You are on page 1of 10

1

C I V I L L AW ( T O R T S AN D D AM A G E S )
MEMORY AID with CASES
from the Notes of ATTY. EUROPA AND ESPEJO
AND ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001
A. Concept of Quasi-delict An act or omission (not punished by
law, or crime) which causes
damage to another, there being
fault or negligence and there
being
no
pre-existing
contractual
relationship
between the parties (2176)

Vinculu
m
Juri
s

ELEMENTS 1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

act or omission
damage
or injury is caused to
another
fault or negligence is present
there is no pre-existing contractual
relations between the parties
causal connection between damage
done and act/omission (based on
Andamo vs IAC, 191 SCRA 195)

Test of negligence
DID THE DEFENDANT IN DOING THE
NEGLIGENT
AST
USE
THAT
REASONABLE CARE AND CAUTIN
WHICH AN ORDINARY PRUDENT
PERSON WOULD HAVE USED IN THE
SAME SITUATION? IF NOT, THEN HE
IS GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE. (Picart vs
Smith, 37 Phil 809)
Some
doctrines,
principles
and
concepts in determining negligence
and liability:
1.

Res ipsa loquitor


Elements:
a. The accident was of a kind
which does not ordinarily
occur unless someone is
negligent; and
b. That
the
instrument
or
agency which caused the
injury
was
under
the
exclusive control of the
person
charged
with
negligence (Cebu Shipyard
and engineering Works vs
William Lines, May 5,
1999)

Cases where it was applied:


1. Against
the
surgeon
for
a
Caesarean where a piece of rubber
was later found in the womans
uterus and the woman did not
undergo any operation other than
the caesarean (Victoria batiquin
vs CA, July 5, 1996)
2. Against the dry docking and repair
company where fire broke out on
the ship while being repaired
causing the ship to capsize (Cebu
Shipyard supra)
3. Against a sugar company where
one of its trains inside its milling
district was derailed due to missing
fish plates on the railway (Fish

Proof
Nee
ded
Defense
avai
labl
e

Preexis
ting
con
trac
t
Burden
of
pro
of

plates are bars bolted across the


railway to keep the rails together
(Ma-ao Sugar Central Co. vs CA,
CONTRACT
QUASI
DELICT
DELICT
Contract
Negligent act/ Act/omissio
omission
n
(culpa,
commit
impruden
ted by
ce)
means
of dolo
(delibe
rate,
malicio
us, in
bad
faith)
Preponderance Preponderance Proof
of
of
beyond
evidence
evidence
reason
able
doubt
Exercise
of Exercise
of
extraordin
diligence
ary
of
good
diligence
father of a
(in
family in
contract
the
of
selection
carriage),
and
Force
supervisio
Majeure
n
of
employee
s
There is pre- No pre-existing No
preexisting
contract
existin
contract
g
contrac
t
Contractual
party.
Prove the
ff.:
1. existence
of a
contract
2. breach

Victim. Prove
the ff.:
1.damage
2.negligence
3.causal
connection
between
negligence and
damage done

Prosecution.
Accuse
d
is
presum
ed
innoce
nt until
the
contrar
y
is
proved.

August 27, 1990)


4. Gasoline station fire broke out
neighboring houses burned (Africa
vs Caltex 16 SCRA 448)
B.
DISTINGUISHED
FROM
SOURCES OF OBLIGATION:

OTHER

C. CIVIL LIABILITY IN QUASI-DELICT vs.


DELICT
DIFFERENC
E
Liability
of
Employer
Reservation
Requirement

QUASIDELICT
Solidary

DELICT
Subsidiary

Civil aspect of
the
quasidelict
is
impliedly
instituted with

Civil
aspect is
Impliedly
instituted
with

C I V I L L AW ( T O R T S AN D D AM A G E S )
MEMORY AID with CASES
from the Notes of ATTY. EUROPA AND ESPEJO
AND ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001

Effect
of
judgement of
acquittal in a
criminal case
involving
same
act/omission

criminal
action,
but
under
2000
Crimpro Rules
it
is
independent
and separate
Not a bar to
recover
civil
damages
EXCEPT when
judgement
pronounces
that
the
negligence
from
which
damage arise
is non-existent

criminal
action

Not a bar
to recover
civil
damages

2. CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE - the


theory here is that both parties are equally
negligent; the courts will leave them as
they are; there can be no recovery
3. DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE even though a persons own acts may have
placed him in a position of peril and an
injury results, the injured is entitled to
recover if the defendant thru the exercise
of reasonable care and prudence might
have avoided injurious consequences to
the plaintiff. This defense is available only
in an action by the driver or owner of one
vehicle against the driver or owner of the
other vehicle involved.
Elements:
a.

D. WHAT MUST BE PROVED


1.

Negligence - In action for Quasi Delict,


plaintiff must prove negligence of
defendant

b.
c.

Exception:
a.

b.

2.
1.

In cases where negligence is


presumed or imputed by law - this
is only rebuttable/presumption juris
tantum
Principle of res ipsa loquitur (the
thing speaks for itself) - grounded
on the difficulty in proving thru
competent evidence, public policy
considerations

Damage/injury
Causal connection between negligence
and damage (to be actionable)
-Defendants negligence must be the
proximate cause of the injury sustained
by the plaintiff to enable plaintiff to
recover. Thus, if plaintiffs own conduct
is the cause of the injury there can be
no recovery.

If plaintiff's negligence is only contributory


he is considered partly responsible only,
may still recover from defendant but must
be reduced by the courts in proportion to
his own negligence
Concept of proximate cause the
adequate and efficient cause which in the
natural order of events and under the
particular circumstances surrounding the
case, would naturally produce the event
E. DEFENSES:
1. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - the
theory here is that the plaintiff was also
negligent together with the defendant; to
constitute a defense, proximate cause of
injury/damage must be the negligence of
defendant

d.

plaintiff was in a position of


danger by his own negligence
defendant knew of such
position of the plaintiff
defendant had the least
clear chance to avoid the accident
by exercise of ordinary care but
failed to exercise such last clear
chance and
accident
occurred
as
proximate cause of such failure

Who may invoke: plaintif


Inapplicable to:
1. joint tortfeasors
2. defendants concurrently negligent
as against 3rd persons
Some cases where it was applied:
a. Picart vs Smith (37 Phil 809
[1918]) -one bridge, pony and
vehicle. The driver of the vehicle
guided his car towards the plaintiff
closely causing the horse to be
frightened, jumped out the bridge.
b. A jeep plowed a fully stopped truck
(Glan Peoples Lumber and
Hardware vs IAC, 173 SCRA
464)
c. A bank has a last clear chance to
prevent fraud by the simple
expedient of faithfully complying
with the requirements for banks to
ascertain the identity of the
persons transacting with them.
Thus, when a mere pretender was
able to withdraw money from
anothers
account
from
the
defendant bank, the loss should be
borne by the bank sued upon
(Osmundo Canlas vs CA, Feb.
28, 2000)
Not applied when:
a. The party charged is required to act
instantaneously and if the injury
cannot
be
avoided
by
the
application of all means at hand
after the peril or should have been
discovered
(Pantranco
North
Express, Inc. vs Baesa, 179
SCRA 384)

C I V I L L AW ( T O R T S AN D D AM A G E S )
MEMORY AID with CASES
from the Notes of ATTY. EUROPA AND ESPEJO
AND ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001
b.

c.

d.

Without waiting for the dust to


settle, Tano took a sudden left turn
where the victim, who was on the
right place, was hit (LBC Air
Cargo vs CA, 241 SCRA 619)
Isuzu pickkk-up swerved to the left
lane to overtake when the Tamaraw
from the opposite direction only 30
meters
away
had
no
clear
opportunity to avoid the accident
(Rogelio Engada vs CA, June 20,
2003)
Truck parked not parallel to the
street curb, blocking oncoming
traffic, without any early warning
device, the driver is drunk without
any curfew pass, when bumped
could not rely on the doctrine of
last
clear
chance
(Phoenix
Construction vs IAC, 148 SCRA
353 [1987])

4. EMERGENCY RULE one who suddenly


finds himself in a place of danger, and is
required to act without time to consider the
best means that may be adopted to avoid
the impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence, if he adopt what subsequently
and upon reflection may appear to have
been a better method, unless the
emergency in which he finds himself is
brought by his own negligence (McKee vs
IAC, 517 SCRA 55517). Thus, a person is
not expected to exercise the same degree
of care when he is compelled to act
instinctively under a sudden peril because
a person confronted with a sudden
emergency may be left with no time for
thought and must make a speedy decision
upon impulse or instinct.
Applicable only to situations that are
sudden and unexpected such as to
deprive actor of all opportunity for
deliberation
But action must still be judged by the
standard of the ordinary prudent man
Absence of forseeability
5. DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK

Volenti non fit injuria

Intentional exposure to a known danger

One who voluntarily assumed the risk


of an injury from a known danger
cannot recover in an action for
negligence or an injury is incurred

Plaintiffs acceptance of risk (by


law/contract/nature of obligation) has
erased defendants duty so that his
negligence is not a legal wrong

Applies to all known danger

6. DUE DILIGENCE diligence required by


law/contract/depends on circumstances of
persons, places, things
7.
FORTUITOUS
EVENT/
FORCE
MAJEURE- no person shall be responsible
for those events which cannot be foreseen,
or which through forseen were inevitable or
by the acts of nature and of robbers, for
example.
In Yobido vs CA (281 SCRA 1) the Supreme
Court held that to be considered as force
majeure, it is necessary that:
a.
b.
c.

d.

The cause of the breach of the


obligation must be independent of
the human will
The
event
must
be
either
unforeseeable or unavoidable
The ossurrence must be such as to
tender it impossible for the debtor
to fulfill the obligation in a normal
manner; and
The obligor must be free of
participation in , or aggravation of,
i=the injury to the creditor. The
absence of nay of the requisites
mentioned above would prevent
the obligor from being excused
from liability .

Examples of not fortuitous events:


1. Tire blow out (Roberto Juntilla vs
Clemente Fontanar, May 31,
1985)
2. Fire due to a cracked fuel oil tank
(Edgar
Cokaliong
Shipping
Lines
vs
UCPB
General
Insurance Co, June 25, 2003)
3. Delay in flights due to inclement
weather (Singapore Airlines vs
Andion Fernandez, December
10, 2003)
Exception: assumption of risk
8. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA a
principle that involves damage without
injury, therefore no liability is incurred;
there is no legal injury. 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 (BPI Express
Card Corp vs CA, September 25, 1998)
Application in cases:
1. One who use his legal right to on
honest belief does no injury (ABSCBN Broadcasting Corp, vs CA,
January 21, 1999)
2. Those who exercise their rights to
eject when properly done do no
injury (Sps. Anton and Eileen
Lim
vs
Uni-Tan
Marketing
Corporation,
February
20,
2002);
not
applicable
when
demolition has been done despite
his receipt of a TRO (Sergio
Amonoy vs Sps Jose Gutirrez
and Angela Fornilda February
15, 2001)

C I V I L L AW ( T O R T S AN D D AM A G E S )
MEMORY AID with CASES
from the Notes of ATTY. EUROPA AND ESPEJO
AND ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001
3.

4.

Cancellation of an unpaid credit


card is a proper exercise of the
right of a bank (BPI Express Card
Corp vs CA September 25,
1998), or when the credit is
exceeded, suspension of the credit
card by the bank is a proper
exercise of its right (Equitable
Banking
Corp
vs
Jose
T.
Calderon December 14, 2004)
The Philippine Amanah Bank was
not held liable for damages for its
failure to issue a full clearance to
Mamitau Saber considering that the
later had failed to account for over
a million pesos spent on a
pilgrimage fiasco (Mamitua Saber
vs Ca, August 31, 2004)

9. LAW specific provision of law


10. EXERCISE OF DILIGENCE OF GOOD
FATHER OF FAMILY IN SELECTION AND
SUPERVISION OF EMPLOYEES
11. PRESCRIPTION
a. Injury to right of plaintiff/quasi delict
- 4 years
b. Defamation- 1 year
c. When no specific provision, must be
counted from the day they may be brought

j.
k.

F. PERSONS LIABLE FOR QUASI DELICT


1. TORTFEASOR - Whoever by act or
omission causes damage to another,
there being no fault or negligence is
obliged to pay for the damage done
(art 2176).
2. PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE the
obligation
imposed
in
2176
is
demandable not only for ones own act
or omission but also for those persons
for whom one is responsible (art 2180).
VICARIOUS LIABILITY law on imputed
negligence; a person who himself is not
guilty of negligence is made liable for
conduct of another
Reason:
1. public
policy

deeper
pocket/capacity to pay
2. violation of duty on account of
relationship he is negligent
a)

12. PROSCRIPTION AGAINST DOUBLE


RECOVERY - Responsibility for fault or
negligence under quasi-delict is entirely
separate and distinct from civil action
arising from the RPC but plaintiff cannot
recover damages 2x for same act or
omission of the defendant
13. ACT OR OMISSION IS NOT THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGE
The doctrine of proximate cause is
applicable only in actions for quasi-delicts,
not in actions involving breach of contract
(Vicente Calalas vs CA, May 31, 2000)
14. OTHER GROUNDS MOTION TO
DISMISS
a. lack of jurisdiction over person of
defendant
b. lack of jurisdiction over subject
matter
c. venue improperly laid
e. plaintiff has no legal capacity to
sue
f. there is another action pending
between same parties for same
cause
g.
cause of action is
barred by prior judgement
/statute of limitations
h.
pleading
asserting
claim states no cause of
action
i.
claim
set forth in
pleading has been paid,

waived,
abandoned,
extinguished
claim is unenforceable
under the provision of statute
of fraud
condition precedent for
filing claim has not been
complied with

PARENTS - The father, and in case


of his death or incapacity, the mother
are responsible for damage caused
by:
i.
minor children
ii. who live in their company

Note: Father and Mother shall jointly


exercise parental authority over common
children. In case of disagreement, father's
decision shall prevail (art 211).
b)

GUARDIANS - Guardians are liable


for damages caused by the minor or
incapacitated persons who are
i.
under their authority &
ii. live in their company

c)

OWNERS & MANAGERS OF


ESTABLISHMENT/ENTERPRISE
Owners & managers of establishment
or enterprise are responsible for
damages caused by their employees
i. in the service of the branches in
which the latter are employed OR
ii.
in occasion of their function

d)

EMPLOYERS - Employers shall be


liable for damages caused by their
employees & household helpers
i. acting w/in the scope of their
assigned task
ii. even though the former are not
engaged in any business or
industry (unlike in RPC subsidiary
liability of employer attaches in
case of insolvency of employer for

C I V I L L AW ( T O R T S AN D D AM A G E S )
MEMORY AID with CASES
from the Notes of ATTY. EUROPA AND ESPEJO
AND ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001
as long as the employer is engaged
in business/industry)
Defenses available to employers:
i. exercise of due diligence ins election and
supervision of employees
ii.
act/omission was made outside
working hours and in violation of
company's rules and regulations
e)

f)

1. whether or not schools are liable?


Gen rule: schools are not liable as party
defendants
Exception:
a. FC 218 schools are expressly
made liable
b. St. Francis case ruling schools
liability as employer

STATE - The state is responsible


when it acts through a special agent,
but not when the same is caused by
an official to whom task done
properly pertains in which case art
2176 is applicable

c. PSBA case ruling school has


liability based on contract
So that
a) if culprit is a teacher, follow
St. Francis ruling (sue
school as employer)
b) if culprit is a stranger,
follow PSBA ruling (sue
school based on contract)
c) if culprit is a student apply 2180

SCHOOLS,
ADMINISTRATOR,
TEACHER - Teachers or heads of
establishments of arts & trades shall
be liable for damages caused by
their
pupils, students & apprentices
ii. as long as they remain in their
custody

Note:
Family Code, art 218 - The school, its
administration & teachers or the individual,
entity or institution engaged in child care
shall have special parental authority &
responsibility over the minor child under
their supervision, instruction or custody
(authority & responsibility shall apply to all
authorized activities whether inside or
outside the premises or the school, entity
or institution).
Family Code, art 219 - those given the
authority & responsibility shall be solidarily
& principally liable for damages caused by
act/omission of the unemancipated minor;
parents, judicial guardian or person
exercising substitute parental authority
over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
Difference between Articles 218
& 2180
Art
Art 2180
218
School, admin, Teachers, head
teachers
of establishment
engaged
in in
Arts
and
child care are trades are made
made
expressly liable
expressly
liable
Liability
of No such express
school, admin, solidary
nor
teachers
is subsidiary
solidary
and liability is stated
parents
are
made
subsidiary
liable
Students
Students
involved must involved
not
be minor
necessarily
minor
Issues:

2. does 2180 apply to school of arts &


trades only?
No. applies to all including academic
institution per weight of jurisprudence
based on obiter of Justice JBL Reyes in the
Exconde case
3. basis of liability of teacher principle of
loco parentis (stand in place of parents)
Notes:
a.
b.

c.

so long as they remain in their


custody
not literal anymore; before:
boarding & living with teacher due
to peculiar characteristic of trade &
arts school
as long as they are in the
protective, supervisory capacity of
teacher special parental authority

3. PERSONS EXPRESSLY MADE LIABLE


BY LAW (even without fault)
a. POSSESSOR OF AN ANIMAL OR
WHOEVER
MAKES USE OF THEM EVEN IF THE
ANIMAL
IS LOST OR ESCAPED
Except:
1.
Force majeure
2.
Fault
of
the
injured/damaged person
b. OWNER OF MOTOR VEHICLE - In
motor
vehicle mishap, the owner is solidarily
liable with the driver if:
a. he was in the vehicle, and
b. could have through due diligence
prevented the misfortune
c. MANUFACTURERS & PROCESSORS
OF FOODSTUFFS, DRINKS, TOILET

C I V I L L AW ( T O R T S AN D D AM A G E S )
MEMORY AID with CASES
from the Notes of ATTY. EUROPA AND ESPEJO
AND ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001
ARTICLES & SIMILAR GOODS - they are
liable for death and injuries caused by any
noxious or harmful substances used
although no contractual relation exists
between them and the consumers
d. DEFENDANT IN POSSESSION OF
DANGEROUS
WEAPONS
OR
SUBSTANCES, SUCH AS FIREARMS AND
POISON - there is prima facie presumption
of negligence on the part of defendant if
death or injury results from such
possession
Exception:
The possession or use thereof is
indispensable in his occupation or
business
e.
PROVINCES,
CITIES
&
MUNICIPALITIES -shall be liable for
damages for the death or injuries suffered
by any person by reason of the defective
condition of roads, streets, bridges, public
buildings, and other public works under
their control or supervision
f. PROPRIETOR OF BUILDING OR
STRUCTURE - responsible for the damages
resulting from any of the ff.:
a. total or partial collapse of
building
or structure if due to
lack of necessary repairs
b. explosion of machinery which
has not been taken cared of with
due
diligence,
and
the
inflammation
of
explosive
substances which have not been
kept in a safe and adequate place
c. by excessive smoke, which may
be harmful to persons or property
d. by falling of trees situated at or
near highways or lanes, if not
caused by force majeure
e. by emanations from tubes,
canals, sewers or deposits of
infectious
matter,
constructed
without precautions suitable to the
place
g.
ENGINEER,
ARCHITECT
OR
CONTRACTOR - if damage of building or
structure
is
caused
by
defect
in
construction which happens within 15
years from construction; action must be
brought within 10 years from collapse
h. HEAD OF FAMILY THAT LIVES IN A
BUILDING OR PART THEREOF - liable for
damages caused by things thrown or falling
from the same
G. SPECIAL TORTS
Art 19, 20, 21 (catch-all provision)

a. ABUSE OF RIGHTS (Art 19)


ELEMENTS:
i. There is a legal right or duty
ii. Which is exercised in bad faith
iii. For the sole intent of prejudicing or
injuring another
b. GENERAL SANCTION (Art. 20)
- for all other provisions of law which do not
especially provide their own sanction
ELEMENTS:
i. In the exercise of his legal right or
duty
ii. Willfully or negligently causes
damage to another
c. CONTRA BONUS MORES (ART 21)
ELEMENTS:
i. There is an act which is legal
ii. But which is contrary to morals,
good custom, public order or public policy
iii. And it is done with intent to injure
d. UNJUST ENRICHMENT - Arts. 22, 23,
2142 & 2143
e. OSTENTATIOUS DISPLAY OF WEALTH
- Art. 25; thoughtless extravagance for
pleasure or display during a period of
public want or emergency
f. VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF PRIVACY
AND FAMILY RELATIONS
Art 26 - every person shall respect the
dignity, personality, privacy and peace of
mind of his neighbors and other persons.
The ff. acts though they may not constitute
a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of
action for damages, prevention and other
relief:
i. prying into the privacy of another's
residence
ii. meddling with or disturbing the
private life or family relations of
another
iii. intriguing to cause another to be
alienated from his friends
iv. vexing or humiliating another on
account of his religious beliefs, lowly
station in life. Place of birth, physical
defect, or other personal condition
g. DERELICTION OF OFFICIAL DUTY OF
PUBLIC OFFICERS
May be brought by any person
suffering from material or moral loss
because a public servant refuses or
neglects, without just cause to perform his
official duty (art 27).
REQUISITES:
i. defendant is a public officer
charged with the performance of a duty
in favor of the plaintiff

C I V I L L AW ( T O R T S AN D D AM A G E S )
MEMORY AID with CASES
from the Notes of ATTY. EUROPA AND ESPEJO
AND ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001
ii. he refused or neglected without
just cause to perform such duty
(ministerial)
iii. plaintiff sustained material or
moral loss as consequence of such nonperformance
iv. the amount of such damages, if
material
h. UNFAIR COMPETITION - Unfair
competition in agricultural, commercial or
industrial enterprises or in labor through
the use of force, intimidation, deceit.
Machination or other unjust, oppressive or
highhanded method (Art 28)

without

judicial

WHO MAY AVAIL OF REMEDIES


1. Public officers
2. Private persons - if nuisance is
specially injurious to himself; the ff. steps
must be made:
i. demand be first made upon owner or
possessor of the property to abate the
nuisance
ii. that such demand has been rejected
iii. that the abatement be approved by
the district health officer and executed
with the assistance of local police

i. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
ELEMENTS;
i. that the defendant was himself
the prosecutor/ he instigated its
commencement
ii. that it finally terminates in his
acquittal
iii. that in bringing it the
prosecutor acted without probable
cause, and
iv. that he was actuated by legal
malice, that is, by improper and sinister
motive
j.
VIOLATION
OF
RIGHTS
LIBERTIES OF ANOTHER PERSON

3.
Abatement,
proceeding

AND

k. NUISANCE
DEFINITION - any act, omission,
establishment, condition of property, or
anything else which:
1.injures or endangers the health or
safety to others, or
2. annoys or offends the senses, or
3. shocks, defies, or disregards
decency or morality, or
4. obstructs or interferes with the free
passage of any public highway or
streets, or any body of water
5. hinders or impairs use of property
KINDS:
NUISANCE PER SE - denounced
nuisance by common law or by statute

iv. that the value of destruction does


not
exceed P3,000
B. PRIVATE - one that is not included in
the foregoing definition; affect an individual
or a limited number of individuals only
REMEDIES
AGAINST
PRIVATE
NUISANCES
1. Civil action
2. Abatement, without judicial
proceedings
WHO MAY AVAIL OF REMEDIES
(1). Public officers
(2). Private persons - if nuisance is
specially injurious to himself; the ff. steps
must be made:
i. demand be first made upon owner or
possessor of the property to
abate the nuisance
ii. that such demand has been rejected
iii. that the abatement be approved by
the district health officer and executed
with the assistance of local police
iv. that the value of destruction does
not
exceed P3,000

as

NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS - those which


are in their nature not nuisances, but may
become so by reason of their locality,
surroundings, or the manner in which they
may be conducted, managed, etc.
PUBLIC - affects a community or
neighborhood or any considerable number
of persons
REMEDIES
AGAINST
PUBLIC
NUISANCES
A. PUBLIC
1. Prosecution under the RPC or any
local ordinance
2. Civil action

DOCTRINE OF ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE a class of cases within the general rule that
one is liable for the injury resulting to
another from failure to exercise the degree
of
care
commiserate
with
the
circumstances the attractiveness of the
premises
or
of
the
dangerous
instrumentality to children of tender years
is to be considered as an implied invitation,
which takes the children who accepted it
out of the category of a trespasser and
puts them in the category of invitees,
towards whom the owner of the premises
or instrumentality owes the duty of
ordinary care
H. DAMAGES
Kinds of Damages: (MENTAL or LAMENT)
MORAL
EXEMPLARY

C I V I L L AW ( T O R T S AN D D AM A G E S )
MEMORY AID with CASES
from the Notes of ATTY. EUROPA AND ESPEJO
AND ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001
NOMINAL
ACTUAL

TEMPERATE
LIQUIDATED

ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY - adequate
compensation for the value of loss suffered
profits which obligee failed to obtain
Exception:
i. provided by law
ii. by stipulation
Art.
2220.
Indemnification
for
damages shall comprehend not only
the value of the loss suffered, but also
that of the profits which the oblige
failed to obtain.
Under this article of the Civil Code,
indemnification
for
damages
shall
comprehend not only the value of the loss
suffered, or actual damages (DAMNUM
EMERGENS) but also that of the profits
which the oblige failed to obtain, or
compensatory
damages
(LUCRUM
CESSANS).
WHAT MUST BE DONE TO COLLECT
ACTUAL DAMAGES: Plead or allege the
loss
GENERAL DAMAGE - natural, necessary and
logical consequences of a particular
wrongful act which result in injury; need
not be specifically pleaded because the law
itself implies or presumes that they
resulted from the wrongful act
SPECIAL DAMAGES - damages which are
the natural, but not the necessary and
inevitable result of the wrongful act; need
to be pleaded
Pray for the relief that claim for loss be
granted
Prove the loss
WHEN LOSS NEED NOT BE PROVED:
i. Liquidated damages previously agreed
upon; liquidated damages take the place of
actual damages except when additional
damages incurred
ii. If damages other than actual are sought
iii. Loss is presumed (ex: loss if a child or
spouse)
iv. Forfeiture of bonds in favor of the
government for the purpose of promoting
public interest or policy (ex: bond for
temporary stay of alien)
CONTRACTS & QUASI CONTRACTS
Damages in case of Good faith Natural and probable consequence of
breach of obligation, and
Parties have foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen at time obligation was
constituted
Damages in case of bad faith
a. it is sufficient that damages may be
reasonably attributed to the nonperformance of the obligation
CRIMES & QUASI-CRIMES

defendant is liable for all damages that


are natural and probable consequence
of the act/omission complained of

not necessary that damages have been


foreseen
or
could
have
been
reasonably foreseen

VALUE OF LOSS SUFFERED - Destruction


of things, fines or penalties, medical &
hospital bills, attorney's fees, interests,
cost of litigation
Damages recoverable:
i. Medical & Hospital Bills
ii. Loss or impairment of earning
capacity (in case of physical disability)
iii. Damages for death - Minimum
amount: P50,000
iv. Loss of earning capacity unless
deceased
had
permanent
physical
disability not caused by defendant so that
deceased had no earning capacity at time
of death
v. Support, if deceased was obliged to
give support (for period not more than 5
years)
vi. Moral damages
vii. Attorney's fees - as a general rule,
attorney's fees (other than judicial costs)
are not recoverable,
except:
a. stipulation between parties
b. when exemplary damages are
awarded
c. when defendant's act/omission
compelled plaintiff to litigate with 3rd
persons or incur expenses to protect his
interest
d. malicious prosecution
e. clearly unfounded civil action or
proceeding against plaintiff
f. defendant acted in gross &
evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy
plaintiff's just & demandable claim
g. legal support actions
h. recovery of wages of household
helpers, laborers & skilled workers
i. actions for indemnity under
workmen's compensation and employer
liability laws
j. separate civil action to recover
civil liability arising from crime
k. when double judicial costs are
awarded
viii. Judicial costs
ix. Interest - discretionary on part of the
court
b) UNREALIZED PROFITS
earnings
c) Loss of earning capacity

future

The following factors should be considered


in determining the compensable amount of
lost earning:

C I V I L L AW ( T O R T S AN D D AM A G E S )
MEMORY AID with CASES
from the Notes of ATTY. EUROPA AND ESPEJO
AND ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001
i.
ii.

the number of years for which


the
victim
would
have
otherwise lived
the rate of loss sustained by
the heirs of the deceased.

Life expectancy is computed using the


formula
adopted
in
the
American
Expectance Table of Mortality or the
Actuarial Combined Experience Table of
Mortality:
2/3 x (80 age at death).
FORMULA for the award of lost earnings:
In People vs Muyco 331 SCRA 192
(2000):
2/3 [80 age at death] x [gross annual
income 80% (GAI)]
In another case(People vs Pascual,
October 15, 2002), it was:
2/3 [80 age at death] x [gross annual
income 50% (GAI)]
Endreo Magbanua vs Jose Tabusares,
Sr. June 4, 2004, fixed the living expenses
at HALF of the gross income. Thus, Pascual
is the standing rule.
WHEN IS DAMAGES MITIGATED:
1. Contributory negligence
2. In contracts. Quasi-contracts and
quasi-delict
i. plaintiff has contravened the
terms of contract;
ii. plaintiff derived some benefit as
result of contract
3. in case where exemplary damages
are to be awarded, that the defendant
acted upon the advise of counsel
i. that the loss would have
resulted in any event
ii. that since the filing of the
action, the defendant has done his best to
lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury
MORAL DAMAGES is recoverable due
to: (PBMF-MWSS)
Physical suffering
Besmirched reputation
Mental anguish
Fright
Moral shock
Wounded feelings
Social humiliation
Serious anxiety
Notes:
1. Sentimental value of real or personal
property may be considered in adjudicating
moral damages
2. The social and economic/financial
standing of the offender and the offended
party should be taken into consideration in
the computation of moral damages

3. Moral damages is awarded only to


enable the injured party to obtain means,
diversions or amusements that will serve to
alleviate the moral suffering he has
undergone, by reason of defendant's
culpable action and not intended to enrich
a complainant at the expense of defendant
4. Moral damages is awarded only to
persons with nervous system; thus a
corporation cannot claim moral damages.
IN WHAT CASES MAY MORAL DAMAGES
BE
RECOVERED
(enumeration
not
exclusive):
1.Criminal offense resulting in physical
injuries
2. Quasi-delicts causing physical
injuries
3. Seduction, abduction, rape or other
acts of lasciviousness
4. Adultery and concubinage
5. Illegal or arbitrary detention or
arrest
6. Illegal search
7. Libel, slander or other form of
defamation
8. Malicious prosecution
9. Acts mentioned in art 309 of the
RPC relating to disrespect of the dead and
interference with funeral
10. Acts and actions referred to in arts
21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35
The parents of the female
abducted, raped, or abused

seduced,

Spouse, descendants, ascendants and


brother and sisters for acts mentioned in
art 309
Art 2220 - in cases of willful injury to
property or breaches of contract where
defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith
NOMINAL DAMAGES - adjudicated in
order that a right of the plaintiff, which has
been violated or invaded by the defendant,
may be vindicated or recognized, and not
for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff
for any loss suffered by him
ELEMENTS:
i. Plaintiff has a right
ii. Right of plaintiff is violated
iii. Purpose is not to identify but
vindicate or recognize right violated
TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGES more than nominal but less than
compensatory where some pecuniary loss
has been suffered but its amount can't be
proved with certainty due to the nature of
the case
REQUISITES:
i. Some pecuniary loss
ii. Loss is incapable of pecuniary
estimation
iii. Must be reasonable

10

C I V I L L AW ( T O R T S AN D D AM A G E S )
MEMORY AID with CASES
from the Notes of ATTY. EUROPA AND ESPEJO
AND ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2001
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - those agreed
upon by the parties to a contract, to be
paid in case of breach thereof
WHEN LIQUIDATED DAMAGES MAY BE
EQUITABLY REDUCED:
i. iniquitous or unconscionable
ii. partial or irregular performance
EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGE imposed by way example or correction for
the public good, in addition to the moral,
temperate, liquidated to compensatory
damages