2. The bases of liability are separate and distinct from each other even if only one act or omission is involved. veering away only when the car was only a few feet away from the horse. Jec . Definition. that a person can be expected to take care only when there is something before them to suggest or warn of danger. quasi-delict or delict.‖ 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. Smith drove his car toward the horse. Sir thinks that the ruling is problematic because had the car veered away. The horse got spooked and got killed. and  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. Omniscience of the future is not a requirement. he was negligent. He should look and listen and do everything that a reasonably prudent man would do before he attempts to cross the track. 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. Husband was negligent because  one approaching a railroad crossing do so cautiously and carefully. paragraph 2 shall apply. that which is expected of a good father of a father of a family shall be required. Elements Art. Take note however.‖ Smith should have: 1.  the train driver had already applied its brakes and was running at 23-30kph. Doctrines: 1. it is immaterial whether hi is drunk or sober.TORTS AND DAMAGES NOT ES HELD: Smith is liable for damages because applying the standard of a prudent man. 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. and would have foreseen harm to the horse and rider as a reasonable consequence of that course. NEGLIGENCE A.
whereby such other person suffers injury the emergency rule can be considered a defense. There is no formula to determine negligence. the prudent men children experts. 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. visibility of the street 100 meters away.in. She sued for damages based on QD. precaution and vigilance which the circumstance justly demand. Manila negligence is conduct which creates an undue risk of harm to others it is the failure to observe that degree of care. Children Article 8. Notes: The defense of liability of another person is not available to join tortfeasors. RPC A minor fifteen years of age is presumed to be capable of committing a crime and is to be held criminally liable therefore. the collision was the fault of the stationary object. we cannot provide a standard for all specific cases because it is difficult. 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. Where the danger is great. CA. ―what if the planes had already landed?‖ the circumstances reasonably require. Doctrines:  adds to the definition in Corliss v. 3. the same for all persons iii.7-8) – 1) STANDARD OF CONDUCT .it is impossible to fix in advance definite rules for all conceivable human conduct because of the infinite variety of situations which may arise .e. 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. or that it was the result of an inevitable accident. But sir asks.law.TORTS AND DAMAGES FACTS: While on compulsory pilotage for docking. etc. external and objective ii. just like in Valenzuela v. He filled an action for damages based on QD.) 1. look and listen.  The presumption of fault against a moving vessel that strikes a stationary object is rebuttable by proof that the driver was without fault. Professionals intoxication insanity Valenzuela v CA FACTS: Plaintiff Valenzuela was hit by defendant‘s car while she was attending to a flat tire. 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. Jec . Notes: SC took into consideration ―normal human circumstances‖ in determining WON defendant was negligent.standard of conduct must be: i. 5. Doctrines:  Unmindful disregard or neglectful relinquishment of duty is tantamount to negligence  Extraordinary risk demands extraordinary diligence. (Examples: the light rainfall. 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. PAGE 12 people would be looking up) in determining WON defendant was negligent. a higher degree of care is necessary. 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. The Prudent Man Picart v Smith Doctrines:  The standard of care is that of a ―prudent man‖  the conduct of a prudent man is determined ―in the light of human experience an in the particular case‖ I Sangco (pp.‖ Nevertheless as provided by the SC in this case. 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. 2. Doctrines:  An object can still be placed negligently even if it has a ‗legitimate purpose‘ for being there. 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. Every case must be dependent of its facts. Notes: Sir says that based on jurisprudence. 2. Therefore his failure to be alert must be due either to his intoxication or his speeding. (this was in Taylor. took into consideration ―normal human circumstances‖ (i. that a.  Definition of gross negligence as equivalent to ―notorious negligence‖ which ―consists in the failure to exercise even slight care‖ Notes: SC. the vessel rams into pier because anchor did not take hold HELD: Both the shipmaster and compulsory pilot are liable. 4. Standard of conduct 1.
However. RA 9344 does not affect presumptions of negligence. 12. Company‘s counterargument: ―It never happened before. or where such infant found upon the premises a dangerous machine. After applying a lighted match to an opened cap. exploded and injured him. Although the owner of the premises was negligent leaving the caps exposed n its premises. HELD: In the Turntable and Torpedo cases. Casis asks what about a child who is exactly 9 years old? Apply the rules on above Jec . 6. 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. 15. things tempting to children. The court did not cite him correctly. was pinned by the bulk of the department store‘s gift-wrapping counter/structure and died. however was overturned by Railroad Company vs. and other persons not fully sui juris. therefore. Prof. plaintiff‘s own act was the principal and proximate cause of the accident. negligence and accident cannot coincide. HELD: (Citing Sangco) Since negligence may be a felony and a quasi-delict and required discernment as a condition of liability. presumed incapable of negligence (conclusive presumption). 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. 2180. one of which when carried away by the visitor. at a place where the railroad company knew. so as to make it negligence on his part to fail to exercise due care and precaution in the commission of such acts. at a place where the railroad company's premises. who from mere idle curiosity. Taylor v Manila Railroad FACTS: David Taylor. that of a prudent child or adult. and MANUEL. 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. rebuttable presumption of incapacity of negligence. RULE: A child under 9 years of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law. either criminal or civil. an implied license might sometimes arise when it not on behalf of others. 1 Jarco Marketing v CA FACTS: Zhieneth. and this is to be determined in each case by the circumstances of the case. where they would be likely to gather for that purpose. 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 . under our law. children who would likely to come. David‘s father filed a complaint for damages. or for purposes of amusement. 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. the great weight of authority holds the owner of the premises liable. Sangco had the standard of an ordinary prudent child. you don‘t stop at age. If below 9. and there found explosive signal torpedoes left exposed by the railroad company's employees. This doctrine. by analogy. it exploded causing injuries. Thus leaving a tempting thing for children to play with exposed. were experimenting with fulminating caps they found lying around the company‘s premises. if above 15. In these. 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. the same implication should arise. 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. PAGE 13 child‘s own act of climbing into the structure that was the proximate cause of the fall of the counter. and perhaps. 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. such is not the rule in regard to an infant of tender years. 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. conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence.‖ In citing Sangco. or had a good reason to suppose. 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. CC. if one were to throw upon his premises. is that the child under 9 years of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law. near the common way. enters upon the railroad company's premises. The care and caution required of a child is according to his maturity and capacity only. So in this case. 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.TORTS AND DAMAGES be determines in each case by the circumstances of the case. may be equivalent to an invitation to them to make use of it. Casis: Does this mean that Sangco did not set a standard of conduct for children but merely a formula? No. a child under 9 years of age is. The rule. if above 9 and below 15. it affects Art. and in a great variety of similar cases.
under 18. Later. TEST as to whether an infant can be subjected to the same standard of care as an adult: 1. after saying that he had been in the habit of touching wires. owing to his immature years and natural curiosity which a child would feel to do something out of the ordinary. discretion. it is a factor for liability Del Rosario v Manila Electric FACTS: Alberto Del Rosario. exclaiming ―Ay! Madre‖. after he had observed good conduct. When. adult-oriented‖ instrument.) 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. He immediately fell face Jec . CLASS NOTES Kid was 10/11 yo: *disputable presumption under Sangco* *in a case between children and adults. 9. not of punishment but of compensation. Upon being taken to the hospital. He left four of them to level the loose soil around the open hole but allegedly telling them ―not to touch the stone‖. but merely put off the imposition of the corresponding penalty in order to give the delinquent minor a chance to be reformed. was found guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. The end of the wire remained in contact with his body which fell near the post. 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. one involving the use of ―potentially dangerous. despite the warning of one of his companions. his lawyer recommended the dismissal of his case. the trend is that adults should know better* SANGCO (pp. therefore. knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances. playfully jumped into the pit and caused the top of the concrete block to fall towards the opening. CFI dismissed but reversed the right of the heirs to recover damages in a civil action. he was pronounced dead. (RULE) 9 below 15 because the law should be construed in favor of the accused. 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. Ylarde wasn‘t able to climb out and he died because of the injuries sustained. HELD: The child Ylarde cannot be charged with reckless imprudence.not having been the determining cause of the accident. For every tortuous act of violence or other pure tort. his sentence was suspended until he reached majority. But even supposing that the contributory negligence could in some measure 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. type of activity involved is one that is usually engaged in by children 2. owing to his immature years and natural curiosity. in view of his conduct. but his conduct should be judged according to the average conduct of persons of his own age and experience. none. this does not mean that he was exonerated from the crime charged. HELD: The suspension of sentence did not wipe out his guilt. Being under 18. Magtibay v Tiangco FACTS: Rowel Tiangco. (citing Sangco) The degree of care required to be exercised must vary with the capacity of the person engendered to care for himself. and the mere fact that the deceased ignored the caution of a companion of the age of 8 years does not alter the case. HELD: It is doubtful whether contributory negligence can be properly imputed to the deceased. WHERE CHILD IS HELD TO THE STANDARD OF CLASS NOTES Different from Taylor: o Taylor – contributory negligence. like a car. Is there mutual exclusivity between negligence and accident? According to the Jarco case. put out his index finger and touched a fallen electrical wire. 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. RULE: It is doubtful whether contributory negligence can be properly imputed to the deceased. PAGE 14 an adult. They. knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances. Nor did such dismissal of the case obliterate is civil liability for damages. capacity. the criminal case was dismissed. 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.TORTS AND DAMAGES downwards. but simply that he would suffer no penalty. intelligence and experience under like or similar circumstances or that degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same age. RULE: Liability of an infant in a civil action for his torts is imposed as a mode. yet such negligence would not be wholly fatal to the right of action in this case. and not that of an adult. capacity. however. 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. discretion.
―care of a specially high degree‖. ―the highest degree of care known to practical men‖. his violation of a statute or other enactment entails the same consequences as those of an adult. A person skilled in dealing with boats would have been sufficiently warned by the circumstances to cause him to take precaution against the danger. and the skill employed must correspond with the superior knowledge of the business which the law demands. RULE: When a person holds himself out as being competent to do things requiring professional skill. blood and oxygen that the patient had to be transferred to another hospital. The care required must be commensurate with the danger involved. which is ―the highest practicable degree of prudence. ―the highest degree of care known to practical men”. 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. The responsibility to use care has been variously qualified as ―ordinary care‖.TORTS AND DAMAGES PAGE 15 CARE OF AN ADULT. this conclusion is best arrived at not through the educated surmises nor conjectures of laymen. The phony Fernando deposited the two BPI checks to China Bank and CLASS NOTES Relationship: danger Jec . a pharmacist. professionals Culion v Phil. The question of negligence or ignorance is irrelevant. CLASS NOT ES Plaintiff has burden of proof. 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. Motors FACTS: When Culion wanted to get his motor schooner repaired. US v Pineda FACTS: Pineda. where she died. HELD: The profession of pharmacy is one demanding care and skill. sold barium chlorate(poisonous) instead of potassium chlorate which killed 2 horses. Quest is experienced in fixing car and tractor engines. vigilance. When a person holds himself out as being competent to do things requiring professional skill. HELD: While it may be true that the circumstances seemed beyond cavil to constitute reckless imprudence on the part of the surgeon. Ninevetch Cruz wherein the untidy clinic ran out of medicine. such that the fuel mixture leaked and dripped down to the engine compartment. but not that of boats. 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. Johnny Quest when a person who holds himself out as being competent to do things. 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. HELD: Ordinarily. a matter of expert opinion. but by the unquestionable knowledge of expert witnesses. 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. When the engine was started. PMC‖s manager decided to oversee the repairs. CLASS NOTES o pharmacist: knowledgeable o buyer: can‘t check for himself Consider nature of work and danger involved 3. and the most exact and reliable safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct of business. Experts. would have taken precaution to avoid. RULE: The profession of pharmacy is one demanding care and skill. including judges. The druggist is responsible as an absolute guarantor of what he sells. 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. he went to PMC where Quest. The responsibility to use care has been variously qualified as ―ordinary care‖. a backfire from an engine would not be followed by any disaster. 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. in order that human life may not constantly be exposed to danger flowing from the substitution of deadly poison for harmless medicine‖. thoughtfulness. 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. versed in repairs of boat engines. in the generality of cases. ―care of a specially high degree‖. the tube connecting the carburetor and the fuel tank was not well-fitted. there was a backfire and burned the boat. Apparently. which a prudent mechanic. but here the leak along the pipeline and the flooding of the carburetor created a dangerous situation. Quest attention was called on this but he took it lightly.
Lastly. the banks are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. stumbling by reason of unsure footing and falling. It is impossible to say that a sober man would not have fallen from the vehicle under the conditions. it is immaterial whether he is drunk or sober. thereafter withdrew it all. PAGE 16 Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. 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. 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. 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.TORTS AND DAMAGES care. trial court rendered him exempt from criminal liability but was obligated to indemnify the heirs of the murdered woman. RULE: Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does the mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary care. BPI claimed reimbursement from China Bank under its clear warranty. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The father and. Intoxication NOTES CLASS NOTES US v Baggay FACTS: In a song service. Insanity Art. NCC The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's acts or omissions. and fell. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. 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. the vehicle crashing against the rails with such force as to break a wheel. the person in the first place liable are those who have the insane party under their care or guardianship. leaped forward. HELD: By the very nature of their work the degree of responsibility. in spite of his unfortunate condition. Wright v Manila Electric FACTS: Plaintiff drove home in a calesa and in crossing the tracks to enter his premises the horse stumbled. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. is to draw a conclusion which enters the realm of speculation and guesswork. (1903a) Art. The tops of the rails appear to be 5 or 6 inches more above the level of the street. and to conclude that a sober man would not have fallen while a drunken man did. from which she died. even though performed unwittingly. 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. 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. According to law. Plaintiff was intoxicated at the time. For obvious reasons. 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. in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. He likewise inflicted various wounds on other women with the same bolo. HELD: Mere intoxication is not negligence nor does the mere fact of intoxication establish a want of ordinary Jec . A horse crossing the tracks with not only the rails but a portion of the ties themselves aboveground. the mother. causing the vehicle to strike out of the rails with great force. is still reasonably and justly liable with his property for the consequences of his acts. for the reason that his fellows ought not to suffer from the disastrous results of his harmful acts more than is necessary. 2180. in case of his death or incapacity. Since defendant was suffering from mental aberration. 2182 If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardian. this might be sufficient to throw a person from the vehicle no matter what his condition. unless they prove that there was no blame or negligence on their part. care and trustworthiness expected of their employees and officials is far greater than those of ordinary clerks and employees. throwing the plaintiff from the vehicle and causing injuries. No matter how many justifications both banks present to avoid responsibility. Even though the former are nor engaged in any business or industry. but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains. HELD: In the case of a lunatic or insane person who. 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. without provocation attacked a woman with a bolo on her head . in spite of his irresponsibility on account of the deplorable condition of his deranged mind. they cannot erase the fact that they were both guilty in not exercising extraordinary diligence in the selection and supervisions of employees. including his own mother. Baggay suddenly.
It was not a case of the money falling off someone‘s pocket to the floor. however. which is want of even slight care and diligence. it collided with a coconut tree. to the danger of his injury‖. potent and obvious. (failure to exercise care) Marinduque Iron Mines v Workmen's Compensation Jec . because ―no danger or risk was apparent‖. he would surely be entitled to compensation. his act being obviously innocent. guardian or some person charged with his care. HELD: Mere riding on a haulage truck or stealing a ride thereon is not negligence. The nature of the act of jumping into the sea involves danger per se. 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. that he displayed a ―reckless disregard of the What determines if an act if negligent is the danger of an act. Petitioner claims that such violation was the laborer's ―notorious negligence‖ which. value RA 9044 Sec. a seaman. RULE: Violation of a rule promulgated by a commission or board is not negligence per se. his bill merely fell from his pocket. under the law. Jumping into the sea. - CLASS NOTES Grossly negligent vs slightly negligent degree of danger cf. CLASS NOTES Exemption form criminal liability doesn‘t mean exemption from civil liability B. He drowned. If while he was working. the laborer could not be declared to have acted with negligence since the prohibition had nothing to do with the personal safety of riders. exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. HELD: He failed to exercise ―even the slightest care and diligence‖. the danger is apparent and imminent because the shore is 1½ miles away from the location of the ship. which resulted in his death. There is more reason to hold that his death was caused by his notorious negligence. then his own property must meet the civil liability. Getting or accepting a free ride on the company's haulage truck couldn't be gross negligence.an absence of that degree of vigilance which persons of extraordinary prudence and foresight are accustomed to use. Violation of a rule promulgated by a commission or board is not negligence per se. is entirely different. He is not said to be a good swimmer but he jumped into the water as opposed to Cuervo vs. 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. There was a company prohibition against laborers riding the haulage trucks. The person in the first place liable is those who have the insane party under their care or guardianship. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE: SLIGHT NEGLIGENCE . When the truck tried to overtake another truck. that he could not have been but conscious of the probable consequences‖ of his carelessness and that he was ―indifferent. the danger which it entails being clear. but it may be evidence of negligence. or if the latter be insolvent. but it may be evidence of negligence.TORTS AND DAMAGES safety of his person. or worse. Degrees of Negligence Art. CLASS NOTES There‘s only an alleged prohibition on part of employer Even if there was indeed a prohibition. and as he picked it up from the floor something accidentally fell upon him and injured him. Under the circumstances. 2231 In quasi-delicts. jumped overboard from his ship into the water to retrieve a 2peso bill that was blown by the breeze to the sea. ordinarily. precludes recovery. RULE: Although he may not be held criminally liable. Why notorious negligence? Because compared with other cases. 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. RULE: ―Notorious negligence‖ has been held to be tantamount to ―gross negligence‖. What determines the grossness of negligence? The degree of danger and other factors which would justify the dangerous act. Barretto wherein the emoloyer ordered him to jump into the water to protect the property of the company. a lunatic or imbecile is still held civilly liable.
PAGE 18 driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. Art. Proof of Negligence 1. unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: (1) Flood. but less than conscious indifference to consequences. such as firearms and poison. (ff) That the law has been obeyed. There is often NO CLEAR DISTINCTION between the above and ―gross‖. Quasi-conclusive presumptions of legitimacy. The burden of proof lies on the party who would be defeated if no evidence were given on either side. (c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act. whether international or civil. or judge acting as such . destruction. 1735 In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. (5) Order or act of competent public authority. (a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong. 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. 1. Presumption Art. WANTON. earthquake. except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. if the former. lightning. 2.The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted. Sec. Conclusive presumptions. 2185 Unless there is proof to the contrary. 4. Art. Disputable presumptions. if the goods are lost. Burden of Proof RULE 131: BURDEN OF PROOF PRESUMPTIONS BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS AND Sec. or other natural disaster or calamity. (extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care) WILFUL. AND RECKLESS – ―quasi-intent‖. 2. but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. Sec. (3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods. - 1. Sec. Burden of proof in civil cases. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent. There is no generally accepted meaning. (q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed. . (p) That private transactions have been fair and regular. 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. who was in the vehicle. if he had been found guilty or reckless CLASS NOTES Art 2184 CC disputable presumption: Jec . (m) That official duty has been regularly performed. lying between intent to do harm and the mere reasonable risk of harm to another. 4. whether in the Philippines or elsewhere. If the owner was not in the motor vehicle. 6. Burden of proof in criminal cases. was acting in the lawful exercise of his jurisdiction. (n) That a court. 3. it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap. prevented the misfortune. the owner is solidarily liable with his driver. (2) Act of the public enemy in war. he was violating any traffic regulation. by the use of the due diligence. destroyed or deteriorated. 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. and the two have tended to merge and take on the same meaning as an AGGRAVATED form of negligence. ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that nature. and 5 of the preceding article. Art. (b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent. 2184 In motor vehicle mishaps. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. differing in QUALITY rather than in DEGREE from ordinary lack of care. 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. . 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. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation.TORTS AND DAMAGES Sec. the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable. Art. or deterioration of the goods. storm. but the probability is that it signifies more than ordinary inadvertence or inattention. and so great as to make it highly probably that harm would follow). (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers. Sec. 5. C. GROSS NEGLIGENCE – described as failure to exercise even that care which a careless person would use. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733. 1734 Common carriers are responsible for the loss. could have. 3.Each party must prove his own affirmative allegations. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. 1.
3. deteriorate presume negligence common carrier o UNLESS prove extraordinary diligence SANGCO (18-27) It is NEGLIGENCE PER SE when: 1. under the circumstances involved. in the absence of an explanation by the defendant. a professional driver permits any unlicensed person to drive the car placed under his responsibility 2. violation of an ordinance prohibiting pedestrians from crossing a street in places other than regular cross-walks 3.TORTS AND o DAMAGES he should have due regard for the rights of motor vehicles and should exercise due care for his own safety. 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. 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. 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. direct evidence is absent and not readily available. 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. the drug companies or stores. under the circumstances involved. 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. except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation/business Arts 1734 & 1735 common carriers loss. 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. Where proof of violation makes: 1. or the HIGHEST degree of precaution. such as peace officers or armed forces. 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. The doctrine does not apply. The law on averages under the Code of Commerece cannot be applied in determining negligence. He sustained injuries. The care required is a great or high degree. Defendant contends that the proximate cause was the failure of the driver of the parked truck to install an early warning device. and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have he management use proper care. direct evidence is absent and not readily available. The absence of want of care of the driver has been established by clear and convincing evidence. The presumption DOES NOT APPLY to those whose occupation or business REQUIRES the possession or use of a firearm. violation must be the PROXIMATE CAUSE. it affords reasonable evidence. It can be involved when and only when. an emergency not of the actor‘s own making which causes him to fail to obey the enactment 4. 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. the plaintiff was negligent. gives rise to a presumption of lack of ordinary care PRESUMPTION IS REBUTTABLE FOUR GENERAL GROUNDS OR EXCUSES FOR VIOLATION OF A STATUTE: 1. or in the case of poison. RULE: Res ipsa can be involed when and only when. destroyed. It is not rule of substantive law but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience. although CLASS NOTES Jec . driving a motor vehicle without a license. that the accident arose from want of care. a prima facie case of negligence 2. a pedestrian HAS THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL upon roads and streets WHETHER THERE BE SIDEWALKS OR NOT. IAC concluded that under the doctrine. Art 2185 CC disputable presumption: violate traffic regulation o no conviction required o however. anything that would make it impossible to comply with the statute or ordinance 2.
RIL N/A because there‘s direct (clear & convincing) evidence Why? Because the mode of proof only. without aid of expert testimony. and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation. (2) The patient underwent no other operation which could habe caused the offending piece of rubber to appear in her uterus. went comatose because she was incorrectly intubated. it affords reasonable evidence. in the absence of an explanation by the defendant. the possibility of contributing conduct which would make plaintiff responsible is eliminated. it affords reasonable evidence. is liable Jec . 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. 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. use evidence / facts so that judgment will be based on facts and not presumptions Batiguin v CA FACTS: Dr. without aid of expert testimony. (1) The entire proceedings of the caesarian were under the exclusive control of Dr. it is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants 3. they didn‘t provide expert testimony therefore they lost in Ramos. that the accident arose from want of ordinary care. Batiquin. Dr. 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. it stands to reason that it could habe only been a by-product of the caesarian section. so when there‘s evidence. taken with the surrounding circumstances. undergoing a gall bladder operation. Ramos v CA FACTS: Ramos. RIL made a special defense by Isidro to allege negligence of the truck driver and Layugan. the need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence. when the doctrine is availed of by the plaintiff. PAGE 20 accomplished if the problem is based on medical science (Cruz vs. and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care. 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. HELD: Res ipsa (The thing or transaction speaks for itself) – the fact of the occurrence of the injury. Batiquin performed a caesarian operation on a patient. or make out a plaintiff‘s prima facie case. where the court from its fund of common knowledge can determine the proper standard of care. the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone‘s negligence 2. in the absence of an explanation by the defendant. RULE: In cases where the doctrine is applicable. Batiquin to the rubber. HELD: Res ipsa – Where the thing which causes the injury is shown to under the management of the defendant. applying RIL. may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence. CA). the court is permitted to find a physician negligent upon proper proof of injury to patient. as a matter of common knowledge and observation. the court is permitted to find a physician negligent upon proper proof of injury to the patient. she was found to be feverish. IAC ruled RIL as the basis for holding Layugan negligent. The fundamental element is ―control of instrumentality‖ which caused the damage. 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. RULE: Res ipsa – Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the Defendant. RIL applies. All the requisites are present in this case. and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management used proper care. Afterwards.TORTS AND DAMAGES situations in malpractice cases where a layman is able to say. But if common knowledge can be applied. Generally. When the patient submitted herself to another surgery. that the accident arose from ordinary want of care. 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. 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. Requisites are: 1. where the court from its common knowledge can determine the proper standard of care.
DM Consunji v CA Facts: A construction worker fell from the 14 floor when the platform assembly he was standing on fell down. HELD: Court said Meralco was not negligent. 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. Held: The theoretical basis for the doctrine is its necessity. the immediate and proximate cause being the defendant‘s lack of due care. he was qualified to do the job. DEFENSES 1. Casis thinks that it is the victim‘s fault for falling off the platform. or some other person who is charged with negligence. It furnishes a bridge by which the plaintiff. but the court shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. Casis‘s problem: there‘s evidence (police report. 4. The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with negligence 3. Prof. Plaintiff had no knowledge or means of knowledge as to the cause of the accident PAGE 21 damages. 5. 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.: 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. It relates to the MODE rather than the BURDEN of establishing negligence. It is like saying that even if there is evidence.TORTS AND DAMAGES the part of the defendant. testimony & affidavit). proximate cause: negligence of repairman in turning with GI sheet difference between this & Astudillo v. praying for damages SANCO (27-32) RES IPSA LOQUITOR – the facts or circumstances attending an injury may be such as to raise a presumption. 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. 2179. or permit an inference. th CLASS NOTE Applies only when both parties are negligent. Manila Electric Co. But if his negligence was only contributory. for any explanation of care exercised by the defendant in respect of the matter of which the plaintiff complains.e. It is a rule of necessity. Plaintiff‟s Negligence Art. 6. WHEN DOES IT APPLY? Upon the satisfaction of 3 conditions: 1. Manila Electric v Remonquillo FACTS: Magno was repairing the ―media agua‖ when he was electrocuted to death. that the necessary evidence is not available. 7. reaches over to defendant who knows or should know the cause. The galvanized iron sheet he was holding came in contact with the electric wire. It is NOT an exception to the rule of initial presumption of negligence. of negligence on Jec . 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. It is assumed that due to his age and experience. one could still argue RIL to win the case. Court also dismissed a crosscomplaint filed by the defendant. Theoretical basis for RIL: The proof should come from the defendant (RIL is the ―bridge‖ which allows the plaintiff to reach the defendant). 3. Rule: The theoretical basis for the doctrine is its necessity. 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. NCC When the plaintiff‘s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury. i. 2. without knowledge of the cause. he cannot recover damages. 8.. 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. CLASS NOTES CLASS NOTES F. The accident was of a kind which ordinarily does not occur unless someone is negligent 2.
NCC In quasi-delicts. She got startled by an automobile and ran back to her mother. with the child a few steps ahead. he may recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the accident should pay fpr the injury. he cannot recover. only mitigates CLASS NOTE Contributory negligence is a mitigating factor in awarding damages. TC and CA found him guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. (n) Art. As to the second. Contributory negligence of the child and her mother. Contributory Negligence FACTS: Mother and child were walking along a street. to primary event o injury: may recover Defendant‘s contrib. on the ground that the injuries sustained by his automobile. The negligence of Antonio was not only contributory to his injuries and those of his wife. If the plaintiff‘s negligence contributed to the accident. His defense was that it was the old lady who bumped his car. but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. His jeep was running along the inside lane of the street but it swerved abruptly. the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant‘s lack of due care. although not its primary cause. less a sum deemed an equitable equivalent for his own imprudence. Mother and child had a right to be on that street. an Genobiagon v CA accident v. Where plaintiff in a negligence action by his own carelessness contributes to the principal occurrence as one of the determining causes thereof. She fell into a ditch with hot water and later died. Proximate cause was the unexplained and abrupt swerving of the jeep. RULE: When the negligence of both the plaintiff and the defendant is the proximate cause of the accident. Court found that there was a general prohibition against walking by the side of the car. But if his negligence was only contributory. causing the jeep to hit the mound. does not operate as a bar to recovery but could only result in reduction of damages. There was nothing abnormal in letting a child run along a few paces ahead of the mother. NCC When the plaintiff‘s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury. He could not have known that one rail was lower than the other or that the stringers and rails joined in the same place. Court also found that the jeep was running too fast. the plaintiff may recover damages. lady who was crossing the street. and (2) he walked on the ends of the ties at the side of the car instead of along the boards. But if his negligence only contributed to his injury. = Recovery Jec . 2214. they cannot recover from each other. The Court made a distinction between the accident and the injury. HELD: The accident was due to the lack of diligence of Antonio. HELD: As to the first. Company said Rakes was negligent because: (1) he continued his work despite having noticed the depression in the track. HELD: SC held they were not. CLASS NOTES No contributory negligence of mother & kid Even if they did have contributory negligence. HELD: Court said that the alleged contributory negligence of the victim. if any. The rails that they were transporting slid off the truck and caught his lag. NOTES: negligence imputed included knowledge of the place. Rakes v Atlantic FACTS: The truck plaintiff was riding fell because the track sagged. Court held that Rakes had been working for less than 2 days. 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. and those to the plaintiff‘s car were caused by plaintiff‘s own negligence. The disobedience of the plaintiff in placing himself in danger contributed in some degree to the injury as a proximate. PAGE 22 FACTS: Rig driven by appellant bumped an 81 y. his leg was amputated. he cannot recover.TORTS AND DAMAGES excavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT for the installation of its underground conduit system. Bernal v House 2. Art. – Plaintiff‘s contrib. but goes to the very cause of the occurrence of the accident and thereby precludes their right to recover damages. it is not a bar to recovery. CFI denied damages to parents because they were negligent. does not exonerate accused. CLASS NOTES PLDT v CA FACTS: Antonio and Gloria Esteban‘s jeep ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench. The Estebans passed that mound several times. if any. HELD: Court found that both plaintiff and defendant were negligent in handling their automobile so both cannot recover. he cannot recover damages. 2179. Later. injury o accident: can‘t recover contrib.o. the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover.
Important: memorize characteristics of caso fortuito Hernandez v COA FACTS: Hernandez encashed 2 checks – salaries of employees and operating expenses of the project. but was only able to apprehend one. as it happened. It was a fortuitous event. He ran after them. and PBC was negligent in the selection and supervision of employees. something that could not have reasonably be foreseen though it could have happened. 3. He filed a request for relief from money accountability. and in the presence of other passengers. the 2 robbers attacked him in broad daylight in the jeep. NCC Except in cases expressly specified by the law. or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk. or if it can be foreseen. the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was not independent of human will. This omission by RMC amounts to contributory negligence which shall mitigate the damages that may be awarded to it. The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner 4. CHARACTERISTICS OF CASO FORTUITO: 1. 2. It was caused either through the negligence of the driver or because of the mechanical defects in the tire. It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito. 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. and it did. In this case. HELD: SC said that there are specific acts of negligence on the part of the respondents. while it was on a busy highway. or which. He also lost his omega watch. 2 robbers boarded the jeep and took the money. The decision he made seemed logical at that time and one that could be expected of a reasonable and prudent person. it is impossible to avoid. without the company noticing it. And if. Many possibilities were pposed by the Court to justify that the tire blowing up was not a fortuitous event. He chose to bring the money with him to his house in Bulacan instead of returning to the office in Cavite. 1174. The bank teller was negligent in validating the duplicate copy of the deposit slip even if ccount name was left blank. 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. HELD: Court held that the proximate cause was the negligence of the bank. Juntilla v Funtanar FACTS: Plaintiff was seated in the front passenger seat of a public utility jeepney when the right tire blew up. NOTES: This case doesn‘t say that robberies are fortuitous events. or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation. or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation must be independent of human will. RMC sued PBC to collect the money. HELD: SC held in favor of Hernandez. Therefore: 60 . Court found that RMC was also negligent in not checking its monthly statements of account for more than one year. Cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence. though foreseen.40 ratio in damages. However.TORTS AND DAMAGES PAGE 23 2 kinds of contribution: (1) contribution to the principal event. Jeep was running at a very fast speed and was overloaded. no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen. Obligor must be free from participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor. Bank of Commerce v CA FACTS: For over a year. (2) contribution to his own injury CLASS NOTES ** Is this really a defense? ** there‘s only one case cited because in Transpo course. were inevitable. contrary to the bank‘s selfimposed procedure. RMC‘s secretary had been depositing the company‘s money to her husband‘s bank account. It just said that this particular robbery was a fortuitous event. On his way home. NOTES: Sir said force majeure is not the same as Acts of God. Fortuitous Event Art. COA denied the request. it cannot be said that all this was a result of his imprudence and negligence. 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 .
negligently and recklessly opened 3 of the dam‘s spillways. HELD: SC did not accept defense of force majeure.armed invasion. HELD: (1) Having interposed force majeure as a defense. Its own witness admitted that he could not give any reason why the ceiling collapsed. (3) Assuming that the cause was force majeure. By the act of man. NOTE: Res ipsa loquitur applies in this case. Gotesco‘s defense: force majeure. Caso fortuito – an event that takes place by accident and could not have been foreseen. is found to be in part the result of the participation of man. Therefore. directly. 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. 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. 2. 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. Gotesco had the burden to prove that the collapse was indeed caused by force majeure. A fire of unknown origin razed the warehouse. annual maintenance inspection and repair of the school building was regularly undertaken. any accident due to natural causes. NOTE: event. HELD: Court said that where the fortuitous event is the immediate and proximate cause of the loss. CASO FORTUITO – event which takes place by accident and could not have been reasonably foreseen. pains and care reasonably to have been expected. such as could not have been prevented by any kind of oversight. obligor is exempt from liability for non-performance. Respondents did not even show that the plans. petitioner has not been shown negligent or at fault regarding the construction and maintenance of the school building. In this case. Gotesco could still be held liable because it was guilty of negligence. it does not necessarily mean that it is fortuitous. no investigation was conducted to determine the real cause of the incident. By nature. etc. On the other hand. (2) Force majeure – inevitable accident or casualty. This case established that fire is a fortuitous PAGE 24 Southeastern College v CA FACTS: During a typhoon. governmental prohibition. Chato even went to Illinois for further treatment. even which we could neither foresee nor resist. storms. Typhoon was the proximate cause. whether to be from active intervention or neglect. at the theater owned by Gotesco. attack by bandits. This Gotesco did not do.earthquakes. specs and design of the school building were defective. or failure to act. HELD: Court found that other than the report submitted by the engineers. landing on and destroying portions of the roofing of respondent‘s house. the cause of which is to be considered. 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. destroying the remaining cargo. NPC failed to exercise due diligence in monitoring the water level so when the water level went beyond the maximum allowable limit. 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. NPC suddenly. Bulacan. Servando v Philippine Steam FACTS: Plaintiffs loaded their cargo on board appellant‘s vessel. Balcony collapsed and they sustained injuries. floods. 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 . 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. school‘s roof was partly ripped off and blown away. exclusively without human intervention. When the effect. it is an unexpected event or act of God which could neither be foreseen nor resisted. city building official testified that the school obtained both building permit and certificate of occupancy. etc. Cargoes were discharged unto the warehouse of Bureau of Customs.TORTS AND DAMAGES attributable to the negligence of the appellant or its employees. and that no complaints have been lodged in the past. They claimed that despite knowledge of the impending entry of the typhoon Kading. the whole occurrence is thereby humanized.
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA 7. 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. previous experience. he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family. According to the NPC Engr. Mere formulation of various company policies on safety (as testified by Christian Bautista).) *SANGCO (pp. but absolved Pepsi for having sufficiently proven that it exercised due diligence in the selection of its driver (background check. that when he voluntarily assents to a known danger he must abide by the consequences. driver‘s exam. HELD: SC found Bonifacio negligent. A person is excused from the force of the rule. PAGE 25 qualifications. he must abide by the consequence. It was his business to try to prevent the animal from causing injury to anyone. *they could have used RIL* CLASS NOTES 4. She waded in waistdeep flood and got electrocuted. Action was predicated on Art 1905 CC. clearance. DUE DILIGENCE Ramos v PEPSI FACTS: Ramos‘ car collided with Pepsi truck driven by Andres Bonifacio. he should not be satisfied with the mere possession of a professional driver‘s license. 3 requisites: (1) plaintiff had actual knowledge of the damage. Rule is the Emergency Rule: A person is excused from the force of the assumption of risk rule.TORTS AND DAMAGES known danger. It is not enough that it is alleged. the animal was under the control of the caretaker. but implementation or actual enforcement is more important. HELD: SC held that testimonial evidence of due diligence. or if the life or property of another is in peril or when he seeks to rescue his endangered property. HELD: Court said A1905 makes possessory user of animal liable for any damages it may cause. CLASS NOTES inherent risks voluntarily & knowingly assumed by caretaker when he agreed to be caretaker 5. 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. (Sir: MMTC said that it was not enough to issue manuals etc. if an emergency is found to exist. or when he seeks to rescue his endangered property. NOTES: defense of due diligence is plausible when defendant has presented enough evidence to overcome the presumption of negligence. physical exam. there were no INELCO linemen who were going around. (3) he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk. PRESCRIPTION Jec . The presumption of negligence on the part of the master or employer. Their owners refused to pay damages to the injured passenger. 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.81-84) NOTES: VIOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA: applies to noncontractual relations. 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. HELD: Court said that contrary to petitioner‘s claim. 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. including himself. he should have carefully examined the applicant for employment as to his Ilocos Norte v CA FACTS: After a 2-day typhoon. Metro Manila v CA FACTS: A jeep and a bus collided. the maxim ―violenti non fit injuria‖ does not apply here. (2) he understood an appreciated the risk from danger.theoretical and practical driving exams). In order that defendant may be considered as having exercised all diligence of a good father of a family. Isabel went out of her house to check on her grocer store. in order to hold sway. In this case. either in the selection of servant/ employee or in their supervision. if an emergency is found to exist or if the life or property of another is in peril. 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. his experience and record of service. must be corroborated by documentary evidence.
a fierce fire started. Medina: Proximate cause is that cause which. is the proximate cause. 1977 – Monetary Board issued resolution forbidding GenBank from doing business in Phils. 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. 1977 . Thus. 1980 when the Monetary Board ordered the GenBank to rd desist fr doing biz in the Phils. it prescribes in 4 yrs. HELD: SC dismissed the case. rd . 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. At 2:30am. the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury either immediately or by setting other events in motion. It is a doctrine which. 2177.TORTS AND DAMAGES Kramer v CA instituted on Feb 7. produces the injury. resp sought rd to implead Central Bank and Aurellano as 3 party defendants. It appears that as the bus overturned. saying that according to Art. 1981. HELD: Action for damages arising from QD should be filed within 4 yrs from the day cause of action accrued. Allied Banking v CA FACTS: Apr 1. each having a A. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. Complainant should have filed before Mar 25. The cause of action in this case accrued on Mar 25. 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. Since it was founded on tortuous interference. When they approached the bus.1987 – in the course of the proceedings. . . 1979. It was alleged that by reason of the tortous interference by the CB with affairs of GenBank. PAGE 26 The longer version can be shortened by removing ―sufficient intervening cause‖ *memorize definition of proximate cause* FACTS: 1976: 2 vessels collided . Definition Bataclan v Medina FACTS: A bus speeding on its way to Pasay City at 2am when one of its front tires burst. the date when Monetary Board ordered GenBank to desist from doing business in the Philippines. and turned turtle. So for our purpose-shorter version Jec . 1987. has a well recognized application to proceedings at law. ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident? HELD: The overturning of the bus. -1985: Petitioners instituted complaint for damages against respondent. Prescriptive period begins from the day the quasi-delict was committed. CAUSATION Definition #1 of proximate cause according to Bataclan v. in natural and continuous sequence. The coming of the men with the torch was to be expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning of the bus. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. Calls and shouts for help were made in the neighborhood. resp was prevented from performing his obligation under the loan.Mar 25. 1987 the action has prescribed. 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. . Proximate cause CLASS NOTES Usually it‘s the shorter definition that‘s being cited in the other cases. Medina: More comprehensively. action based on quasi-delict must be instituted within 4 yrs. 1976 – Yujuico obtained loan fr GenBank payable on or before Apr 1. the gasoline began to leak and escape from the gasoline tank. 4 passengers were unable to get out of the bus. Motion to dismiss was filed on the basis of prescription. Definition #2 of proximate cause according to Bataclan vs. as a result of which the vehicle zigzagged. all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events.Allied acquired all assets and assumed all liabilities of GenBank .RTC denied admission of 3 party complainant.Feb 7. while 3 party complaint was filed only on Jun 17. 1979 – Allied filed complaint against resp Joselita for collection of a sum of money . it is rd contended that while the 3 party complaint was filed only on Jun 17. DOUBLE RECOVERY Art. and not the fire that burned the bus.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. 1. NOTE. fell into a canal or ditch.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. the trapping of the passengers and the call for outside help. 1977. when the complain in the case was filed. 1146. spreading over the bus and the ground under it. 10 men came. although of equitable origin. and that the lighted torch set it on fire. 1986 when the decision became final and executory. one of them carrying a lighted torch made of bamboo with a wick fueled with petroleum. Petitioner believes that the cause of action accrued on Mar 25. CLASS NOTES IV. burning the bus and the 4 passengers.Petitioner claims that cause of action has already prescribed. and without which the result would not have occurred.
owned by Phoenix. under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should. 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. Javier was seen catching fish in dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. Phoenix Construction Inc. He switched his headlights on ―bright‖ and saw the truck looming 2 ½ meters away from his car. 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. PAGE 27 driver‘s negligence. was the proximate cause of the accident. At 1:30AM. Casis included the case to show that it is not necessary to attend school to be an expert. an old hand in this kind of service.. without clearance from the market master. Santos. The claimant must establish that he had no negligence. Note: The court adopted the Bataclan definition of proximate cause. he died of tetanus. 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. distinct and foreign to the crime. partly blocking the way of oncoming traffic. 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. the truck driver must be held liable. but wrote the name of Florencio Reyes as the depositor‘s name. the defendant may be negligent xxx because of failure to guard against it. ---NO. ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident? HELD: The wrongful and negligent parking of the truck. They died in the septic tank due to the intake of toxic gas produced from the waste matter therein. as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person. but it should have been Rakes Jec . Considering the nature of the task of emptying a septic tank. 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. The Current Account Bookkeeper of Pilipinas Bank. Note: The court adopted the Bataclan definition of proximate cause. CLASS NOT ES Government negligence was not the proximate cause because it was not continuing. 1980. therefore. or the defendant may e negligent only for that reason. HELD: The tetanus. was parked askew on the right hand side of the street in such a manner as to stick out onto General Lacuna St. wrote the wrong account number on the deposit slip. and hence of the defendant‘s negligence. was the proximate cause of Javier‘s death. v IAC FACTS: A dump truck. Before the award was made (he lost). Fernando v CA FACTS: Bertulano was invited to bid for the reemptying of a septic tank. On November 14. His car smashed into the dump truck. The employee should have continuously gone beyond mere assumption. Urbano hacked Javier in his right palm. and not the negligence of Dionisio. Foreseeable intervening forces are within the scope of the original risk.TORTS AND DAMAGES Urbano v IAC FACTS: On October 23. On November 5. Note: Court mentioned foreseeability. especially one which has not been cleaned for years. Quoted Taylor. To cover the face value of the checks. The death of the victim must be the direct. More so with Bertulano. The infection was. he and 4 companions surreptitiously entered the septic tank. or one which the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances. Dionisio was on his way home when his car headlights allegedly suddenly failed. an ordinarily prudent person would undoubtedly be aware of the attendant risks. Prof. seeing that the account number coincided with the name Florencio. not the hacking. natural and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused (People v Cardenas). ISSUE: WON the hacking by Urbano of Javier was the proximate cause of Javier‘s death. deposited the amount in the account of Florencio Amador. who is presumed to know the hazards of the job. 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. which had not been cleaned for 19 years. Javier was brought to a doctor who issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9 days. the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted. close causal connection with its immediate predecessor. The truck driver‘s negligence was far from being a passive and static condition and was rather an indispensable and efficient cause. A higher degree of diligence is expected from an expert. There were no early warning devices placed near the truck. he requested PCIB to effect a withdrawal from his savings account there and have it deposited with his current account with Pilipinas Bank. and for having so created this risk. The improper parking of the truck created an unreasonable risk of injury for anyone driving down General Lacuna St. Quoting Posser and Keeton on “Foreseeable intervening causes”: If the intervening cause is one which in ordinary human experience is reasonable to be anticipated.
HELD: Araneta‘s act of stopping the rig was too remote from the accident to be considered the legal or proximate cause thereof. 2202. Urbano v IAC FACTS: On October 23. apply Pilipinas Bank definition* Quezon City v Dacara FACTS: At about 1AM. Araneta held the reins of the horse. causing injuries from which he soon died. --NO. Citing Manila Electric v. by getting out and taking his post at the head of the horse. HELD: There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent infection. with tetanus may have been the proximate cause of Javier‘s death with which Urbano had nothing to do. Proximate cause is defined as any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence.TORTS AND DAMAGES PAGE 28 Proximate cause is any cause which. Prof. Casis’s opinion: There‘s no basis for this additional element. ISSUE: WON the hacking was the proximate cause of Javier‘s death. Gavino was the compulsory pilot. the horse was conducted to the curb and an appreciable interval of time elapsed before the horse started to career up to the street. 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. Proximate cause is determined from the facts of each case. causing the carromata to hit a telephone booth and caused it to crash. (son of petitioner). Note: Different definition of PC from Bataclan case. Kavankov was the master of the vessel. he died of tetanus. in natural and continuous sequence. 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. Javier was brought to a doctor who issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9 days. On November 5. and Araneta cannot be charged with liability for the accident resulting from the action of the horse thereafter. free form the control of the bit. moved away. 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. The lower court found that no evidence was presented that sufficient and adequate precautionary signs were placed in the said street. the driver was the person primarily responsible for the control of the animal. Gayetano jumped or fell from the rig. When the carromata was about to move. Remote Gabeto v Araneta FACTS: Gayetano (husband of plaintiff) and Ilano took a carromata to go to a cockpit. After Pagnaya alighted. 2. if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. Distinguished from other kinds a. Jec . ISSUE: WON Araneta is liable for Gayetano‘s death. Under Art. This case adds the element of foreseeability. saying he hailed the carromata first. On November 14. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. CL ASS NOTE The remote cause was noted to be the wound of Urbano. if there‘s a case similar to Pilipinas Bank. Urbano hacked Javier in his right palm. upon a combined consideration of logic. while driving a Toyota Corolla. would result therefrom as a natural and probable cause. Driver Pagnaya pulled the reins to take it away from Araneta‘s control. ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident? HELD: The negligence of the Quezon City Government was the proximate cause of the accident. unrelated and efficient cause of the injury. rammed into a pile of earth/street diggings (accident mound) found at Matahimik St. the bit came off the horse‘s mouth. common sense. Javier was seen catching fish in dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. as a result of which. 1980. policy and precedent. This frightened the horse and caused it to run up the street with Gayetano still inside the carromata. foreseeability should not be a factor. Concurrent Far Eastern Shipping Company v CA CLASS NOT ES Classical description of remote cause with series of events. Moreover. Pagnaya fixed the bridle on the curb. successive. So as a solution. Note: Followed Bataclan‘s definition. such that the result would not have occurred otherwise. b. even though such injury would not have happened except but for such condition or occasion. CLASS NOT ES *Sir said that there is a problem with foreseeability as an element. FACTS: A ship owned by FESC rammed into the apron of the pier. The horse. for failure to take necessary precautions. Dacara. ---NO.
Gavino or Kvankov? --BOTH. Although the negligence of the carrier and its driver is independent. Note: Italicized phrase=‖but for‖ test CL ASS N O T E S () If the concurrent act was the proximate cause. both acts of negligence are the proximate cause of Custodio‘s death. Negligence. “But for” Bataclan v Medina CL ASS NOTE Proximate cause is that cause which. 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. Substantial Factor 1 SANGCO (pp. What is the rule on liability? –liability is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury Sabido v Custodio FACTS: Custodio.TORTS AND DAMAGES HELD: The carrier and its driver were negligent for allowing Custodio to hang by the side of the bus. Three passengers of the jeep died as a result. and that such cause is not attributable to the person injured. was hanging onto its left side. Note: The substantial factor test contains no element of foreseeability. encroaching on the opposite Jec . ISSUE: Who was negligent and what is the extent of liability? ---BOTH solidarily liable. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. 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. in its execution. although acting independently of each other. HELD: Both Gavino (compulsory pilot) and Kavankov (master of the vessel) were concurrently negligent. Casis thinks that this is a problematic case because the facts would indicate that the victim was at fault because he was negligent. PAGE 29 lane. of the negligence of the truck driver and its owner. The truck driver was also negligent for speeding through the middle portion of the road. 103-114) Tests of proximate cause 1. and without which the result would not have occurred. The driver stepped on the brake. ISSUE: Who is liable?-Jeep. even though his act alone might not have caused the entire injury. a person is not relieved from liability because he is responsible for only one of them. Kavankov was negligent in leaving the entire docking procedure up to Gavino instead of being vigilant. Tests a. the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the injury. or the same damage might have resulted from the acts of the other tortfeasor. who died as a result thereof. in combination. which made the jeep turn around. HELD: The Supreme Court was not convinced by the application of the substantial factor test. a speeding truck going in the opposite direction side-swiped Custodio. ISSUE: Who was negligent --. CL ASS NOTE Prof. 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. Even though the bus was driving at 80-90 kph. a passenger of a bus. only the CA did. Note: Liability of concurrent negligence = solidary. already near the canal) or to the left (it would have it the jeep head-on). Gavino was negligent for failing to react on time. in order to render a person liable need not be the sole cause of an injury. While the bus was negotiating a sharp curve of a bumpy and downward slope. The Court of Appeals ruled that the bus driver was negligent. not the only cause Important : memorize the test *This is the only case that defines substantial factor test* *Also see Pilipinas Bank* b. and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury. CL ASS NOTE Refers to absolute cause This is the strictest test Prof. There is no contribution between joint tortfeasors whose liability is solidary since both of them are liable for the whole damage. it was still within the speed limit allowed in highways. are. the degree of participation does not matter. Substantial factor = Main cause. in natural and continuous sequence. Where several causes combine to produce injuries. causing it to be unbalanced. Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of two or more persons. Cause in fact Traditionally. 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. produces the injury. 3. A Philippine Rabbit Bus from the opposite lane bumped the rear portion of the jeep. either is responsible for the whole injury. Reason: It is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury and either of them is responsible for the whole injury. 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.
5. in fact show that the defendant‘s conduct was not a factor in causing plaintiff‘s damage. 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. the liability of the wrongdoer extends to all the injurious consequences. 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. fully acquainted with all the circumstances which in fact exist. according to common experience and the usual course of events. Orbit of the risk test This was intended to be a test of duty and not a test of proximate cause. A party guilty of negligence or omission of duty is responsible for all the consequences which a prudent and experienced party. would have thought at the time of the negligent act as reasonably possible to follow. If the foreseeable risk to plaintiff created a duty which the defendant breached. Effectiveness of the cause. the matter ends there. and that as far as proximate cause is concerned. might reasonably have been anticipated. or such as. Hindsight test The hindsight test eliminates foreseeability as an element. The Restatement adopts the rule that if the actor‘s conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm to another. 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. The first step is to determine whether the defendant‘s conduct was a factor in causing plaintiff‘s damage. an essential element of actionable negligence is lacking. Foreseeability test Negligence involves a foreseeable risk. 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.‖ An injury is deemed the natural and probable result of a negligent act if after the event. 8. if negligence is a cause in fact of the injury under the criteria previously discussed. 6. This is based on the principle that in tort. 7. liability is imposed for any resulting injury within the orbit or scope of such injury. 2. between a defendant‘s conduct and a plaintiff‘s injury before liability may arise. Ordinary and natural or direct consequences This test states that. whether they could have been ascertained by reasonable diligence. or not. but rather. as a matter of legal policy. where it in fact resulted as a direct consequence of the defendant‘s act. 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 foreseeability test is applied in conjunction with the natural and probable consequences test. and viewing the event in retrospect to the act. 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 . provided only that they are not too remote. PAGE 30 The consequence of the negligent act must be within the range of probability as viewed by the ordinary man. 3. 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. if they had been suggested to his mind. „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. the question is not whether the damage was foreseen or foreseeable. the term ―probable‖ is used in the sense of ―foreseeable. a threatened danger or injury and conduct unreasonable in proportion to danger. If the injury as to causes. the injury appears to be the reasonable rather than the extraordinary consequence of the wrong.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. the wrongdoer is liable for all the consequences which naturally flow from his wrongful act. When the result complained of is not reasonably foreseeable in the exercise of ordinary care under all the facts as they existed. 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. For this purpose.
Cause = the sparks on the train which was the negligent act of the defendant. 4. 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. in violation of the regulation of the City of Manila requiring 3 feet. (3) even supposing the house to be improperly there. 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. ISSUE: What was the cause and condition of the accident? HELD: The cause was Magno‘s own negligence. 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. the company is not going to be justified in negligently destroying the house c. CLASS NOTES The cause is the active aspect whereas the condition is the passive action that may produce the injury. Even the lapse of a considerable time during which the ―condition‖ remains static will not necessarily affect liability. partly blocking the way of oncoming traffic. CL ASS NOTE Prof. of the hazards covered by the duty imposed upon the defendant. it is quite impossible to distinguish between active forces and passive situations. He switched his headlights on ―bright‖ and saw the truck looming 2 ½ meters away from his car. 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. It is difficult to distinguish between a cause and a condition because of the time element. any violation of administrative ordinances and the like would either be seen as 1) negligence per se or 2) prima facie evidence of negligence. His car smashed into the dump truck. in such a manner as to stick out onto General Lacuna Street. At 1:30 am. Note: Condition = plaintiff‘s house was partly within the defendant‘s property. causing his death by electrocution. Rodrigueza‘s The efficient intervening cause destroys the link between the negligent act and injury. Negligence of the defendant if pre-empted by the negligence of the plaintiff. but the nature of the risk and the character of the intervening cause. and thus consent of the train company. In the course of the repair. Dionisio was on his way home when his car headlights allegedly suddenly failed. It is not an efficient intervening cause when it is already in existence during the happening of the proximate cause. McKee v IAC FACTS: A cargo truck and a Ford Escort were traveling in opposite directions. Cause and Condition Phoenix v CA FACTS: A dump truck. Rodrigueza‘s house was partly within the property of the Manila Railroad. (2) his house remained on this ground by the tolerance. It is not the distinction which is important. Posser and Keeton: So far as the fact of causation is concerned. 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. the end of the iron sheet he was holding came into contact with an uninsulated electric wire of Manila Electric. There were no early warning devices placed near the truck. PAGE 31 house was built on the same spot before the defendant laid its tracks over the land. The condition was the too close proximity of the media agua. in the sense of necessary antecedents which have played an important part in producing the result. CLASS NOTES Rodrigueza was not guilty of contributory negligence Even if condition was created. this fact would not justify the defendant in negligently destroying it. Although there is still lack of a definite ruling by the Court. particularly since the latter are the result of other active forces which have gone before. The efficient intervening cause is actually a proximate cause. was parked askew on the right hand side of the street. owned by Phoenix. The distance from the electric wire to the media agua was only 2 ½ feet. its edge. HELD: The distinctions between cause and condition have already been almost entirely discredited.TORTS AND DAMAGES A condition was a cause at some point in time. or rather. ISSUE: WON Manila Railroad‘s negligence was the proximate cause of the fire HELD: Yes. It should occur after the purported proximate cause because it would then be a condition. When the car was 10 meters Jec . Manila Electric v Remonquillo FACTS: Efren Magno repaired the media agua below Peñaloza‘s 3-storey house.
the overturned bus is set on fire. ISSUE: WON there was an efficient intervening cause – YES. such as looking back toward the street and at the wire to avoid its contacting the said iron sheet. Calls and shouts for help were made in the neighborhood. braked. 2 boys suddenly darted into the car‘s lane. the end of the iron sheet he was holding came into contact with an uninsulated electric wire of Manila Electric. fell into a canal or ditch. was the very thing which the stature or ordinance was intended to prevent. or if some highway men after looting the vehicle sets it on fire. the negligent act of the truck driver. merely causing him physical injuries. swerved to the left and entered the truck‘s lane. It appears that as the bus overturned. and attempted to return to his lane. 10 men came. and the passenger is burned to death. 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. in violation of the regulation of the City of Manila requiring 3 feet. when a passenger bus overturns. Before he could do so. Note: The PC of the deaths is the overcrowding brought about by the violation. Four passengers were unable to get out of the bus. spreading over the bus and the ground under it. causing his death by electrocution. the trapping of passengers and the call for outside help. considering the latter‘s length of 6 feet. and turned turtle. However. The distance from the electric wire to the media agua was only 2 ½ feet. 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. It may be that ordinarily. HELD: The coming of the men with the torch was to be expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning of the bus. CLASS NOT ES CLASS NOT ES Rule: if the injury was caused by an act which the statute violated tended to prevent. a fierce fire started. his car collided with the truck. Bataclan v Medina FACTS: A bus was speeding on its way to Pasay City at 2AM when one of its front tires burst. which was the actual cause of the tragedy. c) rebuttable proof of negligence. the violation of the statute can be considered negligence per se and is the proximate cause.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 . b) prima facie proof of negligence. ISSUE: WON there was an efficient intervening cause – NO. In the present case. PAGE 32 FACTS: A vocational school for hair and beauty culture had only one stairway. Can you apply this if what is involved is a national statute?. But this is only of limited application and is not yet settled. The car driver blew the horn. say. burning the bus and the 4 passengers. Four students died. the court did not specifically identify the violation itself as the PC. A fire broke out in a nearby store and the students panicked and caused a stampede. it cannot be said that the same caused the eventual injuries and deaths because of the occurrence of a sufficient intervening event. It can be: a) negligence per se. if at all negligent. He then switched on the headlights. was the initial act in the chain of events. in the manner in which it happened. ISSUE: WON there was an independent intervening cause – NO. HELD: Efficient intervening cause: the negligent and reckless act of MAgno in turning around and swinging the galvanized iron sheet without taking any precaution. the gasoline began to leak and escape from the gasoline tank. away from the bridge.TORTS AND DAMAGES by lightning. one of them carrying a lighted torch made of bamboo with a wick fueled in petroleum. which was the proximate cause of the tragedy. and that the lighted torch set it on fire. d) proof of negligence *Limited application because it‘s municipal ordinance. It was the truck driver‘s subsequent negligence in failing to take the proper measure and degree of care necessary to avoid the collision. as a result of which the vehicle zigzagged. In the course of the repair. 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. HELD: Although it may be said that the act of the car driver. in violation of an ordinance requiring 2 stairways. one might still contend that the proximate cause of his death was the fire and not the overturning of the vehicle. Effects of violation of statute is not settled. if through some event. ISSUE: WON there was an efficient intervening cause – YES. unexpected and extraordinary. At 2:30AM. When they approached the bus. and pins down a passenger.
t take into consideration the NATURE OF HORSES and the ANIMAL NOT BEING ACQUAINTED TO CARS. Thus. by exercising reasonable care and prudence. Last clear chance contemplates a series of negligent acts. Still. 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. So. Negligence of Smith succeeded the negligence of Picart by an appreciable interval. the LCCD does not arise where the passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. thereby almost hitting the pony. Last Clear Chance CLASS NOT ES Take note of the definition of last clear chance in all the cases. however. Urbano hacked Javier in his right palm. Javier was brought to a doctor who issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9 days. 1980. 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 . Picart then filed a case against Jec . 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. 2179. 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. FACTS: Picart riding his pony was on the wrong side of the road. 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. or should have been aware of it in the reasonable exercise of due care. Smith driving his car stayed on his right lane and so both Picart and Smith were on the same lane. bus driver did not mind and instead applied more speed. The practical 4. HELD: The death must be the direct. ligence of Smith: when it exposed Picart and pony to danger. he died of tetanus. Thus. in the case at bar. th saw the pony when he was still far and he had control of the situation. include joint tortfeasors (according to Americn Jurisprudence).basis for saying that there is doubt in the application of the Last Clear Chance Doctrine because of Art. 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. without reference to the prior negligence of the other party. might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff‘s negligence. The doctrine of last clear chance would apply even if the plaintiff is grossly negligent. 2) joint tortfeasors. and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. 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.Practical importance of LCCD The negligent defendant is held liable to a negligent plaintiff. ISSUE: WON there was efficient intervening cause – YES. Pony became frightened and lost control and Picart was thrown out of the pony and got injured. natural. Javier was seen catching fish in dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. if he. However.did not apply LCCD FACTS: On October 23. was his duty to avoid the threatened harm by bringing the car to a stop or taking the other lane to avoid the collision. Exceptions. 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.TORTS AND DAMAGES Smith RATIO: The negligent acts of both parties were NOT contemporaneous. Phoenix invoked the Last Clear Chance Doctrine: Dionisio had the Last Clear Chance of avoiding the accident and so Dionisio. 3) concurrent negligence Phoenix Construction v IAC . 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. many were killed and injured. or even to a plaintiff who has been grossly negligent in placing himself in peril. The medical findings. Smith stayed on his lane and swerved to the other lane quickly. 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 . Dionisio filed an action for damages against Phoenix. Thus. having failed to take the last clear chance. aware of the plaintiff‘s peril. ON November 14. On November 5. Last clear chance cannot apply when there are: 1) contractual relations. Bus saw that the truck‘s wheels were wiggling and that truck was heading towards his lane.
The truck driver was not negligent and so cannot be held liable. the doctrine of Last Clear Chance also cannot apply because there is no negligence of the other party . Still. court said that RMC was also negligent in not checking its monthly statements of account. timing is of the essence. this ruling would clearly apply to exonerate truck driver . 2) appreciable time bet. The truck stopped 30 m away from the jeep and so by this time. The doctrine was applied by Common Law because they had a rule that contributory negligence prevented any recovery at all by a negligent plaintiff. However. Smith but it is still a matter of debate whether. the truck driver‘s parking askew led to an increased diligence for the driver of the car. PBC-1997: appreciably later in time CLASS NOT ES Philippine Bank of Commerce v CA . BUT in the Philippines we have Article 2179 of the Civil Code which rejects the Common Law doctrine of contributory negligence. which involved a similar state of facts . 60% by PBC -applied LCCD in knowing whether PBC was negligent PAGE 34 Glan People‟s Lumber & Hardware v IAC . Smith. In last clear chance. 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.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 has found its way into the Civil Code of the Philippines. Jec . LAST CLEAR CHANCE Aka supervening negligence or discovered peril Where both parties are negligent.apply the last Clear Chance Doctrine when fault or negligence is difficult to attribute Elements: 1) 2 parties negligent. 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. 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. RMC‘s funds were now in Secretary‘s husband‘s account. Court also applied Last Clear Chance Doctrine in saying that PBC was really negligent. Instead of writing the account number of the company in the original copy retained by the bank.TORTS AND DAMAGES FACTS: RMC had an account in PBC and Secretary of RMC was tasked to deposit its money. because it was still used in later cases Phoenix-1987. not sequence of events Does the last clear chance doctrine still stand? Yes. teller. Thus. Thus. but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other. what is more important is the nature. Applied 2179 of CC on contributory negligence. 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. -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.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: . it turns out that the Secretary would leave blank the duplicate copy of the deposit slip where the bank‘s teller would validate it. validated a blank duplicate copy of the deposit slip. 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. or to what extent. 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. Rather. 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 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. RMC discovered this after 7 yers and then filed a case against PBC to return its money RATIO: PBC was negligent when its employee. 60-40 ratio! 40% of the damages shall be borne by RMC. 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.Thus. or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident. 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 . In the case at hand. Secretary would write the account number of husband. last clear chance was deemed to be a valid defense. Furthermore.Even assuming that the truck driver was negligent.
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 .Generally. 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. with exercise of due care.For the doctrine to be applicable.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. then bumped into the jeepney from behind with such violence that 3 passengers died Thus.did not apply LCCD because there was no opportunity to avoid the accident and the jeepney driver was not aware of the peril. 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. RATIO: . Pantranco raises the doctrine in order to escape liability .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 . 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 . 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 . 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. It does NOT arise where a Jec . 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. speeding.TORTS AND DAMAGES means at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered In this case. by exercising reasonable care and prudence.However. 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. and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered. 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. In this case. although it may also be raised as a defense to defeat claim for damages .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.Thus. have been aware of it In this case. 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. the court said that the doctrine of last clear chance cannot be applied in this case! .
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.TORTS AND DAMAGES that of the other. the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so. is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom In this case. 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.000. However. but here. After messenger of LC Diaz deposited amount.LCCD not applied passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations.00 from its account. always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. 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. 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.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.Last Clear Chance Doctrine is NOT applicable in culpa contractual FACTS: LC Diaz had a savings account with Solidbank. the Court talked about 2 definitionsshort and long: take note of these Consolidated Bank & Trust Corporation v CA . 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. Thus. 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 . where neither the contributory negligence of plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss. 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. ASB had the last clear chance to prevent fraud. 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. 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. 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. they failed to do this.—40-60 . or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident. in this case. Was there really negligence on the part of the bank even if Manosca had an SPA and the land title? In Canlas. was actually not a requirement.
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. no convincing evidence was adduced to support this defense . or according to some authorities. o The defendant knew that the plaintiff was in a position of danger and further knew. 2. tamaraw driver. 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. might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff‘s negligence. or in the 3. the doctrine cannot be applied because there was no time or opportunity to ponder the situation at all. should have been aware of it in the reasonable exercise of due care. either because it became physically impossible for him to do so or because he was totally unaware of the danger. and is. (pp. 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. 1. 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 . Isuzu did not slow down Iran. it not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better solution. by exercising reasonable care and prudence. Although the defendant may not invoke the doctrine. Between the defendants. 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. notwithstanding the negligent 1 Sangco. .TORTS AND DAMAGES Engada v CA acts of his opponent. . 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. 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.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. or with knowledge of the perilous situation of the person injured carelessly or recklessly injured him. aware of the plaintiff‘s peril. humanitarian doctrine.Furthermore. instead applied the emergency rule. 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 . 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. LCC can only be invoked in favor of the person injured.Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied because there was no clear chance –emergency situation. generally speaking.After seeing the tamaraw. There was no clear chance to speak of Thus. had in fact an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident.Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied. 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. driver of Isuzu guilty! . only operative in those cases where. 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 . 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. FACTS Iran driving a tamaraw jeepney In the other lane was an isuzu pick-up that was speeding.However. if he. 74-81) The Doctrine of Last Clear Chance Also known as the doctrine of discovered peril. The failure to avoid injuring a person occupying a position of peril may be a supervening cause. since it implies contributory negligence on his part. notwithstanding the injured person‘s want of care. Jec . Parties who invoke doctrine Many courts take the view that the doctrine of last clear chance is not available to defendant. another person wantonly. doctrine of supervening negligence.
It is considered in determining proximate cause Jec . when the victim was playing with Vestil‘s According to Sangco. 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. It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations.‖ Consolidated Bank v CA No CLASS NOT E Test: when the conditions provided in the law exist. NCC The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause. humanitarian doctrine. Last clear chance doctrine considered to determine the proximate cause. the last clear chance doctrine is a phase of contributory negligence. 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. doctrine of supervening negligence. It most often applies either to ultra hazardous activities or in product liability cases. 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. It is also known as ―absolute liability‖ or ―liability without fault. but that is based on the breach of an absolute duty to make something safe. 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. you are already liable A. Other names: doctrine of discovered peril. the dog of Vestil‘s father. 2183. STRICT LIABILITY Black‟s Law Dictionary definition: Liability does not depend on actual negligence or intent to harm. although it may escape or be lost. doctrine of gross 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. 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. Possessor of animals Art.
He failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent these damages. 1711 Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to pay compensation for the death of or injuries to their laborers. causing the water to run off and spill to the ground. . 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. unless it should be shown that the latter did not exercise due diligence in the selection or supervision of the plaintiff's fellow worker. As for the alleged provocation. 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. there is no doubt that she and her husband were its possessors at the time of the incident in question. Does it matter if the dog is tame? No. -The widow and children of Madlangbayan brought an action to recover from the defendant corporation under C. Vestils claimed that they don‘t own the dog.al. pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such animal may cause. or voluntary act. and that Theness provoked the dog so it bit her. 1712 If the death or injury is due to the negligence of a fellow worker. who was only 3 yrs old. employees Under what conditions? Death or illness arising out of the course of employment CLASS NOT ES Remote control argument does not lie. CLASS NOT ES Who is liable? Employers. Kanaan. that it was a tame animal. the employer shall not be liable for compensation. Art. 2193 The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof.While it is true that she is not really the owner of the house. Theness.It does not matter that the dog was tame and was merely provoked by the child into biting her. while riding his bicycle was run over and killed by a truck. if the death or personal injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. carelessly left the faucet open when retiring to bed. even though the event may have been purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause. 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. Dingcong v Kanaan FACTS: -The Dingcongs rented a house and established Central Hotel. -Dingcong. If a fellow worker's intentional malicious act is the only cause of the death or injury. This is a strict liability case. Echevarria. -One night. . Is A2193. Things thrown or falling from a building Art. with complete possession of the house. or drunkenness. Afable v Singer Sewing Machine FACTS: -One Sunday afternoon. by his negligence in leaving open the faucet. Kanaans filed complaint for damages against Echevarria and Dingcongs. The next day she died of broncho-pneumonia. but after 9 days she was readmitted for exhibiting signs of hydrophobia and vomiting of saliva. HELD: -Echevarria is liable for being the one who directly. wetting the articles and merchandise of the Kanaan's "American Bazaar" in the ground floor. the employer shall not be answerable. mechanics or other employees. It is based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility.TORTS AND DAMAGES PAGE 39 child in their compound. the compensation shall be equitably reduced. owners of establishment Who are they liable to? Laborers. Leopoldo Madlangbayan. The law does not speak only of vicious animals but covers even tame ones as long as they cause injury. must also be responsible for the damages caused. Echeverria rented room in the hotel. despite his power and authority to cause the repair of the pipes. At the time of his death he was returning home after making some collections. When the employee's lack of due care contributed to his death or injury. the latter and the employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation. rented the ground floor of house where they established the ―American Bazaar‖. et. was brought to the hospital and was later discharged. being a co-tenant and manager of the hotel. caused the water to spill to the ground and wet the articles and merchandise of the plaintiffs. 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. Death/Injuries in the course of employment Jec . 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. Can water be considered as a thing thrown or falling? Art. If the mishap was due to the employee's own notorious negligence. Dingcong is not the head of a family. which was still part of Vicente Miranda's estate. is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same. -Uys sued Vestil for being the possessor of Andoy. CLASS NOT ES This provision applies regardless of how things fell from the house.CC applicable in this case? Prof. a collector for the Singer Sewing Machine Company. workmen.
97. . 3428. 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. for damages caused to consumers by defects resulting from design. shall be liable for redress. construction. 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. Art. place. or hazardous substance shall upon conviction. D. manufacture. they shall be jointly liable for the redress established in the pertinent provisions of this Act. if there is more than one person responsible for the cause of the damage. independently of fault. CLASS NOT ES Who is liable? Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs. 99. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation. -The words "arising out of" refer to the origin or cause of the accident.Any Filipino or foreign manufacturer. if the damage is caused by a component or part incorporated in the product or service. independently of fault. Case distinguishes ―arising out of‖ and ―in the course of. be subject to a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos Act No. as well as for the insufficient or inadequate information on the use and hazards thereof. Jec . RATIO: -The phrase "due to and in the pursuance of" used in section 2 of Act No. and any importer. (c) the time when it was provided. The complaint was subsequently amended. A product is not considered defective because another better quality product has been placed in the market. (b) the result of hazards which may reasonably be expected of it. drinks. as provided for in this and in the preceding Articles.‖ The first refers to the origin or cause of the accident. -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. (c) the time it was put into circulation. drinks. The latter refers to the time. PAGE 40 (b) that although it did place the product on the market such product has no defect. formulas and handling and making up. toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used. including but not limited to: (a) presentation of product. as the defendant company did not furnish him a bicycle or require him to use one. and if he made collections on Sunday. and they sought to recover under sections 8 and 10 of Act No. and circumstances under which the accident takes place. is hereby prohibited. (c) that the consumer or a third party is solely at fault.The service supplier is liable for redress. he did so at his own risk. he did not do so in pursuance of his employment. assembly and erection. 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. Penalties.TORTS AND DAMAGES place. producer or importer shall not be held liable when it evidences: (a) that it did not place the product on the market. 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. while the words "in the course of" refer to the time. Risks to which all persons similarly situated are equally exposed and not traceable in some special degree to the particular employment are excluded. its manufacturer. taking the relevant circumstances into consideration. A service is not considered defective because of the use or introduction of new techniques. However. and his employer is not liable for any injury sustained by him. The supplier of the services shall not be held liable when it is proven: (a) that there is no defect in the service rendered. because such an accident does no arise out of and in the course of his employment. Liability for the Defective Products. cosmetic. as amended by Act. 3812 to "arising out of and in the course of". 2187 Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs. CLASS NOT E Defenses available to an employer: a) notorious negligence. taking relevant circumstances into consideration. 3428 was changed in Act No. for damages caused to consumers by defects relating to the rendering of the services. as well as for insufficient or inadequate information on the fruition and hazards thereof. Liability for Defective Services. No. and are descriptive of its character. Art. 3428. Product liability Art. 107. The manufacturer. producer. A product is defective when it does not offer the safety rightfully expected of it. including but not limited to: (a) the manner in which it is provided. The stipulation in a contract of a clause preventing. -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. 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. 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. presentation or packing of their products. (b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it. . builder. (b) that the consumer or third party is solely at fault. Art. 106. b) voluntary act of the employee and c) drunkenness. and circumstances under which the accident takes place. although no contractual relation exists between them and the consumers. builder or importer and the person who incorporated the component or part are jointly liable.
or concerning any method or process which as a trade secret is entitled to protection. If the offender is an alien. device or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded. obliteration. Requisites of liability under Art. PAGE 41 warranties against hidden defects or encumbrances upon the thing sold are not limited to those prescribed in A1567. or revealing. HELD: The Court sided with Geronimo. or similar goods which caused the death or injury complained of. a food. or the doing of any other act with respect to. Question: What about those consumed by animals? Do you apply strict liability even if defendant exercised due diligence? Yes. (P5. 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. 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. simulating. The sales of Geronimo drastically dropped and she was forced to close shop. Civil Code (1) Defendant is a manufacturer or processor of foodstuff. The consumer‘s cause of action does not depend upon the validity of his contract with the person from whom he acquires the product. in labeling. drinks. (b) The adulteration or misbranding of any food. the person residing in the Philippines from whom he received in good faith the food. (e) Forging. or cosmetic. or falsely representing or without proper authority using any mark. and Coca-Cola v CA FACTS: Geronimo sold food and softdrinks in a school canteen. (g) The alteration. She brought an action for damages against Coca-cola and the trial court ruled that the complaint was based on a contract. Governing law: Art. ( f ) The using by any person to his own advantage. 11.000. drinks. drug. toilet articles consumed or used by the plaintiff. device. device. the penalty shall be imposed upon its president. 2. and it is not affected by any disclaimer or other agreement. (i) The use. Upon inspection by the DOH. Neither does this article preclude an action for breach of contract and warranty. 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. be deported without further deportation proceedings.00) and by imprisonment of not more that one (1) year or both upon the discretion of the court. mutilation. 714-734) Product Liability 1. (h) The use. drinks. (3) Plaintiff‘s death or injury was caused by the product so consumed or used. device. any information acquired under authority of Section nine. manager or head. toilet articles. 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. If basis is not Consumer Act. However. In case of judicial persons. except by a person who relied upon a guaranty or undertaking to the same effect signed by. (c) The refusal to permit entry or inspection as authorized by Section twenty-seven hereof or to allow samples to be collected. or cosmetic or the giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to in Section twelve (b) which guaranty or undertaking is false. and containing the name and address of. sale. drug. or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of. the bottles were found to be adulterated. The following acts and the causing thereof are hereby prohibited: (a) The manufacture.TORTS AND DAMAGES is held for sale (whether or not the first sale) and results in such article being adulterated or misbranded. if the injured party opts to recover on that theory. not quasi-delict and should have been filed within 6 months from the delivery of the softdrinks. drug. and Cosmetic Act) Sec. A group of parents complained that fibrous materials were found in the softdrink bottles bought by their children. he shall. What if the person who consumed the goods did not buy them but stole them? – The manufacturer/processor may still be held liable. of any representation or suggestion that an application with respect to such drug is effective under Section twenty-one hereof. processors What do you mean by similar goods?-Sangcoconsumed by humans. offering for sale or transfer of any food. 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. on the labeling of any drug or in any advertising relating to such drug. CHAPTER VI. or other identification device authorized or required by regulations promulgated under the provisions of this Act. 2187. 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. after payment of fine and service of sentence. tag label. stamp. toilet articles and similar goods. drug. Drug. counterfeiting. or cosmetic. or that such drug complies with the provisions of such section. advertising or other sales promotion of any reference to any report or analysis furnished in compliance with Section twenty-six hereof. II SANGCO (p. 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‘s remedies against a vendor with respect to the Jec . A106 of the Consumer Act. (d) The giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to in Section twelve (b) hereof which guaranty or undertaking is false. Geronimo argues that her case is based on quasi-delict and should prescribe in 4 years. 2187. Art. Prohibited Acts and Penalties (RA3720 – Food. (2) He use noxious or harmful substances in the manufacture or processing of the foodstuff. destruction.
and for what products Manufacturers and processors who used noxious or harmful substances may be held liable. inspecting. it would seem contributory negligence would diminish recovery. The test of commodities required is no more than that commonly or usually practised by careful dealers under the same conditions and circumstances. inspecting the ingredients and warning the consumers of possible injury from consumption of a food). unless the product is one whose character and content must necessarily have remained unchanged since it left the manufacturer‘s possession. Who may recover 7. Duty of warning. involves danger to users has a duty to give warning of such danger. toilet articles and similar goods‖ 4. A manufacturer or seller of a product which. drinks. the vendor is liable to him. and if they turn out to be unsound and not wholesome. to his actual or constructive knowledge. merely because he has undertaken to supply the public with apparently reasonable risk.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. Duty of seller other than restaurant operator. d. 3. Expert testimony is generally necessary to prove the defect in the product. 5. This precludes claims for purely pecuniary or commercial losses in absence of personal injuries.‖ The plaintiff must allege and prove that he was using the product in the way it was intended to be used.‖ Applicable only to personal injuries. But the law of negligence requires him to exercise a care proportionate to the serious consequences that may follow from a want of care. Whether recovery is sought under strict liability or on fault or negligence. A high degree of care is required of the producer of foods (in the production of such product. Unavoidably unsafe product The seller of unavoidably unsafe products. and the purchaser is injured thereby. 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. 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. drinks. 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. 6. 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. Compensable Damages Expressly limited to ―death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substance used‖ by ―manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs. 8. and proper warning is given. As a matter of elementary logic. no duty to warn arises with respect to a product which is not in fact dangerous. yes. is not to be held to strict liability for unfortunate consequences attending their use. testing. a. The vendor of food should indemnify his vendee against latent defects contained in the product which the vendee. advertising. Duty of care of restaurant operator A restaurateur has no duty to serve ―perfect‖ products. c. Liability for negligence in food products. Jec . -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. It must appear that the unwholesome or unsound quality of the food product in question existed at the time the defendant sold it. A manufacturer‘s strict liability in tort should be defined in terms of the safety of the product ―in normal and proper use. 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. with qualification that they are properly prepared and marketed. by inspection or taste. CLASS NOT ES Important: Requisites of 2187 in Sangco If it falls under A2187. 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. 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. can you still sue for breach of contract? Sangco says. Proof of a defect in the product may not be supplied by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. A vendor of provisions selected. could not have discovered himself. which includes death. and only damages arising therefrom. where the situation calls for it. Duty of care of manufacturer or processor of food. PAGE 42 b. (4) The damages sustained and claimed by the plaintiff and the amount thereof. sold. Proof of causation One seeking recovery has the burden of proof that the resulting illness was caused by the deleterious food. Persons who may be held liable.
This liability arises from unlawful acts and not from contractual obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his contract with Gilchrist.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 . -Days before the delivery date. 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. . shall be obliged to pay for the damage done. 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. -THE through Tiong asked So Ping Bun to vacate the stalls so THE would be able to go back to business BUT instead. Tek Hua in fact had property rights over the leased stalls. 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. Then discussed Gilchrist in saying that to award damages.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. or harm which results from injury. and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. A duty which the law on torts is concerned with is respect for the property of others. FACTS: Tek Hua Trading originally entered into a lease agreement with DC Chuan covering stalls in Binondo. Gilchrist was the owner of a theatre in Iloilo. PAGE 43 unreasonable or unintentional and actionable under the general negligence rules. b) the invasion is substantial. So Ping Bun v CA Gilchrist v Cuddy FACTS: Cuddy was the owner of the film ―Zigomar‖. In the case at bar. -ART 1902 CC provides that a person who.TORTS AND DAMAGES No damages were due from Espejo because no malice was proven (the motive was only to make profit). The action of Trendsetter in asking DC Chuan to execute the contracts in their favor was unlawful interference. then one cannot recover from 1314 as against the third party. Nothing on the record imputes deliberate wrongful motives or malice on the part of So. He also prayed for damages against Espejo and Zaldarriaga for interfering with the contract between Gilchrist and Cuddy. No such knowledge is required in order that the injured party may recover for the damages suffered. 1314 Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party. original members of Tek Hua formed Tek Hua Enterprises (THE) with Manuel Tiong as one of the incorporators. E. Espejo and Zaldarriaga. Is malice required to apply A1314? Did not include malice as one of the elements under A1314.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. Implied malice as an element. If this is the case. hurt. by act or omission causes damage to another when there is fault or negligence. d) the invasion is either intentional and CLASS NOT ES CLASS NOT ES Had legal liability but not under A1314.Since there were existing lease contracts between Tek Hua and DC Chuan. . Trendsetter asked DC Chuan to execute lease contracts in its favor. the stalls were occupied by the grandson (So Ping Bun) of one of the original incorporators of Tek Hua under business name Trendsetter Marketing. we need malice in 1314.Damage is the loss.The provision in the Civil Code with regard tortuous interference is Article 1314. although not signed. Sir said as guidance: If we apply Gilchrist and So Ping Bun. and as a result petitioner deprived respondent of the latter‘s property right. The contracts were initially for 1 year but were continued on month to month basis upon expiration of the 1 yr. 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. . ISSUE: WON So Ping Bun was guilty of tortuous interference of contract HELD: Yes. However. there should be malice but it was never mentioned in Gilchrist in the first place. just answer the three elements given by So Ping Bun. Appellants have the legal liability for interfering with the contract and causing its breach. SO PING BUN SECURED A NEW LEASE AGEEMENT WITH DC CHUAN. Hence the lack of malice precludes the award of damages. De Leon included malice as an element. . petitioner. Interference with contractual relations Art. Is malice an element of tortuous interference? Court does not say that it is. But if question is just on the elements. c) the defendant‘s conduct is a legal cause of the invasion. ISSUE: WON Espejo and Zaldarriaga are liable for interfering with the contract between Gilchrist and Cuddy. Jec . 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. -new lease contracts with increase in rent were sent to THE. -Gilchrist filed a case for specific performance against Cuddy. Tek Hua was dissolved. They entered into a contract whereby Cuddy leased to Gilchrist the ―Zigomar‖ for exhibition in his theatre for a week for P125.
Statutory provision and rationale: Under Article 1314 of the Civil Code. On the other hand. thus was hospitalized. public buildings. She fractured her right leg. streets. Elements: 1. This tort is known as interference with contractual relations. a third party may sue a third party not for breach of contract but for inducing another to commit such breach. it is possible for the contracting party to be not liable at all. and other public works under their control or supervision. PAGE 44 by reason of the defective condition of roads. bridges. However. However. City Charter of Dagupan also says that the city supervises and manages National roads and national sidewalks. Gye in 1853 and was first adopted in the Philippines in 1915 in Gilchrist vs Cuddy. The charter only lays down general rules regulating that liability of the city. Existence of a valid contract: This existence is necessary and the breach must occur because of the alleged act of interference. bridges. The view is that inducement. as in the case where the defendant prevented him from performing his obligation through force or fraud.‖ AQUINO. History: This particular tort started in the UK in Lumley vs. City Engineer testified that he supervises the maintenance of said manholes and sees to it that they are properly covered. if reprehensible in an enforceable contracts. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. and confined. No tort is committed if the party had already broken the contract. article 2189 applies in particular to the liability arising from ―defective streets. and to compel the performance by the other party. Such interference is considered tortious because it violates the rights of the contacting parties to fulfill the contract and to have it fulfilled.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. . or injuries suffered by. 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. public buildings and other public works. Neither can action be maintained if the contract is void. However. any person by reason of the defective condition of roads. C. HELD: City liable . 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. 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. B. 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. and other public works under their control or supervision. operated on. . (pp. Liability of local government units Art. or injuries suffered by. 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. 2. 2189 Provinces.In this case. when there is good faith. CLASS NOT ES F.It is not even necessary for the defective road or street to belong to the province. 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. 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. The article only requires that either control or supervision is exercised over the defective road or street. city or municipality for liability to attach. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. a court interpreter. control or supervision is provided for in the charter of Dagupan and is exercised through the City Engineer.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. the party who breached the contract is only liable for consequence that can be foreseen. 795-801) Interference with contracts: A. public buildings. any person Jec . streets. 3. This is consistent with Article 2202 if the contracting party who was induced to break the contract was in bad faith. In fact. there is authority for the view that an action for interference can be maintained even if the contract is unenforceable. to reap the profits resulting therefrom. D. fell into a manhole at Perez Blvd. 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. which is owned by the national Government. Interference of the third party without legal justification or excuse: In general. is equally reprehensible in an unenforceable one.