You are on page 1of 5

/aamn2015

LECTURE NOTES IN TORTS AND DAMAGES
Under Dean Ed Vincent Albano
 Kinds of Torts
1) Intentional Tort – an act intended to cause damage to another
2) Negligent Tort
3) Strict Liability Tort
 Article 19, NCC (Rule on Abuse of Right); Article 1314, NCC
 E.g. In a contract to sell executed by B in favor of A, where A pays an amount
to B for five years, and on the last day of instalment, B sells the lot to C, then
A can file an action against B for damages.
 Article 1314, NCC – the inducer is liable for damages; interfering with the
contractual relationship of other parties (liability is based on tort)
 Case: Hospicio de San Jose
 Article 21, NCC (acts contra bonus mores) – added to the Civil Code in order
to arrest a void in the law
 E.g. Breach of promise to marry – basically not an actionable wrong; but can
be a reason for an action for damages based on the peculiar circumstances of
the case such as when the plaintiff has incurred big expenses in preparation for
the wedding
 Possible void in the law: where there can be no criminal liability but the act
was contrary to morals, good customs or public policy and thereby caused
damage to another
 Article 2183, NCC – defense against liability is CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE
 Relate to Article 2187; 2193, NCC
 Case: Dayrit vs. CA; Co vs. CA; Air France vs. Carrascoso (there is tort even
if there is a contractual relation; similar with Art. 1314 in inducing another to
violate his contract)
 Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor
 Art. 2176, NCC – covers not only negligent acts but also intentional or
voluntary acts
 Prohibition against recovery of damages TWICE
 Elements: (1) There must be an act or omission that causes DAMAGE – relate
to “damnun absque injuria”; relate to Art. 430, NCC and the owner’s fencing
of his/her property; (2) No pre-existing contractual relationship - case: PSBA
vs. CA; (3) The act or omission is the cause of the damage done
 DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA – violation of a legal right; applicable in
criminal cases involving Art.11, RPC (Justifying Circumstances)
 RES IPSA LOQUITOR – “The thing speaks for itself”; a rule of evidence
rather than of civil law; case: Africa vs. Caltex; Batiquin vs. CA

defense of the employer: diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the employer. CA (force majeure). case: Afialda vs. Domingo vs. merely reduces liability of defendant)  Case: Bataclan vs. vs. case: Palafox vs. CA  Concept of Consequential Damages (possible loss of income/closure). Villanueva RA 6809 amending Article 236. the school is liable for school-administered activities in case of tortuous acts.defense: contributory negligence (not a complete defense. no longer an alternative liability. RA 4136 Article 2189. CA  Fortuitous event must be the proximate and only cause. Transport Co. FC.g. e. Medina  Article 2180. Amadora vs. Filamer Christian Institute  “Registered Owner Rule”. NCC. case: Palisco vs. Tamargo vs. Smith. case: Guilatco vs. the animal must cause damage. NCC – LGU exercising control and supervision State gives consent to be sued either by general law or special law “Manhole cases”.2185. animal causes damage to another)  STRICT LIABILITY TORT . case: Mercury Drug vs. Koh vs. CA  PRIOR RULE: A teacher is liable for damages if the school is a school of arts and trades. serves only to mitigate the liability of owner  Case: Dayrit vs. Brillantes. CA  CURRENT RULE: regardless of the nature of school. Vasquez. not the wholesaler or retailer      . NOW ABANDONED. because the State gives its consent to be sued. CA.case: Picart vs. De Guzman vs. Ilocos Norte. NCC – no longer controlling.. under the Family Code. relate to Art. recourse of registered owner against the buyer is to file a third-party complaint  Case: R. NCC. POSSIBLE DEFENSE: Contributory negligence of plaintiff. fortuitous event in a non-concurrence of the Senate to a treaty  Prohibition against recovery of damages twice (can recover the higher of the two damages/ awards but never both)  Article 2183. Municipality of San Fernando La Union vs. Huang  Case: Castilex Industrial Corp. liability under the Deep Pocket Rule  Case: Delgado vs./aamn2015  DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE . Hisole – present possessor of animal is liable even if the animal gores the owner to death. CA. applies to negligence of banks  Read the following cases: Pilapil vs. parents are now jointly liable for torts caused by their minor children in their custody  See RA 6809 amending the Family Code – parents are liable for torts committed by their children 18-21 years old but still living under their company/ custody. PNB  Employer-Employee Relationship. City of Dagupan Strict Liability Tort – possession of animal. during field trips  State is liable if it acts through a SPECIAL AGENT. manufacturer is liable for defect in goods.

NCC liability of contractor for building defects. Velayo vs.g. 719 -720.g. case: Batara vs./aamn2015  Art. Chin vs. NCC Case: Kim vs. e. violations cannot be criminal acts. an action for damages basedo on Art.. physical injuries Note: BP 22 does not allow reservation for civil action or independent civil action Art. 32. case: Hospicio de San Jose vs. note that the school was held liable even in the absence of employer-employee relationship  Assumption of Risk. CA. People (cash advance in the nature of a loan) Art. 21 – purpose is to arrest a void in the law. NCC – defamation. Shell Co (Phil) GR No. 2175 NCC – no need for reservation of civil action. NCC – constitutional rights enumerated. 33. State: PATER FAMILIAS  Case: Filamer Christian Institute. employers. teachers. defense of diligence of a good father of a family (otherwise. 1956  Art. Lukban Art. 19 – “the catch-all provision of the law”. 19 for one who fails to honor a perfected option contract when he sells the property before the end of the period for exercising the option  Case: Padilla vs. Findlay Miller Timber Co. unjust unrichment  Case: GSIS vs. Nicdao  Article 22. if acquittal is based on the fact that there is no basis of the charge. 7. 2929. Arieta. Boxing Match. NCC – solution indebiti. only needs preponderance of evidence On searches and seizures . but can be subject to independent civil action Art. L-7817 Oct. 32. an action for damages under Art. case: People vs. 26. accused cannot be held civilly liable  Case: Mendoza vs. Teehankee) . NCC) Read Articles 23.case: Villavicencio vs. CA           Finders-Keepers Law (Art. 2190 in relation to Art. Marcos (7 Phil 156/ No. fraud. Dec. baseball game. e. actor is still liable  HUMAN RELATIONS – read in reference to discussions under Persons and Family Relations  Art. different if it concurs with actor’s negligence. 31. 1906)  Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong in itself but if there is an act independent of the breach which causes damage. 1723. may be considered a joint tortfeasor)  Defense of parents. physical injuries (used in its generic sense to include death. 315 RPC allows independent civil action Damages in defamation (libel/slander). accused can still be held civilly liable. 21 of the NCC shall prosper. (2) Fortuitous events (negligent cases) only if it is the proximate and only cause. athlete  Prescriptive Period of four (4) years for filing an action for tort/quasi delict  Volenti Non Fit Injuria – self-inflicted injury  Defenses: (1) Diligence of a good father of family. 34.  Rule 111 (Rules of Court) – if acquittal is beyond reasonable doubt. 33.

e. People vs. at least one aggravating circumstance must be proved. forgery case and probate of will.000.a criminal case may be dismissed based on res judicata (previous decision in a civil case) e. see Art. compensatory damages may be proven by TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE . 50% presumed expenses  case: Mercury Drug vs. multiply life expectancy with the salary/wages of deceased  case: People vs. i.  No reservation. Palparan. insolvent  In a rent-a-car company. presumption – 50% presumed savings. in cases of murder and crimes where the penalty is reclusion perpetua. NCC  Award of damages to corporations  Actual or compensatory damages must be proved  If compensatory damages cannot be proved. receipts (documentary evidence). proof needed. RPC  Prejudicial question. case: Mercado vs. Actual and Compensatory  Actual/Compensatory Damages – need to be proven. PLTB vs. Teehankee  Damages in case of death – General rule: Php 50.000. Carriaga  Moral damages awarded in case of quasi-delict resulting in physical injuries (includes death). Exemplary. case: Cruz vs. in cases of homicide: Php 50. Nominal. 315. Sandiganbayan  SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER (in criminal prosecution against employer) – if employee has insufficient funds to satisfy judgment. Huang. independent civil action is available under Art. temperate damages may still be recovered  Exception to the rule that actual/compensatory damages must be proved by Documentary evidence: if the decedent was not employed or self-employed and earning amount below minimum wage.g. testimonial evidence is not sufficient cannot be based on speculation  Temperate Damages – awarded when a right was violated but there is no means to determine actual damages. 2219. the civil case must be file ahead of the criminal action  Principle of Res Judicata . lessee is not employee  Civil liabilities of the accused involve (1) reparation and (2) restoration  Damages under the Civil Code – MENTAL: Moral. Julian. no independent civil action in violations of BP 22.Php 75. Temperate. according to discretion of court./aamn2015  Physical injuries include death (Civil Code)  In order to get exemplary damages (in murder/homicide).000  LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY: 2/3 x 80 – (age of person at the time of death) = Life Expectancy. Tan (civil case of declaration of nullity of marriage is a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy). case: Victory Liner vs.

in obligations and contracts.g. they have no nervous system to experience wounded feelings. 34 – moral damages may be recovered from a police officer who refuses to extend aid in cases of danger to life and property  Consider the economic and social standing of parties when awarding moral damages  GENERAL RULE: A juridical person cannot be awarded moral damages. in case of excessive penalties. 32 e. in order to recover exemplary damages. violation of freedom of religion – moral damages may be awarded. the court may reduce the amount but may not declare the liquidated amount of damages void. gross negligence must be proven. in criminal cases. refer to the discussions under Property. INC members/employees discarded because of closed-shop agreement  Art. Exception: In cases where the corporation’s name and reputation are besmirched  REMEMBER: In case of quasi-delict. e./aamn2015  More than one (1) aggravating circumstance is required to recover exemplary damages  Art. ** nothing follows** God bless for the Finals! .  With regard to the topic of nuisance. prove the presence of more than one (1) aggravating circumstance.g.