TORTS

AND

DAMAGES
HELD: Under the Corporation Code, Naguait is liable bec: (1) he actively managed the business; (2) there was evidence that CFTI obtained reasonably adequate insurance; and (3) there was a corporate tort in this case. Our jurisprudence is wanting to the definite scope of ―corporate tort.‖ Essentially, “tort” consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a duty imposed by law. Simply stated, it is a breach of legal duty.

PAGE 1
-includes assault, batter, false imprisonment, defamation, invasion of privacy and interference of property *Negligence: involves voluntary acts or omissions which result in injury to others, without intending to cause the same -actor fails to exercise due care in performing such acts or omissions *Strict Liability: where the person is made liable independent of fault or negligence upon submission of proof of certain facts DE LEON (pp. 1-3) Tort: common law expression -used in French to mean ―wrong‖, derived from Latin ―tortus‖ meaning twisted, as if to say tortuous conduct is twisted conduct or conduct that departs from the existing norm - a legal wrong that causes harm for which the violator is subject to civil liability -fundamental concept of tort: wrongful act or omission + resulting in breach of a private legal duty (distinguished from a mere breach of contractual duty) + damage from said breach of duty (of such character as to afford a right of redress at law in favor of the injured party against the wrongdoer) Note (explained definition in Naguiat vs. NLRC): the term ―tort‖ used by SC has same meaning as tort in common law jurisdictions, as it was used in cases involving QD and delicts Tortious act: a wrongful act -commission or omission of duty of an act by one, without right, whereby another receives some injury, directly or indirectly, in person, property, or reputation (74 Am. Jur. 2d 620) Essence of tort: defendant‘s potential for civil liability to the victim for harmful wrongdoing and correspondingly Art. 2176, NCC Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. the victim‘s potential fro compensation or other relief

CLASS NOTES

Torts: not defined in the NCC nor in any Philippine Law BUT many scattered provisions on tortuous acts -usually defines as: (1) what it is not; (2) remedies granted; (3) social/public policy protected Damages: much longer treatment in the NCC; more practical importance on damages Practical Legal Relevance: vehicular accidents Intentional tort: not a delict (any act or omission punishable by law) Why? Intentional act causing damage to another, not a crime Act: intentional, voluntary -damage -may or may not violate a crime Negligence: any act or omission causing damage to another but w/o intent (only difference w/intentional tort) Strict liability: it doesn‘t matter if you‘re negligent or if you intended it as long as sets of circumstances make you liable

CLASS NOTES

CORPORATE TORT: in regards to liability of President of CFTI: no definition of corporate tort 2 definitions: long and short (legal basis) Short definition: from a law dictionary What‘s wrong with the definition in Naguiat? TOO BROAD. Any breach of legal duty becomes a tort (so it would include crimes, QD, breach of contract) …very sloppy definition but it‘s the only case that defines Tort Why SC gave definition of Tort? They had to determine the liability of the officers (Naguiat) so is it part of the ratio of the case? NO. Obiter. They already found CFTI liable under the Labor Code so SC did not need to establish liability through tort AQUINO (pp. 1-2) Tort: taken directly from the French and is derivation of the Latin word ―torquere‖ meaning ―to twist‖ -common law: an unlawful violation of private right, not created by contract, and which gives rise to an action for damages -an act or omission producing an injury to another, without any previous existing lawful relation of which the said act or omission may be said to be a natural outgrowth or incident (other definitions not discussed) -no universal formula for torts liability -includes intentional tort, negligence, and strict liability *Intentional tort: includes conduct where the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act or believes the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.

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

Jec 

TORTS

AND

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

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

b. Quasi-delict

CLASS NOTES

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

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

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

CLASS NOTES

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

Baksh v CA
FACTS: Baksh was sued for damages for his breach of promise to marry. CA affirmed TC‘s award of damages, relying on Art. 21 CC. ISSUE: WON damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry based on Art. 21 of the CC. YES. HELD: Art. 21 may be applied in a breach of promise to marry where the woman is a victim of moral seduction. Art. 21 is designed to expand the concept of torts or QD in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold no. of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books. Art. 2176 which defined a QD is limited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes the notion of willingness or intent. Torts is much broader than culpa aquiliana bec. it includes not only negligence, but intentional criminal acts as well.

CLASS NOTES

CLASS NOTES

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

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

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

Jec 

TORTS

AND

DAMAGES
-don‘t apply to compensation of workmen and other employees in cases of death, injury or illness -in other special laws: same rules observed insofar as not in conflict with Civil Code Concept of damages: Damages: the sum of money which the law awards or imposes as pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury done or a wrong sustained as a consequence of a breach of a contractual obligation or a tortious act -pecuniary consequences which law imposes for breach of some duty or violation of some right. Kinds: compensatory, punitie, liquidated damages (damages recoverable upon breach of a contract, as stipulated by the parties), nominal damages (given in vindication of a breach of duty which does not result in any actual or pecuniary damages) Damage, damages, injury: material distinctions Injury: Illegal invasion of a legal right Damage: loss, hurt, or harm which results from an injury; in a popular sense, it is the depreciation in value, regardless if caused by a wrongful or legal act; as defined by statutes providing for damages: actionable loss, injury or harm which results from unlawful act, omission or negligence of another -not synonymous to example, fine, penalty, punishment, revenge, discipline, chastisement Damages: recompense or compensation awarded for damages suffered. Pecuniary loss: loss of money or something by which money or something of money value may be acquired

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

CLASS NOTES

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

Custodio v CA
FACTS: Custodio et al built an adobe fence making the passageway to Mabasa‘s apartment narrower. Mabasa filed a civil action for the grant of easement of right of way against them. CA, aside from granting right of way, awarded damages to Mabasa. ISSUE: WON award of damages was proper. NO HELD: In the case at bar, although there was damage, there was no legal injury. Custodio et al‘s act of constructing a fence within their lot is a valid exercise of their right as owners. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right. Damage is the loss, hurt or harm, which results from the injury. Damages are the recompense or compensation awarded fro the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria. In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured person alone.

2. Damages
AQUINO (pp. 842-843) -Reason behind the NCC Title on Damages: to see to it that whenever a right is transgressed, every manner of loss or injury is compensated for in some way or another. -A2195, NCC: provisions on damages are applicable to all obligations regardless of source (delict, QD, contract, or quasi-contract). -A2196: rules under title of damages are w/o prejudice to special provisions on damages provided elsewhere in the Code. -A2198: principles of general law on damages are adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with the NCC. -Indemnity has to be proportionate to the fault and to the loss caused thereby. -In actions for damages, courts should award an amount (money value) to the winning party and not its equivalent in property. SANCO, (pp. 940-941) Basis of Law: introduced in NCC mostly from American Law since they were either not expressly recognized or rarely allowed under old code, particularly on subject of moral damages Scope of applicability of provisions on damages: applicable to all obligations arising from sources enumerated in A1157, NCC, without prejudice to special provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in said code.

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

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

Jec 

TORTS

AND

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

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

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

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

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

Jec 

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. David and Manuel ignited the contents of the cap. and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage. (2) damage. In order to recover damages. namely: (1) act or omission of private respondents. (2) negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally. (4) no preexisting contractual relation. ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the civil case was proper. and (3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. the following must be established: (1) damages to the plaintiff. (3) physical injuries and other damages sustained by petitioners as a result of the collision. and later also filed a civil action for damages against respondent corporation. a number of laws patterned after Anglo-American models have been passed amplifying the field of torts in Philippine legal system. The Andamos filed a criminal case for destruction by means of inundation. The chief of police filed a criminal case against the bus driver. (2) fault or negligence of the defendant. there being fault or negligence. resulting in an explosion which led to David‘s loss of his right eye. or some person for whose acts it must respond. Excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear indication of negligence. ISSUE: WON the plaintiff can recover damages in this case. David‘s father filed an action for damages. HELD: NO. THE CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT A. The case mentions 5 elements but Prof. (2) fault or negligence of defendant. as the crim case was field ahead of it. (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.    CLASS NOT E II. in the 1889 CC dealth with cases of the nature of torts + with US occupation. property of the Andamo spouses. 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) direct causal connection between damage and act or omission. Important: Take note of 4 elements of QD: (1) acts or omission constituting negligence. and (5) the absence of preexisting contractual relations between the parties. The essential averments for a QD action are present in this case. Such fault or negligence. (4) existence of direct causal connection between the damage or prejudice and the fault or negligence of private respondents. All the elements of QD are present in the complaint. 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. Andamo v CA FACTS: The Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette caused the construction of waterpaths and contrivances Garcia v Florido Jec  . (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. Elements Art. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.TORTS AND DAMAGES FACTS: A public utility car and a bus collided. 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. was guilty. Casis mentioned 4. The civil action was based on QD and may proceed independently of the criminal case. is obliged to pay for the damage done. resulting in injuries to Garcia et al. PAGE 5 in its compound. if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. to wit: (1) damages suffered by the plaintiff. Bus company and driver filed a motion to dismiss. NCC Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. HELD: NO. The civil case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 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. 2176. This allegedly caused flooding and damage to the adjacent lot. or some other person for whose acts he must respond. NO HELD: The action was based on QD and it may proceed independently. ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the case was proper. Garcia et al filed a civil action for damages against the owners and drivers of both vehicles.

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

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

1173. according to the circumstances. 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.‖ Notes: SC held there was a contract of carriage even if Cangco did not pay for a ticket. liability of defendant employer 2. There was no bad faith because: [1] mere carelessness of the driver does not justify the inference of bad faith. Moral damages are not recoverable for actions based on BoC unless there is bad faith. If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance. The negligence need not be proven 4. failure to exercise due care Art. of the time and of the place. the presumption is that common carriers acted negligently (and not maliciously) Doctrine: case: Differences between QD and BoC in this Under QD Anywhere there are physical injuries (Art 2219[2]) Under BoC Recoverable only if passenger dies or there is malice or bad faith (proof of due diligence not available) Injury to passenger. if you sue for negligence. paragraph 2. 1172. and QDs are broader. Held: MR is liable. 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. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable. MR argues that [1] the breach was due to negligence of servant and [2] it exercised due diligence in selection and supervision. and [2] under Art 1756. Art. MERALCO was held liable for breach of contract. When a contractual relation exists. Notes: Negligence for BoC and QD are defined in the same way as provided by Art 2178. No need to prove it was carrier‘s Fault of or 3. that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required. vinculum juris (legal tie) Independent the breach of the duty assumed by the parties The contract and its nonperformance. 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. His foot alighted upon a melon at the moment he stepped upon the platform. He sues for negligence in the performance of a contract. what plaintiff needs to prove What is the breach of contract committed? Negligence. When negligence shows bad faith. 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. but such liability may be regulated by the courts. delict. Art. 1. you can base the action on quasi-delict. defendant carrier‘s defense 3. He sues under contract of carriage. Plaintiff with a pre-existing contractual relation may still sue for QD so long as ―had there been a no contract. shall apply. 2178. The contract to transport carries with it the duty to provide safe means of entering and leaving the train. Fores v Miranda FACTS: Miranda was a passenger of a jeep which hit a wall and fractured his right humerus. 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  . 1903 not applicable in cases where there is preexisting relationship Cangco did not pay for his fare so why is a contract of carriage at issue? It should be a contract of employment. The provisions of articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict. or contract. HELD: SC deleted moral damages. there is still a quasi-delict. Also. moral damages        CLASS NOT ES 2. It is unnecessary for plaintiff for BoC to prove the breach was due to negligence.Therefore. the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201.TORTS AND DAMAGES Doctrine: QD and BoC are concentric. CA awarded him with moral damages. 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.

QD not applicable when there is a contract According to Prof. But even if there is a pre-existing contractual relationship. his employer. you can‘t sue for QD. RTC and CA denied motion to dismiss.  why discuss this? To determine damages  contradicts A2176? No. award for Injury If there was bad moral damages faith or gross negligence 2.   Does not say that when there is a contract. HELD: Complaint is based on contract because without the contract. Doctrine: Qualified Air France v Carrasco‘s pronouncement by saying the phrase. not ratio. ―the act that breaks the contract may also bea tort‖ only applies if the BoC was done in [1] bad faith and [2] in violation of Art 21 (willfully causing loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. 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. But in the latter part. 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. damages approximate fraudulent. Case is not basis of mutual exclusivity  CLASS NOT ES Doctrine: The act that breaks the contract may also be a tort. 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. 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. This is tort not QD PSBA v CA FACTS: A PSBA student was stabbed and killed by non-students while in the school premises. it does not mean that there is no existing relationship Notes: Differences between QD and BoC in this case: Unde QD Under BoC 1. malice (Art 2231) reckless. PAGE 9 Passengers have a right to be treated by the carrier‘s employees with kindness. just obiter. without a preexisting contract between 2 parties. Exemplary damages were deleted because DOCTRINE: The test to determine whether QD can be deemed to underlie the BoC s where. If there is no contract. However. Casis. RTC awarded him moral and exemplary damages. the SC ordered the remand of the case because there was a contractual obligation to provide both education and security. an act or omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself. there is still a cause of action for quasi-delict since it is not expressly prohibited. 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. He sues for damages because of Atlantic‘s negligence in not repairing the weakened track. award for Gross negligence Act that is exemplary as to wanton. Defendants argue that they are not covered by 2180 as they are an academic institution. it ruled that A2176 can apply if a contract exists. which is a QD.   CLASS NOT E Qualifies Air France case: QD should be independent of BoC       CLASS NOT ES Statement that you can‘t sue for QD when there is a contract is mere obiter. respect. oppressive or malevolent (Art. RTC and CA awarded moral damages.     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. the stress of the action was put on the wrongful expulsion. This statement (can‘t have QD if there‘s a contract) contradicts Air France yet later on it cites Air France Jec  . courtesy and due consideration. the court said that A2176 only applies if no contract exists. Trial must proceed to determine if the breach was due to negligence. the act or omission complained of cannot by itself be an actionable tort. which is a violation of a public duty. HELD: The school is not liable under QD because [1] A2180 applies only if damage was caused by students or pupils [2] a 2176 applies only if there isno contractual relation. recklessness and lack of security measures. His parents sued PSBA and its officers under A2180 for ther negligence.TORTS   AND DAMAGES He sues for damages. 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. The ruling on the interpretation of A2176 is not ratio. A2176 expressly excludes cases where there is a pre-existing contractual relationship.

Only under Arts. Employer‘s responsibility presumptive 3. where an act which constitutes a breach would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability has the contract not existed. Requisites of QD: a. CA determined that there was no negligence. QD. Tort liability arises from BoC when the is act or omission is in itself wrongful independent of the contract. Plus.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. There is no stipulation that the vault would be waterproof.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. there can be no QD. is 2. and also 1170.1174 governed by Art. 25-26) 1. ―the existence of a contract does not preclude the commission of a QD. Negligence is not presumed. then any negligence would be actionable under BoC. Casis asks how putting a hole in the vault would prevent water from entering it. Based on the cases. not QD. CA – a single act or omission may give rise to two or more causes of action (i. Governed by Arts. The Deed of Sale and Certificate of Perpetual Care govern the relation of the parties and defined their rights and obligations.liability for a tort may arise even under a contract. delict. Damage or injury to plaintiff d. 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. 2180.e. Culpa Aquiliana Distinguished from Crimes Culpa Aquiliana (QD) Crimes Affect Private Public Interest Concerns Indemnification Penal Code Punishes Repairs Damage or Corrects Broad.   CLASS NOT ES The notes in this case are rather confusing. 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. Fault or negligence by defendant c.Far East Banc v.‖ b. AQUINO (pp. the breach of which being merely incidental to the commission of the tort. PAGE 10 Burden of Proof a. 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. [2] If there is no stipulation or legal provision to the contrary. or BoC) . and 2191 is presumed and burden of proof shifts to defendant QD arising from BoC a. the diligence to be observed in the performance of a contractual obligation is that which is expected of a good father of a family. where tirt us that which breaks the contract. Direct relation of cause and effect between act or omission and the damage e.. To be established with satisfactory evidence 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. it said ―tort‖ referring to first sentence of 2176 such that if there is preexisting contractual relationship there can still be a tort. 1172-1174 under Art. Falls on the person claiming damages b. Doctrines:[1] If there is a pre-existing contractual relation.157-160) 1. Prof. 2178 Based on voluntary act or omission which has caused damage to another Requires only preponderance of evidence 4. 2183. No pre-existing contractual relationship Jec  . Air France is safer. Contractual responsibility and extracontractual liability exclude each other and cannot be cumulated. Culpa Aquiliana Distinguished from Culpa Contractual De Leon (pp. Concurrence of Causes of Action . HELD: Action is based on BoC. An act or omission by defendant b. 2176.

Notes: Sir asks the question following the doctrine: If this happened today. Definition. the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201.TORTS AND DAMAGES NOT ES HELD: Smith is liable for damages because applying the standard of a prudent man. Stopped 2. Veered to the right. III. HELD: Complaint is dismissed. of the time and of the place. Doctrine: Negligence is defined as the ―want of care required by the circumstances. NEGLIGENCE A. an action for damages for the negligent acts of the defendant may be based on contract. Notes: The car was on the proper side of the bridge. If the law or contact does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance. Slowed down or 3. [2] a prudent man under similar circumstances would have heeded the siren of the oncoming train.   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. Doctrines: 1. base action on Art. 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. Doctrine: If a person‘s conduct is characterized by s proper degree of care and prudence. Omniscience of the future is not a requirement.‖ Smith should have: 1. A prudent man ―would have recognized that the course which he was pursuing was fraught with risk. Husband was negligent because [1] one approaching a railroad crossing do so cautiously and carefully. Thus. 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. and would have foreseen harm to the horse and rider as a reasonable consequence of that course.  - 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. PAGE 11 although not as negligent as Meralco in failing to maintain the tract. quasi-delict or delict. he was negligent. that a person can be expected to take care only when there is something before them to suggest or warn of danger. Concept of Negligence 1. culpa aquiliana and criminal negligence. HELD: Wright was not negligent because the sudden falling of the horse. [3] the train driver had already applied its brakes and was running at 23-30kph. it is immaterial whether hi is drunk or sober. Sir thinks that the ruling is problematic because had the car veered away. and [4] he had the duty to stop his jeep to avoid a collision because the driver of the locomotive was not qualified to do so at the time. paragraph 2 shall apply. Smith drove his car toward the horse. that which is expected of a good father of a father of a family shall be required. veering away only when the car was only a few feet away from the horse. The Constitutive fact of negligence is the reasonable foresight of harm. Wright v MERALCO FACTS: An intoxicated Wright was thrown off his calesa after it was pitched forward by Meralco‘s protruding railtrack. 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. The horse got spooked and got killed. Elements Art. it would then be on the improper side of the road. CFI awarded him damages but apportioned the same since he was negligent as well.‖ 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. Take note however. 23-27) Actionable negligence may either be culpa contractual. The bases of liability are separate and distinct from each other even if only one act or omission is involved. Jec  . Both appealed. When negligence shows bad faith. 2. 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. 21. would ordinarily be sufficient to throw a sober man from the vehicle. He should look and listen and do everything that a reasonably prudent man would do before he attempts to cross the track. stopped and allowed the train to pass. followed by the ignoring of the admonition born of this pre-vision.

just like in Valenzuela v. ―what if the planes had already landed?‖ the circumstances reasonably require. whereby such other person suffers injury [2]the emergency rule can be considered a defense. PAGE 12 people would be looking up) in determining WON defendant was negligent. the same for all persons iii. the prudent men children experts. look and listen. 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. (this was in Taylor. Notes: SC took into consideration ―normal human circumstances‖ in determining WON defendant was negligent.standard of conduct must be: i. the collision was the fault of the stationary object. Doctrines: [1] adds to the definition in Corliss v. 5. Notes: Sir says that based on jurisprudence. She sued for damages based on QD.law. the vessel rams into pier because anchor did not take hold HELD: Both the shipmaster and compulsory pilot are liable. CA. [3] The presumption of fault against a moving vessel that strikes a stationary object is rebuttable by proof that the driver was without fault. took into consideration ―normal human circumstances‖ (i. the standard of care required for crossing railroads is ―stop. [2] Definition of gross negligence as equivalent to ―notorious negligence‖ which ―consists in the failure to exercise even slight care‖ Notes: SC. But sir asks. Every case must be dependent of its facts.) 1. The Prudent Man Picart v Smith Doctrines: [1] The standard of care is that of a ―prudent man‖ [2] the conduct of a prudent man is determined ―in the light of human experience an in the particular case‖ I Sangco (pp. RPC A minor fifteen years of age is presumed to be capable of committing a crime and is to be held criminally liable therefore. He filled an action for damages based on QD. Therefore his failure to be alert must be due either to his intoxication or his speeding.in. Professionals intoxication insanity Valenzuela v CA FACTS: Plaintiff Valenzuela was hit by defendant‘s car while she was attending to a flat tire. There is no formula to determine negligence.‖ Nevertheless as provided by the SC in this case. Where the danger is great. 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. precaution and vigilance which the circumstance justly demand. 2. etc. 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.e. Standard of conduct 1. visibility of the street 100 meters away. we cannot provide a standard for all specific cases because it is difficult.it is impossible to fix in advance definite rules for all conceivable human conduct because of the infinite variety of situations which may arise . external and objective ii. 4. that a. Children Article 8. Manila negligence is conduct which creates an undue risk of harm to others it is the failure to observe that degree of care. 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. 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. a higher degree of care is necessary. 2. Notes: The defense of liability of another person is not available to join tortfeasors. 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. (Examples: the light rainfall. Jec  . or that it was the result of an inevitable accident. Doctrines: [1] Unmindful disregard or neglectful relinquishment of duty is tantamount to negligence [2] Extraordinary risk demands extraordinary diligence. 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.7-8) – 1) STANDARD OF CONDUCT .TORTS AND DAMAGES FACTS: While on compulsory pilotage for docking. 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. Doctrines: [1] An object can still be placed negligently even if it has a ‗legitimate purpose‘ for being there. 3.

enters upon the railroad company's premises. at a place where the railroad company's premises. however was overturned by Railroad Company vs. Although the owner of the premises was negligent leaving the caps exposed n its premises. David‘s father filed a complaint for damages. and in a great variety of similar cases. may be equivalent to an invitation to them to make use of it. The court did not cite him correctly. rebuttable presumption of incapacity of negligence. Sangco had the standard of an ordinary prudent child. by analogy. 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. Casis: Does this mean that Sangco did not set a standard of conduct for children but merely a formula? No. 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. who from mere idle curiosity. an implied license might sometimes arise when it not on behalf of others. if above 9 and below 15. 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. The care and caution required of a child is according to his maturity and capacity only. the owner of the premises was held liable because of the doctrine 1 of implied invitation . or for purposes of amusement. presumed incapable of negligence (conclusive presumption). under our law. or had a good reason to suppose. After applying a lighted match to an opened cap. In these. at a place where the railroad company knew. children who would likely to come. HELD: In the Turntable and Torpedo cases. 12. 1 Jarco Marketing v CA FACTS: Zhieneth. Thus leaving a tempting thing for children to play with exposed. 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. and there found explosive signal torpedoes left exposed by the railroad company's employees. RULE: A child under 9 years of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law.TORTS  AND DAMAGES be determines in each case by the circumstances of the case. near the common way. Prof. 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. and this is to be determined in each case by the circumstances of the case. CC. negligence and accident cannot coincide. things tempting to children. if one were to throw upon his premises. it affects Art. it exploded causing injuries. Casis asks what about a child who is exactly 9 years old? Apply the rules on above Jec  . a child under 9 years of age is. conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence. either criminal or civil. is that the child under 9 years of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law. was pinned by the bulk of the department store‘s gift-wrapping counter/structure and died. 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. However. that of a prudent child or adult. there is an analogy between the RPC and the new Civil Code. exploded and injured him. therefore. one of which when carried away by the visitor. The rule. PAGE 13 child‘s own act of climbing into the structure that was the proximate cause of the fall of the counter. were experimenting with fulminating caps they found lying around the company‘s premises. 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. HELD: (Citing Sangco) Since negligence may be a felony and a quasi-delict and required discernment as a condition of liability. Company‘s counterargument: ―It never happened before. and other persons not fully sui juris. This doctrine. plaintiff‘s own act was the principal and proximate cause of the accident. such is not the rule in regard to an infant of tender years. the same implication should arise. Taylor v Manila Railroad FACTS: David Taylor. you don‘t stop at age. 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. and MANUEL. 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. if above 15. 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. RA 9344 does not affect presumptions of negligence. 15. 6. or where such infant found upon the premises a dangerous machine.‖ In citing Sangco. the great weight of authority holds the owner of the premises liable. where they would be likely to gather for that purpose. If below 9. and perhaps. 2180. So in this case. so as to make it negligence on his part to fail to exercise due care and precaution in the commission of such acts.

and not that of an adult. but his conduct should be judged according to the average conduct of persons of his own age and experience. PAGE 14 an adult. Is there mutual exclusivity between negligence and accident? According to the Jarco case. one involving the use of ―potentially dangerous. 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. CFI dismissed but reversed the right of the heirs to recover damages in a civil action. He left four of them to level the loose soil around the open hole but allegedly telling them ―not to touch the stone‖. Upon being taken to the hospital.    CLASS NOTES Kid was 10/11 yo: *disputable presumption under Sangco* *in a case between children and adults. HELD: The suspension of sentence did not wipe out his guilt. yet such negligence would not be wholly fatal to the right of action in this case. They. 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. put out his index finger and touched a fallen electrical wire. it is a factor for liability Del Rosario v Manila Electric FACTS: Alberto Del Rosario. he was pronounced dead. Being under 18. none. But even supposing that the contributory negligence could in some measure be properly imputed to the deceased. He immediately fell face Jec  . but merely put off the imposition of the corresponding penalty in order to give the delinquent minor a chance to be reformed. the criminal case was dismissed. knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances. but simply that he would suffer no penalty.not having been the determining cause of the accident. Nor did such dismissal of the case obliterate is civil liability for damages. and the mere fact that the deceased ignored the caution of a companion of the age of 8 years does not alter the case. 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. 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. discretion.TORTS  AND DAMAGES downwards. his lawyer recommended the dismissal of his case. after saying that he had been in the habit of touching wires. capacity. not of punishment but of compensation. knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances. like a car. When. TEST as to whether an infant can be subjected to the same standard of care as an adult: 1. exclaiming ―Ay! Madre‖. owing to his immature years and natural curiosity. (RULE) 9 below 15 because the law should be construed in favor of the accused. For every tortuous act of violence or other pure tort. adult-oriented‖ instrument. WHERE CHILD IS HELD TO THE STANDARD OF    CLASS NOTES Different from Taylor: o Taylor – contributory negligence. intelligence and experience under like or similar circumstances or that degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same age. Later. however. capacity. type of activity involved is one that is usually engaged in by children 2. despite the warning of one of his companions. his sentence was suspended until he reached majority. Ylarde wasn‘t able to climb out and he died because of the injuries sustained. playfully jumped into the pit and caused the top of the concrete block to fall towards the opening. 9. The end of the wire remained in contact with his body which fell near the post. therefore. under 18. Magtibay v Tiangco FACTS: Rowel Tiangco. 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. the trend is that adults should know better* SANGCO (pp. RULE: Liability of an infant in a civil action for his torts is imposed as a mode. after he had observed good conduct. discretion. 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. this does not mean that he was exonerated from the crime charged.) 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. HELD: The child Ylarde cannot be charged with reckless imprudence. in view of his conduct. was found guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. RULE: It is doubtful whether contributory negligence can be properly imputed to the deceased. owing to his immature years and natural curiosity which a child would feel to do something out of the ordinary. (citing Sangco) The degree of care required to be exercised must vary with the capacity of the person engendered to care for himself. HELD: It is doubtful whether contributory negligence can be properly imputed to the deceased.

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

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

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

Sec. (3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods. except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. 2. 2. (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. Art. Burden of proof in criminal cases. the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable. 2184 In motor vehicle mishaps. but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. 3. Burden of proof in civil cases. or judge acting as such . (b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent. but less than conscious indifference to consequences. . and 5 of the preceding article. and the two have tended to merge and take on the same meaning as an AGGRAVATED form of negligence. Conclusive presumptions. 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. differing in QUALITY rather than in DEGREE from ordinary lack of care. if the former. 1. GROSS NEGLIGENCE – described as failure to exercise even that care which a careless person would use. . the owner is solidarily liable with his driver. unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in Article 1733. 2185 Unless there is proof to the contrary. 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. who was in the vehicle. (a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong. Art. Disputable presumptions. 4. whether in the Philippines or elsewhere. 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. if the goods are lost. unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: (1) Flood. PAGE 18 driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. but the probability is that it signifies more than ordinary inadvertence or inattention. lying between intent to do harm and the mere reasonable risk of harm to another. 1735 In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. Sec. 4. common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. Art. Whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such child must prove his allegation. (5) Order or act of competent public authority. was acting in the lawful exercise of his jurisdiction. (c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act. ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that nature. - 1.TORTS AND DAMAGES Sec. or other natural disaster or calamity. Presumption Art. he was violating any traffic regulation. it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap. storm. 1. Quasi-conclusive presumptions of legitimacy.The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted. if he had been found guilty or reckless   CLASS NOTES Art 2184 CC disputable presumption: Jec  . by the use of the due diligence. No presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy. could have. The burden of proof lies on the party who would be defeated if no evidence were given on either side. There is no generally accepted meaning. (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent. (q) That the ordinary course of business has been followed. (extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care) WILFUL. WANTON. AND RECKLESS – ―quasi-intent‖.Each party must prove his own affirmative allegations. Sec. Art. earthquake. Burden of Proof RULE 131: BURDEN OF PROOF PRESUMPTIONS BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS AND Sec. destroyed or deteriorated. destruction. prevented the misfortune. (ff) That the law has been obeyed. 3. Proof of Negligence 1. There is often NO CLEAR DISTINCTION between the above and ―gross‖. 1734 Common carriers are responsible for the loss. Sec. whether international or civil. and so great as to make it highly probably that harm would follow). 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. 6. (2) Act of the public enemy in war. or deterioration of the goods. (n) That a court. lightning. C. If the owner was not in the motor vehicle. 5. such as firearms and poison. 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. (m) That official duty has been regularly performed. (p) That private transactions have been fair and regular.

He sustained injuries. Art 2185 CC  disputable presumption: violate traffic regulation o no conviction required o however. 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. an emergency not of the actor‘s own making which causes him to fail to obey the enactment 4. direct evidence is absent and not readily available. or in the case of poison. 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. RULE: Res ipsa can be involed when and only when. 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. It can be involved when and only when. under the circumstances involved. gives rise to a presumption of lack of ordinary care PRESUMPTION IS REBUTTABLE FOUR GENERAL GROUNDS OR EXCUSES FOR VIOLATION OF A STATUTE: 1. although  CLASS NOTES Jec  . 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. The doctrine does not apply.TORTS  AND o DAMAGES he should have due regard for the rights of motor vehicles and should exercise due care for his own safety. 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. IAC concluded that under the doctrine. The question is whether the doctrine was applicable. driving a motor vehicle without a license. 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. anything that would make it impossible to comply with the statute or ordinance 2. violation of an ordinance prohibiting pedestrians from crossing a street in places other than regular cross-walks 3. Defendant contends that the proximate cause was the failure of the driver of the parked truck to install an early warning device. the plaintiff was negligent. a pedestrian HAS THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL upon roads and streets WHETHER THERE BE SIDEWALKS OR NOT. does the disputable presumption apply? o n/a when the owner is not in the car / common carrier requires conviction IN ALL CASES. and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have he management use proper care. such as peace officers or armed forces. that the accident arose from want of care. except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation/business Arts 1734 & 1735  common carriers  loss. a prima facie case of negligence 2. violation must be the PROXIMATE CAUSE. destroyed. the drug companies or stores. 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. deteriorate  presume negligence common carrier o UNLESS prove extraordinary diligence SANGCO (18-27) It is NEGLIGENCE PER SE when: 1. 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. direct evidence is absent and not readily available. a professional driver permits any unlicensed person to drive the car placed under his responsibility 2. The care required is a great or high degree. it affords reasonable evidence. The law on averages under the Code of Commerece cannot be applied in determining negligence. 3. Where proof of violation makes: 1. 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. 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. under the circumstances involved. in the absence of an explanation by the defendant. It is not rule of substantive law but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience. or the HIGHEST degree of precaution.

In cases where the doctrine is applicable. she was found to be feverish. Generally. is liable Jec  . taken with the surrounding circumstances. it affords reasonable evidence. Dr. where the court from its fund of common knowledge can determine the proper standard of care. Batiquin to the rubber. 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. RIL applies. that the accident arose from want of ordinary care. in the absence of an explanation by the defendant. 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. Ramos v CA FACTS: Ramos. use evidence / facts so that judgment will be based on facts and not presumptions Batiguin v CA FACTS: Dr. or make out a plaintiff‘s prima facie 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. it affords reasonable evidence. that the consequences of professional care were not as such as would ordinarily have followed if due care had been exercised.TORTS     AND DAMAGES situations in malpractice cases where a layman is able to say. so when there‘s evidence. and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation. 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. (2) The patient underwent no other operation which could habe caused the offending piece of rubber to appear in her uterus. applying RIL. Requisites are: 1. the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone‘s negligence 2. When the patient submitted herself to another surgery. where the court from its common knowledge can determine the proper standard of care. when the doctrine is availed of by the plaintiff. But if common knowledge can be applied. Batiquin. the need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence. 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. The fundamental element is ―control of instrumentality‖ which caused the damage. the court is permitted to find a physician negligent upon proper proof of injury to the patient. it stands to reason that it could habe only been a by-product of the caesarian section. went comatose because she was incorrectly intubated. without aid of expert testimony. and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care. HELD: Res ipsa – Where the thing which causes the injury is shown to under the management of the defendant. as a matter of common knowledge and observation. Afterwards. it is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants 3. 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. CA). All the requisites are present in this case. in the absence of an explanation by the defendant. they didn‘t provide expert testimony therefore they lost in Ramos. RIL N/A because there‘s direct (clear & convincing) evidence Why? Because the mode of proof only. undergoing a gall bladder operation. Batiquin performed a caesarian operation on a patient. 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. RULE: Res ipsa – Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the Defendant. may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence. PAGE 20 accomplished if the problem is based on medical science (Cruz vs. (1) The entire proceedings of the caesarian were under the exclusive control of Dr. that the accident arose from ordinary want of care. RULE: In cases where the doctrine is applicable. RIL made a special defense by Isidro to allege negligence of the truck driver and Layugan. IAC ruled RIL as the basis for holding Layugan negligent. without aid of expert testimony. HELD: Res ipsa (The thing or transaction speaks for itself) – the fact of the occurrence of the injury. the court is permitted to find a physician negligent upon proper proof of injury to patient. the possibility of contributing conduct which would make plaintiff responsible is eliminated.

But if his negligence was only contributory. Rule: The theoretical basis for the doctrine is its necessity. or some other person who is charged with negligence. Court also dismissed a crosscomplaint filed by the defendant. he cannot recover damages. 8. Manila Electric Co. 2179. without knowledge of the cause. the immediate and proximate cause being the defendant‘s lack of due care.         CLASS NOTES CLASS NOTES F. 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. 3. th   CLASS NOTE Applies only when both parties are negligent. one could still argue RIL to win the case. NCC When the plaintiff‘s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury. Casis‘s problem: there‘s evidence (police report. but the court shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. 4. of negligence on Jec  . i. WHEN DOES IT APPLY? Upon the satisfaction of 3 conditions: 1. It is assumed that due to his age and experience..TORTS  AND DAMAGES the part of the defendant. 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. 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 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. It furnishes a bridge by which the plaintiff. It is a rule of necessity. he was qualified to do the job. Manila Electric v Remonquillo FACTS: Magno was repairing the ―media agua‖ when he was electrocuted to death. that the necessary evidence is not available. 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. or permit an inference.e. proximate cause: negligence of repairman in turning with GI sheet difference between this & Astudillo v. 2. DEFENSES 1. for any explanation of care exercised by the defendant in respect of the matter of which the plaintiff complains. testimony & affidavit). Plaintiff had no knowledge or means of knowledge as to the cause of the accident PAGE 21 damages. 6. 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. Held: The theoretical basis for the doctrine is its necessity. reaches over to defendant who knows or should know the cause. Casis thinks that it is the victim‘s fault for falling off the platform. It is NOT an exception to the rule of initial presumption of negligence. Plaintiff‟s Negligence Art. The galvanized iron sheet he was holding came in contact with the electric wire. 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 relates to the MODE rather than the BURDEN of establishing negligence. DM Consunji v CA Facts: A construction worker fell from the 14 floor when the platform assembly he was standing on fell down. 5. HELD: Court said Meralco was not negligent.: 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. The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with negligence 3. 7. Prof. Theoretical basis for RIL: The proof should come from the defendant (RIL is the ―bridge‖ which allows the plaintiff to reach the defendant). The accident was of a kind which ordinarily does not occur unless someone is negligent 2. It is like saying that even if there is evidence.

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

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

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. HELD: SC did not accept defense of force majeure. (3) Assuming that the cause was force majeure. HELD: Court said that where the fortuitous event is the immediate and proximate cause of the loss. or failure to act. landing on and destroying portions of the roofing of respondent‘s house.     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. governmental prohibition. specs and design of the school building were defective. floods. no investigation was conducted to determine the real cause of the incident. Cargoes were discharged unto the warehouse of Bureau of Customs. On the other hand. 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  . at the theater owned by Gotesco. it is an unexpected event or act of God which could neither be foreseen nor resisted. even which we could neither foresee nor resist. obligor is exempt from liability for non-performance. such as could not have been prevented by any kind of oversight. any accident due to natural causes. NPC suddenly. (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.    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. exclusively without human intervention. the cause of which is to be considered. Gotesco had the burden to prove that the collapse was indeed caused by force majeure. 2. Therefore. Chato even went to Illinois for further treatment. pains and care reasonably to have been expected. They claimed that despite knowledge of the impending entry of the typhoon Kading. Gotesco‘s defense: force majeure. Bulacan. NOTE: Res ipsa loquitur applies in this case. CASO FORTUITO – event which takes place by accident and could not have been reasonably foreseen. the whole occurrence is thereby humanized. NPC failed to exercise due diligence in monitoring the water level so when the water level went beyond the maximum allowable limit. Respondents did not even show that the plans. negligently and recklessly opened 3 of the dam‘s spillways. annual maintenance inspection and repair of the school building was regularly undertaken. petitioner has not been shown negligent or at fault regarding the construction and maintenance of the school building. By nature. etc. is found to be in part the result of the participation of man. Gotesco is still liable because there‘s implied warranty in public places o still negligent Just because you cannot explain it. it does not necessarily mean that it is fortuitous. whether to be from active intervention or neglect. HELD: (1) Having interposed force majeure as a defense. NOTE: event. directly. attack by bandits.earthquakes. school‘s roof was partly ripped off and blown away. Gotesco could still be held liable because it was guilty of negligence. Balcony collapsed and they sustained injuries. In this case. Caso fortuito – an event that takes place by accident and could not have been foreseen. By the act of man. When the effect. city building official testified that the school obtained both building permit and certificate of occupancy. Typhoon was the proximate cause. A fire of unknown origin razed the warehouse.TORTS AND DAMAGES attributable to the negligence of the appellant or its employees. storms. 2 GENERAL CAUSES: 1. 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. etc. Servando v Philippine Steam FACTS: Plaintiffs loaded their cargo on board appellant‘s vessel. HELD: Court found that other than the report submitted by the engineers.armed invasion. This Gotesco did not do. and that no complaints have been lodged in the past. destroying the remaining cargo. Its own witness admitted that he could not give any reason why the ceiling collapsed. 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.

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

PAGE 26 The longer version can be shortened by removing ―sufficient intervening cause‖ *memorize definition of proximate cause* FACTS: 1976: 2 vessels collided . produces the injury. burning the bus and the 4 passengers. Complainant should have filed before Mar 25. 1986 when the decision became final and executory. HELD: SC dismissed the case. the gasoline began to leak and escape from the gasoline tank. 1977 . 1987. resp sought rd to implead Central Bank and Aurellano as 3 party defendants. rd . The cause of action in this case accrued on Mar 25.TORTS AND DAMAGES Kramer v CA instituted on Feb 7. 4 passengers were unable to get out of the bus. a fierce fire started. . Since it was founded on tortuous interference. CAUSATION  Definition #1 of proximate cause according to Bataclan v. resp was prevented from performing his obligation under the loan. the date when Monetary Board ordered GenBank to desist from doing business in the Philippines. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. NOTE. It appears that as the bus overturned. When they approached the bus. Medina: More comprehensively. Definition #2 of proximate cause according to Bataclan vs.Allied acquired all assets and assumed all liabilities of GenBank . fell into a canal or ditch. 1980 when the Monetary Board ordered the GenBank to rd desist fr doing biz in the Phils. and without which the result would not have occurred. 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. 2177. Proximate cause  CLASS NOTES Usually it‘s the shorter definition that‘s being cited in the other cases. 1979. 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. -1985: Petitioners instituted complaint for damages against respondent. and not the fire that burned the bus. 1976 – Yujuico obtained loan fr GenBank payable on or before Apr 1. spreading over the bus and the ground under it. 1979 – Allied filed complaint against resp Joselita for collection of a sum of money . one of them carrying a lighted torch made of bamboo with a wick fueled with petroleum. and that the lighted torch set it on fire. is the proximate cause. the trapping of the passengers and the call for outside help. So for our purpose-shorter version Jec  . it prescribes in 4 yrs. Calls and shouts for help were made in the neighborhood. saying that according to Art. although of equitable origin.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. Thus. It is a doctrine which. when the complain in the case was filed. The coming of the men with the torch was to be expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning of the bus. Allied Banking v CA FACTS: Apr 1. .   CLASS NOTES IV. each having a A.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. Petitioner believes that the cause of action accrued on Mar 25. At 2:30am. 10 men came. the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury either immediately or by setting other events in motion. as a result of which the vehicle zigzagged.Mar 25.Petitioner claims that cause of action has already prescribed. 1981. 1. 1987 the action has prescribed.RTC denied admission of 3 party complainant. 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. DOUBLE RECOVERY Art. all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events. while 3 party complaint was filed only on Jun 17. and turned turtle. action based on quasi-delict must be instituted within 4 yrs. 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. HELD: Action for damages arising from QD should be filed within 4 yrs from the day cause of action accrued. 1977 – Monetary Board issued resolution forbidding GenBank from doing business in Phils. 1977. Prescriptive period begins from the day the quasi-delict was committed. Motion to dismiss was filed on the basis of prescription. in natural and continuous sequence. 1146. has a well recognized application to proceedings at law. .Feb 7. Definition Bataclan v Medina FACTS: A bus speeding on its way to Pasay City at 2am when one of its front tires burst. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. It was alleged that by reason of the tortous interference by the CB with affairs of GenBank.1987 – in the course of the proceedings. Medina: Proximate cause is that cause which. ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident? HELD: The overturning of the bus. it is rd contended that while the 3 party complaint was filed only on Jun 17.

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

Remote Gabeto v Araneta FACTS: Gayetano (husband of plaintiff) and Ilano took a carromata to go to a cockpit. successive. such that the result would not have occurred otherwise. ---NO. 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. 2202. rammed into a pile of earth/street diggings (accident mound) found at Matahimik St. causing the carromata to hit a telephone booth and caused it to crash. The lower court found that no evidence was presented that sufficient and adequate precautionary signs were placed in the said street. Gayetano jumped or fell from the rig. 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. Distinguished from other kinds a. policy and precedent. Moreover. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. Prof. and Araneta cannot be charged with liability for the accident resulting from the action of the horse thereafter. When the carromata was about to move. 2. Citing Manila Electric v. free form the control of the bit. The horse.TORTS AND DAMAGES  PAGE 28 Proximate cause is any cause which. he died of tetanus. (son of petitioner). After Pagnaya alighted. causing injuries from which he soon died. So as a solution. common sense. apply Pilipinas Bank definition* Quezon City v Dacara FACTS: At about 1AM. Jec  . while driving a Toyota Corolla. Note: Different definition of PC from Bataclan case. HELD: Araneta‘s act of stopping the rig was too remote from the accident to be considered the legal or proximate cause thereof. for failure to take necessary precautions. b. On November 5. if there‘s a case similar to Pilipinas Bank. saying he hailed the carromata first.   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. upon a combined consideration of logic. if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct. This frightened the horse and caused it to run up the street with Gayetano still inside the carromata. Gavino was the compulsory pilot. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. by getting out and taking his post at the head of the horse. On November 14. unrelated and efficient cause of the injury. would result therefrom as a natural and probable cause. Kavankov was the master of the vessel.  CLASS NOT ES *Sir said that there is a problem with foreseeability as an element. as a result of which. HELD: There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent infection. the horse was conducted to the curb and an appreciable interval of time elapsed before the horse started to career up to the street. Dacara. Pagnaya fixed the bridle on the curb. foreseeability should not be a factor. Note: Followed Bataclan‘s definition.   CL ASS NOTE The remote cause was noted to be the wound of Urbano. even though such injury would not have happened except but for such condition or occasion. Proximate cause is defined as any cause that produces injury in a natural and continuous sequence. --NO. Araneta held the reins of the horse. the driver was the person primarily responsible for the control of the animal. Casis’s opinion: There‘s no basis for this additional element. Driver Pagnaya pulled the reins to take it away from Araneta‘s control. moved away. ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident? HELD: The negligence of the Quezon City Government was the proximate cause of the accident. Proximate cause is determined from the facts of each case. Concurrent Far Eastern Shipping Company v CA   CLASS NOT ES Classical description of remote cause with series of events. with tetanus may have been the proximate cause of Javier‘s death with which Urbano had nothing to do. Urbano v IAC FACTS: On October 23. Javier was brought to a doctor who issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9 days. 1980. the bit came off the horse‘s mouth. ISSUE: WON the hacking was the proximate cause of Javier‘s death. Urbano hacked Javier in his right palm. ISSUE: WON Araneta is liable for Gayetano‘s death. Javier was seen catching fish in dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. This case adds the element of foreseeability. in natural and continuous sequence. Under Art. FACTS: A ship owned by FESC rammed into the apron of the pier.

and that such cause is not attributable to the person injured. although acting independently of each other. Kavankov was negligent in leaving the entire docking procedure up to Gavino instead of being vigilant. a passenger of a bus. There is no contribution between joint tortfeasors whose liability is solidary since both of them are liable for the whole damage. 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. ISSUE: Who was negligent --. ISSUE: Who was negligent and what is the extent of liability? ---BOTH solidarily liable. in order to render a person liable need not be the sole cause of an injury. either is responsible for the whole injury. encroaching on the opposite Jec  . Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the injury.TORTS AND DAMAGES HELD: The carrier and its driver were negligent for allowing Custodio to hang by the side of the bus. Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of two or more persons. not the only cause Important : memorize the test *This is the only case that defines substantial factor test* *Also see Pilipinas Bank* b. Three passengers of the jeep died as a result. Casis thinks that this is a problematic case because the facts would indicate that the victim was at fault because he was negligent. 3.Gavino or Kvankov? --BOTH. Substantial factor = Main cause. in its execution. A Philippine Rabbit Bus from the opposite lane bumped the rear portion of the jeep. of the negligence of the truck driver and its owner. Note: Liability of concurrent negligence = solidary.  What is the rule on liability? –liability is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury Sabido v Custodio FACTS: Custodio. causing it to be unbalanced. 103-114) Tests of proximate cause 1. and without which the result would not have occurred. The driver stepped on the brake. Where several causes combine to produce injuries. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. Tests a. already near the canal) or to the left (it would have it the jeep head-on). which made the jeep turn around. the degree of participation does not matter. the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person. Substantial Factor 1 SANGCO (pp. Note: The substantial factor test contains no element of foreseeability. produces the injury. in combination. a person is not relieved from liability because he is responsible for only one of them. PAGE 29 lane. 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. Although the negligence of the carrier and its driver is independent. The truck driver was also negligent for speeding through the middle portion of the road.    CL ASS NOTE Refers to absolute cause This is the strictest test Prof. HELD: The Supreme Court was not convinced by the application of the substantial factor test. was hanging onto its left side. Negligence. both acts of negligence are the proximate cause of Custodio‘s death. Reason: It is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury and either of them is responsible for the whole injury. Gavino was negligent for failing to react on time. or the same damage might have resulted from the acts of the other tortfeasor.   CL ASS NOTE Prof. it was still within the speed limit allowed in highways. only the CA did. Casis thinks that this case should not be cited for the substantial factor test because the SC did not apply the test. 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. Cause in fact  Traditionally. While the bus was negotiating a sharp curve of a bumpy and downward slope. even though his act alone might not have caused the entire injury. 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. and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury. are. HELD: Both Gavino (compulsory pilot) and Kavankov (master of the vessel) were concurrently negligent. ISSUE: Who is liable?-Jeep. 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. Even though the bus was driving at 80-90 kph. a speeding truck going in the opposite direction side-swiped Custodio. Note: Italicized phrase=‖but for‖ test       CL ASS N O T E S () If the concurrent act was the proximate cause. “But for” Bataclan v Medina  CL ASS NOTE Proximate cause is that cause which. The Court of Appeals ruled that the bus driver was negligent. in natural and continuous sequence. who died as a result thereof.

or such as. 8.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. Foreseeability test  Negligence involves a foreseeable risk. 6. the liability of the wrongdoer extends to all the injurious consequences. but rather. whether they could have been ascertained by reasonable diligence.  2. a threatened danger or injury and conduct unreasonable in proportion to danger. 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. between a defendant‘s conduct and a plaintiff‘s injury before liability may arise. the question is not whether the damage was foreseen or foreseeable. in fact show that the defendant‘s conduct was not a factor in causing plaintiff‘s damage. liability is imposed for any resulting injury within the orbit or scope of such injury. 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. would have thought at the time of the negligent act as reasonably possible to follow. 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. 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  . Orbit of the risk test  This was intended to be a test of duty and not a test of proximate cause.  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. and viewing the event in retrospect to the act. the matter ends there. the wrongdoer is liable for all the consequences which naturally flow from his wrongful act. If the injury as to causes. and that as far as proximate cause is concerned. 5. Ordinary and natural or direct consequences  This test states that.  When the result complained of is not reasonably foreseeable in the exercise of ordinary care under all the facts as they existed. For this purpose. 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. according to common experience and the usual course of events. or not. The first step is to determine whether the defendant‘s conduct was a factor in causing plaintiff‘s damage. 7. as a matter of legal policy. might reasonably have been anticipated. 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. „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. if they had been suggested to his mind.  The foreseeability test is applied in conjunction with the natural and probable consequences test.‖  An injury is deemed the natural and probable result of a negligent act if after the event.  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.  A party guilty of negligence or omission of duty is responsible for all the consequences which a prudent and experienced party.  This is based on the principle that in tort.  If the foreseeable risk to plaintiff created a duty which the defendant breached.   PAGE 30 The consequence of the negligent act must be within the range of probability as viewed by the ordinary man. an essential element of actionable negligence is lacking. the injury appears to be the reasonable rather than the extraordinary consequence of the wrong. where it in fact resulted as a direct consequence of the defendant‘s act. Hindsight test  The hindsight test eliminates foreseeability as an element. if negligence is a cause in fact of the injury under the criteria previously discussed. Effectiveness of the cause. 3. the term ―probable‖ is used in the sense of ―foreseeable. provided only that they are not too remote. fully acquainted with all the circumstances which in fact exist. The Restatement adopts the rule that if the actor‘s conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm to another.

It should occur after the purported proximate cause because it would then be a condition. (3) even supposing the house to be improperly there.   CL ASS NOTE Prof. Dionisio was on his way home when his car headlights allegedly suddenly failed. Even the lapse of a considerable time during which the ―condition‖ remains static will not necessarily affect liability. It is difficult to distinguish between a cause and a condition because of the time element.    CLASS NOTES Rodrigueza was not guilty of contributory negligence Even if condition was created. or rather. (2) his house remained on this ground by the tolerance. Negligence of the defendant if pre-empted by the negligence of the plaintiff. the end of the iron sheet he was holding came into contact with an uninsulated electric wire of Manila Electric. When the car was 10 meters Jec  . in such a manner as to stick out onto General Lacuna Street. 4. 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. particularly since the latter are the result of other active forces which have gone before. The efficient intervening cause is actually a proximate cause. Although there is still lack of a definite ruling by the Court. 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. Manila Electric v Remonquillo FACTS: Efren Magno repaired the media agua below Peñaloza‘s 3-storey house. Posser and Keeton: So far as the fact of causation is concerned. owned by Phoenix. ISSUE: What was the cause and condition of the accident? HELD: The cause was Magno‘s own negligence. The condition was the too close proximity of the media agua. of the hazards covered by the duty imposed upon the defendant. but the nature of the risk and the character of the intervening cause. His car smashed into the dump truck. PAGE 31 house was built on the same spot before the defendant laid its tracks over the land. ISSUE: WON Manila Railroad‘s negligence was the proximate cause of the fire HELD: Yes. and thus consent of the train company. There were no early warning devices placed near the truck. 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. partly blocking the way of oncoming traffic. Rodrigueza‘s  The efficient intervening cause destroys the link between the negligent act and injury. was parked askew on the right hand side of the street. 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. in violation of the regulation of the City of Manila requiring 3 feet. 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. in the sense of necessary antecedents which have played an important part in producing the result. this fact would not justify the defendant in negligently destroying it. Note: Condition = plaintiff‘s house was partly within the defendant‘s property.TORTS AND DAMAGES  A condition was a cause at some point in time. HELD: The distinctions between cause and condition have already been almost entirely discredited. it is quite impossible to distinguish between active forces and passive situations. any violation of administrative ordinances and the like would either be seen as 1) negligence per se or 2) prima facie evidence of negligence. In the course of the repair. He switched his headlights on ―bright‖ and saw the truck looming 2 ½ meters away from his car. Cause and Condition Phoenix v CA FACTS: A dump truck. Rodrigueza‘s house was partly within the property of the Manila Railroad. its edge. 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. Cause = the sparks on the train which was the negligent act of the defendant. The distance from the electric wire to the media agua was only 2 ½ feet. causing his death by electrocution. 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. It is not the distinction which is important. At 1:30 am.

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

Smith driving his car stayed on his right lane and so both Picart and Smith were on the same lane. t take into consideration the NATURE OF HORSES and the ANIMAL NOT BEING ACQUAINTED TO CARS.TORTS AND DAMAGES Smith RATIO: The negligent acts of both parties were NOT contemporaneous. The medical findings. Exceptions. he died of tetanus. having failed to take the last clear chance.    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 . 2) joint tortfeasors. Javier was brought to a doctor who issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9 days. or even to a plaintiff who has been grossly negligent in placing himself in peril. in the case at bar. The doctrine of last clear chance would apply even if the plaintiff is grossly negligent. ISSUE: WON there was efficient intervening cause – YES. however. 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. 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. Smith stayed on his lane and swerved to the other lane quickly. Pony became frightened and lost control and Picart was thrown out of the pony and got injured. Urbano hacked Javier in his right palm. Thus. bus driver did not mind and instead applied more speed. 3) concurrent negligence Phoenix Construction v IAC . Dionisio filed an action for damages against Phoenix. include joint tortfeasors (according to Americn Jurisprudence). by exercising reasonable care and prudence.did not apply LCCD FACTS: On October 23. 2179. 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. aware of the plaintiff‘s peril. The practical  4. Last Clear Chance CLASS NOT ES    Take note of the definition of last clear chance in all the cases. FACTS: Picart riding his pony was on the wrong side of the road. On November 5. Javier was seen catching fish in dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. Last clear chance contemplates a series of negligent acts. 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 . Last clear chance cannot apply when there are: 1) contractual relations. might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff‘s negligence. and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. ligence of Smith: when it exposed Picart and pony to danger. 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. many were killed and injured. or should have been aware of it in the reasonable exercise of due care. However. Thus. 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. HELD: The death must be the direct. 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. ON November 14. Still. Bus saw that the truck‘s wheels were wiggling and that truck was heading towards his lane. if he.Practical importance of LCCD  The negligent defendant is held liable to a negligent plaintiff. Negligence of Smith succeeded the negligence of Picart by an appreciable interval. 1980. without reference to the prior negligence of the other party. 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. th saw the pony when he was still far and he had control of the situation. natural. 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. Picart then filed a case against Jec  . Phoenix invoked the Last Clear Chance Doctrine: Dionisio had the Last Clear Chance of avoiding the accident and so Dionisio. thereby almost hitting the pony.basis for saying that there is doubt in the application of the Last Clear Chance Doctrine because of Art. was his duty to avoid the threatened harm by bringing the car to a stop or taking the other lane to avoid the collision. So. the LCCD does not arise where the passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. Thus.

it turns out that the Secretary would leave blank the duplicate copy of the deposit slip where the bank‘s teller would validate it. not sequence of events Does the last clear chance doctrine still stand? Yes. In the case at hand. Furthermore. timing is of the essence. BUT in the Philippines we have Article 2179 of the Civil Code which rejects the Common Law doctrine of contributory negligence. Rather.apply the last Clear Chance Doctrine when fault or negligence is difficult to attribute Elements: 1) 2 parties negligent.  The truck stopped 30 m away from the jeep and so by this time. because it was still used in later cases Phoenix-1987. PBC-1997: appreciably later in time    CLASS NOT ES Philippine Bank of Commerce v CA . Instead of writing the account number of the company in the original copy retained by the bank. 60-40 ratio! 40% of the damages shall be borne by RMC. or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident. simply by faithfully observing their self-imposed validation procedure. LAST CLEAR CHANCE  Aka supervening negligence or discovered peril  Where both parties are negligent. 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. validated a blank duplicate copy of the deposit slip. but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other. court said that RMC was also negligent in not checking its monthly statements of account. what is more important is the nature. 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. Secretary would write the account number of husband. Jec  . Thus. 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 . last clear chance was deemed to be a valid defense. In last clear chance. However. teller. this ruling would clearly apply to exonerate truck driver .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: . which involved a similar state of facts . 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. not the order of events. the truck driver‘s parking askew led to an increased diligence for the driver of the car.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 . 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. Court also applied Last Clear Chance Doctrine in saying that PBC was really negligent.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. 60% by PBC -applied LCCD in knowing whether PBC was negligent PAGE 34 Glan People‟s Lumber & Hardware v IAC .  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. Smith but it is still a matter of debate whether.Even assuming that the truck driver was negligent.Thus. 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 . or to what extent. 2) appreciable time bet.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. -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.TORTS AND DAMAGES FACTS: RMC had an account in PBC and Secretary of RMC was tasked to deposit its money. Smith. Applied 2179 of CC on contributory negligence. it has found its way into the Civil Code of the Philippines. The doctrine was applied by Common Law because they had a rule that contributory negligence prevented any recovery at all by a negligent plaintiff. RMC‘s funds were now in Secretary‘s husband‘s account. Thus. 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. Still.

For the doctrine to be applicable.did not apply LCCD because there was no opportunity to avoid the accident and the jeepney driver was not aware of the peril. 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. 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.  In this case. then bumped into the jeepney from behind with such violence that 3 passengers died  Thus. 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. 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 . by exercising reasonable care and prudence. 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 . 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.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. 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 . Pantranco raises the doctrine in order to escape liability . with exercise of due care. 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. RATIO: . 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. 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.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. have been aware of it  In this case. It does NOT arise where a Jec  .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 . although it may also be raised as a defense to defeat claim for damages .TORTS AND DAMAGES means at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered  In this case.However. the court said that the doctrine of last clear chance cannot be applied in this case! .Thus. speeding. and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered.Generally.

000. 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. 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. they failed to do this. Solidbank was negligent in not returning the passbook to messenger of LC Diaz  proximate cause  CA wrongly applied the doctrine of last clear chance…  Last Clear Chance Doctrine is not applied in this case because Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due to negligence in the performance of contractual obligation to LC Diaz  This case of culpa contractual. always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. ASB had the last clear chance to prevent fraud. 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  . was actually not a requirement. is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom  In this case. 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. in this case. the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so. but here.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. With regard to the special power of attorney: the SPA given to Mañosca was to mortgage so the presence of the Canlas sps. Was there really negligence on the part of the bank even if Manosca had an SPA and the land title? In Canlas.Last Clear Chance Doctrine is NOT applicable in culpa contractual FACTS:  LC Diaz had a savings account with Solidbank.  Thus.LCCD not applied passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident. However. 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.  After messenger of LC Diaz deposited amount.—40-60 .  Solidbank was supposed to return the passbook only to the depositor or his authorized representative. 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. the Court talked about 2 definitionsshort and long: take note of these Consolidated Bank & Trust Corporation v CA .00 from its account. 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.TORTS AND DAMAGES that of the other. were negligent in giving their title to the property to Mañosca. where neither the contributory negligence of plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss.  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 .

is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of the accident . it not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better solution. 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. should have been aware of it in the reasonable exercise of due care. 2. . by exercising reasonable care and prudence. since it implies contributory negligence on his part. notwithstanding the injured person‘s want of care.  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. the doctrine cannot be applied because there was no time or opportunity to ponder the situation at all.After seeing the tamaraw. another person wantonly. 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.  The failure to avoid injuring a person occupying a position of peril may be a supervening cause.Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied because there was no clear chance –emergency situation. 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. Parties who invoke doctrine  Many courts take the view that the doctrine of last clear chance is not available to 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. either because it became physically impossible for him to do so or because he was totally unaware of the danger. and is. only operative in those cases where. There was no clear chance to speak of  Thus. 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. Isuzu did not slow down  Iran. or in the 3. driver of Isuzu guilty! .  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 .However. 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. 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. o The defendant knew that the plaintiff was in a position of danger and further knew. doctrine of supervening negligence. (pp.TORTS AND DAMAGES Engada v CA acts of his opponent. if he. might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff‘s negligence.  Between the defendants. or according to some authorities. aware of the plaintiff‘s peril.Furthermore. 1. 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 . Jec  . instead applied the emergency rule. 74-81) The Doctrine of Last Clear Chance  Also known as the doctrine of discovered peril. or with knowledge of the perilous situation of the person injured carelessly or recklessly injured him. tamaraw driver. had in fact an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident. humanitarian doctrine.Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied.  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. no convincing evidence was adduced to support this defense . generally speaking. 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. . FACTS  Iran driving a tamaraw jeepney  In the other lane was an isuzu pick-up that was speeding.  Although the defendant may not invoke the doctrine.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. LCC can only be invoked in favor of the person injured. notwithstanding the negligent  1 Sangco.

when the victim was playing with Vestil‘s According to Sangco. Last clear chance doctrine considered to determine the proximate cause. 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. It is also known as ―absolute liability‖ or ―liability without fault. Possessor of animals Art.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. you are already liable A. the dog of Vestil‘s father. Other names: doctrine of discovered peril. NCC The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause.‖ Consolidated Bank v CA No   CLASS NOT E Test: when the conditions provided in the law exist. It is considered in determining proximate cause Jec  . 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. the last clear chance doctrine is a phase of contributory negligence. but that is based on the breach of an absolute duty to make something safe. humanitarian doctrine. doctrine of supervening negligence. 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. Engada v CA Inured party (owner of the Tamaraw) No   CLASS NOT ES Vestil v IAC FACTS: Theness Uy was bitten by Andoy. 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. It most often applies either to ultra hazardous activities or in product liability cases. doctrine of gross negligence. STRICT LIABILITY Black‟s Law Dictionary definition: Liability does not depend on actual negligence or intent to harm. 2183. It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. Last clear chance doctrine should not apply when there is a time sequence. although it may escape or be lost.

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

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

drug. (3) Plaintiff‘s death or injury was caused by the product so consumed or used. simulating.  However. (c) The refusal to permit entry or inspection as authorized by Section twenty-seven hereof or to allow samples to be collected. device. toilet articles. be deported without further deportation proceedings. device. or the doing of any other act with respect to. except by a person who relied upon a guaranty or undertaking to the same effect signed by. 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. tag label. after payment of fine and service of sentence. or falsely representing or without proper authority using any mark. any information acquired under authority of Section nine.TORTS AND DAMAGES is held for sale (whether or not the first sale) and results in such article being adulterated or misbranded. a food. or that such drug complies with the provisions of such section. mutilation. device. 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. advertising or other sales promotion of any reference to any report or analysis furnished in compliance with Section twenty-six hereof.00) and by imprisonment of not more that one (1) year or both upon the discretion of the court. If the offender is an alien. counterfeiting. not quasi-delict and should have been filed within 6 months from the delivery of the softdrinks. drug. 714-734) Product Liability 1. stamp. II SANGCO (p. or concerning any method or process which as a trade secret is entitled to protection. (2) He use noxious or harmful substances in the manufacture or processing of the foodstuff. Question: What about those consumed by animals? Do you apply strict liability even if defendant exercised due diligence? Yes. or cosmetic or the giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to in Section twelve (b) which guaranty or undertaking is false. Civil Code (1) Defendant is a manufacturer or processor of foodstuff. in labeling. 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. The consumer‘s cause of action does not depend upon the validity of his contract with the person from whom he acquires the product. Upon inspection by the DOH. on the labeling of any drug or in any advertising relating to such drug. the bottles were found to be adulterated. or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of. drinks. 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. PAGE 41 warranties against hidden defects or encumbrances upon the thing sold are not limited to those prescribed in A1567. A group of parents complained that fibrous materials were found in the softdrink bottles bought by their children. The vendee may also ask for the annulment of the contract upon proof of error or fraud in which case the ordinary rule on obligations shall be applicable. The vendee‘s remedies against a vendor with respect to the Jec  . Neither does this article preclude an action for breach of contract and warranty. HELD: The Court sided with Geronimo. and it is not affected by any disclaimer or other agreement. In case of judicial persons. If basis is not Consumer Act. if the injured party opts to recover on that theory. 11. Art. Drug. drug. offering for sale or transfer of any food. or other identification device authorized or required by regulations promulgated under the provisions of this Act. 2. or cosmetic. and Cosmetic Act) Sec. CHAPTER VI. The sales of Geronimo drastically dropped and she was forced to close shop.000. Geronimo argues that her case is based on quasi-delict and should prescribe in 4 years. drug. (d) The giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to in Section twelve (b) hereof which guaranty or undertaking is false. (P5. 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. She brought an action for damages against Coca-cola and the trial court ruled that the complaint was based on a contract. device or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded. The following acts and the causing thereof are hereby prohibited: (a) The manufacture. the penalty shall be imposed upon its president. 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. 2187. (g) The alteration. (e) Forging. or similar goods which caused the death or injury complained of. manager or head. destruction. of any representation or suggestion that an application with respect to such drug is effective under Section twenty-one hereof. or revealing. (i) The use. 2187. or cosmetic. he shall. and containing the name and address of. (b) The adulteration or misbranding of any food. the person residing in the Philippines from whom he received in good faith the food. toilet articles consumed or used by the plaintiff. Prohibited Acts and Penalties (RA3720 – Food. toilet articles and similar goods. Governing law: Art. obliteration. and Coca-Cola v CA FACTS: Geronimo sold food and softdrinks in a school canteen. (h) The use. drinks. What if the person who consumed the goods did not buy them but stole them? – The manufacturer/processor may still be held liable. sale. ( f ) The using by any person to his own advantage. processors What do you mean by similar goods?-Sangcoconsumed by humans. A106 of the Consumer Act. drinks. Requisites of liability under Art.

A high degree of care is required of the producer of foods (in the production of such product. Duty of seller other than restaurant operator. the vendor is liable to him. merely because he has undertaken to supply the public with apparently reasonable risk. 8.  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.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.  Whether recovery is sought under strict liability or on fault or negligence. with qualification that they are properly prepared and marketed. toilet articles and similar goods. advertising. 6. yes. 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.‖  Applicable only to personal injuries. Jec  .  A manufacturer‘s strict liability in tort should be defined in terms of the safety of the product ―in normal and proper use. is not to be held to strict liability for unfortunate consequences attending their use. Unavoidably unsafe product  The seller of unavoidably unsafe products. which includes death. a. and proper warning is given. inspecting the ingredients and warning the consumers of possible injury from consumption of a food).  Expert testimony is generally necessary to prove the defect in the product. and the purchaser is injured thereby. 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. Duty of warning. c. This precludes claims for purely pecuniary or commercial losses in absence of personal injuries. drinks. Duty of care of restaurant operator A restaurateur has no duty to serve ―perfect‖ products. Liability for negligence in food products. Duty of care of manufacturer or processor of food. PAGE 42 b. it would seem contributory negligence would diminish recovery. to his actual or constructive knowledge. by inspection or taste. toilet articles and similar goods‖ 4.‖ The plaintiff must allege and prove that he was using the product in the way it was intended to be used. and if they turn out to be unsound and not wholesome. unless the product is one whose character and content must necessarily have remained unchanged since it left the manufacturer‘s possession. can you still sue for breach of contract? Sangco says. -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. (4) The damages sustained and claimed by the plaintiff and the amount thereof. 5. But the law of negligence requires him to exercise a care proportionate to the serious consequences that may follow from a want of care. The vendor of food should indemnify his vendee against latent defects contained in the product which the vendee. where the situation calls for it. involves danger to users has a duty to give warning of such danger. d. A manufacturer or seller of a product which. Persons who may be held liable. and for what products  Manufacturers and processors who used noxious or harmful substances may be held liable. and only damages arising therefrom. The test of commodities required is no more than that commonly or usually practised by careful dealers under the same conditions and circumstances. testing. A vendor of provisions selected. could not have discovered himself. drinks. and did not come into existence thereafter. 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.  It must appear that the unwholesome or unsound quality of the food product in question existed at the time the defendant sold it. Proof of causation  One seeking recovery has the burden of proof that the resulting illness was caused by the deleterious food.    CLASS NOT ES Important: Requisites of 2187 in Sangco If it falls under A2187. 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. As a matter of elementary logic.  Proof of a defect in the product may not be supplied by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. no duty to warn arises with respect to a product which is not in fact dangerous. Who may recover 7. Compensable Damages  Expressly limited to ―death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substance used‖ by ―manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs. 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. sold. 3. 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. inspecting.

PAGE 43 unreasonable or unintentional and actionable under the general negligence rules. Trendsetter asked DC Chuan to execute lease contracts in its favor. This liability arises from unlawful acts and not from contractual obligations to induce Cuddy to violate his contract with Gilchrist. -new lease contracts with increase in rent were sent to THE. petitioner. 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. b) the invasion is substantial. . ISSUE: WON Espejo and Zaldarriaga are liable for interfering with the contract between Gilchrist and Cuddy. The contracts were initially for 1 year but were continued on month to month basis upon expiration of the 1 yr. A duty which the law on torts is concerned with is respect for the property of others. Implied malice as an element. Hence the lack of malice precludes the award of damages. Gilchrist was the owner of a theatre in Iloilo.TORTS AND DAMAGES   No damages were due from Espejo because no malice was proven (the motive was only to make profit). Tek Hua was dissolved. FACTS: Tek Hua Trading originally entered into a lease agreement with DC Chuan covering stalls in Binondo. -Days before the delivery date. In the case at bar.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. 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. So Ping Bun v CA Gilchrist v Cuddy FACTS: Cuddy was the owner of the film ―Zigomar‖. E. -THE through Tiong asked So Ping Bun to vacate the stalls so THE would be able to go back to business BUT instead. Appellants have the legal liability for interfering with the contract and causing its breach. just answer the three elements given by So Ping Bun. If this is the case. they not knowing at the time the identity of the parties HELD: YES. we need malice in 1314. or harm which results from injury. Jec  . . However. They entered into a contract whereby Cuddy leased to Gilchrist the ―Zigomar‖ for exhibition in his theatre for a week for P125. He also prayed for damages against Espejo and Zaldarriaga for interfering with the contract between Gilchrist and Cuddy. c) the defendant‘s conduct is a legal cause of the invasion. ISSUE: WON So Ping Bun was guilty of tortuous interference of contract HELD: Yes. shall be obliged to pay for the damage done. -ART 1902 CC provides that a person who. Then discussed Gilchrist in saying that to award damages.The provision in the Civil Code with regard tortuous interference is Article 1314. The action of Trendsetter in asking DC Chuan to execute the contracts in their favor was unlawful interference. 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. Is malice required to apply A1314? Did not include malice as one of the elements under A1314. Sir said as guidance: If we apply Gilchrist and So Ping Bun. Nothing on the record imputes deliberate wrongful motives or malice on the part of So. 1314 Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party. . SO PING BUN SECURED A NEW LEASE AGEEMENT WITH DC CHUAN. by act or omission causes damage to another when there is fault or negligence. Interference with contractual relations Art.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 . although not signed. and as a result petitioner deprived respondent of the latter‘s property right. original members of Tek Hua formed Tek Hua Enterprises (THE) with Manuel Tiong as one of the incorporators. . De Leon included malice as an element. then one cannot recover from 1314 as against the third party. Is malice an element of tortuous interference? Court does not say that it is. Espejo and Zaldarriaga. 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.Damage is the loss.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. and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered. But if question is just on the elements. -Gilchrist filed a case for specific performance against Cuddy. . there should be malice but it was never mentioned in Gilchrist in the first place. No such knowledge is required in order that the injured party may recover for the damages suffered. d) the invasion is either intentional and  CLASS  NOT ES         CLASS NOT ES Had legal liability but not under A1314. hurt.Since there were existing lease contracts between Tek Hua and DC Chuan. 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. the stalls were occupied by the grandson (So Ping Bun) of one of the original incorporators of Tek Hua under business name Trendsetter Marketing. Tek Hua in fact had property rights over the leased stalls.

Provinces. 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. 2189 Provinces. No tort is committed if the party had already broken the contract. Liability of local government units Art. Statutory provision and rationale: Under Article 1314 of the Civil Code.    CLASS NOT ES F. It was held that mere competition is not sufficient unless it is considered unfair competition or the dominant purpose is to inflict harm or injury. The charter only lays down general rules regulating that liability of the city. bridges. streets. City Charter of Dagupan also says that the city supervises and manages National roads and national sidewalks. 795-801) Interference with contracts: A. 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. and to compel the performance by the other party.In this case. (pp.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. B. . when there is good faith. bridges. fell into a manhole at Perez Blvd. a court interpreter. operated on. if reprehensible in an enforceable contracts. city or municipality for liability to attach. public buildings.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. On the other hand. there is authority for the view that an action for interference can be maintained even if the contract is unenforceable. Interference of the third party without legal justification or excuse: In general.It is not even necessary for the defective road or street to belong to the province.‖ AQUINO. public buildings and other public works. article 2189 applies in particular to the liability arising from ―defective streets. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. The article only requires that either control or supervision is exercised over the defective road or street. D. or injuries suffered by. and other public works under their control or supervision. This tort is known as interference with contractual relations. the party who breached the contract is only liable for consequence that can be foreseen. is equally reprehensible in an unenforceable one. She fractured her right leg. Elements: 1. However. HELD: City liable . any person by reason of the defective condition of roads. 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. Gye in 1853 and was first adopted in the Philippines in 1915 in Gilchrist vs Cuddy. 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. This is consistent with Article 2202 if the contracting party who was induced to break the contract was in bad faith. to reap the profits resulting therefrom. 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. PAGE 44 by reason of the defective condition of roads. Such interference is considered tortious because it violates the rights of the contacting parties to fulfill the contract and to have it fulfilled. 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. The view is that inducement. public buildings. 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. However. In fact. City Engineer testified that he supervises the maintenance of said manholes and sees to it that they are properly covered. or injuries suffered by. Existence of a valid contract: This existence is necessary and the breach must occur because of the alleged act of interference. C. and other public works under their control or supervision. and confined. it is possible for the contracting party to be not liable at all. However. 2. any person Jec  . thus was hospitalized. a third party may sue a third party not for breach of contract but for inducing another to commit such breach. control or supervision is provided for in the charter of Dagupan and is exercised through the City Engineer. as in the case where the defendant prevented him from performing his obligation through force or fraud. which is owned by the national Government. 3. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. History: This particular tort started in the UK in Lumley vs. Neither can action be maintained if the contract is void. . streets.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful