This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Concept/ Definition The term ―Tort‖ is of Anglo-American law-common law which is broader in scope than the Spanish-Phil concept which is limited to negligence while the former includes international or criminal acts. Torts in Philippine law is the blending of common-law and civil law system. Quasi Delict refers to acts or omissions which cause damage to another, there being fault or negligence on the part of the defendant, who is obliged by law to pay for the damages done. Elements of Quasi Delict: 1. Damages suffered by the plaintiff 2. Fault or negligence of the defendant 3. Casual connection between the fault or negligence of the defendant‘s act and the damages incurred by the plaintiff (Andamo vs IAC, 191 SCRA 426, ’96) Article 2176 of the Civil Code applies when there‘s no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. However, the supreme court held that even if there is contractual relation, there will still be quasi-delict since ―the act that break the contract may be also be tort‖, in cases of Air France vs Carrascaso, 18 SCRA 155; Singson vs BPI, 23 SCRA 1117, ’63; and Fabre Jr vs CA, 259 SCRA 426 II. Distinctions 1. a. Fault signifies voluntary act or omission causing damages to the right of another giving rise to an obligation of the actor to repair such damage. Fault is of two (2) kinds: i. Substantive and independent fault in that there is no pre-existing relation. This is the one referred to Art. 2176 NCC and source of an obligation. It is also known as culpa extra contractual or culpa aquiliana covered by Art. 2176 NCC. ii. Fault as an incident in the performance of an obligation existing – is known as contractual fault or culpa contractual governed by Art. 1170-73 of NCC.
b. Negligence consist in the omission to do certain acts which result to the damage to another. 2. As to Intennt to cause damage to another thru an act or omission: a. It is culpa absence such intent, the actor‘s liability is civil governed by the Civil Code. b. It is dolo presence of such intent and the act or omission becomes crime and the actor‘s civil liability is governed by the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Distinctions – Importance of knowing these distinctions lies in filing the proper cause of action against the tortfessor. The same act or omission which is faulty or negligent causing damage produces civil liability arising from a crime under the Revised Penal Code or create an action for quasi delict or culpa contractual under the Civil Code. Illustrative Case: GSIS vs CA, 308 SCRA 559, ‘99 Facts: NFA National Food Authority – owner of Chevrolet truck insured by GSISCMVLI. Victor Uy – owner of Toyota Tamaraw used as PU insured by Mabuhay Ins and Guarrantee – CMVLI. On May 9, 1979 at Tabon-Tabon, Butuan City, the two vehicles collided resulting to death and injuries to passengers of the Tamaraw and total wreck of the Tamaraw. 3 cases were filed.
(1) Civil Case No. 2196 for quasi-delict filed by UY vs NFA & GSIS – recover damage to property. Won (2) Civil Case No. 2225 for culpa contractual filed by injured passenger Taer vs Victor Uy and Mabuhay. Won. (3) Civil Case No. 2256 for quasi-delict NFA and driver Corbeta, GSIS vs Victor Uy for culpa contractual and Mabuhay.
(Note: no criminal action was filed although it may be done had any of the injured parties minded to. The action against the Insurers GSIS and Mabuhay are based on the insurance contract of CMVLI whereby passengers injured have the right to sue directly the insurers) 3. Distinctions between Crimes and Culpa Aquiliana: Crimes: 1. Crimes affected the public interest.
2. Penal law punishes/ corrects the criminal act. 3. Only acts covered by Penal Law are punished (Barredo vs Garcia, 73 Phil 607; J. Bocobo, 1940 : Taxi c lied with Carretela) 4. Guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt. 5. Reservation to file separate civil action. No reservation, civil action is impliedly instituted in the criminal action. 6. Employer‘s liability is subsidiary. Culpa Aquiliana: 1. Only private concern. 2. Repairs the damage by indemnification. 3. Covers all acts that are faulty or negligent. 4. Preponderance of evidence. 5. No reservation – it‘s independent from crime. 6. Employer‘s liability is solidary (Fabre Jr. vs CA, 259 SCRA 426) Culpa Contractual (i) Pre-existing obligation between the parties (ii) Fault or negligence is incidental to the performance of the obligation (iii) Defense of having exercised diligence of a good father of a family is not available, just like in criminal action. Applied doctrine of Respondent Superior, or Master and Servant Rule. The result in the criminal case, whether acquittal, or conviction is irrelevant in the independent civil action under the Civil Code (JBL Reyes: Dionisio vs Alyendia, 102 Phil 443, ‘57, cited in Mckee vs IAC, 211 SCRA 536) unless acquittal is based on the court‘s declaration that the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist, hence the dismissal of criminal action carries with the extinction of the civil liability. (Andamo vs IAC, 191 SCRA 204, ‘90 J. Fernan) III. Doctrines/ Principles applied in Quasi-Delict or Tort cases availed of as defenses:
Emergency Rule – one who suddenly finds himself in a place danger. if he fails not to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be the better method. whereby such person suffers injury. Held: The proximate cause of the accident was his negligence of Raynera who was traveling behind the cargo truck.M. unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man. 327 SCRA 688 . unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. is not guilty of negligence. (Mckee vs IAC. and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand. guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs. Austria vs CA. Raynera vs Hicetas. produce the injury and without which the result would have not occurred. Raynera died. would do. Cases: to illustrate the exception expressed in ―unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence‖. 211 SCRA 517. in the natural and continuous sequence. The failure to observe for the protection of the interest of another person. and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger. 306 SCRA 102 Facts: At 2:00 A. ‘88. citing Black Law Dictionary and Judge Cooley: J. Reynera was driving his motorcycle fast and bump a cargo truck he is tailing. He had the responsibility of avoiding bumping the vehicle in front of him and who has control of the situation. that degree of care. 165 SCRA 378.1. precaution. The cargo truck rear was fully lighted. ‘92. Proximate cause is that cause which. (Gan vs CA.. Davide Jr) 2. or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. cited in McKee case) McKee vs IAC: Facts: Two boys suddenly darted before McKee‘s car forcing McKee to swerve the car to avoid hitting the boys and in the process entered into the opposite lane and collided with the oncoming cargo truck in the opposite lane.
2 days before the wedding V left for home in Mindanao and never heard again.Facts: Austria driving her car very fast bumped a cargo truck improperly parked along the road. give everyone his due. 1954. 229 SCRA 386 ‘94 Anesthesiologist was convicted for negligence for the death of a child who died a day after operation for appendicitis. Held: the mere breach of promise of marry is not an accionable wrong. 21 NCC. contrary to law. gave and overdose of anesthesia and arbritary administration of Nubian (pain killer) without examination of patient‘s weight which caused a heart attact. reception contracted etc. act with justice. The physician did not make an intensive preparation such as administration of antibiotics. Tortfeasor or Wrongdoer = Person acting with fault or negligence causing damage to another is obliged to pay for the damages done (Art 2176 NCC) Liability for one’s act of fault or negligence Case: Dr Carillo va People. and observe honesty and good faith (Art 19 NCC)Every person who. shall indemnify the latter for the same (Art 20 NCC) and any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. willfully or negligently causes damages to another. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage (Art 21 NCC) Wassmer vs Velez. . She had the last clear chance but failed to take steps to avoid hitting the cargo truck because she had no opportunity to do so. in the exercise with his rights and in the performance of his duty. but to formally set a wedding and go thru rites in preparing and publishing incurring expenses is palpably and unjustly contrary to good customs for which the defendant is answerable in damages under Art. Invitations were distributed to relatives and friends. Held: Proximate cause of collision is Austria‘s driving recklessly such that he had no chance to avoid the collision which was of her own making. Wedding dresses purchased. Persons Liable for Quasi Delict: Culpa Aquiliana: Tort Every person must. 12 SCRA 648 – Contrary to Good Customs Facts: W and V set their wedding for Sept 4.
educate and instruct them. disciplining and instructing their children. if dead or incapacitated. and grand the right to correcting punish with moderation. In this jurisdiction the parent‘s liability is vested by law (NCC and FC) which assumes that when a minor or unemancipated child living with their . The Basis of the civil liability which is primary-direct and solidary imposed by law is the necessary consequence of parental authority exercise over their children. Violation or remission of duty arising from such relationship makes them liable for damages caused by other person under their care or charge. ’96 . July 5. However a civil suit was filed against the boy‘s parent. (ibid) Art 221. control or influence. keep them company.a surgeon left a piece of rubber in the woman‘s uterus in caesarian operation Person Vicariously Liable for Acts of Others (Art 2180) The basis of vicarious liability is responsibility of a person over other persons under their legal authority. Held: The Anglo-American Tort Principle of parental liability is a specie of Vicarious Liability. Family Code provides that parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the act or omission or their unemancipated children living in their company and under parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. also known as Imputed Liability. This liability is made natural as logical consequences of the duties and responsibilities of parents exercising parental authority which includes controlling. This authority imposed a duty upon parents to support them. Case: Tamagro vs CA. 1. Parent – father. mother are responsible for damages caused by minor children living in their company (Art 2180 NCC) 2. 101 Phil 843) to prevent damage. The boy was acquitted in the criminal suit for having acted without discernment. Guardians – are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated person who are under their authority and live in their company.Case: Batiquin vs CA. The parents are relieved of this liability only upon proof that they have exercise the diligence of a good father of a family (Exconde vs Capuno. 209 SCRA 519 Facts: a 10 year old boy shot and air gun a girl resulting to her death.
parent. A presumption which muris tantum. Note in this case the boy was adopted but it was the natural parent who were held liable as they the actual physical custody of the boy at the time of the shooting. Teachers or Heads of school of arts and trade (non-academic) are liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices remaining under custody (Art 2180 NCC) Exconde vs Capuno. the parents are presumed negligent in the performance of their duty to supervice the children under their custody. commits a tortuous act. He took over the wheel and driving recklessly caused the vehicle to turn over resulting to death of two passengers. The adoption was approved only after the shooting although the adoption proceeding was filed before the shooting and in between the time the adaptor was abroad. Case: Cuadra vs Monfort. not juris es de jure. Where the minor or insane person causing damage to others has no parent or guardian/ the minor or insane person‘s property shall answer the damage caused. 201 Phil 843 Facts: 15 year old elementary student after attending Rizal Day Parade boarded a jeep on the way home. Parent not held liable. 35 SCRA 160 Facts: Grade 6 pupil Maria C and Maria M were assigned by teacher to weed the grass in the school premises. M found a plastic headband which she aloud she found an earthworm and tossed it to C hitting the latter right eyes resulting to loss of said eye. Held: Upon being found guilty of double homicide with reckless imprudence filed against him. a separate civil action was filed whereby the father was hold solidarily . It was not shown that the parent could have prevented the damage as their child was in school and they have the right to expect their child to be under the care and supervision of the teacher. Held: The underlying basis of the liability imposed by Art 2176 is the fault or negligence accompanying the act or omission there being no willfulness or intent to cause damage thereby and in Art 2180 providing vicarious liability of parent although primarily. Beside the act was an innocent prank and unusual among children at play and which no parent could have any special reason to anticipate much less guard against. rebuttable-overcome by proof having exercised and observed all the diligence of a good father of a family (diligentissimi patris familias). (Art 2182) 3.
Palisoc vs Brillantes. Teachers are liable for acts of their student except where the school is technical in nature (arts and trade establishment) in which case the head thereof shall be answerable. 1960 Facts: A student of Lourdes Catholic School in QC during recess cut a classmate with razor blade. principal. Amadora vs CA 160 SCRA 315. Parent was held to be liable. Cruz Facts: It was summer of 1972 Alfredo Amadora about to graduate at the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletes was shot to death by his classmate Pablito Daffon. Held: Art 2180 NCC applies to all schools. Held: The school is being non-academic (arts and trade). 108 Phil 414. academic or non-academic. The school head was held no liable being academic school. whether the semester has not ended. Parent of the injured student sued the culprit for damages. The teacher in charge is the one designated by the dean. or other administrative superior to exercise supervision over the pupils or students in the specific classes or sections to which they . ―There is really no substantial difference distinction between the academic and nonacademic schools in so far as torts committed by their students are concerned. The term ―custody‖ signifies that the student is within the control and influence of the school authorities. 41 SCRA 548. or has ended or has not yet begun. whatever the nature of the school where he is teaching‖. Held: Reiterated Exconda case – school not liable as it was not an establishment of arts and trade (aside from the fact that it was not sued). x x x ― The student is in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its premises. The same vigilance is expected from the teacher over the student under their control and supervision. 1988 J. ―x x x x The distinction no longer obtains at present. Alfredo went to the school to submit his ―Report in Physic‖. the head of the school and teacher in charge were solidarily liable with the assailant. Mercando vs CA.liable for damages under Art 1903 nor Art 2180 NCC. 1971 Facts: A 16 year old student of Manila Technical Institute was killed in a fist fight by a person who was not boarding in the school and of majority age.
they acting in Loco Parentis (in place of parents). Thus. but it may exculpate itself from liability by proof that it had exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. The provision of Art 2180 NCC involved in this case has outlived its purpose. As the teacher was not shown to have been negligent nor the school remised in the discharged of their duties. Basis of teacher‘s vicarious liability is. (Note – the court view on increasing students activism likely causing violence resulting to injuries. they were exonerated of liability. It seems most unfair to hold teacher liable on a presumption juris tantum of negligence for acts of students even under circumstances where strictly speaking there could be no in loco parentis relationship. In any event. for injuries caused by the student. 4. It is not necessary that at the time of the injury. it can only apply the law with its imperfections.are assigned. the state cannot be sued without its consent. the teacher is physically present and in a position to prevent it. Such defense they had taken necessary precautions to prevent the injury complained of and thus be exonerated from liability imposed by Art 2180. (principle of immunity from suit) This ―consent‖ is manifested in legislative acts – enactment of laws making . However the court can suggest that such a law should be amended or repealed. the teacher and not the parent shall be held responsible if the tort was committed within the premises of the school at any time when its authority could be validly exercised over him. Jr concurringly said many student x x x view some teachers as part of the bourgeois and or reactionary group whose advice on behavior deportment and other non-academic matters is not only resented but actively rejected. as such. The state is responsible when it acts thru a special agent but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task is done properly pertains (i. Guttierez.e. function or duty) in which case Art 2176 is applied. However teachers are not expected to have the same measure of responsibility as that imposed on parent for their influence over the child is not equal in degree. the school may be held to answer for the acts of its teacher or the head thereof under the general principle of respondent superior. The court cannot make law. As a general rule. x x x The parent can instill more lasting discipline more lasting disciple on the child than the teacher and so should be held to a greater accountability than the teacher or the head for the tort committed by the child. in or out of the school premises – J.
e.the state suable as in this specific provision of the Civil Code. The modern basis of the principle is that ―immunity from suit is inherent in all sovereign states. Civil Code Art 2180 – state acting thru special agent d. the concept eventually lost is moral force. 2002 Ed Textbook on the Phil Const) The state (Govt) may be sued only with its consent which may be given i. (National Airport . The reason is based on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. Deleon. 327 amended by PD 14445 providing conditions under which the state may be sued b. When the Govt engages in commercial business or enters into a contract. 206 US 349 cited by Hector S. in RA 7160 – LGC of 1991 providing that LGU and their officials are not exempt from liability for death or injury to person or damage to property (Sec 24). b. When the Govt sues to recover money from individual who has claim against it. the latter may set a counterclaim. thru impeachment. RA 7610 – LGC ii. the natural person-king is no longer the state but merely its representative who may be removed by the people. Charters of public corp vesting them with power to sue and be sued. i. it can be sued upon the theory that it has descended to the level of private individual from which it can be implied that its has given its consent to be sued under the contract and thereby divested itself of its sovereign character and its immunity from suits. (Kawananakoa vs Plyblank. expressly – thru duly enacted statutes such as the ff: a. Impliedly as in the ff cases: a. The state – the state may not be sued without its consent. With the development of democratic thoughts and institution. Administrative Code of 1987 c. 16 Phil 534) was originally founded upon an old maxim that ―The King can do no wrong‖ prevailing during the medieval England when the King was generally accepted as the State himself. eg. (Sec 3 Art XVI ‘87 Constitution) This is the doctrine of immunity from suit or principle of non liability (enuciated in the 1910 case of Forbes vs Chuco Tiaco & Crossfield. CA NO.
Garcia driving the agency official pick-up bumped a bicycle ridden by Fontanilla resulting to his death. The state may be sued only thru its Special Agent but not when the damage had been caused by the official to whom properly it pertained to do the act performed (Merritt Fontanilla case. The victim‘s parent filed a . 73 Phil 347) The term State used in Art 2180 NCC refers to the Govt of the Republic of the Philippines defined in Sec 2. 194 SCRA 495 J. commissioned to perform non-governmental function. Public officials with a particular assigned tasks but is specially commissioned to do such task foreign to his usual assigned governmental function. 91 Phil 203. For the proprietary function of the govt may be sued without its consent which is presumed have been given in advance.Corp vs Teodoro. b. ‗89) Facts: Hugo Garcia is a regular employee of National Irrigation Administration (NIA) a govt agency created by its charter RA 3601 amended by PD 552 for the purpose of undertaking integrated irrigation project. Manila Hotel Employees Assn. which included the various arms thru which political authority is made effective in the Phils such as the autonomous regions and the local govt units (province. 1987 Revised Administrative Code as the Corporate Governmental entity thru which the functions of the govts are exercised throughout the Phils. Vs Manila Hotel. municipality and barangay). (b) proprietary or ministrant which is optional (Fontanilla vs Maliaman) The state – for the governmental function – the state can not be sued without its consent. city. A govt commissioning a private person for a special task is acting thru special agent within the meaning of Art 2180 NCC The state assumes the role of an ordinary employer and will be held liable for the special agent‘s torts (Fontanilla vs Malianan. Private person – not a public official. Paras) The functions of govt is classified into (a) governmental or constituent involving exercise of sovereignty and is compulsory. The term does not include agency or instrumentality or other entity which their enabling laws have invested with juridical personality separate and distinct from that of the Republic of the Philippines (Fontanilla vs Maliaman. 194 SCRA 503) Special Agents are of two kinds a.
Held: the state or govt agency performing governmental function may be held liable for tort committed by its employees when it acts thru a special agent. While NIA is a govt agency performing governmental function. NIA appealed raising the issue that as govt agency performing govt function is not liable as being a part of the state. thus consent of the state for NIA to be sued has already given. Victims sued the officers of the Emergency Control Admin. NIA was ordered to pay. . Manila. so that the rule on immunity from suit normally extended to govt agencies performing governmental functions is no longer available to NIA. By waiving that immunity from suit in its charter. 194 SCRA 499) Palafox vs Ilocos Norte Prov. Padilla separate opinion in Fontanilla vs Maliaman Resolution in 1991. (J. Held: The province was not liable because its employee driver at the time of the accident was performing his regular duties and is not a special agent. 81 Phil 453 Facts: A fire broke out in the Emergency Control Administration (a govt office) due to the negligence of its employee in igniting recklessly his cigarette lighter near a drum of gasoline in the office‘s warehouse resulting to destruction of buildings adjoining the warehouse. Thus NIA was held responsible for the negligent act of its employee Garcia who is not a special agent. Republic vs Palacio. however it is suable because its charter provides that it may be sue or be sued. the Govt is not responsible for the damages caused thru such negligence. NIA open itself to suits.civil action against NIA and its driver Garcia who was found guilty of driving recklessly. Held: As ECA or its officers were shown to have acted not as special agent of the govt in storing gasoline in the warehouse. cannot be sued. Rosete vs The Auditor General. 23 SCRA 899 Facts: The Irrigation Service Unit. an office/agency under the Dept of Public Works and Communication was sued for tort and the Sheriff of Manila garnished the deposit of the ISU in the PNB. 102 Phil 1186 Facts: Province‘s truck on its was to the river for gravel and sands to be used in the construction and repair of its road (a governmental function) runs over a pedestrian resulting to the latter‘s death.
streets. (Sec 24. 138 SCRA 63 which ruled that PNR is not immune from suit as it does not exercise sovereignty but purely proprietary – business function) NIA vs IAC. Thus it cannot avail the immunity from suit accorded to govt agencies performing strictly governmental function.Held: The ISU being an office in the govt and its fund is a public fund. (Art 2189) LGU‘s and their official are not exempt from liability for death or injury to persons or damage to property. Civil action was filed against the Municipality. LGU are liable for damages for the death or injuries suffered by any person by reason of defective conditions of roads. Under Art 2180 the state is liable only for tort caused by its special agent. (Malong vs PNR. It is being shown that the ISU was guilty of tort. The deck had an elevated portion (4 inches) which caused a viewer to fall breaking his thigh bone. NIA is liable under Art 2176 NCC as NIA‘s official are not special agent in performing their official assigned duties and functions. 214 SCRA 35. ‘92 Held: Damages caused by the officials of NIA for its negligence in the construction of the canal which caused damages to nearby land. however the sate not its fund is not liable because the ISU was not a special agent. La Union vas Firme. bridges. 167 SCRA 28. ‘91 Facts: Municipal‘s dump truck on way to the Naguilian River to get gravel and sands for the repair of roads (a governmental function) collided with a passenger jeep resulting the death of passenger of the latter vehicle. ‘88 Facts: GAA charges fees for the use of the Airport‘s terrace or viewing deck where one gets a better view of arriving and departing passengers at the airport. CAA raised the defense of being a govt agency subject of immunity from suit. Held: While CAA is a govt agency however it is performing a proprietary functions – business and under its charter it is empowered to sue and be sued. . GAA vs CA. RA 7160 LGC of 1991) Municipality of San Fernando. public building and other public works under their control or supervision. He sued CAA for hospital expenses. 195 SCRA 692.
1987 known as Black Saturday – the Mendiola Massacre of Rallyist who were shot as they march toward Malacañang. Held: The prosecution of a crime is a governmental function. Only the public officers acting tortuously (beyond the scope of their authority) are personally liable because the mantle of immunity from suit accorded to their office is not available for their tortuous acts. only the driver. Judge Sandoval dismiss their suit invoking State‘s immunity from suit. Republic vs Sandoval. Heirs of the dead rallyist sued the Republic and Military Officers and soldiers.Held: Municipalities being agencies of the State. when performing governmental functions enjoy sovereignty and thus immune from suit unless it is shown that they are performing proprietary function. The Municipality‘s driver is not a special agent and so the Municipal is not liable. However. 223 SCRA 11) In this case. the Province or City or Municipality is not liable for tortuous acts of its officers. the state is not liable for the civil liability arising from criminal acts of the military for violating BP Blg 880 which prohibits unnecessary firing in dispensing public assembly. 99 Phil 92 Facts: A governor and a Mayor filed a criminal charge which was dismissed for being groundless. when the Republic is sued by name b. Palma vs Graciano. Held: Instances when the suit against the state a. not a corporation action. The doctrine of immunity from suit will not be applied to the military officers who have acted beyond the scope of their authority because in so doing they are . when the govt perpetrated injustice on the citizen (De los Santos vs IAC. 1993 Facts: Jan 22. 20 SCRA 124. they may be held liable if it can be shown acting thru a special agent. They were sued. when the suit is against an unincorporated govt agency c. when the suit is against a govt officer but the ultimate liability will fall on the state and not on the officer d. In the discharged thereof.
De los Santos vs IAC. b. The doctrine of immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for the perpetration of injustice on its citizens. Owner and Manager of establishment or enterprises are liable for damage caused by their employees in the service of employment or on the occasion of their functions. Employer of household helper though not engaged in any business or industry are liable for damages caused by helper acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. Employers: Master a. . This is known as doctrine of immunity from suit which is very essence of sovereignty. or perpetrate injustice to its citizen. The state‘s consent is manifested expressly in the form its legislative enactments of statues (Art 2180 NCC. It is expressed in the constitution that the state cannot be sued without its consent (Sec 3. The civil action may be based under Art 32 NCC and the constitutional provisions on rights against privation of property without due process of law and without just compensation. or when the sate itself sues. Romero) Resume on State’s liability for tort The state is liable fro the tortuous acts only of its special agent but not of its public officials in the performance of their assigned usual duties and functions who are liable under Art 2176 NCC and not Art 2180 NCC Rationale: there can be no legal rights as against the authority that grants such rights. Held: when a govt thru its agency takes away private property without going to legal process of expropriation and paying just compensation. Act No 3083 relating money claims arising from contract) and impliedly when the state enters into contract in its proprietary or private capacity. Sec 24 LGC of 1991. 5. a suit may be properly maintained against the govt.deemed to ceased to be a public officers but a private person liable like any other private persons for doing wrongful acts. opens itself to counterclaim. 223 SCRA 11. (J. ‘93 Facts: Min of Public works while carrying on its project of constructing roads and creeks took over the portion of privately owned land without or against the consent of the owner who sued. Immunity from suit was invoked. Art XVI).
Case: Phil Rabbit Bus Lines Inc vs Phil Am Forwarder. 221 SCRA 389 Facts: Gas station proprietor was sued for selling adulterated gas with water.overcome or rebutted by proof that they have observed and exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family (diligantissimi bonus fater familias). The relationship of employer-employee or master-servant must first be established to exist before the employer/master will be held liable. Held: Phil Shell is not liable because Feliciano was not its employee. The theory is deduced from the last par of Art 2180 NCC providing the responsibility shall cease upon proof of exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. not employee.Basis of Liability is not ―Respondent Superior (Anglo-American doctrine where the negligence of the employee is conclusively presumed to be the negligence of the employer) but on the relationship of Pater-Familias. 1975 Facts: An action for damages was brought against Phil Am Forwarded and its Manager Balingit for negligent act of their driver. It was shown that Phil Shell has no control over Feliciano who do business of his own. (master-servant) a theory basing the liability of the master ultimately on his own negligence and not that of the servant as manifested in his negligence in the selection of their employee-servant (culpa eligiendo) or in the supervision over their employee-servants (culpa in vigilando). he was just an employee of the company. Feliciano was an independent contractor and not an employee and thus he alone is liable. Case: Cuison vs Norton & Harisson Co. Case: Phil Shell Petroleum Co vs CA. This negligence is prima facie presumption juris tantum. 55 Phil 18 . however. The term ―Manager‖ in Art 2180 is used in the sense of employer. Held: Balingit is not liable because he was just a mere employee though designated as ―Manager‖. Balingit moved to dismiss the action against him for though he was manager. He settled amicably the suit and then Phil Shell for the negligence of Feliciano who was hired in undertaking hydro pressure test in the underground storage tank which was cracked causing water to seep into the tank. used his own tools and worked on his own time charging a fixed lump sum for every piece of work. Mar 25.
one of the company‘s truck was leaded with logs which were not properly tied. Proof of negligence is by mere preponderance of evidence Revised Penal Code 1. 27 Phil 374 Facts: Underwood riding in his car and his driver suddenly turned to the wrong side of the street and hit the plaintiff. The ties were loosened during the trip. Diligence of a good father is not a defense 3. On the day of the accident. Employer is liable even if not engaged in business 4. becomes himself responsible for such acts. Owners of Motor vehicle (Art 2184) a. Distinction of employer’s liability under Art 2180 NCC and Revised Penal Code. Direct and primary – solidary.Facts: Ora was employed by defendant company charged in directing and controlling transport business of the Co. the latter is responsible for the negligence in the loading of logs which caused the death of the boy. Driver was negligent. Owner is not in the motor vehicle with the driver is subsidiary liable Case: Chapman vs Underwood. Owner is in the motor vehicle is solidary liable with his driver b. Must prove employer is engaged in business 4. Subsidiary – arising after the employee‘s guilt 2. Was the owner liable too? Held: Where the owner had reasonable opportunity to observe his driver and to direct the latter to cease there from. Held: Ora beingan employee of the company. On the other . Civil Code 1. Defense of exercise of diligence of a good father of the family to be relieve of liability 3. They stopped to rearrange the ties but before they could do so a child passing beside the truck was hit by a log falling from the truck. employer is sue even without suing the employee 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt of evidence 5.
a deed of sale executed by ―Equitable‖ in favor of Lim who had not registered the sale with the LTO. Sept 5. 26 SCRA 419 Facts: Yu was riding in his Cadillac driven by Bernardo saw a carratela about 8 meters away. however. The owner of record is the employer of the driver while the actual owner is considered as merely its agent. The theory is that ultimately the negligence of the servant. Case: Equitable Leasing Corp vs Suyom. the registered owner is the lawful operator insofar as the public and third persons are concerned. the owner is not responsible. The time element was such that there was not reasonable opportunity for Yu to assess the danger involved and warn the driver accordingly. it rammed into a house causing death and injuries and damages. 2002 Facts: ―Equitable‖ sold to Lim a Fuso tractor. Caedo vs Tu Khe Thai. ——————————————————————————————————————— ——————————————- . he could not anticipated his driver‘s sudden decision to pass the carretela. Was Yu liable? Held: The basis of the master/employer‘s liability in civil law is not respondent superior but rather the relationship of Pater Familias. Instead of slowing down veered to the left to overtake and in so doing the car hit the carratella‘s left wheel and skidded obliquely hitting the on coming car of Caedo who despite slackened speed to avoid the collision was hit resulting to the injuries of Caedo and his passengers. by sudden act of negligence and without opportunity to prevent the acts or its continuance. Yu‘s driver was negligent. While the tractor was driven by Lim‘s employee. it could not escape primary liability. Since ―Equitable‖ remained the registered owner. Consequently it is directly and primary liable for the consequences of its operation in contemplation of the law.hand. reflects the master‘s negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent the injury or damage (J. if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction. Former owner of Motor Vehicle are liable for the tortuous acts of the new owner. Makalintal) The owner of the car Yu was not liable because he did not see the carretela at a distance. After the sale‘s price was fully paid. Held: This court (SC) has consistently held that regardless of the sales made of motor vehicle. if the driver.
it is damnum absque injuria. Saba vs CA. Ysmael Maritime Corp vs Avelino. (Art 2196 NCC) This makes the Civil Code‘s provisions on damages as the general law. The Civil code‘s provisions on damages are applicable to all obligations arising from (1) Law. which reincorporated some of the Spanish Civil Code and adopted some principles of the American law (Civil code commission report) Damages (Latin – Damnum or Demo = to take away) refers to the harm done and what may be recovered. 99 Phil 1034 – Gov‘t agency terminated contract of agency under its right stipulated in the contract. and (5) Quasi-delicts = tort. (3) Quasi Contracts. There may be damage without injury (damnum absque injuria) and an injury without damages. workmen‘s compensation law-labor code for work connected injury.DAMAGES The law governing damages is found in Art 2195 to 2235. (15 Am Jur 388) De la Rama Steamship vs Tan. Janda vs Lepanto. or for . (Art 2195 NCC) Compensation for workmen and other employees are governed by special law and rules governing damages laid down in other laws shall be observed insofar as are not in conflict with the Civil Code. (2) Contracts. Injury refers to the wrongful or unlawful or tortuous act. NCC. Damages is the measure of recovery while injury is the legal wrong to be redressed. 151 SCRA 333 Held: The heirs of the deceased seaman have the choice of availing remedy to recover damages. although the agent suffered damages. 1956 – in compliance with the law (RA 529) purchaser of shares of stock pain in pesos despite agreement to pay in dollar because at the time the law declared stipulation as void to pay in currency other than pesos. 189 SCRA 50 – restated the doctrine of Qui Jure Suo Utitur Nullum Damnum = one who exercise his right does no injury and if damage result. (4) Delicts – crimes. Injury of loss arises from the violation if legal right while damages refer to money or pecuniary compensation which the law impose or awarded for the injury done. 99 Phil 197. The case made the distinction between damage and injury.
Liquidated 6. 2. 136 SCRA 141 – case of miners who died in a cave-in. Temperate or moderate 5. namely 1. . they are no longer free to avail the other. Moral 3. Nominal 4. Damages incapable of pecuniary estimation for which no proof is needed and the assessment is left to discretion of the court. (Art 2177 NCC) The acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case. Actual or compensatory 2. unless the acquittal is declared that the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist which extinguished the criminal liability and the civil liability. or (b) Civil liability arising from culpa extra-contractual or quasi delict or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code and (c) civil liability arising from culpa contractual or breach of contract. (Andamo vs IAC. once they pursue one. (Cited Florensca vs Phil Ex. B.tort under the Civil Code for negligence of the employer. namely (1) criminal liability and (2) civil liability which in turn may be (a) a Civil Liability arising from a crime under the Revised Penal Code. However. (Art 2216) Damages: For the same faulty or negligent act or omission causing damages it may produce multiple liabilities. Damages capable of pecuniary computation – estimable which must be duly established or proven as in actual or compensatory damages and loss of property lost of earning capacity. Kinds of Damages There are 6 kinds of damages. However the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission. The liability arising from culpa aquiliana is entirely separate and distinct the civil liability arising from a crime. Exemplary or corrective General Classification of damages 1.
Held: Ship owner is liable for moral damages for the physical suffering and mental anguish caused to Radio Officer. temperate. reckless or wanton manner in contracts or quasi contract case. Temperate Damages D. F. 2230 NCC). Vs NLRC. the ship proceeded with the voyage and reached the Phil in 10 days and yet the sick radio officer was not immediately taken to hospital for medical treatment. Defendant acted with fraudulent. Condition for the award (Art 2234 NCC) Plaintiff must prove that he is entitled to the following: A. Moral Damages C. Presence of aggravating circumstance in the commission of criminal offense – as a part of civil liability. Despite notice thereof by the ship‘s captain. (Art 2233) and any stipulation renouncing in advance such damages shall be null and void. Compensatory Damages B. oppressive. (Art. This court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated. liquidated or compensatory damages (Art 2229 NCC). malevolent.000 in moral damages is proper. German Marine Agencies Inc. (Art 2232 NCC) E. Defendant acted with gross negligence in quasi-delicts. As the fact of negligence of the ship‘s captain was not only shown to have existed but it was deliberately perpetrated by the arbitrary refusal to commit the ailing radio officer . (Virata vs Ochoa. (Art 2234 NCC). 81 SCRA 472).191 SCRA 204) The aggrieved party has the option to choose which of the actions that may be filed because double recovery or damages is prohibited. in addition to the moral. P50. Exemplary or corrective damages These are damages imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. This damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right. 350 SCRA 641 Facts: The ship radio officer was taken ill while the ship was in New Zealand.
2003 Facts: C sold a lot on installments to A. and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiffs for any loss suffered by him. to a nominal damages. Nominal Damages (Art 2221 NCC) These are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff which has been violated or invaded by the defendant. and despite of demands. 350 SCRA 446. may be vindicated or recognized. ‘01) Atty‘s fees may be recovered when exemplary damages are awarded. Held: The vendor C has the right to the unpaid balance to the lot sold to A who violated such right when he refused to pay.to a hospital in New Zealand or at the nearest port resulting to his permanent partial disability. (ventanilla vs Centeno. the award of exemplary damages for P50. Nominal Damages are merely for the vindication of a right that has been violated. A refused to pay the unpaid balance of the purchase price owing to C. Case of a lawyer who was negligent in filing appeal time tho he was not liable for actual damages. . both the drawee and collection banks were negligent in failing to select and supervise their employees resulting to the encashment of the check to the syndicate instead of the rightful person. A last sold the same to another. (People vs Agustin.000 is adequate and reasonable. Jan 28. The rationale behind the exemplary damages is to provide an example or correction for public good and not to enrich the victim. In this case. In this case the awarding of the exemplary damages is to serve a correction as well as an example for ship owners to look after the welfare of their employees first to that of their customers-cargo-owner. (Coca cola bottlers Phil vs Roque. C is entitled. 61). Jan 13. 350 SCRA 216. For this. Almeda vs Carino. 305 SCRA 215) PCIB vs CA. aside from the payment of the unpaid balance. not for indemnification of the losses suffered. ’01 Held: Banks are liable for tortuous act of its officers an employee within the course or scope of thei employment.
22 SCRA 836) These damages. While proofs is not needed. The checks were dishonored despite of the sufficiency of fund to cover the checks. 3 2002. be proved with certainty. is sufficient to support an award of nominal damages. When granted by the courts. So long as there s a showing of a violation of a right of the plaintiff. Its award is thus not for the purpose of indemnification for a loss but for the recognition and vindication of a right. Kinds of Damages: General classification 2. however. Thus a sued the bank. Held: While A may not be able to prove the profit he would have net had the jewelry transaction been pushed thru. Damages incapable of pecuniary estimation. they are treated not as an equivalent of a wrong inflicted but simply a recognition of the existence of a technical injury. 2224 NCC) These are damages which are more than nominal but less compensatory damage which may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount can not. A violation of the plaintiff‘s right. his claim for temperate damages is justified. from the nature of the case. The bank apologized for the errors of its employee. an award of nominal damages is proper. even if only technical. Temperate or Moderate Damages (Art. temperate damages and exemplary or corrective damages.Nominal Damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right and not for indemnifying the plaintiff for the loss suffered. Held: Either Temperate or nominal damages could be awarded. nominal damages. Sept. (Malonzo vs Galang. Facts: PT&T breached its contract in failing to remit money order sent by plaintiff on time. Phil Telegraph and Telephone Corp vs CA. . similar incidents subsequently occurred. 40 SCRA 144 Facts: A issued checks in payment of jewels purchased. Raagas vs Traja. 100 Phil 16. Again. it is essential that the complainant must satisfactorily show the existence of the factual basis of the damage (Art 2217) and its casual connection to the defendant‘s wrongful acts. B. However the latter failed to prove actual damages and that PT&T was in bad faith. Araneta vs Bank of America.
Held: Employer‘s liability is made clear under Art 2180 and under Art 2177 is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under Revised Penal Code. On the other hand.The principles of the general law on damages are adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Civil Code (Art 2198). thus culpa extra contractual. on the principle that where . Cardena and heirs of Elizondo sued the Bus operator whose driver was found negligent. Thus actual pecuniary compensation is the indemnity for his loss and to be placed as near as may be in condition which he would have occupied had he not suffered the injury complained of. the defendant shall not be liable for damages more than the actual loss which he has inflicted by his wrong. The defendant bus operator contended that it was premature to proceed with the civil case pending final resolution of the criminal case against their driver. the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission. If the plaintiff recovers from the defendant under the civil code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission. he cannot recover damage from the same defendant under Revised Penal Code on the premise that person criminally liable is also civilly liable. 64 SCRA 427 Facts: Bus collided with a car driven by Reyes resulting to death of Reyes and injuries to his passengers Cardena. Culpa aquiliana is an independent source of obligation between two persons not formerly bound by any juridical tie. Only proximate. Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co vs CA. damages are recoverable. (Rakes vs AGP Co. NCC. While the same faulty or negligent act or omission may give rise to multiplicity of suits. 7 Phil 359) The civil liability under quasi delict is contracted without agreement or consent. (Manressa) It is not required that the injured party should not seek out a third person crimirnally liable whose prosecution must be a condition precedent to the enforcement of the civil right. however under Art 2177. The fundamental principle of law of damages is that one injured by a breach of contract or by the negligent act or omission shall have fair and just compensation commensurate with the loss sustained in the consequence of the defendant‘s act which give to the action. not remote.
117 SCRA 741) Calalas vs CA. Neither is the defense of caso fortuitous where it is attended to by negligence . In this case the ruling in Calamas vs Salvas is not binding in the case of Sunga vs Calalas. 26. 2000 Facts: Calalas‘ jeep was improperly parked with its rear portion protruding from the board shoulder of the road (violation of LTTC). NCC. Calalas sued Salvas – Tort Held: While moral damages are not recoverable in actions for breach of contract for it is not one of the items enumerated in Art 2219.harm. however. the exception is in the cases of mishap resulting to the death or injury of passenger unddder Art 1764 in relation to Art 2206 (3) NCC and in cases in which the carrier is guilty of fraud or in bad faith. 38 Phil 768) MORAL DAMAGES 4. 32 to 35 c. loss or damage has been caused to a person thru fault or negligent act the aggrieve party is entitled to be indemnified. Arts and actions referred in Articles on human relation – 21. Francisco vs GSIS. Thought both cases has the same issue of negligence. Breaches of contracts where the defendant acted with fraudulently or in bad faith. Willful injury to property committed maliciously or fraudulently (Art 2220. Passenger Sunga who was sited on wooden stool as extended seat alighted to give way to another passenger alighting from the inside and in the process he was bumped by an overtaking truck owned by Salinas. (Breach of contract and tort) Defense of proximate cause is not available in breach of contract of carriage: only in tort cases. each is distinct and separate from the other. Cases where Moral Damages may be recovered or Awarded a. Mar 30. (Cangco vs MRR. (Art 2220) Breaches of contract of carriage resulting to death or injury of passengers (Art 1764 in relation to Art 2206 (3) Phil Rabbit bus lines inc vs Easguerra. Res Judicata does not apply because Sunga is not a party to the tort case where Salva was found at fault and liable to Calalas. Sunga sued Calalas – breach of carriage. 332 SCRA 356. to 30. ‘63) d. however. Acts mentioned in Art 309 – disrespect to the dead or wrongful interference with funeral b.
(Equitable Leasing Corp vs Suyom et al. They are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means. Moral damages cannot be award in the absence of any injury or factual basis. 2001) 3. diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by reason of the defendant‘s culpable action. moral shock.all of which can not be suffered by artificial person. Thought incapable of pecuniary computation. Conditions to recover moral damages – while no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order to recover and the assessment is left to the discretion of the court (Art 2216 NCC). mental anguish. not to impose a penalty in the wrongdoer. Inc. wounded feelings ad similar injury. it cannot experience physical suffering and mental anguish. and similar injury. Sept 5. sorrows and grief of life. ‘02) Corporation are not entitled to moral damages because an artificial person existing only in legal contemplation-legal fiction. 292 SCRA 304. social humiliation. Mar 16 ‘87) 2. but are designed to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical suffering. no senses and therefore. serious anxiety. have no feelings no emotions. wounded feelings. fright. Nov 21. 349 SCRA 292. mental anguish. ‘98) MORAL DAMAGES. However. There must be pleading and proof of moral suffering. This is so because moral damages are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered. serious anxiety. (J. Moral damages are not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of the defendant. freight. factual basis for the award which is the injury or wrong doing of the defendant . Prudencio vs Alliance Transport. Arts 2217 to 2220. etc. (2217) Moral damages are not punitive in nature. NCC 1. dismirched reputation. fright. (National Power Corp vs Phil Brothers Oceanio. (Brent Hospital Inc vs NLRC.Moral damages include physical suffering. People vs Aguilar. ‘98. mental anguish. the complainant must satisfactory show the ff: a. Concept . Paraz.which in Calalas case were overloading and parking improrely which are vioation of tle LTTC. it may recover if they are the proximate result of the defendant‘s wrongful act or omission.
Adultery and concubinage d. Illegal search f.b. victim and parent are entitled e. (Art 19) The elements are the ff: i. give everyone his due. It was designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good and conscience. 39) These provisions provide for specie of Special Torts A. i. Code Commission. physical suffering etc are the proximate result of the defendant‘s wrongful act or omission (2217) c. Seduction and other malicious act. Abduction.e. formulated some basic principles that are to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of social order. 126 SCRA 293) b. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. act with justice. Abuse of rights – every person must. Cases where moral damages may be recovered or awarded (2219) a. casual connection or relation between the actual injury and the wrongful act or omission of the defendant. p. slander or other form of defamation (Art 33) h. and observe honesty and good faith. (Equitable Leasing Corp vs Suyom) 4. (Report. Exercise of such right or duty in bad faith . Rape. Libel. not based in the Spanish Civil Code. Illegal arbitrary detention or arrest g. Quasi-delict causing physical injuries c. Malicious prosecution Obligations and liabilities arising from human relation The civil code‘s provisions dealing on human relation (Chap 2 Preliminary Title) are now. There must be a legal right or duty ii. the injury. The catch all provisions 1. Criminal offenses resulting to physical injuries (Art 33 NCC and Madeja Caro.
etc). The wedding was set. 34 SCRA 132 Held: under Art 21. Contra Bonus Mores. Wassmer vs Velez. flower girls maid of honor. but thru a clever strategy. The wrong caused to her and her family is contrary to morals etc as contemplated in Art 21. Sanction – Penalty – every person who. Held: No conclusion can be drawn from the fact that defendant. not only deliberately. good customs or public policy. 5 SCRA 200 Defendant is married – separated and correlative of the plaintiff unmarried woman. willfully or negligently causes damages to another. friends. invitations were printed and distributed to relatives. 12 Scra 648 Facts: W & V applied for a license to contract of marriage. reception and other amenities reserved.iii. Prejudices or causes damage to another 2.any person who willfully causes losses or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. contrary to law. the boy left for Mindanao and never returned. But to formally set a wedding and go thru all those preparation and expenses and publicity only to . 24 years of age. Jarencio opined that this provision refers to willful or negligent acts contrary to law not constituting quasi delict or delict) 3. Pe et al vs Pe. Held: The mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for damage (Art 21) Quisimbing vs Icao. They fell in love and had clandestine trust until they disappeared. Wedding dresses purchased (bridal. Defendant frequently visited the girl‘s house on the pretext of teaching her how to pray the rosary. for a married man to force a woman not his wife to yield to his lust constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim that entitles her to claim for compensation for the damage caused. (Prof. shall indemnify the latter for the same (Art 20) This reiterated in Art 2176 and 2194 dealing on quasi delicts holding that person are liable for damages caused by their fault or negligence. succeeded in winning the affection and love to the woman to the extent of having illicit relations with her. But before the wedding. Man‘s act is contrary to moral.
Even when an act or event causing damage to another‘s property was not due to the fault or negligent of the defendant. privacy and peace of mind of neighbors and other persons (Art 26) Every person shall respect the dignity. 2. prevention and other relief: (1) Prying into the privacy of another‘s residence: (2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another. the owner of the house occupied by the lawless element found several personal belongings of other left by the fleeing outlaws. The following and similar acts. When the Govt forces came driving the lawless elements and restoring peace and order. While A was not at fault however he was benefited when his cattle were saved from the flood aside from being well fed.walk out is contrary to good custom for which defendant is held answerable for damages under Art 21. See Arts 2142 and 2143 C. privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The person owning those personal belonging taken by the outlaws have the right to recover them from the finder under Art 22. Every Person thru an act or performance by another or any other means. Unjust enrichment 1. a flood drive his cattle to the cultivated highland of B. A community was raised by lawless elements and took personal belongings of the helpless residents. shall produce a cause of action for damages. acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground shall return the same to him (Art 22). personality. . the latter shall be liable for indemnity if thru the act or event he was benefited (Art 23) Illustration given by the Code Commission Without A‘s knowledge. personality. Violation of dignity. B. It is butt right and equitable that A should indemnify B for the loss of his crop. though they may not constitute a criminal offense. Otherwise the injured party B would be unjustly enriched at the expense of the party who received the benefit. A‘s cattle were saved but B‘s crop were destroyed because they were eaten by the cattle.
Action dismissed. lowly station in life. Held: The fiscal of absolving the Governor upon finding no sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case is not refusal without just cause to perform his official duty to file the complaint for libel. intimidation. without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. Zulueta vs Nicolas. Acquittal in criminal case on the ground that guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. or other personal condition.(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends. After investigation the Fiscal absolved the Governor on the ground that there was no prima facie evidence for filing the libel complaint. to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against he latter. (Art 28) F. and having control of the prosecution of a criminal case. Worst is some public officials/ employee took advantage of their position. D. This provision was designed to redress complaints of the people that in dealing with public officials and employees that they are not properly attended to while those who are rich influential and powerful are given prompt and even servile attention. physical defect. 102 Phil 844 Facts: Z filed a complaint against the Governor of Rizal for libel. The fiscal is vested with authority and discretion to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to justify the filing of an action. (Art 29) . oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage. deceit. without just cause. Dereliction of official duty by public official (Art 27) Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects. Z then filed a civil action against under Art 27 NCC. A civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted and such action requires only preponderance of evidence. the fiscal cannot be subjected to direction from the offended party. E. expectly or demand bribe for the performance of their duty which lowered the morals of public service and seriously undermined public confidence of the govt. commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force. machination or any other unjust. Unfair competition in agricultural. (4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs. place of birth.
or that no crime was committed. or because he is justified or exempt from criminal liability. if the acquittal is based on proof that the accused did not commit a crime. However to protect the person from harassment. 98 Phil 286 Held: Acquittal of an accused in Estafa case on the ground that his guilt has not been satisfactorily established is equivalent to one on reasonable doubt and does not preclude filing of civil action for the same act or omission under Art 29 NCC. the law authorizes defendant to file a motion in court requiring the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case complaint should be found malicious. . PNB vs Capiton. However. no civil action may be instituted because the acquittal on those ground constitutes res adjudicate.The rationale for this is provided in Art 2177 NCC which states the responsibility for fault or negligence is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Revised Penal Code but the plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same act or omission.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.