Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
PRELIMINARY MATTERS: *Those in SMALL CAPS (and underlined) were highlighted by Sir Casis during the class. If none are found, just refer to those in bold letters and those in the Notes. Good luck classmates! –torts magic notes team
Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007-
of injuring Worcester, both as a private person and as a government official as the editorial obviously referred to him. Worcester alleged that he was likened to “birds of prey” in the following manner: “Such are the characteristics of the man who is at the same time an eagle who surprises and devours, a vulture who gorges himself on the dead and putrid meats, an owl who affects a petulant omniscience and a vampire who silently sucks the blood of the victim until he leaves it bloodless.” TC: In favor of Worcester; Defendants jointly and severally liable for the P60k total damages. ISSUE: WON the defendants’ individual properties can be made jointly and severally liable for the damages under the civil and commercial codes, HELD: Yes. TC modified. Damages reduced, Santos absolved. The present action is a tort. Universal doctrine: each joint tortfeasor is not only individually liable for the tort in which he participates, but is also jointly liable with his tortfeasors. If several persons commit a tort, the plaintiff or person injured, has his election to sue all or some of the parties jointly, or one of them separately, because the TORT IS IN ITS NATURE A SEPARATE ACT OF EACH INDIVIDUAL. It is not necessary that cooperation should be a direct, corporal act- e.g. assault and battery committed by various persons, under the common law, they are all principals. Under common law, he who aided or counseled, in any way, the commission of a crime, was as much a principal as he who inflicted or committed the actual tort. General Rule: Joint tortfeasors are all the persons who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit. They are each liable as principals, to the
same extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves. Joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for the tort which they commit. Joint tortfeasors are not liable pro rata. The damages can not be apportioned among them, except among themselves. They cannot insist upon an apportionment, for the purpose of each paying an aliquot part. They are jointly and severally liable for the full amount. A payment in full of the damage done by one tortfeasor satisfies any claim which might exist against the others. The release of one of the joint tortfeasors by agreement generally operates to discharge all. The court however may make findings as to which of the alleged joint tortfeasors are liable and which are not, even if they are charged jointly and severally. Art. 2184*. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. *this was drafted with Chapman v. Underwood in mind.
VI. PERSONS LIABLE A. The Tortfeasor
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a) Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904) Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. (n)
CLASS NOTES There can be more than one tortfeasor and they are called JOINT TORTFEASORS Are you suppose to sue all of them? NO because you can get relief from one of them. Do they have to act in concert? NO
CLASS NOTES Sir highlighted that “Tort is in its nature a separate act of each individual” – so no need to sue all of the tortfeasors!
Worcester v. Ocampo February 27, 1912
FACTS: Dean Worcester filed an action to recover damages resulting from an alleged libelous publication against Martin Ocampo, Teodoro M. Kalaw, Lope K. Santos, Fidel A. Reyes, Faustino Aguilar, et al, as the owners, directors, writers, editors and administrators of the daily newspaper “El Renacimiento” (Spanish version) and “Muling Pagsilang” (tagalong version). Worcester alleged that the defendants have been maliciously persecuting and attacking him in the newspapers for a long time and they published an editorial entitled “Birds of Prey” with the malicious intent
Chapman v. Underwood March 28, 1914
FACTS: J.H. Chapman was trying to board a “San Marcelino” car trough the rear platform when he was struck by Mr. James Underwoord’s automobile, which was at that time driven by his chauffer. Underwood’s driver was guilty of negligence because he was passing an oncoming car upon the wrong side when he ran over Chapman. Chapman, was not obliged for his own protection to observe whether a car was coming upon him from where he was because according to the law, no automobile or other vehicle
Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
coming from his left should pass upon his side of the car. TC: In favor of Underwood ISSUE: WON Underwood is responsible for the negligence of his driver. HELD: No. TC affirmed. The interval between unlawful act and the accident was so small as not to be sufficient to charge Underwood with the negligence of the driver. The driver does not fall within the list of persons in Art. 1903 (now 2180) for whose acts Underwood would be responsible. This rule applies even if the owner of the vehicle was present at the time of the accident, unless
THE NEGLIGENT ACTS OF THE DRIVER ARE CONTINUED FOR SUCH A LENGTH OF TIME AS TO GIVE THE OWNER A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE AND TO DIRECT HIS DRIVER TO DESIST THEREFROM.
Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007-
Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai December 18, 1968
FACTS: Marcial Caedo, with his family, was driving his Mercury car on EDSA. On the opposite direction was the Cadillac of Yu Khe Thai, driven by Rafael Bernardo. They were both traveling at moderate speeds and the headlights were mutually noticeable from a distance. Ahead of the Cadillac was a carretela. Bernardo testified that he saw the carretela only when it was already only 8 meters away from him (This is the 1st sign of negligence because the carretela was lightedhence should’ve given him sufficient warning). But Bernardo, instead of slowing down or stopping, tried to overtake the carretela by veering to the left. The car’s right rear bumper caught the wheel of the carretela and collided with the Mercury. Caedo in the meantime, slowed down, and thought that the Cadillac would wait behind the carretela. He tried to avoid the collision at the last moment by going farther to the right but was unsuccessful. TC: Bernardo and Thai jointly and severally liable for damages ISSUE: WON Yu Khe Thai, as the owner of the Cadillac, is solidarily liable with his driver. HELD: No. TC modified. Thai not solidarily liable with Bernardo. Art. 2184 applies: In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. Under Art. 2184, if the causative factor was the driver’s negligence, the owner of the vehicle who was present is likewise held liable if he could have prevented the mishap by the exercise of due diligence. –This rule is not new, although formulated as a law for the first time in the new Civil Code. It was expressed in Chapman v. Underwood.
Basis of master’s liability in civil law: NOT respondeat superior but paterfamilias. The theory is that ultimately, the negligence of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction by him, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent injury or damage. Bernardo was a pretty good driver and had no record. No negligence for having employed him may be imputed to Thai. The only negligence that can be imputed to Bernardo was when he tried to overtake the carretela instead of stopping or waiting-and this cannot be imputed to Thai because there were no signs for him to be in any special state of alert. He could not have anticipated his driver’s sudden decision to pass the carretela. The time element was such that there was no reasonable opportunity for Thai to assess the risks involved and warn the driver accordingly. Test of imputed negligence under 2184: -to a great degree, necessarily subjective. Car owners are not held to a uniform and inflexible standard of diligence as are professional drivers. The law does not require that a person must possess a certain measure of skill or proficiency either in the mechanic of driving or in the observance of traffic rules before they can own a motor vehicle. Test of negligence within the meaning of 2184: -his omission to do that which the evidence of his own senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the accident. RULE: negligence must be sought in the immediate setting and circumstance of the accident, i.e. in his failure to detain the driver form pursuing a course which not only gave him clear notice of the danger but also sufficient time to act upon it. NOTES: Art. 2184 is based on Chapman. Unless the owner could’ve prevented the negligence, or he was negligent in selection and supervision, he cannot be held liable. Art. 2184: owner can be held solidarily liable with the driver only if the owner is IN the car. Court’s test: 1. senses of owner 2. circumstances
When will the owner be liable?- An owner who sits in his vehicle, and permits his driver to continue in a violation of the law by the performance of his negligent acts, after he had A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THEM AND TO DIRECT THAT THE DRIVER CEASE THEREFROM, BECOMES HIMSELF RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH ACTS. When will the owner be NOT liable?-if the driver by a sudden act of negligence, and without the owner having reasonable opportunity to prevent the act or its continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal law, the owner of the vehicle, present therein at the time the act was committed, is not responsible, etiher civilly or criminally, therefor. The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length of time that the owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver’s act his own. RULE: Underwood is not liable for his driver’s act even if he was inside the car at the time of the accident (unless he let the negligence continue for a long time without correcting it) because the driver is not listed in 1903 (now 2180) as one of the persons whose acts Underwood would be responsible for.
Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007-
CLASS NOTE In this section, a person is held liable for acts not his own but because of the existence of a relationship.
The standard set in this case is still REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY. Difference between respondeat superior vs. paterfamilias Respondeat superior: acts under orders (1 negligent – the one who gave the orders) Paterfamilias: acts under guidance (2 negligent – both the owner and the driver) TEST of imputed negligence: SUBJECTIVE *not all owners are learned/professional drivers – that’s why they hire drivers for them! VICARIOUS LIABILITY: found in Article 2180 (but use the term “tortfeasors” instead of “one” -a tortfeasor would be liable not only for his own acts or omissions but also for those of persons for whom he is responsible Take note of difference between NCC and FC: under the NCC: the father, and in cases of his death or incapacity, the mother, will be responsible for the damages caused by their minor children who live in their company under the FC: parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. Portions of 2180—modified by FC Does RA9344 affect the liability of parents and guardians? NO Basis of liability of parents and minor children: PARENTAL AUTHORITY How does the FC affect 2180? Is the person below 21 still liable? For those above 15 but below 18 who acted with discernment—basis to use is 2180
Art. 236. Emancipation for any cause shall terminate parental authority over the person and property of the child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life. (412a)
Revised Penal Code
Title Five-Civil Liability Chapter One-Person Civilly Liable for Felonies Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules: First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part. Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law. Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received. The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable. When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damages have been caused with the consent of the
Presidential Decree No. 603
December 10, 1974 THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE Chapter 4-Liabilities Of Parents Art. 58. Torts. - Parents and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the child under their parental authority in accordance with the Civil Code. Family Code Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. (349a) Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable. The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances. All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. (n) Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. (2180(2)a and (4)a )
B. Vicarious Liability aka Imputed Negligence
No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees. was not with Dante at the time of the accident. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. in case of his death or incapacity. Art. in which case such child will be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Sec. 20 of this Act. those doing the act shall be liable. pupils. Casis _S. persons. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. Capuno June 29. which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. He only found out after the accident when Dante told him about it. tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. However. — In default of the persons criminally liable. Legal basis: PD 603
1. workmen.Y. innkeepers.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
authorities or their agents. (n)
Basis: parental authority Are the parents still liable for if above 18 but below 21? Yes.
Prof. Criminal case: TC: Dante was convicted for Double homicide through reckless imprudence. the students boarded a jeep. Dante took hold of the wheel. or. 2006 Sec. 2181. the minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. CA: affirmed
RA 9344 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
April 23. Delfin Capuno. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardian. 2007-
Lastly. 2182. — The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers. but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains. A child above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program. 102. in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. and when it started to run. of the deposit of such goods within the inn. 6. 1957
FACTS: Dante Capuno. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a) Art. teachers. 2180. nor did he know that Dante was going to attend a parade. Civil Code Art. provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself. and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants. while the driver sat on his left side (remember that the steering wheel is at the LEFT side). Minimum Age of Criminal responsibility. so long as they remain in their custody. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. was instructed by the city school’s supervisor to attend a parade in honor of Rizal in San Pablo City. Third. tavernkeepers. The jeep turned turtle and 2 passengers died. the father. The Exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability.A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from
. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers. Art. the persons using violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. a student of the Balintawak Elementary School. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. (1904) Art. unless he/she has acted with discernment. 103. indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations. and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. 15 years old. the mother. Parents (see table after cases) Exconde v. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12. and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments. criminal liability. apprentices. or employees in the discharge of their duties. Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. or the person representing him. or for the payment of the value thereof. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent. saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution. The father and. From the school. if there be no such persons. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices.
ISSUE: WON Jose Balce can be held SUBSIDIARILY liable to pay the indemnity his son was sentenced to pay in the criminal case against him (the son). in case of his death or incapacity. teachers. teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody. This parental authority imposes upon the parents the duty to support and instruct them in proportion to their means and gives them the right to correct and punish them in moderation. If there is no authority. jointly and severally with his son for damages. Hence. HELD: Yes. 1960. Teacher. And Art. or the mother as the case may be is a necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise over them. Delfin and Dante are jointly and severally liable for the damages. Why? for the very reason that the parent is not supposed to interfere with the discipline of the school nor with the authority and supervision of the teacher while the child is under instruction. 2180 applies only to QDs will result in an absurdity that while for an act where mere negligence intervenes. are liable for any damages caused by the minor children who live with them. as the father IS liable.
Prof. As a rule. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. But since the RPC is silent as to the subsidiary liability of parents for a minor over 15. NOTES: This case is cited as basis of liability arising from parental authority. HELD: Yes. There is no law which holds the father either primarily or subsidiarily liable for the civil liability incurred by the son who is a minor of 18 years. hence Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera (Salens). Gumersindo was convicted of homicide and was sentenced to imprisonment and to pay Carlos’ heirs indemnity. etc. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. in case of his death or incapacity. the mother. resort should be made to the general law which is the Civil Code. Sustained Jose’s theory that the civil liability of Gumersindo arises from his criminal liability and therefore must be determined under the RPC. Balce April 27.” If the basis of presumption of negligence in Art. the civil liability arising form a crime shall be governed by the RPC. 2007-
2. 1903 to teachers of arts and trades and not to academic institutions. He failed to prove that he exercised all the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the damage. school authorities should be liable for the negligence. the parents (and heirs) of Carlos. TC reversed. TC: dismissed. when the parent places the child under the effective authority of the teacher. master.
The father and. 2. Once the parent entrusts custody to the school authorities. and which he had every right to assume the school authorities would. The phrase “teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades” does not qualify “teachers” but only “heads of establishments. hence neither the teacher nor the head can be held liable. Delfin. Xxx Finally. But Gumersindo was insolvent.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Civil case: against Delfin and Dante Capuno (reserved by Sabina Exconde. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their authority. Xxx Lastly. The father. and not under Art.
FACTS: Carlos Salen (single) died due to wounds caused by Gumersindo Balce. TC Modified. or in the absence of. 2180 of the Civil Code. Even if Dante was on the jeep pursuant to the city school’ supervisor’s instruction. DISSENT: Reyes He wants TC affirmed (relieving Delfin of liability): There is no sound reason for limiting Art. 2180 is the law that applies.Y. To hold that Art. the teacher. there can be no responsibility. Delfin should not be made liable for a tort that he was in no way able to prevent. Casis _S. hence. 1. and. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. How to avoid liability: prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. 1903 is some culpa in vigilando that the parents. the mother. but also for those persons for whom another is responsible. who acts with discernment. He rebutted the presumption of negligence under 1903 when he proved that he entrusted custody of Dante to the school authorities. Art. CA: certified to SC ISSUE: WON Delfin Capuno can be held civilly liable. 1903 applies: “The obligation imposed by the next preceding articles is enforceable not only for personal acts and omissions. and not the parent should be the one answerable for the torts committed while under his custody. Balintawak Elementary School is an academic institution. so long as they remain in their custody. The civil liability which the law impose upon the father. which only applies to obligations arising form QDs. 1903 interpretation too limited. Art. Dissent:
1. the father or mother may be
12180 now: The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or
omissions. his father. mother of one of the deceased): TC: Convicted ONLY Dante to pay the damages. RULES: Majority: Liability of teachers or directors are limited to institutions of arts and trades. single and living with Jose Balce. School is NOT liable Art. demanded from Jose to pay but he refused.
. Hence the suit. 1903 (now 2180) about teachers applies only to institutions of arts and trades and not to any academic educational institution.
Salen and Salbanera v. neither the head of the school nor the city school’s supervisor could be held liable because Dante was not a student of an institution of arts and trades. 18. Jose Balce is ordered to pay the indemnity. presumption is rebutted and burden of proof is shifted to claimant to show actual negligence on the part of the parent in order to render him liable.
ED and atty’s fees. were classmates at St. Araneta v. Gutierrez. Manresa: Children and wards do not have the capacity to govern themselves so parents and guardians have the duty to exercise special vigilance. While Pepito was studying. the owner and the driver of the truck are jointly and severally liable for damages. mother and son were held liable for damages) civil law liability under 2180 is not respondeat superior but pater familias. EXCLUDING Mr. (yes) HELD: Manuel Gutierrez. Rico took a classmate’s pencil and put it in Pepito’s pocket.
Prof. Arreglado-(where Arreglado fired at Araneta because he resented the remarks Araneta made about his leaving Ateneo and enrolling in La Salle. This angered Rico.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
held subsidiarily liable. Civil case for damages against Agapito Fuellas. thus he held Pepito by the neck and pushed him to the floor. the provisions do not cover the case. A teacher broke up the fight and sent them home. Araneta v. independently of the criminal case. and Mrs. which bases the liability of the father ultimately on his own negligence and not on that of his minor son. The void that apparently exists in the RPC is subserved by 2180 of the Civil Code as may be gleaned from some recent SC decisions: Exconde v. 1931
Note: The injured and the accused have the same surname. Cadano October 31. And since Rico acted with discernment. 1. suffered a fractured leg. CA: Reduced MD ISSUE: WON Agapito Fuellas. A classmate asked them to shake hands but instead of shaking Pepito’s extended hand. Capuno-(the father was held solidarily liable with his son for damages) The civil liability of the father is a necessary consequence of the parental authority he exercises. resort should be made to the general law which is the Civil Code. Agapito is liable for damages. CA decided the case based on the evidence submitted by both parties. SC: Jurisprudence proves him wrong. 2 separate actions were instituted: 1. WON Manuel Gutierrez. the father is liable for damages (yes) 2. Capuno-where the father was held solidarily liable for the crime his son committed. Balce. 1961
FACTS: Pepito Cadano and Rico Fuellas. ISSUES: 1. the mother and the son to pay the Aranetas damages. Rico’s father.
CLASS NOTE In this case. Narciso Gutierrez.
FACTS: The car. Mary’s High School. breaking his arm. Pepito has just gone down from the school house when he was met by a still angry Rico. the law presumes that there was negligence on the part of his father. both 13. As a result. the father. SC: Case law is against him again. Rico held him by the neck. specifically 2180. HELD: Yes. parental liability was primary. Gutierrez and driven by Bonifacio Gutierrez. put him off-balance which caused Pepito to land on his right side.) The court held the father. Rico just got up and ran away. and that if an injury is caused by the fault or negligence of his minor son. 3. no liability would attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent.
CLASS NOTES In this case. Rico’s father is liable for damages. Anent Manuel Gutierrez’s liability:
. the liability of father was deemed to be subsidiary. any discussion of Rico’s criminal intent is of no moment. Criminal case: TC: Rico guilty. Gutierrez September 23. owned by Mr.Y. they should suffer the consequences of their abandonment or negligence by repairing the damage caused. Casis _S. hence. 18 years old. When the classmate asked Rico for the pencil. Pepito’s forearm was seen to be shorter than his left and cannot be fully used. Agapito claims that he could only be liable if the action was based on the subsidiary liability of the parents under the RPC. 2. Only defense is proof of diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the damage. Agapito contends that he cannot be liable under 2180 in connection with 2176 there being no “fault or negligence” but deliberate intent to cause injury. with his mother and 7 other members of the family. it was Pepito who returned it. If they fail to comply with this duty. Responsibility for fault or negligence under 2176 (upon which this action is instituted) is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from fault or negligence under the RPC.
Fuellas v. The court convicted Arreglado but suspended his sentence because he was only 14. 2007-
Salen and Salbarena v. Arreglado-(the Arreglados-father.(where father was made to pay the indemnity his 18 year old son was sentenced to pay because his son was insolvent) Since the RPC is silent as to the subsidiary liability of a minor over 9 but under 15 who acted with discernment. MD. a passenger. Civil liability to be determined in the civil case Civil case: TC: Agapito liable under 2180 for medicine. WON the truck owner and driver are liable for damages. Criminal case against Rico for Serious Physical Injuries 2. Exconde v. Up to the last day of the hearing of the case. collided with a passenger truck while attempting to pass each other. CA affirmed 1.
Question: Under 1903. Hill to support their calim for subsidiary liability only. Atty. HELD: Yes. Roberto died. the diligence would constitute a valid and substantial defense. liability is not subsidiary. SC: Unwilling to apply equity instead of strict law in this case because it will not serve the ends of justice. ISSUE: Whether the father. But if the liability is direct and primary. The Gotiongs (julie’s parents) fiuled for damages against the Livis under Art. would be held liable for the damages caused by the minor. The theory of this law is that running of the machine by the child to carry the other members of the family is within the scope of the owner’s business. If this case were decided now. the son should pay because he is of age already
Prof. with the FC. as a matter of equity. Other issues: 1. SC granted award of atty’s fees plus interest from date of TC’s decision. the owner of an automobile. whom he designates or permits to run it. 2180 applied to Atty. but since his son attained age. then they can neither invoke nor be absolved of civil liability on the defense that they acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages. BUT. 2007September 18. There were 2 versions of the story: Libis: another man shot the 2 Gotiong: Wendell shot Julie and then committed suicide. he does not have nay property and his earnings are insufficient to support his family. was speeding and lost his head when he approached the bridge and the truck. 2180. In the US. The Libis were grossly negligent from preventing Wendell from having access to the key to the safety deposit box where the gun was stored. NOTES: technically. so that he is liable for the negligence of the child because of the relationship of master and servant. where the car is occupied and being used at the time of the injury for the pleasure of other members of the owner’s family than the child driving it. The position of the truck. TC: dismissed for insufficiency of evidence IAC: Set aside TC and found the Libis subsidiarily liable. should be made primarily or subsidiarily liable for the liability of his son Luis. Dela Rosas invoke Elcano v. Hill’s liability had become merely subsidiary to that of his son. who maintains it for general use of his family is liable for its negligent operation by one of his children. 3. and pursuant to 1903 (now 2180) the father alone. Luis was only 13 and had no driver’s license. In Elcano. TC: Jose dela Rosa (father) and Luis dela Rosa are jointly and severally liable. 2nd CA set aside. 2. 2. it is PRIMARY Rule on parent’s liability is correct but characterization of their nature must be given a second look (coz SC held in some cases that the liability of parents is subsidiary).Y. driving a go-kart and Luis dela Rosa.
Libi v. Hill despite the emancipation by marriage of his son. the father of Wendell. Bonifacio was an incompetent driver.
Rodriguez-Luna v. 1985
FACTS: Roberto Luna. 1st CA reinstated with the modification that the atty’s fees will earn interest. IAC
. Diligence required is that of instruction and supervision of the kid.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
The guaranty given by the father at the time the son was granted a license to operate motor vehicles made the father responsible for the acts of his son. IAC February 28. HELD: Primary liability. Jose is liable for his son’s liability. Jose. ISSUE: WON Art. The heirs of Roberto (will be referred to as the Lunas) sued for damages. Casis _S. what would be the effect? 1st CA: affirmed in toto 2nd CA: reduced unearned earnings award The dela Rosas failed to pay because they had no cash. CA’s reduction of net annual income of Roberto due to increasing annual personal expenses: SC said if personal expenses increase. 2180 was correctly applied to hold the Libis liable. A month after their break-up. At that time. it was held that Art. The writ of execution yielded only a nominal amount. Luis is abroad and beyond the reach of Philippine courts. incapacitated or absent will the mother be held liable. Present status of Luis: married with 2 kids. earnings hardly enough to support his family. it would not be unreasonable to suppose that his gross income would also increase. Based on these facts. 1992
FACTS: Julie and Wendell were sweethearts for 2 years when Julie broke it off due to Wendell’s sadistic and irresponsible nature. Julie and Wendell died each from a single gunshot wound traced to the gun licensed in the name of Cresencio Libi. Plus. driving a Toyota collided in the go-kart practice area in Greenhills. Libis are primarily liable CA affirmed. CA’s reduction of life expectancy: SC said go-kart not dangerous. has no assets of his own. the speed and lack of care employed by the driver make them both liable. If the liability of the parents for crimes or QDs of their minor children is subsidiary. and not the minor or the mother. living with uncle in Madrid. Anent the owner’s and driver’s liability: Basis: contract. it is uniformly held that the head of a house. only if the father is dead.
The Bundocs claimed that the Rapisuras should be held liable instead. parental liability is made a natural or logical consequence of the duties and responsibilities of parents—their parental authority—which includes the instructing. CC for kids 9-15 with discernment. 1992
FACTS: Adelberto Bundoc. Under 2180. CA: dismissed petition. The Bundocs are not indispensable parties to the action. 10 years old. RPC support this. 3.Y. TC: dismissed the complaint. shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle. 101. criminal complaint for homicide through reckless imprudence but Adelberto was acquitted and exempted from criminal
2 Art. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardian. 2007-
liability on the ground that he had acted without discernment. 2. property of minor only liable when parents are insolvent
Tamargo v. complaint reinstated and case remanded. and in case of his death or incapacity the mother-which rule was amplified by the Youth and Welfare Code. CA June 3. in case of his death or incapacity. the Bundocs.
CLASS NOTES What is the basis of the doctrine that liability of parents is primary and not solidary? Why? o 2 legal bases: 101 RPC and 2182 CC Why?-provisions provide for such defense— liability of parents is primary According to the Court. CA reversed and set aside. law provides a defense. 101. Casis _S.” where a person is not only liable for the torts committed by himself. Tamargos lost their right to appeal. RPC says so. this civil liability is now. causing injuries which resulted in her death. legal guardianship or control. said insane. or minor shall respond with their own property.
xxx Should there be no person having such insane. The Tamargos filed: 1. the liability of parents for QDs of their minor kids as contemplated in 2180 is PRIMARY and not subsidiary. the liability shall be effected against the father. The liability of parents for felonies is likewise PRIMARY & not subsidiary. the minor
or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. This petition was granted after the shooting of Jennifer. Art. Liability effected against father or mother? BOTH PARENTS AND THOSE WHO EXERCISE PARENTAL AUTHORITY OVER THE MINOR. civil complaint against the Bundocs. imbecile or minor under his authority. Adelberto was living with his natural parents at the time of the accident but a petition for his adoption has already been filed by the Rapisura spouses. (n)
3 Art. In fact. Cadano was NOT correct because the liability in fuellas was PRIMARY (syllabus can be wrong kasi) Why primary liability? 1. 101. the reliance on Fuellas v. for any damages that may be caused by a minor child who lives with them. but also for torts committed by others with whom he has a certain relationship and for whom he is responsible. Ratio: The act of Adelberto gave rise to a cause of action on QD. or the doctrine of “imputed negligence. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. that they are indispensable parties because parental authority had already shifter to them the moment the successful petition for adoption was filed.
. applying 2194 (solidary liability of join tortfeasors) the parent is also solidarily liable with the child. BUT. parental authority was still lodged in the Bundocs. Adelberto’s natural parents for damages. under 2176 against him. RPC with respect to damages ex delicto by kids 9 or under. without such alternative qualification. or if such person be insolvent.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Hence. 2180. the parents primarily respond for such damages is buttressed by the corresponding provisions in both the RPC and CC that the minor transgressor shall be answerable or shall respond with his own property only in the absence or in case of the insolvency of the parents. When Adelberto shot Jennifer. the mother. imbecile. On the other hand. his natural parents. are the indispensable parties. are the indispensable parties to the suit for damages.
Prof. 2182. 21822. ISSUE: Who are the indispensable parties? The Bundocs or the Rapisuras? HELD: The natural parents. NOTES: This case cleared up the issue on whether the parent’s liability is primary or subsidiary. as so modified. For civil liability from crimes committed by minors under the legal authority or control or who live in the company of the parents: PRIMARY -Premised on Art. Arts. controlling and disciplining of the child. CC and 1013. under the Family Code. For both QDs and crimes. 2. For civil liability arising from QDs committed by minors: same rules in accordance with 2180 and 2182. excepting property exempt from execution. the law imposes civil liability upon the father and. the responsibility of the parents and those who exercise parental authority over the minor offender. the natural parents of Adelberto. in accordance with the civil law. Thus. or 9-15 but without discernment -Premised on Art. or 15-21 (now 18) 2. Hence. The principle of parental liability is a species of what is frequently designated as vicarious liability. they who had actual custody of Adelberto. RULES: 1.
Art 101. the parents exercise supervision and control. Casis _S. IAC (go-cart vs. Parental dereliction is only a PRESUMPTION which can be overturned under 2180 by proof of all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. for reasons of public policy. or in the control of persons who. The legislature which adopted our civil code elected to limit extra contractual liability—with certain well-defined exceptions—to cases in which moral culpabilityu can be directly imputed to the persons to be charged. whether of act or omission. 2007-
Civil action vs. IAC (Suicide or homicide?)
Civil action vs. family except pa in the car driven by minor) RodriguezLuna vs. Cadano (stole pencil and had the nerve to be mad by breaking classmate’s arm!)
Criminal case with civil liability arising from it
Criminal action vs. to others who are in a position to exercise an absolute or limited control over them. bus driver and owner jointly and severally liable
as mentioned under Libi vs. Guitierrez (bus collision. Art 58 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code: responsibility for child under parental authority Art. Manuel Guitierrez (the father) only (+ bus driver and owner)
SC: The father. The liability of parents for felonies is likewise Primary and not subsidiary under A101 of RPC: minor only liable if parents are insolvent (A101
Civil action vs. no presumption of parental dereliction on the Rapisuras could have arisen since Adelberto was not in fact subject to their control at the time the tort was committed. Hill where court allowed only subsidiary liability because it will not serve ends of justice Art 221. below 18 Basis for liability A1903 (now 2180): FATHER liable for acts of MINOR SON -civil liability is a necessary consequence of parental authority they exercise over their MINOR children A101 RPC incomplete so resort to A2180 of NCC (apply Exclusio Unus. NCC. parental liability is anchored upon parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompanying such authority. occupy a position of dependency with respect to the person liable for their conduct. common law. strict law -don’t apply Elcano v. Toyota)
Prof. the legislature has elected to limit such liability to cases in which the person upon whom such an obligation is imposed is morally culpable. said to be insolvent but in Madrid!) SC: Libis are primarily and directly liable
Salen and Salbanera vs. Balce (son above 15 but below 18 killed 18 yr old) Fuellas vs. FC: child (tortfeasor) must be in the actual custody of the parents sought to be held liable Anent the retroactivity of parental authority to the time of filing of the petition for adoption: Retroactive effect may perhaps be given where such is essential to permit the accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor of the child. Hence. or in having failed to exercise due care in the selection and control of one’s own agents or servants. master and servant (not paterfamilias) – ma not liable even if present during time of incident A2180. NOTES: Only benefits retroact to the time of filing of the petition for adoption. or on the contrary. no parental liability. FC.Y. If liability of the parents for crimes or QDs of their minor children is subsidiary. to extend that liability.
Case Exconde vs.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
The basis for the doctrine of vicarious liability was explained in Cangco v. Here. This moral responsibility may consist in having failed to exercise due care in one’s own acts. The basis of parental liability for the torts of a minor child is the relationship existing between the parents and the minor child living with them and over whom. RPC Why primarily liable: 1. Rico for Serious Physical Injuries Civil action vs Agapito (the father) only
SC: Pa liable
. Manila Raildroad: With respect to extra contractual obligations arising from negligence. Basis of civil liability imposed on parents for torts of their minor kids living with them: PARENTAL AUTHORITY vested by the civil code. so as to include responsibility for the negligence of those persons whose acts or omissions are imputable. the law presumes. RULE: Parents must have actual or physical custody over the minor to be held liable. by reasons of their status. Exclucio Ulterus) – MINOR son LIVING in their company A2176 an A2180 (not based on RPC) -even if son caused injuries with deliberate intent (and not merely negligence) -note: not subsidiary liable Guitierrez vs. 221. IAC A2180. no PA. not parental authority Parental Authority: Control and supervision over children. pa and son
Libi vs. In other words. parents
SC: Pa made primarily liable for the injury caused by son (son already of age. by legal fiction. Capuno (BSP asked by school head to go to the parade) Action for… Civil action for damages (father and son impleaded) Who held liable TC: only son liable SC: Pa and son jointly and severally liable -not the school because not a school of arts and trades SC: Father liable subsidiarily -child above 15. then they can neither invoke nor be absolved of civil liability on the defense that they acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages. Art 2180. 2. without regard to the lack of moral culpability.
2181. 218. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. over twenty-one years of age. 2180. Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over the property of the child becomes necessary. over twenty-one years of age. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent. 2176. those left at the doorstep) Art. shall exercise the authority. the same order of preference shall be observed. 351a. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. Casis _S. parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of duties accompanying such authority. (349a. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. (n) Art. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they
3. taking into account the same consideration mentioned in the preceding article. 2144. In case of foundlings. in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. and (3) The child's actual custodian. Lastly. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions. (1904)
What is a foundling? A baby deserted by unknown parents. The father and. (2) The oldest brother or sister.g. entity or institution engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision.
2. The father and. judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable. unless unfit or disqualified. 2180. All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. substitute parental authority
shall be exercised by the surviving grandparent. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. doctrine of vicarious liability as explained in CANGCO VS. (e. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. 214. absence or unsuitability of the parents. 219. so long as they remain in their custody. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. in case of his death or incapacity. 216. entity or institution. In case of death. as provided in Art. the mother. or the individual. its administrators and teachers. CA (adopted child still with parents at time of incident) Criminal complaint Civil complaint vs. (314a)
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. abandoned neglected or abused children and other children similarly situated. the one designated by the court. instruction or custody. 354a)
4 Art.Y. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Tamargo vs. The parents. In case several survive. orphanages and similar institutions duly accredited by the proper government agency. (355a)
. (349a) Art. the following person shall exercise substitute parental authority over the child in the order indicated: (1)The surviving grandparent. MANILA RAILROAD *IMPORTANT: PARENTS MUST HAVE ACTUAL OR PHYSICAL CUSTODY
OVER THE MINOR TO BE HELD LIABLE
Prof. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances. the mother. Guardians Family Code
Art. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. in case of his death or incapacity. In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian. Natural parents of child SC: Bundocs (natural parents) are indispensable parties -the adopting parents had no actual custody yet par3) Art. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. parental authority shall be entrusted in summary judicial proceedings to heads of children's homes. but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains. 217. Teachers and Heads of Institutions Family Code
Art. (1903a) Art. unless unfit or disqualified. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. The school. 2007-
Irked. are responsible for the damages
caused by the minor children who live in their company. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. Casis _S. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. 2180 means by “custody”
1. exconde v. HELD: No. 1971
FACTS: Dominador Palisoc. Hence. Such a situation does not appear in the case at bar. 9 years old. of art. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. The pupils go to school during school hours and go back home to their parents after. Manuel Jr. Hence. et al May 30. Daffon gave
6Art. 2180 par.Y. In these circumstances the control or the influence over the conduct and actions of the pupil would pass from the father and mother to the teacher.
Prof. 6. 16 years old and Virgilio Daffon.
5 The father and. 2180 (I think he meant 2nd to the last par) does not apply. The situated contemplated in the last par. In retaliation. even if this is a QD within the meaning of Art. no MD coz the cases in Art. the proximate cause of the injury was Manuel Jr’s own act of interference. It is true that under the law. Lourdes is not liable because they don’t retain custody (custody=living with the teachers or heads) of their pupils. did not die nor was he incapacitated. 2180 2. Ciriaco Mercado is not responsible even under Art. Augusto was only 9 and was not shown to act with discernment 7. and so would the responsibility for the torts of the pupil. Brillantes October 4. the facts show that Augusto’s act was occasioned by the fact that Manuel Jr. RULE: exconde v. the mother. was not hospitalized. Capuno through Justice Bautista: “we find merit in this claim. the proximate cause of Manuel Jr’s injury is his own fault or negligence for having interfered. nor does par 25 which makes the father or mother responsible for the damages caused by their minor children. in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. When Augusto tried to retrieve his pitogo. This was answered in Exconde v. Lastly. TC: dismissed the complaint filed by Manuel Jr. thinking it was Benedicto’s. while working on a machine. SUCH THAT THE CONTROL DIRECTION AND INFLUENCE ON THE PUPIL SUPERSEDES THOSE OF THE PARENTS . DOCTRINE: what Art. no criminal action for physical injuries has been presented 2. A fight ensued and Augusto wounded Manuel Jr. No moral damages because cases in Art. 2007-
1. must be held to be without merit. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent. 2219. tired to intervene or interfere with Augusto’s attempt to recover his pitogo.
7 Although later cases say this is a mere obiter because the issue was won the father had civil
. 5. of age.CONTEMPLATES A SITUATION WHERE THE PUPIL LIVES AND BOARDS WITH THE TEACHER. lent his pitogo to Benedicto who lent it to Renato. Hence. CA. Anent the MD: Only possible circumstance in which MD may be granted is if a felony or QD has been committed.” Custody (memorize!): “SO LONG AS THEY REMAIN IN THEIR CUSTODY”. The pupils were not in the “custody” of the school.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. and his father CA: Ordered Ciriaco Mercado (the father) to pay for the medical expenses and MD. in case of his death or incapacity. so long as they remain in their custody. capuno doctrine7: academic institutions not included in Art. capuno doctrine: responsibility passes from parents to teachers or heads of ONLY institutions of arts and trades 3. teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damage caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody. Palisoc bitch-slapped Daffon. 2219 were not shown to exist. were classmates at the Manila Technical Institute. on the right cheek with a piece of razor. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. 1960
FACTS: Augusto. but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains.
Palisoc v. CA Reversed as to MD but affirmed the award of medical expenses. the claim of Mercado that responsibility should pass to the school. 2219 were not shown to exist. Even if there was a QD on Augusto’s part. 4. But this provision only applies to an institution of arts and trades and not to any academic educational institution. interfered and told Augusto not to get it from Renato as Renato was better at putting the chain into the holes of the pitogo. During recess. (1903a) ISSUE: WON the teacher or head of the school should be held responsible (instead of the father) since the fight happened during recess time in school (Lourdes Catholic School). Daffon made a remark that Palisoc was like a foreman because he was merely watching them. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries. Art. but no MD for the parents. Augusto resented this remark and aggressively poushed him. 2219. par 26. The doctor who testified did not declare the amount he collected as fees and Manuel Jr. 2-probably because Manuel Jr.
Mercado doctrine abandoned/overturned 2. “custody” The TC erred in absolving the defendants on the ground that they can only be held liable if they “lived and boarded with his teacher or the other defendantsschool officials. TC: defendants are liable for damages
.” 3. Moreover.
Prof. The TC based its decision on Mercado v. INCLUDING RECESS TIME. The school cannot be held liable as it was not impleaded as a party defendant. Mercado overturned. 1. CA April 15. THE PUPIL-TORTFEASOR MUST LIVE AND BOARD IN THE
2. Governing Principle in law of torts In the law of torts. as to their pupils and students. RULE: 1. the governing principle is that the protective custody of the school heads and teachers is mandatorily substituted for that of the parents.” TC: Daffon liable for QD under 2176. then it follows that 1. It’s unfair to hold teachers and/or administrative heads responsible for tortuous acts of their students considering the high number of enrollment. custody= live in company (like for parents and guardians) and 2. Absolved the following because 2180 is not applicable: It applied Mercado v. hence. as well as to take the necessary precautions to protect the students in their custody from dangers and hazards that would reasonably be anticipated. and hence it becomes their obligation as well as that of the school itself to provide proper supervision of the students’ activities during the whole time that they are at attendance in the school. CA’s definition of “custody” 1. Capuno. 3 days before his high school graduation. Reyes’ dissent rules! Adheres to Reyes’ dissent in Exconde: If the basis of presumption of negligence in Art. in loco parentis. Definition of “custody”= the protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long as they are at attendance in the school. (MEMORIZE)
Amadora v. They exchanged fist blows until Palsioc stumbled on an engine block which caused him to fall face downward.” The phrase “so long as (the students) remain in their custody” means THE PROTECTIVE AND SUPERVISORY
CUSTODY THAT THE SCHOOL AND ITS HEADS AND TEACHERS EXERCISE OVER THE PUPILS AND STUDENTS FOR AS LONG AS THEY ARE AT ATTENDANCE IN THE SCHOOL. Casis _S. The Amadoras sued for damages against the School (Colegio). TC Modified. instructor of the class. and are called upon to “exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child. including injuries that some students themselves may inflict willfully or through negligence on their fellow students. The case here was instituted directly against the defendants (as against the cited cases where the father was the defendant). the dean of boys and. Only the guardians and parents are exempt once the child reaches majority 2. If there is no authority. Under 2180. Brillantes-member of the board of directors of MTI 2. while he was at the auditorium of the Colegio de San Jose-Recolectos either to finish a Physics experiment or to submit a Physics report. The authority and custodial supervision (of the teachers and heads) over the pupil exists regardless of the pupil’s age. Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence. since the responsibility stems from loco parentis. including recess time.Y. ISSUE: WON the other defendants (board member. 17 yrs old. The parents here are not involved since Daffon was already of age at the time of the incident. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their authority. 2007-
SCHOOL. which in turn was based on a dictum in Exconde v. including recess time. Makalintal’s interpretation not in accord with the law. followed by fist blows on the stomach. the physics teacher and Daffon. Valenton. The autopsy report said he died of broken ribs and hemorrhage on the brain caused “probably by strong fist blows. Why? for the very reason that the parent is not supposed to interfere with the discipline of the school nor with the authority and supervision of the teacher while the child is under instruction. 1. 1988
FACTS: Alfredo Amadora. president and instructor) should be held solidarily liable with Daffon HELD: Yes. Daffon. the teacher. responsibility limited to minors only (like for parents and guardians) Concurring: Reyes Concurs with majority but dissents with the dissent. the president and instructor must be held solidarily liable unless they prove that they observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage-which they failed to do. MTI is unquestionably a non-academic school.
Dissent: Makalintal Wants Mercado sustained. but Daffon followed him. CA. there can be no responsibility. He fainted and never regained consciousness. Palisoc tried to retreat. 4. making a corporation the owner of the school and not him anymore). when the parent places the child under the effective authority of the teacher. president of MTI 3. Quibulue. IN THE LAW REQUIRES THAT FOR SUCH LIABILITY TO ATTACH. It would demand responsibility without the commensurate authority. 1903 is some culpa in vigilando that the parents. Wants to overturn Exconde (to include academic institutions in the scope of 2180) but has no chance because MTI is anon-academic institution. etc. Valenton and Quibulue are solidarily liable for damages. and not the parent should be the one answerable for the torts committed while under his custody. Brillantes is not liable because he is a mere member of the board (he could have been liable if not for the incorporation of the school. the president and instructor are liable solidarily for damages. 3. teachers. Rationale of the liability The rationale of the liability of school heads and teachers is that they stand to a certain extent. was shot by his classmate Pablito Daffon.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Palisoc a strong flat blow on the face. Hence.
Liability imposed not on the school itself It should be noted that the liability imposed is supposed to fall directly on the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades and not on the school itself. Tehankee (the ponente) said that he agreed with Reyes in his Exconde dissent to include academic schools but had no chance because the school involed is a non-academic one. The SC summarized 3 cases which have been decided in connection with 2180: Exconde-school not liable because it is not a school of arts and trades -Reyes’ dissent-rule was imposed on teachers in general and heads OF establishments of arts and trades. IN THE EXERCISE OF A LEGITIMATE STUDENT RIGHT.Set aside/abandoned the doctrines in Exconde and Mercado. Casis _S. But that’s a task for the
legislature. 2180 HELD: Petition denied.9 There is no substantial distinction between an academic and a non-academic school insofar as torts committed by their students are concerned. he is still within the custody and subject to the discipline of the school authorities under the provisions of Art. whatever the nature of the school he is teaching. CONCURRING & DISSENTING: Melencio-Herrera -“teacher” in 2180 should not be limited to the “teacherin-charge” -the school may be held responsible under 2180 as the employer of the teachers and heads CONCURRING: Gutierrez. Custody definition 2.teacher is liable for the pupils and students (General Rule) b.head is liable for the apprentices (Exception) *But same vigilance is required! Reason for disparity: historically the heads of arts and trades exercised a closer tutelage over his pupils than the head of an academic school. teachers is to pupils and students as heads is to apprentices 4. whatever its nature may be held to answer for the acts of its teachers and heads under the general principle of respondeat superior. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES OVER THE STUDENT CONTINUES. “Custody does not connote immediate and actual physical control but refers more to the influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him as a result of such influence. School not liable because it is not an establishment of arts and trades -Defined “custody” as living and boarding with the teacher Palisoc. AS LONG AS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE STUDENT IS IN
THE SCHOOL PREMISES IN PURSUANCE OF A LEGITIMATE STUDENT OBJECTIVE. AND EVEN IN THE ENJOYMENT OF A LEGITIMATE STUDENT PRIVILEGE. 3. Hence: 1. 2007-
exculpate itself by proof of exercise of diligence of bonus paterfamilias. 2. -Defined “custody” to mean that the protective and supervisory custody of the school and its heads and teachers over the students are in force so long as they remain in school including recess time. referring each phrase or expression to its appropriate object or let each
be put in its proper place. application of 2180 to both academic and non-academic schools 3. Colegio not liable because 2180 does not apply to school but only to its teachers and heads. Mercado-reiterated Exconde. if academic. -in a footnote. it may
9 This disparity no longer exist in view of the increase in enrollment.—defense which is also available to the teacher or the head. Art. Alfredo Amadora was still in the school’s “custody” when the incident happened 2.
Even if the student should be doing nothing more than relaxing in the campus in the company of his classmates and friends and enjoying the ambience and atmosphere in the school. Amadora is the case! 1. 4. Art. -reiterates the need for an amendment due to the nonexistent disparity between teachers of academic schools and heads of arts and trades RULE: 1. None are liable. rector.
Prof. Pupil not required to be a minor to hold teacher liable Unlike the parent who will be liable only for his minor child. i.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
CA: All the defendants were absolved. If at all. ISSUE: Interpretation of Art. if non-academic. the teacher is answerable for torts of his students regardless of the student’s age. the school. 2180 applies to both academic and nonacademic schools Reddendo Singula Singulis8 a. high school principal and dean of boys NOT liable because none of them were the teacher-in charge (they only exercised a general authority and not the direct control and influence exerted by the teacher-incharge) Dean of boys not liable although he earlier confiscated a gun because it was not shown that the gun he confiscated and the gun that was used in the shooting were the same. His absence cannot be taken against him as he was not required to report to school that day. The same vigilance is expected from the teacher over the students under his control and supervision. regardless of whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended (Duration of Responsibility) (MEMORIZE STANDARD): “CUSTODY” IS NOT CO-TERMINOUS WITH THE SEMESTER.
8 Referring each to each. Jr. Physics teacher not liable because there was no showing that he was negligent in his duties. 2180 applies so long as the student is under the control and custody and within the school premises. the words should be taken distributively
. 3. Colegio is not a school of arts and trades and Daffon was not in custody since the semester already ended. 4.e. school not directly liable under 2180 par 7. 2180.Y.
The Ylardes (mom and dad) sued Aquino and Soriano. The school. cannot be held liable. 1. the stone was obviously at the brink of falling. he left the kids v.
Art. after sem ends A2180 applies to both ACADEMIC and NONACADEMIC schools Academic: teacher-in-charge:: Institute of Arts and Trades: Heads Custody does not connote INFLUENCE exerted on the child and the DISCIPLINE instilled in him as a result of such influence pupil is not required to be a minor for the teacher to be liable! (A2180 doesn’t require minority) Applicability to academic institutions WAS an issue prior to this case—see Exconde Despite the broadness of the definition of custody. assisted by his father sued Abdul and Araneta for damages. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. 1. He is a Head of an academic school and not of a school of arts and trades (in line with Amadora) b. QUESTION: Would the school be held liable after the Family Code? ANSWER: Yes! School can be held liable under 218. Ylarde sustained injuries which caused his death 3 days later. BUT.Y. They had to dig a hole to bury the concrete blocks. Aquino exercised utmost diligence 3. he required the kids to remain inside the pit. TC: dismissed case against Araneta ISSUE: WON Art. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school. jumped in the pit. a teacher in Gabaldon Primary School gathered his male students aged 10-11 to clean-up the remnants of WWII. HELD: petition dismissed. Ylarde may be held liable under 2180 as the teacher-in-charge He was negligent in his supervision and he failed to take the necessary precautions. 3. under 2180. 2180 is applicable to academic institutions. There is no need to discuss the applicability of 2180 to educational institutions for the issue is actually whether or not. Pasco had just finished his classes and the Muslim group were also students of Araneta. CFI of Bulacan. the principal for damages. Melencio-Herrera Joins Sarmiento in his dissent. He left while the work was unfinished and the kids. Soriano. w/n school premises. 1988
FACTS: Edgardo Aquino. Branch V April 25. He did not order the digging 2. CA reversed and set aside. Pasco.
Ylarde vs. against ACADEMIC school A2180 doesn’t include Academic schools (this is the case where the court researcher was not aware of the ruling in Amadora vs. The petition is based on) and may be held liable under 2180. Answer to that issue: NO! the provision speaks only of TEACHERS or HEADS. Ylarde’s death was due to his own reckless imprudence. Wrong issue. its administrators and teachers. Aquino July 29. (349a)
. he left the kids near an attractive nuisance
CLASS NOTE facts: by students. knowing that a huge block was just nearby iii. entity or institution. TC: dismissed the complaint. School may exculpate itself by proving diligence of a good father of a family.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
NOTES: dangerous definition of “custody” because it is so broad (even if just walking around school enjoying its ambience and atmosphere)
Prof. yet he require the kids to level the soil around the excavation iv. 2007-
CLASS NOTE facts: in Academic school. the Ylardes based their petition on 2176. Casis _S. CA) Don’t sue school based on 2180 (7)
Pasco v. HELD: Aquino is liable for indemnity. digging was part of work education 2. Aquino is liable for damages under 2176 (Q: WON the act or omission of Aquino amounting to fault or negligence has a direct causal connection to Ylarde’s death) a. 218. CA: Affirmed TC ISSUE: WON both Aquino and Soriano may be held liable. he should’ve used adult laborers and not 10 year olds ii. as a head of an academic school. or the individual. FC11
out of the in time. by student of the school. Soriano cannot be held liable a. 5 negligent acts of Aquino i. 1988
FACTS: Reynaldo Pasco was mauled by a group of Muslim students and stabbed by Abdul while walking inside the Araneta University (Araneta). instruction or custody. entity or institution engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision. NO ONE was held liable in Amadora!
DISSENT: Sarmiento Par 510 of 2180 may be construed as the basis of liability of the school as the employer for the failure of its teachers or heads to perform their mandatory legal duties as substitute parents. One of the kids jumped on the concrete block causing it to fall in the pit and pinning Ylarde who was not able to get
10 Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. the school or the university ITSELF (as distinguished form teachers or heads) is liable. ED and MD under 2176 (art.
Francis High School vs. Francis High School.
ACT OR OMISSION MUST
HAVE OCCURRED WHILE AN EMPLOYEE WAS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
ASSIGNED TASKS. So to reconcile both cases: If victim is a student of school—Amadora.” or in the custody of BCF when he shot Napoleon. where: in parking lot of school. the principal and the 6 teachers who were at the picnic for damages. the principal and 4 teachers solidarily liable for AD. HELD: No. a truly careful and cautious person would’ve acted in all contrast to the way Aquino did. Casis _S. was a student of the BCF and an employee of AFP (as an armorer for the BCF-ROTC unit) with work premises inside the BCF. Ylarde cannot be charged with reckless imprudence The degree of care required to be exercised must vary with the capacity of the person to care for himself. 13. digging was not part of work education/ d.THE
St. Abon was not in the custody of BCF at the time of the incident. 1991
FACTS: Ferdinand Castillo. Salvosa-president and chairman of BCF board. Salvosa and BCF Absolved other defendants
RECESS BY ITS NATURE DOES NOT INCLUDE DISMISSAL. The ROTC Commandant. MD and ED. B. Abon was not in the “custody” of BCF when he shot Napoleon DEFINITION
Prof. IAC October 5. capacity. No MD coz case does not fall under any of the grounds for MD and they are not guilty of negligence. the mere fact of being enrolled or being in the premises of a school without more does not constitute “attending school” or being in the “protective and supervisory custody” of the school. Rationale for liability Reiterated Palisoc: The rationale of the liability of school heads and teachers is that they stand to a certain extent. Held the school. and are called upon to “exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child. CA February 25. CA set aside. 2007-
CLASS NOTE School: ACAD + Institute of Arts and Trade time: dismissal. The standard of conduct to which a child must conform for his own protection is that degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same age. RECESS IS A TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT EMBRACED IN THE CONCEPT OF “AT ATTENDANCE IN THE SCHOOL. the negligent act of Aquino in leaving the kids in such a dangerous site has a direct causal connection to the death of Ylarde. IAC Reversed in so far as it holds Salvosa and BCF solidarily liable with Abon. the dean and BCF. Abon cannot be considered to have been in “attendance in the school. B. a commerce student of BCF with an unlicensed gun from the ROTC armory.” IT
IS A SITUATION WHERE THE STUDENT STILL REMAINS WITHIN THE CALL OF HIS MENTOR AND IS NOT PERMITTED TO LEAVE THE SCHOOL PREMISES OR THE AREA WITHIN WHICH THE SCHOOL ACTIVITY IS CONDUCTED. 4. 1988
FACTS: Jimmy Abon.
Salvos v. No one is guilty under 2180. The Castillos sued the school. and a freshman at St. drowned during a school picnic while trying to save a female teacher. A minor should not be held to the same degree of care as an adult. as contemplated in the law. It was but natural for kids to play around c. Napoleon’s heirs (Castros) sued for damages impleading Abon. TC: Solidary liability of Abon. as to their pupils and students. Plus. in loco parentis. 1. knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances. The picnic was not a
.” 2. Salvosa-the EVP of BCF. INCLUDING RECESS TIME. TC: Held the 6 teachers solidarily liable for AD & MD Absolved the school and the principal Both appealed CA: Modified TC. J. If victim is NOT a student of school-Salvosa
“CUSTODY” (MEMORIZE!)-. HELD: No. None of them are guilty of either their own negligence or of the negligence of those under them 2.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
b. RULE: Defines “recess” Qualified Custody NOTE: Salvosa mitigates the effects of Amadora-but this was not cited in Salvosa. he was supposed to be working when the incident happened. at the BCF parking lot at around 8pm. IAC: Affirmed but modified award ISSUE: WON Salvosa and BCF can be held solidarily liable with Abon for damages under 2180. He was convicted of Homicide. discretion. teachers and principal impleaded Applied Amadora doctrine: (teacher:ACAD::heads:Establishments of arts and trade) Qualifying “custody” In line with Palisoc. against who: student of University of Baguio Memorize: recess and custody Amadora: legitimate student objective…Victim is own student Salvosa: applied Palisoc. definition of custody…Victim is student of another school Ponente forgot Amadora—decided 6 months earlier.Y. Plus. but his conduct should be judged according to the average conduct of persons of his age and experience. ISSUE: WON 2180 is applicable. School not liable under 2180 TO BE HELD LIABLE UNDER 2180. 1.
CLASS NOTE facts: students. Abon shot Napoleon Castro. THE
SUPERVISORY CUSTODY THAT THE SCHOOL AND ITS HEADS AND TEACHERS EXERCISE OVER THE PUPILS AND STUDENTS FOR AS LONG AS THEY ARE AT ATTENDANCE IN THE SCHOOL.
3. as per jurisprudence. Art. 21. if the act which breaches the contract is done in BF & be violative of Art. School is liable under 2180 par. Although a QD may still arise even when there is a contract. 1. Tuazon May 18. Casis _S. 2180 applies only if the offender was a student of the school
Prof. resulting in a bilateral obligation---therefore. PSBA may be held liable based on breach of contract When a student enrolls. Case remanded to determine if there was a breach of contract. In this case. Activity was stamped with school authority. 1. Jr. Soliman sued Solomon. instructors and scout masters who had knowledge in 1st aid and swimming were invited b. BOC
Soliman. They failed to observe the proper diligence BEFORE THE INCIDENT (water was deep. unless the negligence occurs under the circumstances set out in Art. this is not based on a QD which arises when parties are not bound by any contract. 1992
FACTS: Maximo Soliman Jr. Principal was negligent He knew of the activity and he did not take the appropriate measures to ensure the safety of his students. a security guard assigned to the school. was shot by Jimmy Solomon. a student of the Republic Central Colleges.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
sanctioned school activity nor an extra-curricular activity. a. PSBA
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for
damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. The Bautistas sued PSBA and its corporate officers for damages. RULE: Art. Art. Because Solomon was not an employee of RCC and neither was he a student. 3. PSBA’s negligence would only be relevant in the existence of a contract. RCC not the employer of Solomon 2. RCC may be held liable under the a contract. ISSUE: WON PSBA can be held liable under 2180 HELD: No. RCC and the RL for damages. Teachers are not negligent hence not liable a.
.Y. The supposed life guards were not there! They were having a drinking spree 2. 2180 doe not apply because offender was not a student of PSBA Under 2180. RCC filed a MTD on the following grounds: 1. Art. 2007
A2180 applies to schools only if student liable but if student a victim.life savers were brought c. 2180. RULE: Liability only for failure to perform assigned tasks NOTES: Authority in saying that diligence should be BEFORE and not after the FACT and its officers filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that 2180. does not include academic institutions. 5 The negligence of an employee in causing injury or damage gives rise to a presumption of negligence on the part of the owner and/or manager of the establishment. v. 2. under the case of PSBA. But. 1992
FACTS: Carlos Bautista was stabbed to death by outsiders within PSBA’s premises. 2180 n/a because Solomon was not a student of RCC TC: granted MTD ISSUE: WON the RCC may be held liable under 2180 HELD: No. The Principal is not liable under 2180 Mere knowledge of the picnic is not enough He did not consent to the picnic 4. there is an established contract between him and the school. But case is remanded to determine if PSBA failed to discharge its obligations under its contract with Bautista CA correct in denying MTD but on the wrong grounds. In this case though. RCC was only a client of RL-the employer of Solomon. only oral instructions were given) b. CA February 4. teachers were negligent. they did all that is humanly possible to save Ferdinand DISSENT: Padilla 1. TC: MTD denied CA: Affirmed TC coz 2180 applies to all kinds of educational institutions.
PSBA vs. the offender should be a pupil of the school. par 512 does not apply RCC was not the employer of Solomon. hence RCC had no hand in the selection and supervision process. Solomon was employed by RL Security Agency. PSBA’s negligence cannot exist independently of the contract. Many of the teachers were present. and the activity was organized by the teachers for the students. it was established that the offenders were not PSBA students. 21.
The proximate cause of the accident was not the negligence nor the reckless driving of James. 352. PSBA applies RCC may be held liable under the implied contract between RCC and Soliman. who had control and possession of the jeep who allowed James to drive. Mary’s. It was the grandson of Villanueva. Villanueva. Casis _S. par7:
Art. entity or institution engaged in child care This special parental authority and responsibility applies to all authorized activities.Y.
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. The relations between teacher and pupil. to nonemployees This case should have used the provisions from the Family Code. NOTES: applied FC-this seems to imply strict liability but SC here allowed defense of diligence. Such authority and responsibility applies to field trips. 350. CA reversed and set aside. must have a causal connection to the accident.
CLASS NOTES A2180 not applicable to nonstudents. This involved visitation of schools. who was part of the campaigning group rode the jeep.
St. 2. Arts. Under this contract. Mary’s insolvency. instruction or custody. and other affairs of the pupils and students outside the school premises whenever authorized by the school or its teachers. All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. & 35214 does not apply Solomon was not a student of RCC. James was absolved due to his minority. entity or institution.13 349. excursions. Carpitanos February 6. along with other HS students. its administrators and teachers. Mary’s.
13 Lastly. ISSUE: WON St Mary’s is liable HELD: No. Mary’s negligence was only a remote cause. 3. the parents must be held primarily liable. Mary’s is not liable The special parental authority under 218. There’s no evidence that St. 219. 218. are fixed by government regulations and those of each school or institution. the individual. FC. 7. professor and student. TC: 1. a 15 year old student. The persons named in the preceding article shall exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child. FC applies to: 1. 4. whether inside or outside the premises of the school. (n) proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances. But. 350. 349. 1.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
2. They were on their way to an elementary school when the jeep turned turtle due to James’ reckless driving. Sherwin sustained injuries which caused his death. if the person under custody is a minor. xxx (4) Directors of trade establishments. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. Parents are Primarily liable Whether the accident was due to James negligence or the mechanical failure. The jeep was owned by Villanueva and was driven by James Daniel II. The Daniels were held subsidiarily liable in the event of St. In no case shall corporal punishment be countenanced. with regard to apprentices. those exercising special parental authority are principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor under their supervision. Mary’s Academy conducted an enrollment drive for the incoming school year. there must be a finding that the act or omission considered a s negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the negligence. teachers
or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages
Art. Mary’s Academy v. judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute
CLASS NOTE school liable if Proximate Cause of the injury is their negligence special parental authority applies as long as the activity was approved by an office of the school FC A218: school. for St. as the registered owner of the jeep is liable for damages Overwhelming evidence that the accident was due to the detachment of the steering wheel guide. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the
14 Art. school had no substitute parental authority over him.
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is Art. The teacher or professor shall cultivate the best potentialities of the heart and mind of the pupil or student. b. its NCC A2180. St. The school. The Carpitanos sued St. Case remanded for determination of liability of defendants excluding St. Hence. CA: Affirmed but reduced AD. The steering wheel guide was detached while the jeep was running. The parents. 2002
FACTS: St. the Daniels (parents of James) and Villanueva. Mary’s is liable for damages under 218 & 21915. but the mechanical defect of the jeep. its administrators and teachers 2.
premises of the school. 2007-
Under 219. Mary’s to be held liable.
. 3. FC 2. the school has an implicit obligation to provide students with an atmosphere conducive to learning. the school. Sherwin Carpitanos. so long as they remain in their custody. The following persons shall exercise substitute parental authority:
(2) Teachers and professors. 2180 par. entity or institution. St.
parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable. or the individual. and either the Daniels’ negligence or the mechanical failure was the intervening cause. Villanueva was likewise absolved. instruction or custody. St. a. entity or institution
engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision. Mary’s allowed the minor James to drive the jeep. James.
PAF is a corporation with a personality separate and distinct from that of Balingit (this was not alleged in the complaint). vs. Balingit.
. it cannot be countenanced in this appeal. activity should be inside school premises 4. PhilAmerican Forwarders. The terms “employers” and “owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise” DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MANAGER OF A CORPORATION. No chance to Overturn Exconde.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
administrators and teachers. Does not have to live or board with teacher or head Overturned Mercado.Y. The argument that PAF is a mere business conduit of the Balingit spouses implies the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction. as the manager of PAF and Pineda were sued based on a QD. Casis _S. Salvosa: defines “recess”. qualifies (mitigates amadora’s effects) custody
Prof. entity or institution engaged in child …have special parental authority and responsibility …to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school. Amadora: 2180 applies to all schools. Inc. 1975
FACTS: Fernando Pineda. Overturned Exconde -Academic school-teacher-pupil -Arts & trades-head-apprentice Broad definition of custody 9. But may invoke contractual obligation 14. Owners Establishments
*Rationale of employers being liable: policy consideration—allocating risks
2. St. Francis: 2180 applies to school sanctioned activities and in the failure to perform assigned tasks. Since this was not raised in the lower court. or the individual. Francis Case. driver of a Philippine American Forwarders freight truck hit a Philippine Rabbit Bus along a national highway. not an outsider for 2180 to apply. 2007-
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines.
For damages caused by
12. Who may be liable under special parental authority. THE TERM MANAGER (DIRECTOR IN SPANISH VERSION) IS USED IN THE
SENSE OF EMPLOYER WHICH IS NOT EQUAL TO A MANAGER OF A CORPORATION WHO IS ALSO AN EMPLOYEE CORPORATION. Soliman: No substitute parental authority over security guard who was neither an employee nor a student 15. Inc March 25. instruction or custody A219: unemancipated minor Principally and solidarily liable – schools Subsidiarily liable – parents. 13. Exconde: Primary liability of parent 2180 applies only to arts and trades 2. PSBA: offender must be a student of the school. Palisoc: custody-protective and supervisory custody. 10. Pasco: 2180 applies to teachers or heads not to school itself. (Balingit’s defense was that he was not the employer of Pineda) TC: Dismissed complaint against Balingit as he is not the “manger” contemplated under 2180. Mercado: Custody=living and boarding with teacher or head 7. St. 2180 not limited to minors and liability of teacher is only when academic and not arts and trades Summary of cases: 1.
Important to note that: Under the FC. The bus driver suffered injuries and the bus was unusable for 79 days resulting in loss of income. Their pupils and students or apprentices. (WON employers/owners/managers of an establishment/enterprise includes managers of corporations) HELD: No. 1. Balingit is not the “manager” contemplated in 2180 The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. ISSUE: WON Balingit is liable under 2180. Libi: Primary liability of parent-CLEARED UP ISSUE ON PRIMARY OR SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY 6. Mary’s. persons exercising substitute parental authority teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades *In St. judicial guardians. no distinction is made WON School is ACADEMIC or NONACADEMIC Incident happened WITHIN OR OUTSIDE school premises. Fuellas: primary liability of parent (did not categorically state that parent is subsidiarily liable)
4. Ylarde: head of an academic school not liable. 11. entity or institution Minor child while under their supervision. Salen: subsidiary liability of parent 3. so long as they remain in their custody Primarily and directly 8. Rodriguez-Luna: primary liability of parent 5.
Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may
recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. Casis _S. hence employer should prove diligences as a defense WHY OWNER?-deeper prockets FACTS: Abad. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. par5) RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR: CONCLUSIVE FAULT/NEGLIGENCE OF EMPLOYEE PATERFAMILIAS: PRESUMPTION JURIS TANTUM (REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION)
16 Art. Abad came from a different place. The Court cited principles in American
18 The act of the agent is the act of the principal. The place where the employee is coming from is material.
. The employer’s only recourse is to recover what it has paid from the employee who committed the fault or negligence (Art 2181)17. Sir says there is no contradiction. The driver didn’t stop. Acuesta’s heirs sued Manhilig and Philtranco for QD. The civil case for damages was filed by Vasquez’s parents.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
5. Use of Employer’s Vehicle Outside Regular Working Hours The employer is liable if he derives some incidental benefit. making Castilex liable
CLASS NOTE Employers liable because of paterfamilias
Castilex v. and on a motorcycle.CA held the liability of Cadtilex was “vicarious not solidary contrary to TC’s ruling. He hit Vasquez. WON engaged in a business or industry Encompasses negligent acts of employees as long as they were acting within the scope of their assigned tasks
Prof. saying Manhilig had an excellent record and exercised the diligence of a very cautious person. driven by Manhilig was being pushed and jumpstarted along a perpendicular street. Employers
NOTES: JURIS TANTUM (REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION) WHY?coz hard for victim to prove that employer was not negligent (similar to res ipsa). hence 4th paragraph is useless 5th par-an expansion of the 4th par in both employer coverage and acts included cf Valenzuela-why different results? –coz Valenzuela. who had a student’s permit. 4th par Owners and managers Covers negligent acts or employees committed either in the service of the branches or on occasion of their functions 5th par Employers.
Art. The latter is called the “special errand” or “roving commission” rule. The plaintiffs have the burden. ISSUE 2: WON Castilex has the burden of proving that Abad was not working within the scope of his assigned tasks HELD: NO. NOTES: IMPLICATION: 4th par covered by 5th par.Y. The fact that Abad was a manager and driving a company-issued vehicle is not sufficient to charge Castilex with liability. The Court has considered the liability of a registered owner of a public service vehicle for damages arising from tortuous acts of the driver as primary. ISSUE: WON Philtranco may be held liable for the act of Manhilig HELD: YES.
NOTE: Sir says this case has the implication that par 4 is superfluous because par 5 encompasses everything. but he died anyway. a production manager of Castilex. SC ruled that the 5th par merely says being engaged in a business is not necessary for the paragraph to apply. Abad brought him to the hospital. TC and Ca ruled for Vasquezs. ISSUE 3: WON Abad was working within the scope of his assigned tasks. 2194. Philtranco argues it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. Operation of Employer’s Vehicle in Going to and From Work The employer is liable if he derives some special benefit such as more time for the performance of duties or that such duties require the employee to circulate in a general area for work. 2007-
Jurisprudence even if the relationship is Respondeat superior18 not Pater familias. in general. but was forced to by a cop who saw the accident and boarded the bus. Operation of Employer’s Motor Vehicle in Going to and From Meals The employer is liable if the vehicle is used to reduce his time-off and devote more time to the performance of is duties. It started suddenly and ran over Acuesta. He was working beyond office hours and was coming from a place where he had snacks. (1904)
HELD: NO. a biker. 2181. The action is an action for damages for QD under Art 2176 and 2180. Vasquez December 1999
CLASS NOTES Castilex sold furniture (relevance: on “engaged in a business or industry” under A2180. The employer is not liable when the vehicle is used for a personal benefit and returned to where it is normally kept. in
Philtranco v. was driving his company-issued vehicle after office hours. Note: This seems to contradict with Valenzuela v CA. CA June 1997
FACTS: A Philtranco bus. The criminal case did not prosper for failure to prosecute. direct and joint and several or solidary with the driver (Art 2194)16. ISSUE 1: WON CA erred in applying par 5 and not par 4 of Art 2180 HELD: NO. He who alleges must prove.. The Court made distinctions between the 2 paragraphs.
Sir says there is a policy considerations. there must exist an ER-EE relationship
IS APPLICABLE EVEN IF THE
EMPLOYEE DERIVES SOME BENEFIT FROM THE ACT.
In this case. He got into a fistfight with Escartin. NOTE: Sir thinks this is a dangerous doctrine because even if the activity is far removed from the business/institution. to let him drive them home where Funtecha also lives. the employer may be held liable if it is in furtherance of the latter’s interests. PROVISIONS
OF LAW RENDER A COMMON CARRIER LIABLE FOR DEATH AND INJURY OF PASSENGERS:
CLASS NOTE Labor Code provision that there is an ER-EE relationship is not applicable
NPC v. It appears that Agustin Masa. knew of the license. ISSUE: WON LRTA is liable HELD: YES. each claiming Ilumba is the employee of the other. The Court tries to utilize doctrine to support their cause.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
What’s the rule if we combine 2180 (4) and (5) as regards the liability of employer for the acts or omissions of employees? Requisites to hold the employer liable for torts under 2180: 1. resulting in the death of 3 persons in the Tamaraw and injuries to 17 passengers. The train hit him and he died instantly. by the nature of its business and reasons of public policy. the issuance of proper instructions intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has relations through his employees. Exception: Employer LIABLE when he derives special business benefit) GOING TO AND FROM MEALS General rule: ER is not liable. driver and son of school president. he requested Masa. The Civil Code and NOT the Labor Code applies to determine NPC’s liability because the action here is based on the recovery of damages as a result of QD. Having a driver’s license. IN FURTHERANCE OF THE INTERESTS OF THE
EMPLOYER OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYER AT THE TIME OF THE INFLICTION OF THE INJURY. This duty is not only during the course of the trip but for as long as the passengers are within the premises and where they ought to be in pursuance of the contract of carriage. It is merely an agent of NPC. Besides. Exception: Benefit to the ER GOING TO AND FROM WORK General rule: ER not liable OUTSIDE REGULAR WORKING HOURS Supervision includes: 1. etc. IAC August 1992
FACTS: Funtecha is a part-time janitor and scholar of Filamer. Q: is there an ER-EE relationship between the school and the student working part-time in the school?
Prof. Casis _S. The clause “within the scope of their by assigned tasks” for the purpose of raising the presumption of liability of an employer includes ANY ACT DONE BY THE EMPLOYEE. Kapunan. ISSUE: Who is the employer of Ilumba. The fact that he was not the school driver is insignificant. Metro Transit and Prudent (security agency). LRTA. The Labor Code applies only to liability caused by non-compliance with substantive labor standards on working conditions. Funtecha drove the jeep not for his enjoyment but for the service of Filamer. Common carriers.Y. 3. Roman (the train driver). ISSUE: WON Filamer is liable HELD: YES. Filamer did not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family. it may hire its own employees or avail of
. and 2. Labor Code provisions do not apply even n the determination of an employer-employee relationship. PHESCO is a labor-only contractor because it does not carry on an independent business and does not have substantial capital. Presumptive liability of employer (when employee is driving a company vehicle) is determined by answering this Q: WON the servant was at the time of the accident performing any act in furtherance of his master’s business. is burdened with the duty of exercising utmost diligence. Nicanor’s widow and children sued Escartin. NPC and PHESCO are pointing fingers. NCC applies! LC not strictly applied. employee must be acting within the scope of his assigned task NOTE: In Filamer. because Funtecha swerved right to avoid a fast-moving truck. PHESCO supplied Ilumba as a driver to NPC. liable with him HELD: NPC. The presumption of liability was overcome. school president. averring it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. ER-EE relationship 2. Employee must be acting within the scope of his assigned task American Jurisprudence: 3 situations (General Rule: Employer NOT liable. 2. and therefore. Requisites to hold the employer liable for torts under 2180: 1. 2007-
LRT v. Navidad February 2003
FACTS: Nicanor was drunk when he entered the LRT station after buying a token.
• Through negligence or willful acts of its employees • On account of willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented the act or omission In the discharge of its commitment to ensure the safety of passengers.
Filamer v. CA August 1998
FACTS: A dump truck driven by Ilumba and owned by NPC collided with a Toyota Tamaraw. a security guard and he fell unto the tracks. just used to determine the existence of EER
1. formulation of suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of its employers. LRTA and Roman filed counterclaims and Prudent denied liability. Masa yielded and on the way they hit a pedestrian.
CLASS NOTES par4 and 5 of 2180.
IAC July 1992
FACTS: A head-on collision between a cargo truck driven by Galang and a Ford Escort driven by Jose Kho. Casis _S. the State did not undertake to guarantee to third persons the acts of all its employees for that would subject the State to countless suits. ISSUE: WON Alexander was liable HELD: YES. 2007-
juridical person capable of acquiring rights and contracting obligations)
CLASS NOTE Very useful provision in our day and age
Merritt v. Although the accident was caused by a government employee. There is a presumption of negligence on the part of the employer. the Court averred the privilege of using a company car serves 2 purposes: 1. juris et jure (conclusive) cf with Castilex: compare the place where Abad and Li came from along with the nature of Li’s job which required him to have a car. The Government passed an Act authorizing Merritt to sue the Government. an Asst.Y. In this case. The only defense is due diligence of a good father of a family.
McKee v. watching someone changed her tire. Mngr of the company.
Prof. Image of success 2. Practical and utilitarian reasons (to reach clients conveniently) Thus. This case is more of a roving commision Valenzuela case says that A2180 was modified by FC. in which the ultimate liability falls upon the employer.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
the services of a contractor. establish 1st employee’s fault or negligence 2. the carrier is not relieved of its responsibility under the contract of carriage. it did not concede liability to Merritt. Government March 1916
FACTS: Plaintiff Merritt suffered severe injuries as his motorcycle collided with a PGH ambulance due to the negligence of the latter’s vehicle’s driver. ISSUE: WON the employer of Galang is liable HELD: YES. uses the car to facilitate meetings with clients. the driver is not a special agent within the contemplation of the law. all passengers of the Ford. The State is not liable for torts. State
-not liable for acts of its officers. presumption juris tantum that employer failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in selection and supervision 3. he came from a coemployee’s place in BF Homes Pque. In this case. ISSUE: WON the State is liable for damages HELD: NO. she was bumped by Li
6. direct and solidary
CLASS NOTES This case defined actually defined special agent (although sir didn’t seem to remember): receives a definite and fixed order or commission. The accident was caused by 2 boys who darted into the street causing Kho. resulting in the death of 3 and injuries to 3 others. CA February 1996
FACTS: Valenzuela had a flat tire and had to park her midnight blue Mitsubishi lancer on the side of the road. The car of the latter was registered to Alexander Commercial. The relationship between Li and Alexander is Pater familias not Respondeat superior. to swerve into the truck’s lane. take note of discussion on practice of companies in issuing company cars
CLASS NOTES presumption that they are negligent flows from the negligence of their employee liability: primary. The presumption is they came from a company function or discussed work-related matters. agents and employees (unless special agent. While standing on the left rear side of the car. driver of the Ford. except when it acts through a special agent. Though the State waived its immunity from suit. the use of the car principally serves the business the private purposes and the goodwill of the company and only incidentally the private purposes of the employee who uses the car. In either case.
CLASS NOTES not liable simply because of company car but because of bonus pater familias standard in A2180 – did not prove diligence and under 2nd instance discussed in Castilex juris tantum presumption (rebuttable) vs.. The State is not responsible for the damages suffered by private individuals in consequence of the acts performed by its employees pertaining to their office because neither fault nor negligence can be presumed on the part of the State in the organization of branches of public service and appointment of its agents. Li. They did not interpose nor prove this defense. At the time of the accident. foreign to the exercise of duties of his office if he is a special officer So in this case the chauffeur still was acting within his duty as a driver when he hit Merritt Merritt was one of the best constructors of wooden buildings at that time!
Valenzuela v. which is subversive to public interest. Employer’s liability under 2180: 1. Note: Why is there a presumption? Sir says it is because it is difficult to prove the employer did not exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee. She had lost her left leg (only some skin and muscle connected to the rest of her body) and had to be fitted with a prosthetic leg. and except when state acts as a
. PRIMARY LIABILITY-but can be negated by due diligence in selection and supervision (allegedly drunk).
and other public works under their control or supervision. The award of the lease was a proprietary function. streets. At the time.
Fontanilla v. Where a private individual is commissioned to do a special task. De Leon February 1916
. he may be considered a special agent within the contemplation of the provision. the tortfeasors may be sued in capacities such as those in private corporations. As he was about to board one. which was awarded to Mendoza and gave it to someone else.
CLASS NOTE Differentiated special agent from officials The case used Merritt’s definition of special agent Perfecto dissented. ART 2189 GOVERNS LIABILITY DUE TO “DEFECTIVE STREETS”. His parets fled a suit for damages. bridges. He filed a suit for damages against the City of Manila. Frayno negligently lit a cigarette 5 meters from a gas drum.Pangasinan. In such a case. the driver was an agent. The fact that it is under their control or supervision is enough to make them liable. broke his glasses and the pieces of which pierced his eyelid. Casis _S. It’s all about allocating risks. rehabilitating and administering all national irrigation systems of the Philippines. city treasurer and chief of police. ISSUE: WON the Government should pay damages HELD: NO. Rosete’s building were damaged. Auditor General August 1948
FACTS: Employees of the Emergency Control Administration had gasoline stored in their warehouse. Whereas SEC 4 RA 409 REFERS TO LIABILITY ARISING FROM NEGLIGENCE. Court always makes someone liable. ISSUE: WON NIA is liable HELD: YES. So. Respondeat superior applies.
CLASS NOTES when state acts in their proprietary function. as opposed to ordinary government officials who were also agents
CLASS NOTES comment ni sir: charter is supposed to be more specific since it only applies to city of manila but civil code is more specific in determining liability for defective streets… You can argue either way. There is no justifiable reason for revoking the lease awarded to Mendoza. (n)
City of Manila v. It applies because it is ore specific. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. improving.
Mendoza v. IN GENERAL. mayor. public buildings. the responsibility of the State is limited to that which it contracts through A SPECIAL AGENT DULY EMPOWERED BY
DEFINITE ORDER OR COMMISSION TO PERFORM AN ACT OR CHARGED WITH A DEFINITE PURPOSE WHICH GIVES RISE TO THE CLAIM NOT WHERE THE CLAIM IS BASED ON ACTS OR OMISSIONS IMPUTABLE TO A PUBLIC OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE OR TECHNICAL OFFICE WHO CAN BE HELD TO THE PROPER RESPONSIBILITY IN A MANNER LAID DOWN BY THE LAW ON CIVIL RESPONSIBILITY. There is no showing that whatever negligence may be imputed to the ECA or its officers was not done by any special agent. RA 3601 and PD 552 provide that NIA is a body corporate invested with a corporate personality and distinct from the government. it may be sued. He hit his head on the rim. Provinces.
Prof. saying ECA special agent. city health officer. He also got contusions and abrasions on other parts of his body.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Rosete v. Such storage was contrary to a Manila ordinance. Teotico January 1968
FACTS: Teotico was waiting a jeepney. 2007-
FACTS: This is an action for damages against the individual members of the municipal council of Villasis. ISSUE: WON the individual members of the council are liable HELD: YES. COMMISSION HAS TO BE FOREIGN FROM ITS FUNCTIONS (but this was already in the definition given in Merritt so ewan ko kay sir kung ano bago dito!)
Art. or injuries suffered by. he fell into an uncovered and unlighted manhole/catchbasin. In a case for damages.Y. 2189.
CLASS NOTES added special agent: aside from special commission. city engineer. IN PARTICULAR. because the officers of the said institution did not act as special agents within the contemplation of Art 1903 in storing gasoline in the warehouse. Maliaman February 1991
FACTS: National Irrigation Administration was created for the purpose of constructing. any person by reason of the defective condition of roads. whether individual or juridical bodies. NIA’s functions are basically proprietary and incidentally governmental. NIA’s driver caused the death of Fontanilla due to the fault and/or negligence. The council revoked a lease for an exclusive ferry privilege. Manila’s assertion that it did not own the street is of no moment. ISSUE: Which applies: Sec 4 of RA 409 (Charter of the City of Manila) or the Civil Code HELD: CIVIL CODE. The municipality has 2 functions: governmental and proprietary/corporate. they can be sued…individual members of municipal council can be sued Does A2180 apply to municipalities? Yes delegation of powers
RULE: OFFICIALS: comprises all officials and employees of the government who exercise duties of their respective public officers SPECIAL AGENTS: all others who are acting by commission of the government.
The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of
them simultaneously. canals. hence. against the engineer or architect or contractor.-The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications shall be liable for damages. The existence of a contract between parties is not a bar to the commission of a tort by one against the other and consequent recovery of damages. 120719. (2) By excessive smoke. Araneta’s defense of good faith falls on its face when he didn’t testify to prove it. or due to any violation of the terms of the contract. Solidary liability-In case the engineer or the architect supervised or directed the construction. Casis _S. the edifice falls within the same period b. De Joya sent Taylor despite the Board’s disapproval. 1723 speaks of a building that should collapse or edifice that falls. 1723. All three’s acts made them liable for the unauthorized disbursement of company funds. He remained passive and even approved the payroll thrice.-if a. so long as the debt has not been fully collected. if: a. (1908) Taylor from company funds (signed by Vicente and Luis Araneta). The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building. or due to defects in the ground. proposed to Ace Management to send Taylor to the US for further studies. (1137a)
20 Art. the action for damages is brought within 10 years following the collapse 2. 2191. The contractor is likewise responsible for the damages if the edifice falls. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused: (1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with due diligence. the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications. 4. Effect of acceptance of work. The collapse took place within 15 years from the completion of the structure b.Gen. and c. or due to the defects in the ground. ISSUE: WON De Joya is liable HELD: YES. general manager. if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs. within the same period. 2007-
1. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed against the others. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications for a building is liable for damages if within fifteen years from the completion of the structure. and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate place. Acceptance of the building. Travel expenses and salaries were paid to
De Leon 455-456 Liability of engineer or architect/contractor for collapse of building constructed:
obligation requires solidarity. Araneta discovered the arrangement and sued De Joya. 2190. (1907) Art. (4) By emanations from tubes.
Art. it does not apply to minor defects. (3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes. if not caused by force majeure. Joya May 1974
FACTS: De Joya. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states. A 3rd person suffering damage as a result of any defect in the construction may proceed. or when the law or the nature of the
CLASS NOTES Relevance: A2176 in this case was used to show a liability of a fellow employee
3. which may be harmful to persons or property. Proprietor of Buildings
Art.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
C. the collapse took place on account of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him. Art. on account of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him. the action for damages is brought within 10 years following the collapse 3. (1144a)
.Y. Others 1. Vicente and Luis were informed about Taylor’s trip and gave their approval. 121620) with the contractor. Rule in a contract for a piece of work is that acceptance of
19 Art. or that each one of the latter is bound to render. 1216. Liability of engineer or architect. Liability of contractor. They were joint tortfeasors and have solidary liability under Art 2194. after completion. constructed without precautions suitable to the place. If the engineer or architect supervises the construction. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse. sewers or deposits of infectious matter. he shall be solidarily liable with the contractor. he shall be solidarily liable (see Arts. Employees
CLASS NOTES A2176 to make fellow employee liable Sir: take note of 1723 (interesting provision)
Araneta v. (n)
*under Lease Contract: the lessor is responsible for necessary repairs!
2. does not imply waiver of any of the cause of action by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the
same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand. or due to any violation of the terms of the contract. 1207. entire compliance with the prestation. and c. it took place by reason of a defect in the plans and specifications.
and for other relief. Provincial commander NOT LIABLE because of chain of command – Subordinate. unless: (1) The defect is hidden and the employer is not. or (2) The employer expressly reserves his rights against the contractor by reason of the defect. VII. There is no law which authorizes the fiscal to seize the corpus delicti of the crime. After initial hesitation.21 But mere acceptance of the building after completion. 1719. Special rule: Judges are not covered unless done in excess of jurisdiction. whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense. Take note: Art. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention. (6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law. The
Lim v. and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf. (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self. In any of the cases referred to in this article. just follow orders – but GF not needed
CLASS NOTES Art. (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws. Ver April 1988
FACTS: Task Force Makabansa. TORTS W/ INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION A. and (19) Freedom of access to the courts. unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional. (10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same. and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence. (2) Freedom of speech. (9) The right to be secure in one's person. Violation of Civil and Political Rights
Art. who directly or indirectly obstructs. or cruel and unusual punishment. house. Any public officer or employee. (5) Freedom of suffrage. the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages. to have a speedy and public trial. Casis _S. people were arrested without warrant and interrogated without proper procedures. or any private individual. by his special knowledge. (11) The privacy of communication and correspondence. IT IS ENOUGH THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Acceptance of the work by the employer relieves the contractor of liability for any
defect in the work. (12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law. ISSUE: WON Ponce de Leon may seize the launch without warrant HELD: NO. (7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use. 32 says DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY Private persons may be sued under this!
Aberca v. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. (14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
the work by the employer relieves the contractor of liability for any defect in the work. Only judges may issue warrants for seizure not fiscals. or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession. (n)
Prof. does not imply waiver of any of the causes of action arising from any defect in the construction. Ponce ordered Provincial Commander of Palawan Maddela to impound the vehicle even though it had already been sold to a third party. 32 is the basis for a civil action for violation of civil liberties.
21 Art. but this does not matter because ART 32 DOES NOT REQUIRE A SHOWING OF GOOD FAITH/BAD FAITH. Lim. Ponce de Leon claimed there was no time to get a warrant. violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: (1) Freedom of religion. but records show there was ample time. intelligence units of the AFP. (ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION)
CLASS NOTES Who can contest? Only the parties whose rights have been impaired Why is good faith not a defense? It will be contrary to purpose of the law. The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is protected by the Constitution.Y. except when the person confessing becomes a State witness. expected to recognize the same. Fiscal Ponce de Leon filed an info against Taha. 2007-
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail. papers. 32. (3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication. Taha forcibly took the launch back so Timbangcaya filed a complaint. defeats. (13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances. Subordinate officer not liable illogical because Court already said that good faith is not a defense. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted). (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel. The violations of the plaintiffs’ rights were geared towards obtaining evidence to incriminate them. The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. or from being forced to confess guilt. It conducted raids with defective search warrants where personal items were confiscated.
FACTS: Jikil Taha sold Timbangcaya a motor launch. conducted pre-emptive strikes against “known communist-terrorist underground houses”. After discovering where the launch was. The indemnity shall include moral damages. Ponce de Leon August 1975
. (18) Freedom from excessive fines. Maddela seized the launch so Lim filed this case. He next claims good faith. to meet the witnesses face to face.
1 of Rule 107 of the 1940 Rules of Court ( Sec. all without warrant. They were informed that Cruz. 33. and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. 355.
MHP Garments v. of any judicial. or any similar means. –criminal in nature. Art.If act constitutes a criminal offense. may be brought by the injured party. real or imaginary. Definition of libel.
Prof. AS THE PROVISION INCLUDES NOT ONLY THOSE DIRECTLY BUT ALSO INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE. and (2) A fair and true report. They sought the aid of the Philippine Constabulary. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious. because they are indirectly responsible Writ’s effect: suspension immaterial Respondeat superior: liable INDIRECTLY responsible (A32) because
Art. Lugatiman and Gonzales were selling BSP uniforms without authority. Art. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. representative of MHP. lithography. Defamation. HELD: NO. MHP was indirectly involved. without any comments or remarks.
B. — A libel committed by means of writing. . Casis _S.
Revised Penal Code
Title Thirteen-CRIMES AGAINST HONOR Chapter One-LIBEL Section 1— Definitions. 1 Rule 111 of the 1964 Revised rules of Court) . entirely separate and
. radio.A violation of any of the individual rights and liberties enumerated in Art. and punishment of this crime. or of a vice or defect. The suspension does not destroy the right or cause of action for illegal arrest and other violations of constitutional rights. What is merely suspended is the right to seek release through the writ as a speedy means of obtaining liberty. . made in good faith. engraving. report or speech delivered in said proceedings.Y. the victim may opt between a civil action under Art. the threat to freedom originates from abuse of power by government officials and peace officers. The Constitution protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures.The right to institute an independent civil action under Arts. cinematographic exhibition. seized the goods and caused a commotion. 354. The evidence presented did not justify the treatment of the respondents. ISSUE: WON MHP and De Guzman may be held liable HELD: YES. Constabulary men and De Guzman. if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. (3) Direct and open violations of the Penal code trampling upon the freedoms named are not so frequent as those subtle. clever and indirect ways which do not come within the pale of penal law. 33 allows to be instituted is ex delicto. moral or social duty. 1162 thereof. . INCLUDING THEIR SUPERIORS. 32 may or may not constitute a criminal offense. or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor. forms. the civil action to enforce liability for damages is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code according to Art. 32. or both. ART 32 RENDERS THE DEFENDANTS LIABLE. except in the following cases: (1) A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal. in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.for these reasons: (1) In most case. . discredit.Code Commission: The creation of an absolutely separate and independent civil action for the violation of civil liverties is essential to the effective maintenance of democracy. even if it be true. 33. and physical injuries a civil action for damages. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime. In cases of defamation. condition. -the nature of civil action for damages which Art. 32.
CLASS NOTE May superiors be liable? Yes. status. 353. printing. Libel means by writings or similar means. They instigated the raid which was conducted with the active participation of De Guzman. The invocation of state immunity is misplaced because there is no blanket license to transgress upon rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. or any act. The proper method would have been to report the matter and secure a warrant. shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6. or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. CA September 1994
FACTS: MHP was awarded the exclusive franchise to sell and distribute official uniforms and supplies of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines. or of any statement.If act is not a criminal offense.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the writ of habeas corpus was suspended and that they were only performing their official duties. ISSUE: WON the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus bars the civil action for damages. and the Rules on Civil Procedure. or contempt of a natural or juridical person. legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature.000 pesos. went to the stalls. painting.These independent actions should not be deemed instituted with the criminal action and the right to institute them should not be made subject to their prior reservation. Fraud and Physical Injuries
CLASS NOTE Take note: even private persons who participate can be held liable under Article 32
distinct from the criminal action. phonograph. 100 of the RPC and an independent civil action under Art. theatrical exhibition. Requirement for publicity. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code is a substantive right intended as an exception to and held as an amendment of the general rule in Sec. or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
1 Sangco 228-255 (1993)
. (2) The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt often prevented the appropriate punishment. fraud. hence not negligence. omission.
ISSUE: WON the accused were liable for damages HELD: NO. 1983
FACTS: Victory Liner bus driven by Paje collided with a jeep driven by Marcia. Art. ISSUE: WON MVRS may be held liable HELD: NO. ISSUE: WON Judge Caro erred in dismissing the civil action HELD: YES.
1. An info for homicide and double serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed against Paje. The latter interviewed the former and wrote an article about the incident. Heirs of Marcia reserved the right to file a civil action separately and later did. but this was dismissed. IT DID
Marcia v CA January 27. The civil action is ex-delicto and aimed to allow the offended party to enforce his rights in a private action. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings. saying his reputation was ruined by the story. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1. To be liable under Art 33. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines and individual Muslims filed a complaint for damages. 33 no independent civil action Article 33 construed strictly
Madeja v Caro December 1983
FACTS: A criminal action was filed against Dr. alleging gross negligence. Morales could have used better words. Slander by deed. child. the published work must be examined and viewed as a whole. his editor and the president of the publisher. 2007-
FACTS: Despuig filed a complaint against Arafiles for forcible abduction with rape and forcible abduction with attempted rape. 359. Defamation MVRS v. shall be imposed upon any reporter. It must be read in the sense readers to whom it is addressed would ordinarily understand it. a separate civil action may be instituted. meaning bodily injury not the crime in the RPC.
CLASS NOTE Art 33 does not affect in any way the criminal action. Under the Rules of Court and Art 33. ISSUE: Won the acquittal of the accused serves as a bar to the civil action for damages HELD: The charge against Paje was not for homicide and physical injuries but for reckless imprudence or criminal negligence resulting in homicide and physical injuries They are not one of the three crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the Civil Code and. Japzon for the death of Madeja after an appendectomy. It cannot overturn an en banc decision. cast insult and disparage Muslims of the world. She executed a sworn statement to that effect witnessed by Morales.000 pesos. — Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature. Marcia died and 2 other were seriously injured. Art. shall be imposed upon any person who threatens another to publish a libel concerning him or the parents. accident. Pending the criminal case. Art. or both. Note: According to Sir. alleging the story was a product of sheer ignorance but with the intent to hurt the feelings. no civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of from 20 to 2. the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos. Physical injuries is used in the generic sense. Casis _S. daily or magazine. It depends on the scope. Trial court dismissed. CA acquitted Paje stating that the case was a pure
Arafiles v. his widow filed a civil action for damages. editor or manager or a newspaper. or both. Phil. Heirs of Marcia instituted this separate civil action for damages.Y. the point of this case is that one may file a criminal complaint and a civil one in one court and both could proceed independently of each other. which shall cast dishonor. spirit and motive of the piece.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Art. In actions for libel.000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall perform any act not included and punished in this title. The libel suit will not prosper because
NOT IDENTIFY SPECIFICALLY NOR REFER TO ANY INDIVIDUALS TO BE THE SUBJECT OF THE PUBLICATION. saying reckess imprudence is not included in Art 33. Arafiles filed a complaint for damages against Morales.000 pesos. Threatening to publish and offer to present such publication for a compensation. spouse. even though said publication be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned. 357. but he did state that his story was based on the account of Despuig at the station. 356. virtue and reputation of said person. This case also says Corpus v Paje. 358.
Prof. otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos. or other members of the family of the latter or upon anyone who shall offer to prevent the publication of such libel for a compensation or money consideration. therefore. Note: Madeja v Caro is a division case. discredit or contempt upon another person. *Crim case and civil case (for the same act) may proceed independently of each other
CLASS NOTE Reckless Imprudence is not included in Art. Journalists March 2004
. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 2. the damage should arise from a crime. Islamic January 2003
FACTS: An issue of Bulgar wrote an article stating that Muslims don’t eat pigs because they treat them as Gods. is not authoritative. If said act is not of a serious nature. who shall publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor. Slander.
The parties in the latter case compromised so the case was dismissed. published statement 2. Elordi was charged with triple homicide through reckless imprudence. While the case was pending. of and concerning the plaintiff If the article refers to a group. According to Puno. The Court said that it included bodily injury resulting in death. ESTAFA COMES UNDER FRAUD AND SO AN ACTION UNDER ART. IAC December 1992
FACTS: Philippine Rayon enetered into a contract with Nissho for the importation of textile machineries under a 5-year deferred-payment plan. Paje July 1969
FACTS: Victory Liner bus driven by Paje collided with a jeep driven by Marcia. Marcia died and 2 other were seriously injured. As a manager. the prescription period was not interrupted by the filing of the criminal action inasmuch as they never waived nor reserved to file the civil action separately.
This case demonstrates a literal reading of A33 The action filed was based on A31 and A33 ON A33: civil action for damages could have been commenced by Capunos immediately upon death of Cipriano Capuno
FACTS: A Pepsi delivery truck driven by Elordi collided with a private car driven by Capuno.
Prudential Bank v. Pepsi April 1965
CLASS NOTES important: definition of defamation. Rayon applied for a commercial letter of credit with Prudential in favor of Nissho. ISSUE: WON the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations HELD: YES. he indiscriminately granted some loans in a manner characterized by negligence fraud. A trust receipt was signed in favor of Prudential. for a member to have a cause of action. which is defamatory 3. can file independent and distinct civil action based on Article 33
There is no such finding in this case.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
be held liable just because the words were insulting or offensive. Judge de Veyra denied one MTD. There is no obstacle for the filing of a separate complaint for damages even if there is already a criminal complaint for violation of Sec 3 of the Trust Receipts Law. there being an allegation of fraud and negligence. THE CASE FOR RECOVERY UNDER QD MUST BE INSTITUTED WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE ACCRUAL OF THE RIGHT OF ACTION. but Judge Purisima granted the other. Contrary to the Capuno’s assertion. THAT IS RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE. The machinery was sold and the proceeds kept. Capuno heirs filed a similar complaint. CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. The criminal case was dismissed. The letter of credit and trust receipt remained unpaid. he must prove that the article particularly pertains to him.Y. ISSUE: WON the MTD should be granted HELD: NO. died. Buan spouses.
CLASS NOTES violation of a trust receipt is a violation under Article 33 Since there is FRAUD. but 2 civil cases were filed. NOTE: cf Worcester
Prof. Salta filed motions to dismiss based on the acquittal. An info for homicide and double serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed against Paje. Sec 13 of the same law considers the violation as Estafa. 33 MAY BE BROUGHT. Physical Injuries Capuno v. Heirs of Maria reserved the right to file a civil action separately and later did. Swindling is just a specie of an offense committed by means of fraud. Rayon sold the machinery without turning over the proceeds to Prudential as agreed upon so it violated the agreement. there are prerequisites to recovery: 1. 33. Capuno and his passengers. what is the relation to libel and slander (big circle): Definition of defamation broader than slander/libel you have to prove specific damage to you and that there was an intent to damage or hurt you. ISSUE: WON the acquittal of Paje in the criminal case bars the civil action HELD: YES. Art 33 applies. There is a fiduciary relationship between Rayon and Prudential. Rayon wilfully and fraudulently misapplied or converted the money for their own use. ISSUE: WON Rayon is liable HELD: YES. Acquittal was based on insufficiency of evidence. Later. THE ACQUITTAL IN THE CRIMINAL CASE WILL NOT BE AN
OBSTACLE FOR THE CIVIL CASE TO PROSPER UNLESS THERE IS A FINDING IN THE CRIMINAL CASE THAT EVEN CIVILLY THE ACCUSED IS NOT LIABLE. The acquittal was based on the ground that the reckless imprudence or criminal negligence charged did not exist and the collision was pure accident. the estate and heirs of the Buan spouses filed a separate complaint for damages against Pepsi and Elordi. Veyra September 1982
FACTS: Salta was an employee of PNB. Anent Art. Fraud Salta v. manifest partiality and upon securities not commensurate to the loan. Casis _S.
3. Prudential filed an action for damages against Rayon and its president.
CLASS NOTES fraud here is not simply estafa.
Caro December 1983
. and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. not the result
FACTS: A criminal action was filed against Dr. and assault and battery under American law. reserves the right to institute it separately 3. said that the civil action is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party (Civil action deemed instituted): 1. (reasoned that Instant civil action may be instituted ONLY AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT in criminal action) ISSUE: WON Judge Caro erred in dismissing the civil action HELD: YES. 100 in relation to Art. also of the Civil Code. Superguard and Safeguard (both companies believed to be Torzuela’s employers). his widow filed a civil action for damages. Action has also already prescribed. saying reckess imprudence is not included in Art 33.Where the physical injuries results from a negligent act or omission. Casis _S. 2176 of the Civil Code. Note: Madeja v Caro is a division case. fraud or physical injuries which may or may not constitute criminal offenses. The civil action is ex-delicto and aimed to allow the offended party to enforce his rights in a private action. THE DAMAGE SHOULD ARISE FROM A CRIME. 100 will apply with respect to civil liability In Criminal negligence. 33: ex-delicto acts acts should constitute a crime.
C. In Corpus v Paje. (3) a civil action for physical injuries under Art. For this. Dulay’s widow filed an action for damages against Torzuela.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
IS NOT ONE OF THE
Prof. 34. 33 is for damages caused by defamation. a division case cannot overturn an en banc decision. . The term physical injuries has been held (in Madeja vs. in that. 2.”
Madeja v. 32. deceit. here. CA April 1995
FACTS: Torzuela. 33. The act of the Dulays of instituting a separate civil action under Art 33 is allowed. alleging gross negligence. 2007-
CRIMES MENTIONED IN
AUTHORIZES THE INSTITUTION OF AN INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION. reckless imprudence is included in A365.
Art.On Corpus and Marcia: This is an apparent misconception of the independent civil action contemplated in Art. TO BE LIABLE UNDER ART 33. but this was dismissed. Civil action is ex-delicto
1 Sangco 334-335 (1993)
The basic function of government is the protection of life and property and it is also the main justification for the existence and maintenance of its police force. fraud. SC. based on the Constitution. CC: 1. such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages. members of the force are directly and personally liable for damages caused by their refusal or failure to render this basic service. the law secures payment by holding the City or municipality subsidiarily liable. However. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property.
Law punishes the negligent act. or physical injuries. is not authoritative because no sufficient number of votes). 4 of which merely concurred with the result. It is simply a way of committing it and merely determines a lower degree of criminal liability. 365 of the RPC. shot Atty.
Dulay v. MEANING BODILY INJURY NOT THE CRIME IN THE RPC. It cannot overturn an en banc decision. This is analogous but not identical to that provided in Art 102
1 Sangco 255-282 (1993)
. Caro) to include consummated. the injured party will have three causes of action to choose from and bring a civil action for. Japzon for the death of Madeja after an appendectomy.” (People v Feller) . namely: (1) a civil action for damages resulting from reckless imprudence under Art. Sir does not think that “physical injuries” should be limited to the crime with the same name. This is clearly an exception to its non-suability as a political subdivision of the State.
. Neglect of Duty
CLASS NOTES Art. attempted and frustrated homicide. This separate civil action is similar to the action in Tort for libel or slander. Rule: RI not included in Art. “Reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself. Since policemen are usually insolvent. a separate civil action may be instituted. Dulay while he was on duty at the “Big Bang sa Alabang” due to some altercation. Under the Rules of Court and Art 33. institutes it prior to the criminal action This case differs from Marcia v CA. According to Sangco.Y. the independent civil action contemplated in Art. PHYSICAL INJURIES IS USED IN THE GENERIC SENSE. looking at Art 111 of the ROC. (2) a civil action for physical injuries arising from a quasi-delict under Art. ISSUE: WON an independent civil action may proceed HELD: YES. waives the civil action 2.Meaning and scope of physical injuries: Like that provided in Art. 33 and of reckless imprudence being the crime itself and not its results. 33 hence the effect: NO independent civil action—Art. only 9 justices took part. Pending the criminal case. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings. a security guard. act punished negligent/careless act. Physical injury refers to bodily injury and is not the same as physical injury as defined in the RPC. this article “creates an independent civil action in case of defamation.According to the Code Commission. This case also says Corpus v Paje. 2 things to remember about A33. the crime is homicide not reckless imprudence so a separate civil action may be filed. and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.
plaintiff may file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. . the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. covers everything
D. catch all provision what’s punished in 365. The civil action for damages may be instituted independently of the institution or pendency of any criminal proceedings arising from the same dereliction and regardless of the result thereof.An aggrieved party need not be the victim of a criminal or punishable act or omission to be entitled to damages. civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings. the
A. INTENTIONAL TORTS
Art. WON it is punishable. he is entitled to bring a civil action therefor and obtain a judgment on the basis thereof. The direct and personal liability for nonfeasance contained in Art 27 is general and does not constitute a criminal act nor provide for subsidiary liability of the locality. As a consequence of such refusal or failure to render assistance or protection. October 31. Where a criminal action is subsequently instituted. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Shell Co. which may or may not affect it. When a person. Civil Code or any special law does not grant him the right to institute a civil action for damages independently of the criminal action 4. etc. charges another with the same. Upon the defendant's motion. . The creditors agreed to form a committee that would take charge of the distribution of assets. Abuse Of Rights
Art. Fitzgerald. was appointed a member of the committee. Every person must. the plaintiff suffered damages.Y.but the judge or the prosecuting attorney finds no reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and the latter refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings. The plaintiff either sought police assistance or protection against danger to his life or property. 35. is alleged and shown to be the proximate cause of the damage or injury he sustained. He is granted the right to institute such civil action for damages WON the criminal action upon which it is based is filed. Aggrieved part has opted not only to recover his damages in a civil action therefore under Art. because it is based on civil liability arising from a criminal offense 6. Aggrieved party believes that the act or omission which cause the injury constitutes a criminal offense 3. and prove the same by a preponderance of evidence.Distinguished from Art. plaintiff is not required to file an indemnity bond because there is no possibility that it was maliciously instituted. Under Art. The defendant is a member of the city or municipality police force. 19 . an employee of Shell. et al. an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney.Implicit are the ff propositions of fact and law: 1. 35. Casis _S. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. prosecute it to final judgment.general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not essentially provide for their own sanction Art. But this must be further qualified. 3. claiming to be injured by a criminal offense. 32. but also to institute such civil action ahead of and separately from the criminal action to enforce defendant’s criminal liability 2.principle of abuse of rights Art. . RPC is the negligence and the resulting damage Take note of this—not a very often used provision
Prof. It may also be consolidated with the criminal action. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code or by a special law. the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. Action for Damages where no independent civil action is provided
Art. 2. and observe honest and good faith. v. such civil action shall be suspended until final judgment in the criminal case. 5. but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed. give everyone his due. but the latter refused or failed to render the same. 30: Under Art. Where no criminal action is instituted because a prima facie case cannot be established. there is no need to file an indemnity bond where a crime has indubitably been committed or such a criminal action is subsequently instituted. After the committee met. American Shell Oil filed a complaint against
. 100 of the RPC. If the criminal action is filed during its pendency. any person who believes that he is the victim of a criminal offense. Key elements of a civil action for damages under Art 34: 1.deals with acts contra bonus mores Casis: real catch-all. or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings.In all cases not covered by Arts. So long as the act or omission complained of. and may be proved by preponderance of evidence. 35. presumably no indemnity bond may be sought or required since there is no apparent justification for it. of the Phils.may bring a civil action for damages under Art. act with justice. 33. 1956
FACTS: CALI informed its principal creditors that it was in a state of insolvency and had to stop operations. 21 .
1 Sangco 335-338 (1993)
. Shell made a transfer of credit against CALI to American Shell Oil Company. 30. 20 . if no criminal action is filed during its pendency. or defendant was aware of plaintiff’s need for such assistance or protection. If during the pendency of the civil action.
VIII. 19. there is a bond because of the high probability that the suit may be malicious
7.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
and 103 of the RPC because the conviction of the defendant policemen is absolutely immaterial and irrelevant to the city’s or municipality’s liability. 4. is rendered. Art 34 specifically applies only to members of the police force of the city or municipality. for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law.
they are still applicable. 3. According to her. CA October 8. ISSUE: WON Albenson was liable for damages. Standards: 1. her employer failed to protect her. Although an employer who suspects an employee to be dishonest may dismiss the latter. 1998
FACTS: Morada was employed by Saudi Arabian Airlines as a flight attendant. Hendry. she was pressured to drop the case while her employer’s Chief Legal Officer stood by.
Prof. The check bounced. It filed a complaint for violation of BP 22 against Eugenio S. and socializing with male crew. 19 has been violated. However. Tobias was fired. Instead. The working committee was formed specifically for the creditors to not sue CALI The court used A2253 and A2254. He employer refused to help her. threats. this case is actually wrong: If the concept of Lex Loci delicti commisi would be followed. YES HELD: Even though Arts. Shell had no vested right to betray the confidence of the insolvent CALI or of its creditors.
Globe Mackay v. a LEGAL WRONG is committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. NCC to rule upon the issue
Albenson v. 20 or 21 or other applicable provisions. Tobias filed an action for damages against Hendry and Globe. 20. “You Filipinos cannot be trusted!” A19: Principle of abuse of rights. and was sentenced to be lashed. YES
Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Her two co-workers tried to rape her. in violation of Islamic laws. She filed a case against them. the place where most of the crimes was committed would determine what law should be applied. his son Eugenio Baltao III.
CLASS NOTES Right to dismiss should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised: there was name-calling. an EVP. ISSUE: WON Tobias was entitled to damages. it appears that the respondent had a namesake. Tobias was charged with estafa. ISSUE: Morada had cause of action. She was shocked when she was sentenced to be imprisoned for adultery. 1993
FACTS: Guaranteed issued Albenson a check as payment for the mild steel plates it ordered. it is clear that the petitioners abused the right that they invoke – right to dismiss an employee. going to disco. Casis _S. Albenson found out that the check belonged to Eugenio Baltao.to act with justice employer that it was routinary. Baltao. 21. She then attended a hearing. after being assured by her
.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
CALI and a writ of attachment was issued on CALI’s C54 plane. In this case. 2007-
HELD: There is no rigid test to determine when Art. However. CA January 11. accused him of being a crook and a swindler. this is to be determined upon the unique circumstances of each case. He uncovered certain fraudulent transactions. CA August 25. A. NO HELD: When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms of Article 19 and results in damage to another. A19’s “lofty” ideal is to “VOUCHSAFE ADEQUATE LEGAL
REMEDY FOR THAT UNTOLD NUMBERS OF MORAL WRONGS WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HUMAN FORESIGHT TO PROVIDE FOR SPECIALLY IN THE STATUTES”
What constitutes the abuse of right? Not the transfer of credit per se but Mr. However. Fitzgerald was already appointed as 1 of the members in the working committee tasked to determine the division of assets. Philippine Law applied because it is where Saudi Arabian deceived Morada.to give everyone his due O -to observe honesty and GF CLASS NOTES
CLASS NOTES In the context of international law. the employer may not do so in an abusive manner. The elder Baltao then filed a suit for damages against Albenson. Shell’s act of taking advantage of his knowledge of the plane showed bad faith and betrayed the confidence and trust of the other creditors. YES HELD: Article 19 merely declares a principle of law and Article 21 gives flesh to its provisions.Y. A21 implements A19 by providing for a consequence which is not found in A19. A 19. set certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights but also in performance of one’s duties… …to act with justice …to give everyone his due …to observe honesty and good faith
A19 is a mere declaration of principle which provides for the standard of conduct. RULE: Q of WON the principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages under Art. 1989
FACTS: Tobias was employed by Globe Mackay as a purchasing agent. Upon the facts of the present case. ISSUE: WON Shell can be held for damages. most of the violation of rights were committed in SAUDI! BUT COURT HELD THAT RP LAWS SHOULD BE APPLIED: no unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience shown by either parties if RP + Saudi already submitted to the jurisdiction of QC RTC This case demonstrates the broad application of A19 and A21. Despite this. The cases against him were dismissed.
2. depends on the circumstances of each case. 19. she honestly believed that her employer would act with justice and give her what is due. 21 are not conflicts of law provisions but were applied in a conflicts of law case.
G. Hendry then sent a letter to Tobias’ potential employer alleging his dishonesty. and 23 only came into effect after the incident.
It also showed bad faith in belatedly informing Jader of the result of his removals. Art 20intentional or negligent acts (does not distinguish) Albenson claims that MP should have been filed. together with the absence of all information or belief of facts. There is a legal right or duty HELD: Even though Amonoy’s actions were legally justified at the start. Jader attended the graduation and prepared for the bar. Good faith connotes an to abstain from taking undue
. Garciano then filed a complaint for damages.Y. Garciano failed to report back in time. -the ultimate thing in the theory of liability is justifiable reliance under conditions of civilized society -A person should be protected only when he acts with providence and in GF. The Board of Directors reinstated her.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 are: 1. particularly when he was already preparing for the bar. 1992
UE v. He failed to take the regular exam for Practice Court I so he was given an incomplete grade. There was no more right for him to abuse! This is not a case of abuse of right. even though the forms and technicalities of the law. (Volenti non fit injuria). 19 when there is supposedly no “hard and fast rule?” Art 19 and 21. What Amonoy did was contempt of court Problem: relied upon Testimony solely of Guitierrez (when it is self-serving)
CLASS NOTE Question: Why did this case enumerate the elements of an abuse of right under Art. by the time the decision was rendered. Jader sued UE for damages. ISSUE: WON respondents were liable for damages. the former are useless. YES HELD: UE had the contractual obligation to inform its students as to whether or not all the requirements for the conferment of a degree have been met.
Prof. not a civil case based on A19 Baltao did not clarify that there were 3 of them
CLASS NOTES “Schools and professors cannot just take students for granted and be indifferent to them. However. Casis _S. What we have here is an illegal act.abuse of duty is not a right
2. Amonoy’s acts constituted not only an abuse of a right. The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears. decided to terminate her services (BUT ONLY Board of Directors has the power to terminate her services). CA August 10. UE’s defense was that Jader should have verified grade! ISSUE: WON UE was liable for damages. a temporary restraining order was granted enjoining the demolition. He took the removals but he was given a grade of five. Should be the school. He later learned of his deficiency. 19:-intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. the school’s founder. Wiertz’s. ABSENCE OF GOOD FAITH MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED FOR A
SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION BY THE AGGRIEVED PARTY IN A SUIT FOR ABUSE OF RIGHT UNDER
Garciano v. for without the latter.
In this case. The SC then made the TRO permanent. Albenson’s complaint was a sincere attempt to find the best possible means to collect the money due to them. their continuation even after the TRO was issued amounted to an abuse of his right. but an invalid exercise of a right that was suspended. On Art. 2007-
advantage of another. ISSUE: WON Amonoy was liable for damages. Gutierrez February 15. but not when he acts with negligence or abuse NOTES: -does not adhere strictly to the 3 elements -seems to say that Art. The Gutierrez spouses then filed a suit for damages. 19 can be committed via negligence . NO HELD: Whatever loss Garciano may have incurred in the form of lost earnings was self-inflicted. and it disappears when it is abused. Arts. Amonoy was granted an order for the demolition of the house. The legal principle applied in this case is damnum absque injuria.” Petitioner (university) cannot just give out its students grades at any time… Can you sue professor for not giving grades on time? No. especially to the prejudice of others. the house was already destroyed. YES
ARTICLE 19. would render the transaction unconscientious.intentional acts. However.
Which is exercised in bad faith For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
Amonoy v. The ICI faculty has reacted “acidly” her reinstatement. 2000
FACTS: Jader was a law student at the University of the East. Jader February 17. 2001
FACTS: The lot on which the Gutierrez spouses built their house was bought by Amonoy in an auction sale. She was later sent a letter informing that Fr. 3. The law does not impose a penalty on the right to litigate. 19-21-expand the scope of our law on civil wrongs Common element under 19 and 21: act must be intentional
CLASS NOTES Rule: Action which was originally legal can become illegal if exercised abusively. A19 presupposes an existing right. a teacher at the Immaculate Concepcion Institute was granted an indefinite leave of absence to go to Austria.
considering relationship of the parties) ISSUE: WON Barons was entitled to damages.
CLASS NOTE There was no arbitrariness on the part of BPI. did not report for work.Y. and must not be excessive or unduly harsh. and not an abuse thereof. 3. it is plain to see that it’s a mere exercise of rights. In its answer. Garciano was also at fault. there is a legal right or duty 2. Barons purchased items on credit. contrary to its socio-economic purpose is an abuse which will give rise to liability. Citing Tolentino:
CLASS NOTE Violate concept of social solidarity BF not proven (that Phelps just wanted to directly deal with Meralco). Art. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another BF (on BPI’s part) was not proven. Test of Abuse of Right: modern jurisprudence does not permit an act although lawful is anti-social. Her claim for moral damages under Art 21 also fails. It also stated that it suffered injury to its reputation. HELD: No.
The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that an individual was injured in contemplation of the law. which is exercised in bad faith 3. there was damage but no injury (Custodio vs. One of his guests had to pay the bill.
CLASS NOTE Respondents did not physically prevent her from working Teachers were simply exercising Right to speech. (damages as result of “creditor’s abuse”. Casis _S. good customs. He sued BPI for damages claiming that he had an agreement with BPI and that he sent a check to BPI to cover the balance and future bills in exchange for non-suspension of his credit card. Barons admitted purchasing the items but denied the amount. In this case. Rejection of offer of payment is not an abuse of right
BPI v. Acts Contra Mores
Art. She did not comply with the order to return to work.
Prof. there must be NO INTENTION TO INJURE ANOTHER. Marasigan was not able to comply with their agreement. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. In this case. right to dissent from board’s decision Board ordered her to report to work!
Barons Marketing Corp. The provision. refused to sign written employment contact. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. BPI abused its right to suspend or cancel the card because it did not mention to Marasigan that his card will be suspended despite several communciations. being based on equity. CA)
. it may only be invoked by someone who comes to court with clean hands. =automatic cancellation after 60 days 2. GF presumed. 1998
FACTS: Phelps Dodge appointed Barons as one of its dealers of electrical wires and cables. Phelps filed a complaint to recover the amount. The terms and conditions of the contract were clear=automatic suspension for failure to pay outstanding balance after 30 days from original bill. There is no need for BPI to notify Marasigan of the suspension or cancellation. The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it has established. Elements of Art. in exercising his rights. CA: Affirmed ISSUE: WON BPI abused its right to suspend the card. 19: 1. v. NO HELD: Phelps had legitimate reasons for rejecting Barons’ offer and instituting the action for collection. 2007-
1. Every abnormal exercise of a right. A person who. Damnum absque injuria. or public policy as to violate Article 21. CA February 9. Settled doctrine: check is not a substitute for money. 19 prescribes a primordial limitation on all rights by setting certain standards that must be observed in the exercise thereof. CA FACTS: Atty. which it sold to MERALCO. does not act in an abusive manner is not deemed to have acted in a manner contrary to morals. An abuse of right exists when it is exercised for the ONLY PURPOSE of prejudicing or injuring another Acts which without legitimate purpose cause damage to another violate the concept of social solidarity which considers law as rational and just. Their contract provides for automatic suspension or cancellation. BPI did not capriciously and arbitrarily canceled the use of the card. TC: in favor of Marasigan.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
indefinite LOA. He issued a postdated check. It gave Marasigan a chance to settle his account. Barons asked if it can pay its outstanding account in monthly installments but Phelps declined. 21. Marasigan’s credit card was denied at Café Adriatico after he failed to pay his outstanding balance. HOW ABUSE? Rejection.
CLASS NOTES Who is Agonciila? Unmarried woman of chaste character Seduction of Agoncilla. Santos then sued Tanjanco for damages. Velez wrote a note stating that they would have to postpone the wedding because his mother was opposed to it. resulting in damages under Article 20 and 21 or other applicable provision of law depends on the circumstances of each case. To avoid embarrassment. The question of whether or not there was abuse of rights. Tanjanco succeeded in having carnal access with Santos until Dec. In consideration of Tanjanco's promise of marriage. good custom. Wassmer sued for damages. only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized. Seduction: 1. courted Gonzales. She accepted his love on the condition that they would get married. [as cited in Tolentino]
2. This is PALPABLY AND UNJUSTIFIABLY CONTRARY TO GOOD CUSTOMS for which Velez must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21. Velez December 26. NO HELD: Article 21 contemplates a situation where a person has a legal right and such right is violated by another in a manner contrary to morals. Ruiz and Herrera. good customs. sued to be recognized as the architects of the hospital. NO HELD: To constitute seduction there must in all cases be some sufficient promise or inducement and the woman must yield because of the promise or other inducement. Santos got
Albenson v.) Critique of Tanjanco: “Seduction” in this case only covers the initial sexual contact. Santos resigned from her job. ISSUE: WON Article 21 was applicable. together with Panlillo. both being of adult age. But which is contrary to morals.actionable under A 21. The construction of the hospital was terminated. courted the Santos. Breach of Promise to Marry. public order. which one may suffer as a result of said violation. HELD: No. As a result. 1959. He beat her. material or otherwise. However. Rule in Buenaventura: For seduction to be actionable. Also. inducement by deceit. In this case. The elements of Article 21 are: 1. ISSUE: WON there was a violation of Article 21. Such conduct is incompatible with the idea of seduction. HELD: YES. 21 is the actual catch-all provision according to Sangco.
CLASS NOTES Issue of deceit: Deceit can come in many forms and can result in attraction (so there is no moral seduction. This is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. moral wrong No seduction if promise came after Agoncilla became pregnant
Wassmer v. And it is done with intent to injure
Code commission damages for seduction CA misapplied the example. Santos was of age. Gonzales’ parents allowed them to sleep together. Art. A judicial declaration of professional prestige is unnecessary because a brilliant professional is respected even without a court declaration. There is no seduction when there is mutual desire and the opportunity was merely afforded to the woman.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Art. CA. Elements Ruiz v. 1964
FACTS: Wassmer and Velez were about to get married. He never showed up again. there is no seduction. crime if under 18 years old. When Baksh visited her home. It presupposes losses or injury. or public policy 3. yield because of that Sir: as if seduction can be ratified if court takes into consideration time and frequency and subsequent sexual acts
Tanjanco v. ISSUE: WON Velez can be held liable for damages. 21-“injury” refers not only to any indeterminate right or property. A day before the wedding. an Iranian. Examples a.
FACTS: Baltao case. were the architects of the building but only Panlillo was recognized. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparation and publicity. and Sexual Assault
pregnant. MERE BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY IS NOT AN ACTIONABLE WRONG. CA February 19. CA December 17. Gonzales later
. is quite different. two days before the wedding. but also to honor or credit. or public policy. there must be deception and the woman must have yielded because of the inducement. supra. Secretary of National Defense December 28. 1963
FACTS: A contract was executed between Allied Technologies and the Republic of the Philippines to build the Veterans Memorial Hospital. she maintained sexual relations with each other for one year. he wired Wassmer a note saying that he would return soon.
Prof. Ruiz and Herrera citing Article 21. Baksh then forced her to live with him. If she consents merely from carnal lust and the intercourse is from mutual desire. Santos consented to sexual intercourse. 2. ISSUE: WON Tanjanco was liable for damages. 1993
FACTS: Baksh. Seduction. Casis _S. 2007-
1. There is an act which is legal 2.Y. 1966
HELD: A breach of promise to marry per se is not actionable. Alfonso and Lolita then fell in love. good customs or public policy. Bunag and Cirilo then filed for a marriage license. Through a promise of marriage. ISSUE: WON Baksh was liable for damages. Gonzales was a victim of moral seduction. “trysts” in different barrios) so they refused to let them see each
. YES HELD: Independently of the right to support the child she was carrying. were neighbors.
CLASS NOTE This case is similar to say Tanjanco. 2007ATTRACTED TO
MENDEZ. in reality. A victim of rape may recover moral damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code. no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a ploy to obtain her consent to the sexual act. Casis _S. Mendez then confessed that he was married. He then brought her to his grandmother’s house where they lived together as husband and wife for 21 days. She became pregnant. Bunag’s actions constitute acts contrary to morals and good customs. 21: designed to expand the concept of torts or QD in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statue of torts. In this case. Constantino was already 28 years old. Bunag then withdrew his application. ISSUE: WON Mendez was liable for damages. she admitted that SHE WAS
FACTS: Bunag brought Zenaida Cirilo to a motel where he raped her. he succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Constantino. a breach of promise to marry is NOT PER SE actionable EXCEPT WHERE PLAINTIFF HAS ACTUALLY
INCURRED EXPENSES FOR THE WEDDING AND THE NECESSARY INCIDENTS THEREOF
Prof. the award of moral damages is allowed in cases specified in or analogous to those provided in Article 2219. ISSUE: WON Quimiguing had cause of action. Lolita's parents heard about the affair (exchange of notes. Gonzales sued for damages. In this case. YES
CLASS NOTE Sexual assault = rape There was a criminal action for rape in this case
Pe v. Even if there is deceit but the deceit resulted in attraction of the woman to the man. where she was a waitress. In this case. Bunag just wanted to marry Cirilo to ESCAPE LIABILITY (so promise to marry BUT NO INTENT TO MARRY so actionable)
CLASS NOTES Judicial notice that the cherished possession of every single Filipina is her virginity If the man never intended to marry the woman BUT STILL promised to marry her. Constantino got pregnant. NO HELD: Mere sexual intercourse is not by itself a basis for recovery.
Quimiguing v. Mendez professed his love during their first date. Damages should only be awarded if sexual intercourse is NOT A PRODUCT OF VOLUNTARINESS AND MUTUAL DESIRE. or public policy shall compensate the latter for moral damages. This is not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation that followed. Mendez May 14. then there will be no more seduction. Quimiguing herself had a cause of action for damages. and not the alleged promise of marriage. On Art. It is also supported by Article 2219. they had repeated sexual contact. Icao succeeded in having carnal intercourse with Quimiguing several times through force and intimidation. Despite this. It is essential that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals.
CLASS NOTE Compare this case with Tanjanco In this case. except where the plaintiff has actually incurred expenses for the wedding and the necessary incidents thereof. Jr. Quimiguing sued for damages and support. CA July 10. frequented Lolita’s house on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. good customs.Y. Cirilo filed for a complaint for damages for breach of promise to marry. More importantly. any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. Icao July 31. Correlatively. 1962
FACTS: Alfonso Pe. a married man. could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21. under Article 21. a married man and a collateral relative. was the moving force that made her submit herself to Mendez. it would be equivalent to inducement and he would be liable under A21
Constantino v. RULE: Generally.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
found out that Baksh was already married. Their repeated sexual intercourse indicates that passion. Pe May 30. v. She then sued for recognition of her unborn child and damages for breach of promise to marry. YES HELD: If a man's promise to marry is the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress. 1992
FACTS: Constantino and Mendez met at Tony’s Restaurant. 1970
FACTS: Quimiguing and Icao. However. ISSUE: WON Bunag was liable for damages. proof that he had.
FACTS: Que filed a complaint for estafa against Nicolas because of the checks the latter issued as payment for canvass strollers were dishonored. YES HELD: Alfonso.
THAT IN BRINGING THE ACTION. NO. The preliminary investigation stated that there was probable cause to hold respondents for the crime of rebellion with murder and frustrated murder.
THE GIST OF THE ACTION OF THE
PULLING OF LEGAL PROCESS IN FORCE. GOOD CUSTOMS AND PUBLIC POLICY AS CONTEMPLATED IN ARTICLE 21 of the new Civil Code.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
other. AND THAT IT WAS INITIATED DELIBERATELY BY THE DEFENDANT KNOWING THAT HIS CHARGES WERE FALSE AND GROUNDLESS. Drilon acted with probable cause as found in PI. was made with an honest belief in its truth and justice. NO. the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for MP. Malicious Prosecution Que v.
THERE MUST BE PROOF THAT THE
PROSECUTION WAS PROMPTED BY A SINISTER DESIGN TO VEX AND HUMILIATE A PERSON. a married man. including Adaza. Lolita left the house and disappeared. ISSUE: WON Alfonso was liable for damages. HELD: Neither of them is GUILTY OF MALICE.
3. Concededly. there must be proof that the prosecution was: 1. no sinister motive could be imputed). There is no malicious prosecution because none of the three elements were present (not terminated with an acquittal. the accusation could not be held to have been false in the legal sense. Alfonso committed an INJURY TO LOLITA'S FAMILY IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO MORALS. ISSUE: WON Que was guilty of malicious prosecution. General Rule: one cannot be held liable in damages for maliciously instituting a prosecution where he acted with Probable Cause. Prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person 2. FOR THE MERE
MP. for their participation in the failed Dec. PURPOSE OF VEXATION OR INJURY. a suit will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on without probable cause. ISSUE: WON Drilon et al was guilty of malicious prosecution.Y. seduced Lolita through trickery to the extent that she fell in love with him. ONE CANNOT
BE HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR MALICIOUSLY INSTITUTING A PROSECUTION WHERE HE ACTED WITH PROBABLE CAUSE. The presence of probable cause signifies as a legal consequence the absence of malice. IAC January 13. In other words. who had tolerable ground of suspicion. 2007*MEMORIZE! MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: AN
CAUSE. Nicolas filed a complaint for malicious prosecution.
DAMAGES BROUGHT BY ONE AGAINST WHOM A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. If the charge. CA April 20. WHY? coz it would be a very great discouragement to public justice.
Prof. Casis _S. CIVIL SUIT. were liable to be sued at law when their indictment miscarried. HELD: There is no malicious prosecution in this case because the presence of probable cause signifies the absence of malice. REGULARLY. although false. FOR
CLASS NOTE The lower court presented a more romantic version of the love story Both Alfonso and Lolita were of age
CONCEDEDLY. Lolita’s relatives filed an action for damages. The charge was dismissed in the fiscal level. Adaza filed a complaint for damages against Drilon for malicious prosecution. there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless. 2001
FACTS: A letter complaint sent to Drilon resulted in an order to investigate several individuals.
THE DEFENDANT WAS HIMSELF THE PROSECUTOR AND THAT THE ACTION FINALLY TERMINATED WITH AN ACQUITTAL. 3. To constitute MP. To constitute malicious prosecution. SUIT OR OTHER PROCEEDING IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT THEREIN. ’89 coup. A suit for MP will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on without probable cause.
Once cannot be held liable for maliciously instituting a prosecution where one has acted with probable cause. and there were reasonable grounds on which such a belief could be founded.
3 ELEMENTS OF MP: 1. Initiated deliberately by the defendant Knowing that his charges were false and groundless. THE FACT OF THE
AND THE FURTHER FACT THAT
b. Nicolas allegedly did not continue payment because of the defective canvass strollers which he never returned to Que. THE PROSECUTOR ACTED
WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THE PROSECUTOR WAS ACTUATED OR IMPELLED BY A
LEGAL MALICE THAT IS BY IMPROPER OR SINISTER MOTIVE
Drilon v. there is no malice
CLASS NOTES Reminder: memorize the definition of malicious prosecution.
THE MERE ACT OF SUBMITTING A CASE
TO THE AUTHORITIES FOR PROSECUTION DOES NOT MAKE ONE LIABLE
CLASS NOTE Dismissal of the case does not automatically give rise to a cause of action for malicious prosecution If there is probable cause. if prosecutors. OR OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN INSTITUTED MALICIOUSLY AND WITHOUT PROBABLE AFTER THE TERMINATION OF SUCH PROSECUTION.
THE MERE ACT OF
SUBMITTING A CASE TO THE AUTHORITIES FOR PROSECUTION DOES NOT MAKE ONE LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. In the office. he was told of the existence of a jumper and was threatened with deportation. ISSUE: WON there was malicious prosecution. YES HELD: To constitute malicious prosecution. supra
FACTS: the 3 Baltao case where funds for check was demanded by the company from the father Baltao… ISSUE: WON there was malicious prosecution. if acted with BF then liable for damages) However. Ongsip then filed a complaint for damages ISSUE: WON there was malicious prosecution. Cited Manila Gas definition of Malicious prosecution
Prof. He was illegally dismissed and Hendry filed 6 criminal complaints against him although the findings of the Police Chief Document Examiner absolved him from guilt. A
CLASS NOTE Competent proof of bad faith in filing the suit is essential. he was told to just go to the office. CA. Bad faith = gross negligence. That in bringing the action. When Ongsip asked about it. the circumstances of the case showed that there was malicious intent in the filing of the complaint for qualified theft. The act of slapping was contrary to morals and good customs and caused Patricio mental anguish. Since no gas consumption was registered in the meter. He then approached Patricio.If doubtful or difficult question of law is applied – the law always accords to public officials the presumption of good faith . the prosecutor acted without probable cause 3. No gross negligence in this case. in this case. 2. YES. Hernandez case ruling: . The fact that the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor. moral shock. All the complaints were dismissed in the fiscal level. CA October 30. 2007-
complaint for qualified theft was filed against Ongsip but it was later dismissed. If the case only reached fiscal level… GEN RULE: no MP EXCEPTION: if BF. 1989
FACTS: Leviste smashed a beer bottle on the table causing his hand to bleed. The eventual dismissal of the cases
FACTS: Tobias was alleged to be the #1 suspect for the fraudulent transactions he allegedly uncovered.
Globe Mackay v.
Manila Gas v. Take note of the statutory basis of malicious prosecution. NO HELD: The MERE ACT SUBMITTING a case to the authorities for prosecution (only fiscal level) DOES NOT MAKE ONE LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice. YES HELD: The mere dismissal by the fiscal of the criminal complaint is not a ground for an award of damages for malicious prosecution if there is no competent evidence to show that the complainant acted in bad faith. Cited Manila Gas definition of malicious prosecution and Que for probable cause
c. Coronal returned in the afternoon and took pictures. The elements of malicious prosecution are: 1.Y. The filing of the cases despite the police reports exculpating Tobias 4. and that the action was finally terminated with an acquittal 2. Leviste April 26. wounded feelings and social humiliation. a Catholic priest. there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless. Manila Gas issued instructions to change the gas meter. CA. The threat of further suits by Hendry (that they’ll be willing to file hundreds of suits against him just to find him liable) 3. Coronal then went to the compound and changed the meter without informing Ongsip. HELD: Article 2219 applies. He then filed for damages. there was a malicious intent as shown by the facts: 1. The complaints were filed during the pendency of the illegal dismissal case (2 of which were refilled with Judge Advocate General’s office of the AFP to subject Tobias to military courts).This is not applicable if the doctrine is clear enough. with Malicious intent
CLASS NOTE Gross negligence can prove bad faith. (Even if still in the fiscal level.
CLASS NOTE Dismissal of qualified theft case in fiscal level only still possible to file MP. in this case. It was an innocent mistake. Public Humiliation Patricio v. Casis _S. 1980
FACTS: Manila Gas installed additional appliances and gas service connections in Ongsip’s compound.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
If there is probable cause. ISSUE: WON Leviste was liable for damages. Patricio filed a complaint for slander by deed which was dismissed. there is no malice. and slapped him.
was ordered by Robert Hyde. or public policy. personality. Although Carpio had the right to know the identity of the thief. YES HELD: Carpio willfully caused Valmonte injury in a manner contrary to morals and good customs. Casis _S. good customs. GC. Sta. 26). which makes a person liable for damages if he willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. but to enable the latter to obtain means. Ines said that the NLRC had jurisdiction. THAT
THEY ARE PENAL IN CHARACTER GRANTED NOT BY WAY OF COMPENSATION BUT AS A PUNISHMENT TO THE OFFENDER AND AS A WARNING TO OTHERS AS A SORT OF DETERRENT. Espino December 28. 2004
FACTS: Valmonte. fright. ISSUE: WON the regular courts had jurisdiction. To warrant recovery of damages.
Grand Union v. THEN THE RESPONDENTS VIOLATED ARTICLE 1701. OF THE
SPIRITUAL STATUS QUO ANTE. TEMPERATE. Ines.
Prof. She was searched and questioned by the guard and the police. 20 & 21 provide the legal bedrock for the award of damages. by reason of defendant’s culpable action. LIQUIDATED OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
(ART. Inez August 30. (from report of the code)
SERVE TO ALLEVIATE THE MORAL SUFFERING HE HAS UNDERGONE. ISSUE: WON Valmonte should be awarded damages. Carpio refused to apologize so Valmonte filed a suit for damages. 19). And one must act with justice. A lot of people witnessed the incident. there must be both a right of action. moral shock. It is against morals. does not adversely affect the petitioner’s right to recover MD. In any case. give everyone his due and observe honesty and GF (Art. termination pay. CANNOT BE RECOVERED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. serious anxiety.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
On Moral Damages: The fact that no AD or CD was proven before the TC. Defendants willfully caused loss or injury to the plaintiff in a manner contrary to morals. privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. BOTH
PUNISHMENT OR CORRECTION
TO ENRICH A COMPLAINANT AT THE EXPENSE OF A
DEFENDANT. He was approached by the guard and made to file an incident report. social humiliation. AND IT MUST BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE SUFFERING INFLICTED. PURPOSE
Carpio vs. Unjustified Dismissal Quisaba v. MD may be awarded in appropriate cases referred to in the chapter on human relations of the CC (Arts. mental anguish. she should not have openly accused Valmonte without further proof. Quisaba filed a complaint for damages. and attorney’s fees. 1979
FACTS: Jose Espino forgot to pay for a cylindrical rat tail file when he left Grand Union Supermarket. without need of proof that the wrongful act complained of has caused any physical injury upon the complainant. IF THE DISMISSAL WAS DONE ANTI-SOCIALLY OR OPPRESSIVELY. he was demoted. to purchase logs for the company’s plant. a wedding coordinator. Valmonte September 9. CONSIDERING THAT THEY ARE AWARDED FOR WANTON ACTS. BY REASON OF THE DEFENDANT’S CULPABLE ACTION. 2219 of the Civil Code. and public policy to humiliate.
OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES: IMPOSED BY WAY OF
EXAMPLE OR CORRECTION FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD.
IN OTHER RESTORATION
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE POSSIBLE. good customs. Moral damages are awarded whenever the defendant’s wrongful act or omission is the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s physical suffering. 2007-
Wrong without damage. Everyone must respect the dignity. MD not awarded to penalize defendant or to enrich complainant. was publicly accused by the bride’s aunt. 2229).
d. HELD: Espino was falsely accused of shoplifting. and similar injury specified or analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. 19-36).contrary to morals and good customs. for a wrong inflicted by the defendant and the damage resulting therefrom to the plaintiff. 1974
FACTS: Quisaba. YES HELD: Quisaba’s complaint was grounded not on his dismissal but rather ON THE MANNER OF HIS DISMISSAL AND ITS CONSEQUENT EFFECTS. (Art. wounded feelings.Y. or public policy making them amenable to damages under Arts. IS TO COMPENSATE THE INJURED PARTY FOR THE MORAL INJURY CAUSED UPON HIS PERSON. his money was taken as an incentive to the guards for apprehending pilferers. Arts. which prohibits acts of oppression by either capital or labor against the other. embarrass and degrade the dignity of a person. ISSUE: WON Espino can claim damages. DIVERSION OR AMUSEMENTS THAT WILL
. 21. YES. does not constitute a cause of action. THE COURT WILL DECIDE WON THEY COULD BE ADJUDICATED. THEY ARE AWARDED ONLY TO ENABLE THE INJURED PARTY TO OBTAIN MEANS. As a result. Quisaba refused because it wasn’t part of his job. 19 and 21 in relation to Art. or damage without wrong. Espino offered to pay for the file but instead. Carpio.
ESSENTIALLY INDEMNITY OR REPARATION. IN ADDITION TO THE MORAL. Sta.
CLASS NOTE Art 21 applies to even a slap in the face
CLASS NOTE Manner of attacking without any amount of proof. the VP. THE REASON UNDERLYING THE AWARD OF DAMAGES UNDER ART. award of MD must be proportionate to the sufferings inflicted. and Article 21. of stealing her jewelry. an internal auditor of Sta. diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone. besmirched reputation.
Medina v. The following day. 2219 allows moral damages for acts and actions mentioned in Art. CA November 14. personality. deceit. went to the Chief of Police to seek assistance but were not rendered assistance. What is required under Art. President and CEO of Pepsi. 28. He suffered diminution of income and mental anguish. Art. (2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another. ISSUE: WON the Labor Code applies. Louis Realty caused to be published an ad depicting the Arcadio Family in front of Dr. shouted and cursed at the plaintiffs in front of their subordinate employees. intimidation. ISSUE: WON acts and omissions of the firm fall under Art. and other relief: (1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence. Louis v. The Amaros then filed a suit for damages.
IX. machination or any other unjust. (4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs. Unfair competition in agricultural or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force. oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to aright of action by the person who thereby suffers damage. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects. privacy and peace of mind of his neighbor and other persons. The city attorney was about to file an information for illegal discharge of firearms against the assailant. Persons who know Dr. (3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends. However. Sumaguit July 31. Plaintiff stopped publication. derogatory commercials)
C. lowly station in life. 2200. Castro-Bartolome September 11. It was dismissed since the jurisdiction of claims was transferred from the CFI to the Labor Arbiters.
. shall produce a cause of action for damages. Such being the case. without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. 2208 and 2219 of the Civil Code. Aramil’s residence. The petitioners filed a case of oral defamation against de Aboitiz. Aramil were confused by the distorted lingering impression that he was renting his residence. Aramil protested. CA affirmed. 27. 27 is that the refusal must be without just cause. Damages fixed by TC are sanctioned by Arts.
Amaro v.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Standard of dismissal laid down in this case: dismissal was done “anti-socially or oppressively. without just cause. he along with his father and witnesses. It was an action for damages for tortious acts allegedly committed by the defendants. 26. prevention. 1984
FACTS: St. 26. coercing them to sign an affidavit absolving the police officers of any liability. OTHER TORTS A. or other personal condition. Aramil filed complaint for damages claiming mental anguish and reduction in income. making it appear that the house was owned by the Arcadios. NO HELD: The plaintiffs did not allege any unfair labor practice.
though they may not constitute a criminal offense. Violation of Human Dignity
Art.” Elements: (1) material or moral loss (2) public servant’s refusal or neglect to perform duty (3) without just cause
Prof. Dereliction of Duty
Art. Unfair Competition
Art. St. Should be in the context of giving advantage to one party (eg. YES HELD: The Amaros’ claim for relief was based on the Chief of Police’s refusal to give assistance.Y. This is when St Louis Realty published a new ad showing the Arcadios in their real home. The following and similar acts. ISSUE: WON the Amaros’ action under Article 21 and/or 27 would prosper. to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter.
CLASS NOTE This is an action for damages for wrongful advertisement shows that Art 26 is very broad. TC awarded actual and moral damages. 1962
FACTS: Jose Amaro was assaulted and shot near the city government building. the Chief of Police started to harass the Amaros. which was his duty to do as an officer of the law. the governing statute is the Civil Code and not the Labor Code. Aramil extra judicially demanded damages. physical defect.
St. Louis Realty was grossly negligent in mixing up the residences. but did not rectify. Casis _S. It never made any written apology and explanation of the mix-up.
CLASS NOTE Unfair competition: designed to place your products in a better light. 26 HELD: Yes. Every person shall respect the dignity. 1982
FACTS: Cosme de Aboitiz. place of birth. His private life was mistakenly and unnecessarily exposed.
Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Concepcion v. CA January 31, 2000
FACTS: Florence Concepcion, lessor of the Nicolas spouses, joined Nestor Nicolas’ business venture by contributing capital. Rodrigo, Florence’s brother-in-law, angrily accosted Nestor at the latter’s apartment and accused him of conducting an adulterous relationship with Florence. As a result, Nestor felt extreme embarrassment. He could not face his neighbors anymore. Florence also backed out of the venture, so that the business declined. Nestor’s wife started to doubt his fidelity and even threatened to leave him. The spouses filed a civil suit against Rodrigo for damages. ISSUE: WON spouses can recover damages HELD: Yes. Examples mentioned in Art. 2219 and 26 are not exclusive but are merely examples and do not preclude other similar or analogous acts. Damages therefore are allowable for actions against a person’s dignity. Under Art. 2217, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission. *Philosophy behind Art. 26: THE TOUCHSTONE OF EVERY SYSTEM OF LAW, OF THE CULTURE AND CIVILIZATION OF EVERY COUNTRY IS HOW FAR IT DIGNIFIES MAN. THUS, UNDER THIS ARTICLE,
THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS ARE AMPLY PERFECTED AND DAMAGES ARE PROVIDED FOR VIOLATIONS OF A PERSON’S DIGNITY, PERSONALITY, PRIVACY AND PEACE OF MIND.
Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007-
Art. 2195. The provisions of this Title shall be respectively applicable to all obligations mentioned in Article 1157. Art. 2197. Damages may be: (1) Actual or compensatory; (2) Moral; (3) Nominal; (4) Temperate or moderate; (5) Liquidated; or (6) Exemplary or corrective.
CLASS NOTES Important for the distinction between damage, injury and damages Mere fact that plaintiffs suffer damage doesn’t mean that there’s right of action To warrant recovery of damages: -Legal right on the part of plaintiff -Injury caused to plaintiff
People v. Ballesteros
FACTS: Murder, through gunshot wounds, question amt of damages awarded *DAMAGES may be defined as COMPENSATION, RECOMPENSE, OR SATISFACTION SUSTAINED, OR AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSED,
DUTY OR THE VIOLATION OF SOME RIGHT. THE THE PECUNIARY PECUNIARY
II. Kinds of Damages A. Actual or compensatory
Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case. Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages. Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. Art. 2205. Damages may be recovered: (1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury; (2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit.
FOR AN INJURY
CONSEQUENCES WHICH THE LAW IMPOSES FOR THE BREACH OF SOME
Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained, whereas moral damages may be invoked when the complainant has experienced mental anguish, serious anxiety, physical suffering, moral shock, and so forth, and had furthermore shown that these were the proximate result of the offender’s wrongful act or omission.
Human personality must be exalted. Sacredness of human personality is the concomitant consideration of every plan for Human Amelioration.
CLASS NOTES Important for the definition of damages For actual damages, the party making claim must present best evidence.
Custodio v. CA
CLASS NOTE Damages is not limited to quasi-delicts (also includes contracts, quasi-contracts and delicts). FACTS: built Adobe fence on the right of way There is a material distinction between damages and injury. INJURY is the ILLEGAL INVASION OF A LEGAL RIGHT; DAMAGE is the LOSS, HURT, OR HARM WHICH RESULTS FROM THE INJURY; and DAMAGES are the RECOMPENSE OR COMPENSATION AWARDED FOR THE DAMAGES SUFFERED.
CLASS NOTES It is expressly provided for in Art. 2199 that there should be proof of pecuniary damages for AD or CD Take note of what indemnity is included in Art. 2200
I. Definition and Concept
Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Art. 2205 provides for the kinds of AD which the plaintiff may recover Loss of profits of an established business which was yielding fairly steady returns at the time of its interruption by defendant’s wrongful act is not so speculative or contingent that a court of justice may refuse to allow the plaintiff any damages at all.
Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007-
QDs, or in every case where property right has been invaded. ND are damages in NAME only and NOT IN FACT. Where these are allowed, they are not treated as an equivalent of a wrong inflicted but simply in recognition of the existence of a technical injury. The amount to be awarded as ND shall be equal or at least commensurate to the injury sustained considering the concept and purpose of such damages.
Algarra v. Sandejas
FACTS: Plaintiff Algarra received personal injuries from a collision with the defendant Saldejas’ automobile due to the negligence of the defendant, who was driving the car. Plaintiff sold the products of a distillery as a commission agent and had about twenty regular customers, who purchased his wares in small quantities, necessitating regular and frequent deliveries. Being unable to attend to their wants during their wants during the two months he was incapacitated due to the accident, his regular customers turned their trade to other competing agents. HELD: Under both the Spanish Civil Code and American law of damages, actual damages for a negligent act or omission are confined to those which “were foreseen or might have been foreseen” or those which were “the natural and probable consequences” or “the direct and immediate consequences” of the act or omission. In this jurisdiction, the author of a negligent act or omission which causes damage to another is obliged to repair the damage done. No distinction is made between damage caused maliciously and intentionally and damages caused through mere negligence in so far as civil liability is concerned. Nor is the defendant required to do more than repair the damage done or to put the plaintiff in the same position that he would have been in had the damage not been inflicted. This is practically equivalent to compensatory or actual damages as those terms are used in American law. *THE
PURPOSE OF THE LAW IN AWARDING ACTUAL DAMAGES IS TO REPAIR THE WRONG THAT HAS BEEN DONE, TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INJURY INFLICTED, AND NOT TO IMPOSE PENALTY.
1. Kinds PNOC v. CA
FACTS: The M/V Ma. Efigenia XV, owned by respondent Ma. Efigenia Fishing Corp. collided with the vessel Petroparcel which at the time was owned by the Luzon Stevedoring Co. The Board of Marine Inquiry rendered a decision finding the Petroparcel at fault and thus the respondent filed an action for damages against Luzon Stevedoring and the Petroparcel’s captain. During the pendency of the case, petitioner PNOC acquired the Petroparcel and was substituted in place of Luzon Stevedoring in the complaint. HELD: ACTUAL
INJURY SUSTAINED. OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ARE THOSE AWARDED IN SATISFACTION OF, OR IN RECOMPENSE FOR LOSS OR
CLASS NOTES The basic rule in recovering AD: it is sufficient that damages are capable of proof in order to recover (AD) There should be a record to serve as proof presented before the Court There are cases which say that providing a list of expenses is not enough—there has to be receipts, etc.—PROOF SHOULD BE VERY FACTUAL Proof required: reasonable certainty upon competent proof Two (2) kinds of AD or CD: Dano emergente-actual Lucro cesante-loss of profit
PROCEED FROM A SENSE OF NATURAL
JUSTICE AND ARE DESIGNED TO REPAIR THE WRONG THAT HAS BEEN DONE, TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INJURY INFLICTED AND NOT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY.
In actions based on QD-AD include all the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. 2 kinds of AD or CD: 1. The loss of what a person already possesses (daño emergente) 2. the failure to receive as a benefit that which would have pertained to him (lucro cesante) On Nominal Damages: When awarded: in the absence of competent proof on the AD suffered-entitled to ND, which the law says is adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant may be vindicated and recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered. -awarded in every obligation arising from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, acts or omissions punished by law and
Integrated Packing v. CA
Petitioner Integrated Packing Corporation (IPC) and respondent Fil-Anchor Paper entered into an agreement whereby Fil-Anchor bound itself to deliver 3,450 reams of printing paper to IPC, to be paid within 30 to 90 days from delivery. Later, IPC entered into a contract with the Philippine Appliance Corporation (Philacor) to print three volumes of “Philacor Cultural Books.” However, IPC encountered problems paying Fil-Anchor and became heavily indebted to the latter. This led to Fil-Anchor suspending deliveries of paper to IPC. Thus, out of the agreed upon 3,450 reams, only 1097 were delivered., despite demand by IPC for Fil-Anchor to deliver the balance.
Pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, are not elements of actual or compensatory damages in this jurisdiction. Aside from this exception, the measure of damages in this country and in the US is arrived at by the same evidence.
Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Meanwhile, IPC entered into an additional printing contract with Philacor. Unfortunately, IPC failed to fully comply with its contract for the printing of Philacor’s books and thus Philacor demanded compensation for delay and damage suffered. Because IPC also not able to fully settle it’s indebtedness to Fil-Anchor, the latter filed a collection suit against it. In its counterclaim, IPC alleged that because Fil-Anchor was only able to deliver 1097 reams of paper it was unable to fulfill its contract with Philacor and thus failed to realize expected profits. Indemnification for damages comprehends not only the loss suffered, that is to say actual damages (damnum emergens), but also profits which the obligee failed to obtain (lucrum cessans). damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.
Prof. Casis _S.Y. 2007-
NOTES Art. 2201 lays down the distinction between good faith and bad faith (in bad faith— whatever damage happens) Last sentence of Art. 2202 problematic—some cases use forseeability as an element of QD Forseeability: In elements: may be required In damages: not required Reasonable certainty required: allege specific facts, Present best evidence Quantum of evidence required: preponderance of evidence
being equal, the person who has more pieces of evidence wins What should be the basis: admissibility issue aside: number and quality of evidence presented and this is what makes it preponderant you should also prove your allegations though not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt
DBP v. CA
Lydia Cuba was the grantee of a fishpond lease agreement with the government, the rights to which she assigned to DBP as security for loans the latter extended to her. After Cuba failed to meet the terms of payment on the loans, the DBP, without foreclosure proceedings of any kind, appropriated Cuba’s leasehold rights over the fishpond. Subsequently, DBP executed a deed of conditional sale in favor of Cuba over the same fishpond. However, Cuba once again was unable to meet the amortizations stipulated which led to DBP rescinding the deed of conditional sale and taking possession of not only the fishpond but also a house Cuba had built next to it as well, along with all the personal belongings, machineries, equipment, and tools therein, which subsequently, it was claimed, went missing. DBP allegedly also prevented Cuba and her representatives from feeding the fish already in the fishpond which led to their loss. As to the losses Cuba allegedly suffered when DBP took possession of the fishpond, the court said: Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjectures, or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend upon competent proof that they have been suffered by the injured party and on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof. It must point to specific facts which could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne.
CLASS NOTES The Court here gave the two kinds CD—dano emergente and lucro cesante Problem with the evidence presented—mere estimates Court disallowed mere estimates because they are highly speculative and manifestly hypothetical CD here was strictly construed
-possible that the exact value (peso) is not known.
PNOC v. CA
FACTS: Collision of 2 vessels Certainty: to enable an injured party to recover AD or CD, he is required to prove the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available. Burden of Proof: on the party who would be defeated if no evidence would be presented on either side. Evidence Required: He must establish his evidence by PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, which means that the evidence, as a whole, adduced by one side is superior to that of the other. Damages are not presumed: damages cannot be presumed and courts, in making an award must point out specific facts that could afford a basis for measuring whatever CD or AD are borne.
Art. 2201, CC - In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted. In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. Art. 2202, CC - In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such
CLASS NOTES Problem here with preponderance of evidence is that it became COMPARATIVE—all things
In the instant case. The problem then would be ascertainment. Inc.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Prof. are not granted on the basis of mere speculation.. During the trail. testimony for damages by someone who is an interested party is weak)
Talisay-Silay v. 1995
FACTS: On the 15th of February. The rule is that damages consisting of unrealized profits. In crimes and quasi-delicts.
CLASS NOTES Financias Postradas? Lost profits Standard required by the Court for this: accounting standards.
ISSUE: WON the extent of the unrealized profits suffered by the plaintiffs were proven with the certainty required by law. Re-allocation and administration of Absolute Quota on Sugar. PNOC case provides for guidelines on how to determine value of property (at what point do you count) Court here said: value AT TIME OF LOSS. (TSMC) and the Talisay-Silay Industrial Cooperative Association. If this takes into account profits=FMV
. Where. preclude recovery of this species of damages. (TSICA) instituted an action for damages against defendants Asociacion de Agricultores de Talisay-Silay. (AATSI). conjecture or surmise but rather by reference to some reasonably definite standard such as market value. Jr. 1966. it is reasonably certain that injury consisting of the failure to realize otherwise reasonably expected profits had been incurred. CA
Julieto Malaspina was at a benefit dance when Alejandro Fuentes. etc. I saw you with long hair but now you have a short hair. TC: 15. v. Combined with credible testimony. the defendants had their sugar milled at FFMCI instead. Casis _S. of course. conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages. Malaspina’s sister testified that she incurred expensed of P8. Jr. frequently referred to as ganancias frustradas or lucrum cessans. the Supreme Court held that the trial court was in error to have awarded the P8.Y.” which provides certain requirements that need to be met before a sugar planter’s sugar quota allotment can be transferred from one mill to another. the defendant is liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. put his arm on the former’s shoulder saying “Before. Assosiacion August 15. “An Act to Provide for the Allocation. To seek recovery for actual damages it is essential that the injured party proves the actual amount of loss with reasonable degree of certainty premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence available. the Supreme Court ruled that the transfer of their export sugar quota by AATSI and certain individual planters from TSMC to FFMCI was illegal and invalid and found the defendants liable to the plaintiffs for damages. This case shows that you should be ready with documents
Of the expenses alleged to have been incurred. Uncertainty as to whether or not a claimant suffered unrealized profits at all. 2007CA: reduced it to 1M
CLASS NOTES DBP’s acquisition of the leasehold rights wasn’t valid Problem with AD here: Court said AD was speculative because actual ocular inspection was done after the filing of the complaint and that they should have made an inventory Sir: Just because certain damages were found out after the filing of the compliant doesn’t make the damages speculative.e.e. uncertainty as to the very fact of injury. However. without any tangible document to support such claim. established experience or direct inference from known circumstances.” whereupon Fuentes stabbed Malaspina in the abdomen with a hunting knife and fled. what happened was that instead of having the sugar forming their export quota milled by TSMC as they had always done in the past. (FFMCI).300 as actual damages on the basis of mere testimony of the victim’s sister.300 in connection with his death and the trial court awarded this amount as actual damages. Inc. the TalisaySilay Milling Co. however.4 M
Fuentes. HELD: Yes. In the end. This started nearly thirty years of litigation between the parties. plaintiff’s computations as to the amount of unrealized profit were based on fairly definite standards utilized by the governmental agency having relevant administrative jurisdiction over the subject matter and accounting standards widely employed in the world of business and commerce. will. in violation of Section 4 of RA 1825. Besides who in the provinces makes an inventory of bangus.
CLASS NOTES This case demonstrates how important the quality of your evidence is (i. Subsequently. Dominador Agravante and other individual sugar planters. pricing of Sugar Quota Administration When a property is damaged and you claim AD. Fuentes was convicted of murder. the Court can only give credence to those supported by receipts and which appear to have been genuinely expended in connection with the death of the victim. Inc. these provide sufficient basis for a reasonable estimate of the unrealized net income or profit sustained by plaintiffs. uncertainty as to the precise amount of such unrealized profits will not prevent recovery or the award of damages. And Ramon Nolan in his personal and official capacity as administrator of the Sugar Quota administration. alleging an illegal transfer of sugar quota allotment or production allowance from TSMC to FFMCI. First Farmers Milling Co. i. Courts cannot simply rely on speculation. In short.
” then the amount of damages which should be awarded. In other words. that is. 2206 provides for earning capacity which is NOT equal to actual income
CLASS NOTES According to the Court. 2206. from the nature of the case be made with certainty. up to the time of the trial. and one which would meet pecuniary loss certain to be suffered but which could not. the sum of money which he would have to pay in the market for identical or essentially similar goods. that regard must be had to existing and pending engagements. what has to be assessed is the value of the chattel to its owner as a going concern at the time and place of the loss. In the instant case. such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased. plus in a proper case damages for the loss of use during the period before replacement. In PNOC. for a period not exceeding five years. Damage to property PNOC v. then that is the value to be used. not what the price is at the time of the ruling 2. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. If fair market value already includes the possible contracts. NOTES: Rule: amount at the time of the loss. may demand support from the person causing the death.
Amount of AD recoverable in suits arising from negligence: should at least reflect THE CORRECT MINIMUM COST OF PROPER CARE (SA CASE OPTIMAL CARE FOR THEIR LOVED ONE IN A FACILITY WHICH GENERALLY SPECIALIZES IN SUCH CARE) . Delim (where the girl was given 15k for plastic surgery)
5. Ramos pay for hospital bills
4.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Bottom line if FMV-but this can be construed in a # of ways Why FMV: Assessed value is lower (that’s why this is being used as basis for tax) The company in PNOC did different—it took into account inflation 3.
CLASS NOTES Art. unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant. if they are to adequately correspond to the injury caused should be one which compensates for the pecuniary loss incurred and proved. 1999
. (problem – NATURE of AD: only award for AD proven up to the time of trial) Continuing injury: if the amount of damages has not yet been completely liquidated because the resulting injury is “continuing. not the cost of the care the family is usually compelled to undertake at home to avoid bankruptcy (but the CC presents us with difficulties) Well-settled rule: that AD which may be claimed by the plaintiff are those suffered by him as he has duly proved. CA
Where goods are destroyed by the wrongful act of the defendant the plaintiff is entitled to their value at the time of destruction. the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession. the exact duration to be fixed by the court. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos. Price (fair market value) at the time of loss. In other words. at least in the case of ships. (3) The spouse.Y. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. inflation was taken into account. the pieces of documentary evidence proffered by private respondent with respect to the items and equipment lost show similar items and equipment with corresponding prices approximately ten years after the collision. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291. and this means. and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. had no earning capacity at the time of his death. in the case of profit-earning chattel s. CA December 29. Casis _S. Personal Injury and Death
Art. the standard is the correct minimum cost of proper care and not what they actually spent in order not to prejudice those who are poor SC is limited to 8k/month because of the NATURE OF AD: must be proven
CLASS NOTES PNOC gives guidance as to how actual damages are computed: 1.
Prof. temperate damages can and should be awarded on top of actual or compensatory damages in instances where the injury is chronic and continuing (There is no incompatibility when both AD and TD are provided for). normally. 2007-
FACTS: under a coma because of wrongful intubation TC: 8k per month from time when moved from hospital to the time of trial (the 8k was an estimate of the expenses incurred and proven before time of trial) CA: reversed. cf Gatchalian v.
She alleged in her complaint that her injuries had left her with a conspicuous white scar on her forehead. HELD: Not entirely. Heirs of Andres Malecdan December 27. went off the road. she was older so SC ASSUMED that removing scar would be harder Skewed in favor of the beautiful Relevance nung “snapping sound” accdg to sir: baka naman may turtle kaya nag-turn turtle ung bus!
Gatchalian v. 40th day. a 75 year-old farmer. vs. The aforementioned events led Gatchalian to file an action extra contractu to recover compensatory and moral damages. or burial of the victim. the more difficult it is to remove Gatchalian ruling is OK but the reasoning is funny This is still law so women can take advantage of this The case also cited Araneta vs. Delim October 21. were injured and were promptly taken to a hospital for medical treatment.
• • • •
SC-removed from AC what it thought was extravagant
Victory Liner. Several passengers. including Gatchalian. Later. a bus of petitioner Victory Liner bypassed the Dalin bus and in doing so hit the old man and his carabao. a Dalin Liner bus stopped to allow him and his carabao to pass. turned turtle and fell into a ditch. ISSUE: WON the award of damages for funeral. Therefore since in this case it was just a boy. Casis _S. and food expenses was proper. it was easier to remove the scar. burial. Inc. However. generating mental suffering and feeling of inferiority on her part. ISSUE: WON the Delims are liable for the cost of plastic surgery to remove the scar on Gatchalian’s forehead. or those incurred for purely aesthetic or social purposes. RESULTING FROM THE INFLICTION OF INJURY UPON HER. respondents in this case. HELD: Yes. 2002
FACTS: While Andres Malecdan. A
ACTUAL INJURY PERSON IS ENTITLED TO THE PHYSICAL INTEGRITY IS SUFFERED FOR WHICH ACTUAL AND OF HIS OR HER BODY. wake.Y. 1999
FACTS: The accused Rufino Mangahas and the late Rufino Gestala were drinking at a store near the latter’s house when an altercation between the two. 2007-
over the sale of a handgun. such as the lining of the tomb. an aunt of the victim was presented and testified mainly on the expenses their family incurred as a result of the death of the victim. Mangahas July 28. 9th day. those incurred after a CONSIDERABLE LAPSE OF TIME FROM THE BURIAL and which do not have any relation to the death. IS A VIOLATION OF BODILY
People v. Thus. 1991
FACTS: Reynalda Gatchalian boarded. Areglado where a young boy sued for costs of surgery for removal of his scar on his face which caused a degenerative process and inferiority complex to the boy. was crossing the National Highway on his way home from the form. P14. Sir: technology makes things cheaper but SC here gave a presumption Most intriguing is the language of the Court— the longer the scar has been. the vehicle bumped a cement flower pot on the side of the road. She also alleged that the scar diminished her facial beauty and deprived her of opportunities for employment. and 1st year anniversaries of the death of the victim. allegedly
. as Malecdan was crossing the highway. Mangahas was found guilty sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
• • • • •
CLASS NOTES This case is always cited to support that plastic surgery can be the subject of AD. Of the expenses allegedly incurred.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
• • • Ramos case is important because AC is not just those up to the time of trial but also those certain to be suffered Lesson here: dramatize plight of your client If opposition: minimize plight of victim
INTEGRITY. eventually killing both of them. A
SCAR. while the bus was running along the highway. ESPECIALLY ONE ON THE FACE OF A WOMAN. wake or burial of the victim. the Court can only give credence to those supported by receipt and which appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death. During the trial. 950 was also awarded for funeral and burial expenses as well as P28. the Court cannot take account of receipts showing expenses incurred before the date of the slaying of the victim. GIVING RISE TO A LEGITIMATE CLAIM FOR RESTORATION TO HER CONDITION ANTE. as a paying passenger. She was allegedly on her way to confer with the district supervisor of public schools for a substitute teacher’s job.
Prof. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ARE DUE AND ASSESSABLE.
Petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to be placed as nearly as possible in the condition that she was in before the mishap. a minibus owned by the Delim spouses. IF THAT INTEGRITY IS VIOLATED OR DIMINISHED. ensued and ending with Gestala’s death from three gunshot wounds. a snapping sound was suddenly heard and shortly thereafter. 890 for food during the vigil. Nature of action here: breach of contract of common carrier Sir: is there a health risk if you have a scar? So purely aesthetic? What was the proof offered for the scar? Expert testimony: alleged cost of 5-10k Yet SC granted 15k based on a presumption that plastic surgery would cost more after several years (SO AD became speculative AND NOT PROVEN). After trial. In Reynalda’s case.
Casasola. sued both Guerrero and PHILAMGEN. such as expenses relating to the 9th day. (2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. (10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded.
• • • • • •
CLASS NOTES Attorney’s fees are in the form of damages (nasa title on damages) Also in the form of AD MEMORIZE THIS ARTICLE! You can’t recover outside the listing of 2008 unless there is a stipulation AS regards the gen rule and exception.” (Except 2208)
Quirante v. the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. among others. there should be proof of the actual amount of loss incurred in connection with the death. In view of Guerrero’s failure to perform his part of the contract within the period specified. Intermediate Appellate Court January 31. 000. the person must have done something really bad AND be liable for a greater degree Why ED only? Why not for other damages as well? What is the rationale for the enumeration? “A person is free to litigate. Casasola died leaving his widow and several children.
CLASS NOTES The Court cherry-picked! Specifically deleted an item which was too extravagant. John Quirante. (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime. In the meantime. Atty. the cost of one pig. regardless of the solvency of their employees. therefore the injured party may recover from the employers DIRECTLY. The Philippine American General Assurance Co. The Court cannot take into account receipts showing expenses incurred some time after the burial of the victim. these included the amount of P5. through his counsel. The trial court granted the motion despite opposition thereto hence the instant petition before the Supreme Court. actual damages amounting to P88. HELD: No. Casis _S. This item cannot be allowed. (PHILAMGEN) acted as bondsman for Guerrero. PRIMARY Responsibility of employers: for the negligence of their employees in the performance of their duties. Dr. laborers and skilled workers. On Exemplary Damages: imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions.Y. which had been butchered for the 9th day death anniversary.
. just and demandable claim.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
The trial court found both the driver and Victory Liner. Dr. attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. A petition was filed before the IAC to compel the trial court to give due course to the appeal. Indalecio Casasola had a contract with a building contractor named Norman Guerrero. After Casasola’s death. and exemplary damages. The trial court found for Dr. While these are duly supported by receipts. the petition was dismissed and so the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. moral. (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers. except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded. ordered PHILAMGEN to pay the plaintiff the amount of the surety bond equivalent to P120. To justify an award for actual damages. Casasola and aside from awards of actual. Inc. guilty of gross negligence and awarded. In all cases. (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. PHILAMGEN filed a notice of appeal but the same was not given due course because it was supposedly filed out of time. it is not. ISSUE: WON the award of P88. The trial court thereafter issued a writ of execution. 339.
Prof. 40th day and 1st year death anniversaries. In the instant case. Casasola with regard to the said fees and allegedly confirmed by his widow in writing.
Art. Inc. (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff. (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff. 339 as actual damages. In the absence of stipulation. 2208. 1989
FACTS: Dr. sir said it can be BOTH Why may one recover attorney’s fees under those listed? –person is forced to protect his
5. Quirante filed a motion in the trial court for the confirmation of his attorney’s fees alleging that there was an oral agreement between him and the late Dr. other than judicial costs. (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid. wake or burial of the victim. cannot be recovered. (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws. 339 in actual damages is proper. 90. (6) In actions for legal support. However. 2007-
interest and for “at least double judicial costs”. the trial court awarded P88.
2. i. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. we also ruled that the monetary award shall earn interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of the finality of the judgment until its satisfaction. be adjudicated in the discretion of the court. 3.. 2210. is breached. Mitigation of Liability
Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences: -if the plaintiff does not try to reduce damages.
Prof. When an obligation. 2212. 2209. with them as the creditors and the private respondents as the debtors. except when the demand can be established with reasonably certainty. 2. HELD: No. 2213. Accordingly. in a proper case. the rate of interest. be xxx the amount finally adjudged. CA
. the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. is imposed. regardless of whether or not the case involves a loan or forbearance of money. 2007March 9. v.e. Rule: 1. and it consists in the payment of a sum of money. not constituting a loan or forbearance of money. No interest. stipulation. v. the rate of legal interest. shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Art. In the absence of stipulation. the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made. from requiring the borrower or debtor to repay a loan or debt then due or payable. wherein the award is made in favor of the litigant. in the discretion of the court. which is six per cent per annum. a loan or forbearance of money. as well as the accrual thereof. be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract. the Court gave the following guidelines for the application of the proper interest rates: With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages. Furthermore.. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money. Interest
Art. Interest may. CA Take note of complications like compounding of interest When would interest accrue? From time of judicial demand
8. 2211. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages. Court of Appeals. Inc. if none: loan or forbearance-12% not loan or forbearance-6%
CLASS NOTES Attorney’s fees referred to by Quirante not the same as attorney’s fees in 2208 What the difference?—Atty’s fees in 2208 are a form of AD and hence need to be proven. although the obligation may be silent upon this point. an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. Art. Art. the petitioner’s claims are based on an alleged contract for professional services. and the debtor incurs in delay.e. CA. not his counsel. i. however. The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall.
• • • •
CLASS NOTES 12% from CB Circular 416-for loan and forbearance of money. 3. whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or
paragraph 2. 1999
1. the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction. Inc.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
ISSUE: WON the attorney’s fees being claimed are the same attorney’s fees contemplated in article 2208 of the Civil Code. as follows: When the obligation is breached. and in the absence of stipulation. Art. In crimes and quasi-delicts. the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. he might not be able to recover -plaintiff must try to avoid further damage
Crismina Garments v. Casis _S. is the judgment creditor who may enforce the judgment for attorney’s fees by execution. This is not something that goes to the attorney but to the litigant
Forbearance of money: contractual obligation of lender or creditor to refrain during a given period of time.. Inc. there being no stipulation to the contrary. Rules on Interest In Eastern Shipping Lines. this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. as opposed to 6% which was imposed by A2209 Forbearance of money: basically a loan. In Keng Hua Paper Products Co. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory.Y. the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default. What is being claimed here as attorney’s fees is different from attorney’s fees as an item of damages provided under Article 2208 of the Civil Code. a credit but loan has a specific legal definition under the Civil Code Memorize rules laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines. from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code. Here. where the demand is established with reasonable certainty. the indemnity for damages. in any case.
7. v. above. interest as a part of the damages may. and the litigant. The interim period is deemed to be equivalent to a forbearance of credit. not of his counsel. shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon. the legal interest.
2204. 2203. 1918
FACTS: The defendant Tan Chuco. Tan Chuco August 1. Santos. moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission. 2007-
Cerrano v. There was no express agreement as regards the duration of the contract. (2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract. 1997
. Art. quasi-contracts. In quasi-delicts. you can’t claim moral damages because there was an intervening cause—your inability to answer the questions
ANOTHER TO TAKE SUCH MEASURES AS PRUDENT MEN USUALLY TAKE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES TO REDUCE THE DAMAGE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. WELL-
Burden of Proof: rests on the defendant that the PLAINTIFF MIGHT HAVE (COULD HAVE) REDUCED THE DAMAGE. to which the defendant indicated that he was willing but that the rent would be increased to P80. the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. the lower court found defendant liable to the plaintiff for damages resulting from breach of contract. After trial. the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Kierulf v. (4) That the loss would have resulted in any event. Some time during the month of May. fright. About one week before the end of the repair period the defendant sold the casco to Siy Cong Bieng and Co. the plaintiff claiming that he was entitled to the possession of the casco under his contract with the defendant induced Santos to refuse to take orders from the new owners. ISSUE: WON the plaintiff’s right is limited to the recovery of the difference between the contract price at which the casco was hired by him and such higher rate as he might have been compelled to pay for the hire of a similar casco in the open market. Art.
• • • • • •
CLASS NOTES What’s the connection of this case with the Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences? Defendant says that liability is mitigated because plaintiff could have found another casco at the same price SC-no mitigation of liability Damage = profit which he would have made had the contract been performed CASCO: a barge PATRON: the captain of the barge
B. and similar injury.
CLASS NOTES 2203 is known as the Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences which is different from the Doctrine of Contributory Negligence DOCTRINE OF AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES. the party has to minimize the damages. that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel. social humiliation. (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded. as in the following instances: (1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract. Casis _S. the defendant notified the plaintiff that the following month it would be necessary to send the casco off for repairs. Plaintiff then informed defendant that he would like to rent the casco again after the repairs had been completed. the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question.
Prof. and quasidelicts. Art. In the instant case the defendant made no effort whatsoever to show that any other similar cascos were in fact available to the plaintiff. besmirched reputation. 2215. the damages to be paid would be diminished if you contributed to the damage incurred! There is an obligation on the part of the party suffering to mitigate the loss. In the absence of evidence it will not be presumed that plaintiff could have secured another casco at the same price had he looked for one.
RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT DAMAGES RESULTING FROM AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE BREACH OF A CONTRACT ARE NOT
IS THE DUTY OF ONE INJURED BY THE ACT OF
If the professor allowed you to stand for three (3) hours. wounded feelings. 2217. the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury. the rent being payable at the end of each month. the man who had been employed by the plaintiff as the patron of the casco went to the office of Siy Cong Bieng and was hired by the latter in the same capacity. 1916. Upon the arrival of the casco in Manila.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Art. *DOCTRINE OF AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES: IT
Art. Moral damages include physical suffering. serious anxiety. In crimes. Though incapable of pecuniary computation. in CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 1033. however. who was then the owner of casco No. moral shock. HELD: No. Moral 1. In contracts. (5) That since the filing of the action. CA March 13. or the price he would have been able to obtain the use of one. rented it to the plaintiff Vivencio Cerrano at a monthly rental of P70.Y. 2214. mental anguish.
causing damage to both vehicles and injuries to both Legaspi and his passenger Lucila Kierulf.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
FACTS: One of Pantranco’s buses was traveling along EDSA when the driver lost control of the bus. 2007-
wounded feelings and anxiety. and its imposition is required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts of an offender. Lucila) had failed to make out a case for loss of consortium. THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST RULE IN DETERMINING THE PROPER AMOUNT. fright." no "supercilious manner.. National Labor Relations Commission. Rodriguez ruled that when a person is injured to the extent that he/she is no longer capable of giving love. Clearly.
DAMAGES ARE AWARDED TO ENABLE THE INJURED PARTY TO THE MORAL SUFFERING HE/SHE HAS UNDERGONE. there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering.
EACH CASE MUST BE GOVERNED
BY ITS OWN PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES. She suffered sleepless nights and shock as a consequence of the vehicular accident. The loss is immediate and consequential rather than remote and unforeseeable. wounded feelings. The social and financial standing of a claimant of moral damages may be considered in awarding moral damages only if he or she was subjected to contemptuous conduct despite the offender's knowledge of his or her social and financial standing.
In Francisco vs. limbs and ribs. etc. On Exemplary Damages: -designed to permit the courts to mould behavior that has socially deleterious consequences. As a consequence of the incident. unlike the Rodriguez spouse. mental anguish. mental anguish. x x x social humiliation. averred that the disfigurement of Lucila’s physical appearance due to the accident could not but affect their marital right of consortium and asked that the moral damages awarded be increased from P100. however. it is nevertheless essential that THE CLAIMANT
SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR DAMAGES AND ITS CAUSAL CONNECTION TO THE DEFENDANT’S ACTS. In order that moral damages may be awarded. Thus. in consequence thereof. not only for Lucila. She had to undergo several corrective operations and treatments. Be that as it may. serious anxiety and wounded feelings. it cannot be
AWARD IS AIMED AT RESTORATION. IT MUST BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE SUFFERING INFLICTED. that resulted therefrom. She felt that she has not fully recovered from her injuries. wife of Victor Kierulf. and then to fly over the center island. Neither should it be so little or so paltry that it rubs salt to the injury already inflicted on plaintiffs. causing it to swerve to the left. her chin was still numb and thick. OF
THE SPIRITUAL STATUS QUO ANTE. The factual circumstances prior to the accident show that no "rude and rough" reception. However." no "abusive language and highly scornful reference" was given her. moral damages cannot be awarded. The front of the bus bumped the front portion of an Isuzu pickup driven Porfirio Legaspi. Rodriguez v. it is still proper to award moral damages to Petitioner Lucila for her physical sufferings. a California case.
. RULES: When social & financial standing may be considered in awarding MD: only if he or she was subjected to contemptuous conduct despite the offender’s knowledge of his or her social and financial standing. Lucila suffered injuries which required major surgery and prolonged treatment by specialists. prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial judge. She lost all her teeth. that spouse has suffered a direct and real personal loss. no "menacing attitude. HELD: The Court increased the moral damages awarded but ruled against awarding moral damages based on loss of consortium or considerations of social and financial standing. affection. was not supported by the evidence on record. it is personal to the spouse and separate and distinct from that of the injured person. fright and the like. Bethlehem was cited as authority for the claim of damages based on loss of marital consortium. In the instant petition. ending up on the wrong side of the road. In Cocoland Development Corporation vs. if the plaintiff fails to take the witness stand and testify as to his/her social humiliation.Y. She even had to undergo a second operation on her gums for her dentures to fit. that a wife could not recover for the loss of her husband's services by the act of a third party. the Court held that there must be clear testimony on the anguish and other forms of mental suffering. but also for her husband. but he had not testified that. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found for Legaspi and the Kierulfs. GSIS. BY OBTAIN MEANS.
The yardstick should be that the amount awarded should not be so palpably and scandalously excessive as to indicate that it was the result of passion. They also averred that the social and financial standing of Lucila should also be considered in fixing the award of moral damages. these being. DIVERSIONS OR AMUSEMENTS THAT WILL SERVE TO ALLEVIATE REASON OF THE DEFENDANT'S CULPABLE ACTION. Victor's claim for deprivation of his right to consortium. His wife might have been badly disfigured. although argued before Respondent Court. While no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded. The spouses Kierulf. his right to marital consortium was affected. She sustained multiple injuries on the scalp. the Court held that "additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code. The Court noted that the Rodriguez case clearly reversed the original common law view first enunciated in the case of Deshotel vs. Casis _S. 000 to one million pesos.
Prof. comfort and sexual relations to his or her spouse. AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THUS. owner of the pickup and employer of Legaspi. ISSUE: WON an increase in the amount awarded as moral damages is warranted given the circumstances. Atchison. Despite treatment and surgery. Victor (and for that matter. The social and financial standing of Lucila cannot be considered in awarding moral damages. grave anxiety.
Allied Free Workers Union May 24. Causal connection between factual basis and defendant’s wrongful act or omission
2. the wrongful act must be accompanied by BF. temperate. MORAL DAMAGES
DEFENDANTS ACTED FRAUDULENTLY MAY IN BE BAD RECOVERED FAITH. On May 26. On Moral Damages: -MD. oppressive or malevolent manner. Defendant alleged that it sent a telegram to plaintiff canceling the sale because of the failure of the latter to obtain a letter of credit in its favor. 2007MANNER.
What to prove in breach of contract: • Defendants acted fraudulently and in bad faith • Purpose of MD reiterated in this case *SC held that Visayan Sawmill DID NOT HAVE ANY OBLIGATION to sell because RJH breached agreement on 3 counts (did not comply with suspensive conditions)
• • • •
CLASS NOTES Rodriguez case-different from what happened to Lucila (there was nothing wrong with possible performance. 1983. as much as possible. The Union found out later that the contract was to be oppressive and unduly favorable to the company. They are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means.
IN A WANTON. 000 in favor of defendant on or before May 15. defendants received a letter of advice from BPI informing them that a letter of credit had been opened in their favor. fraudulent.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
recovered as a matter of right—it is based entirely on the discretion of the court. liquidated or compensatory damages. 1983. OPPRESSIVE OR MALEVOLENT
Visayan Sawmill Co.
• • •
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES MAY ONLY BE AWARDED IF DEFENDANTS ACTED
. by way of example or correction in addition to CD 2. The plaintiff filed a petition for preliminary attachment but it was returned unserved because the scrap iron as well as other pieces of machinery could no longer be found on the defendant’s premises. of the spiritual status quo ante. by reason of the defendant’s culpable action. -awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means. The Court noted the palpably excessive and unconscionable moral and exemplary damages awarded by the trial court to the private respondent despite a clear absence of any legal and factual basis therefore. Proof and Proximate Cause Compania Maritima v. Casis _S. On may 17. v. and it must be proportional to the suffering inflicted. 1993
FACTS: Plaintiff RJH Trading. by reason of the defendant’s culpable action. within the limits of the possible. RECKLESS. On May 24. However.
Prof. plaintiff informed defendant that a letter of credit had been opened with BPI but that the transmittal of the same was delayed. Inc. diversity or amusement that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone. entered into a sale involving scrap iron located at the stockyard of defendant corporation subject to the condition of plaintiff opening a letter of credit in the amount of P250. thus it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. 1977
FACTS: The Compania Maritima and the Allied Free Workers Union entered into a written contract whereby the Union agreed to perform arrastre and stevedoring work for the company’s vessels at Iligan City. plaintiff’s employees started to gather scrap iron at the defendant’s premises until May 30 when defendant allegedly directed plaintiff’s employees to desist from pursuing the work. and defendant Visayan Sawmill Co. the plaintiff sent a series of telegrams to the defendant demanding that the latter comply with the deed of sale. though incapable of pecuniary estimation. In contracts. HELD: No. CA March 3. On July 19. Its award is aimed at restoration. etc. There is no hard and fast rule in determining the proper amount since each case must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances. It was stipulated that the management could revoke the contract before the expiration of the term if the union failed to render proper service. IF
Moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of the defendant.Y. “Equipment was not damaged. ISSUE: WON the moral damages awarded in favor of RJH trading were proper. of the spiritual status quo ante. The contract itself could be renewed by agreement of the parties. FRAUDULENT. and the award would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanton. diversion or amusements that will serve to obviate the moral suffering he has undergone. Its award is aimed at the restoration. Requirements before ED may be awarded: 1. are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant at the expense of the defendant. the defendant informed them that they were unwilling to continue with the sale due to failure by the plaintiffs to comply with the essential preconditions of the contract. & 3.”) Sir: what kind of evidence will you present without embarrassing yourself to prove loss of consortium? This case can be used in the future—even if reason is only lack of visual stimulation Another factor to determine amount of moral damages: social and financial standing (but wouldn’t it be discriminating since you only award damages to those who are rich?) Epilogue by ponente: there should be: Factual basis of mental anguish. claimant must 1st establish his right to moral.
HELD: Yes. When the maturity of the checks given in payment arrived. therein Plaintiff failed to take the witness stand and defendant’s breach of contract was held to be not malicious and fraudulent. or
moral shock” and the like justified the denial of the claim for damages. Miranda-Ribaya later discovered that most of the jewelry she had sold to Bautista had been pledged to various pawnshops. Accompanied by her agent. 2007-
Miranda-Ribaya v. JUST SELFSERVING TESTIMONIES. handling of cargo on the wharf or between the establishment of the consignee or shipper and the ship’s tackle STEVEDORING: handling of cargo in the holds of the vessel or between the ship’s tackle and the holds of the vessel
The law explicitly authorizes the award of moral damages "in breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. the pawnshop tickets for the jewelry she had sold him which she used. satisfactory evidence of the psychological and mental trauma actually suffered by the Del Rosarios. fright. Thus the Union was only compensated for arrastre work performed and not for stevedoring. the grant to them of moral damages is warranted. She was. 1997
FACTS: Impressed by the defendant’s advertising. Casis _S. the petitioner took the witness stand and established by uncontradicted testimony that due to defendant’s deceitful and malevolent acts of defraudation she had suffered extreme anguish and could not sleep for three months. ISSUE: WON the company is entitled to moral damages. The Court differentiated the instant case from Francisco v. she was informed by one of her agents that a wealthy logger by the name of Marino Bautista was interested in buying some of her jewelry. serious anxiety. However. at her own expense. It was held to be sufficient that these exact terms were pleaded in the complaint and evidence was adduced amply supporting the same. Over a period of about a month. Niceta Miranda-Ribaya was in the pawnshop business and in the business of buying and selling jewelry. able to confront Bautista and obtain. it follows that the company. GSIS because in Francisco. all of them were dishonored for the reason that the accounts of Bautista were closed. portions of the roof were blown away by strong winds which also led to the interior of the house being damaged as well.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
This was because while he shippers and consignees paid the Union only for the arrastre work.
Del Rosario v. RULE: In order to recover MD.
IS SO BECAUSE MORAL
DAMAGES THOUGH INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION. This was not held to be sufficient. during a storm. helplessness. embarrassment and anger.
Nature of contract was for arrastre and stevedoring services ARRASTRE: hauling of cargo." *IT
IS ESSENTIAL IN THE AWARD OF DAMAGES THAT THE CLAIMANT HAVE SATISFACTORILY PROVEN DURING THE TRIAL THE
EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE DAMAGES AND ITS CAUSAL CONNECTION TO DEFENDANT'S ACTS. claiming that the company was the one obligated to pay for the stevedoring services." There being. is not entitled to moral damages. HELD: Yes. The Court did not share the appellate court’s narrow view that petitioner’s failure to use in her testimony the precise legal terms or “sacramental phrases” of “mental anguish. found that their claim for actual damages was baseless. Bautista January 28. It MERELY CLAIMED MORAL DAMAGES in the prayer of its complaint. During the litigation. In the instant case. Considering that the company’s claim for moral damages was BASED ON THE SAME FACTS ON WHICH IT PREDICATED ITS CLAIM FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES. is adequately demonstrated by the recorded proofs. Also. the spouses Del Rosario purchased a quantity of the defendant Metal Forming Corporation’s Banawe roofing shingles for use in their house. they experienced "feelings of shock. one must plead and prove
Prof. IN FLAGRANT BREACH OF ITS EXPRESS WARRANTIES MADE
TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND IN WANTON DISREGARD OF THE RIGHTS
DEL ROSARIOS WHO RELIED ON THOSE WARRANTIES . the company itself also refused to pay for the stevedoring services because the contract explicitly provided that the compensation for both arrastre and stevedoring would be paid by the shippers and consignees. the company claimed actual and moral damages resulting from the strike. The court. moreover. she visited Bautista in his Greenhills home and was impressed by the size of his residence. a juridical person. the COMPANY DID NOT PLEAD AND PROVE moral damages. 1980
FACTS: Mrs. ISSUE: WON the Del Rosario spouses are entitled to moral damages.Y. Much to chagrin. wounded feelings. with great difficulty. She subsequently sold him several pieces of jewelry paid for with postdated checks issued by Bautista. THE “INDEPENDENT AUDITOR” HIRED WAS ACTUALLY A FRIEND OF THE BRANCH MANAGER…) . ARE IN THE CATEGORY OF AN AWARD DESIGNED TO COMPENSATE THE CLAIMANT FOR ACTUAL INJURY SUFFERED AND NOT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY ON
. CA January 29. WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE GROUNDLESS (NO SALES INVOICES PRESENTED. to redeem the same from the pawnshops where they had been pledged. Sometime in 1968. It was found that MFC DID IN TRUTH ACT WITH BAD FAITH. however. however. HELD: No. ISSUE: WON Miranda-Ribaya is entitled to an award of moral damages. fear. This led to a labor dispute and a strike by the workers of the Union. RULE: FAILURE TO MENTION IN TESTIMONY THE SACRAMENTAL PHRASES IS NOT ENOUGH TO DENY CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.
Casis _S. 2219.
This is so because moral damages. HELD: The court reaffirmed the rule that although an allegation is not necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded. 26. 2217)
AND ITS CAUSAL RELATION TO
CLAIMANT SATISFACTORILY PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE DAMAGE DEFENDANT'S ACTS.
CLASS NOTES Motion for summary judgment (there’s no more controversy if it’s summary judgment) Here MD was not awarded not because of proof but because unfounded suits do not warrant MD
People v. 1998
Prof. as an instance when moral damages may be allowed. praying that the deed of sale executed by his deceased father Ciriaco Enervida over a parcel of land covered by a homestead patent be declared null and void for having been executed within the prohibited period of five years. 309. 10. nevertheless. the Code has chosen to enumerate the cases in which moral damages. par. ISSUE: WON the defendant spouses are entitled to moral damages by reason of the unfounded civil action filed against them. 2202). The trial court and the Court of Appeals both seem to be of the opinion that the mere fact that respondent were sued without any legal foundation entitled them to an award of moral damages. 32. It will be observed that unlike compensatory or actual damages which are generally recoverable in tort cases as long as there is satisfactory proof thereof (Art. 2219 and in Arts. 2219). 2219 Specifically mentions "quasi-delicts causing physical injuries". essential that the (ART. as justifying an award of attorney's fees. as it did in Art. that the plaintiff had no cause of action against them as his father was still alive and it was not true that he was the only son of Ciriaco Enervida and that the sale did not take place within the prohibited period. Such a conclusion would make of moral damages a penalty. excepting. are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. Besides. though incapable of pecuniary estimation. it is. among others. of course. 2208 by reference in Art. 27. Art. or it would have expressly mentioned it in Art. 000 for moral damages. 1968
FACTS: Defendant Bienvenido Carciller. De La Torre January 28. but we do not think the Code intended" a clearly unfounded civil action or proceedings" to be one of these analogous cases wherein moral damages may be recovered. 2219. 4). causing the child’s instantaneous death. notwithstanding the finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that his complaint against respondents were clearly unfounded or unreasonable. The lower court rendered a judgment on the pleadings condemning the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs. Bugayong December 2. He further prayed that he be allowed to repurchase the said parcel for being the legitimate son and sole heir of his deceased father.
Defendants filed their answer stating. Art. Ruling in favor of the defendant. Art. 2219 in respect to moral damages. hence they made no definite finding as to what the supposed moral damages suffered consist of. 2216). which they are intended to be. Traya February 27.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
THE WRONGDOER AND ARE ALLOWABLE ONLY WHEN SPECIFICALLY PRAYED FOR IN THE COMPLAINT. 2208 (par. in other words. Moral damages. The Supreme Court ruled that: “with respect to moral damages. HELD: No. 2219).” RULE: Unfounded suit-not a basis of MD for it is not part of 2219
CLASS NOTES What’s wrong with Judgment on the pleadings in the granting of MD? the rule on AC as regards proving cannot be done with a judgment on the pleadings Judgment on the pleadings-primary submission only (nothing to support)
Enervida v. It is true that Art. 2007-
Raagas v. rather than a compensation for actual injury suffered. nevertheless. among other things. while no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary IN ORDER THAT MORAL DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED. but is not included in the enumeration of Art. thereby implying that all
other quasi-delicts not resulting in physical injuries are excluded. 35 on the chapter on human relations (par. which is expressly mentioned in Art. we are inclined to agree with petitioner that these damages are not recoverable herein. 29. 2208. Furthermore. the special torts referred to in Art. 2208). it is. may be recovered (Art. are not corrective or exemplary damages.
THE AMOUNT OF INDEMNITY BEING LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT
THAT THE CLAIMANT SATISFACTORILY PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE DAMAGE AND ITS CAUSAL CONNECTION TO DEFENDANT’S ACTS. 2219 also provides that moral damages may be awarded in "analogous cases" to those enumerated. 30. or else incorporated Art. and 34. 1974
FACTS: Petitioner Roque Enervida filed a complaint against the defendant-spouses Lauro and Rosa de la Torre. 21. A like enumeration is made in regard to the recovery of attorney's fees as an item of damage (Art. which they are not. the sum of P2. 9. ISSUE: WON moral damages were properly awarded despite there being a judgment on the pleadings. But the two enumerations differ in the case of a clearly unfounded suit. while “recklessly” driving a truck owned by his co-defendant Octavio Traya. ran over the three year old son of plaintiff spouses Melquiades and Adela Raagas. 28. the Court found the plaintiff’s civil action to be entirely unfounded.
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries.20. Seduction. 28. ETC. 29. In exchange. This continued until the GSIS sent the plaintiff and her father three letters asking for a proposal for the payment of her indebtedness. GSIS March 30. Casis _S. and to cover the balance. and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 2219. 1999
FACTS: Expertravel issued to respondent Ricardo Lo (Ricky Lo! Showbiz!) four round-trip plane tickets to Hong Kong. This led to litigation as to the nature of the agreement in which the plaintiff eventually prevailed. ISSUE: WON the victim is entitled to moral damages. Abduction. Rocio de Vega who was theretofore authorized to deal with the respondent’s clients. ISSUE: WON damages can be recovered by reason of a clearly unfounded suit. abducted. HELD: Although the institution of a clearly unfounded civil suit can at times be a legal justification for an award of attorney's fees (Enervida vs. Atty. (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest. (8) Malicious prosecution. without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof as had heretofore been the practice. ascendants. (7) Libel. WOUNDED FEELINGS. 34. sent a letter to the general manager of the defendant corporation. not only on account of plaintiff’s FAILURE TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND and TESTIFY TO HER SOCIAL HUMILIATION. referred to in No. to allow the GSIS to manage the property and collect the installments due on the unpaid houses and lots thereon until the debt was fully paid.
Francisco v. 1963
FACTS: Plaintiff Trinidad Francisco in consideration of a loan. Expertravel caused several demands to be made. NOT BEING MALICIOUS OR FRAUDULENT. Vicente Francisco.
Expertravel and Tours. Cases where allowed (MEMORIZE!)
Art. Damage automatically comes from being a victim of such crimes and it is assumed that the victim suffered mentally. ISSUE: WON plaintiff is entitled to moral damages by reason of defendant’s breach of contract. such damages are justly due. under the circumstances. The Court held that Bugayong should also be ordered to pay the victim the additional amount of P50. 30. 3 of this article. Alleging that Lo had failed to pay the amount due. the Court ruled that moral damages may additionally be awarded to the victim in the criminal proceeding.Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that. the GSIS extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage on the ground that up to that date the plaintiff was in arrears on her monthly installments.
. THE ANGUISH
SUFFERED BY A PERSON FOR HAVING BEEN MADE A DEFENDANT IN A CIVIL SUIT WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT FROM THE USUAL WORRY AND ANXIETY SUFFERED BY ANYONE WHO IS HALED TO COURT. 9 of this article. 677. has almost invariably been held not to be a ground for an award of moral damages. abduction. The GSIS was itself the buyer of the property in the foreclosure sale. but primarily because a BREACH OF CONTRACT LIKE THAT PF THE DEFENDANT’S. v.
CLASS NOTES For Rape. (4) Adultery or concubinage.Y. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. however. *Rationale for the rule: THE LAW COULD NOT HAVE MEANT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY ON THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE. Acts of Lasciviousness and Physical injuries: NO NEED to prove MD.. the one-year period of redemption had expired. 32. descendants. Expertravel filed a complaint for recovery of the amount. in such amount as the Courts deems just. HELD: Yes. may also recover moral damages. A SITUATION THAT CANNOT BY ITSELF BE A COGENT REASON FOR THE AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES. Prades. slander or any other form of defamation. the foreclosure on the property would be set aside. Rodolfo Andal. P50k awarded as indemnity ex delicto + P50k as MD
3. (9) Acts mentioned in Article 309.There was no error in the appealed decision in denying moral damages. 26. or other lascivious acts. in the order named. together with hotel accommodations and transfers for a total cost of P39. Art. payable within 10 years in monthly installments. (3) Seduction. Respondent Lo answered that his account with Expertravel had already been fully paid. CA June 25.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
FACTS: Rodelio Bugayong alias “Boy” was convicted of raping and committing acts of lasciviousness against Arlene Cauan. raped. Dela Torre). In People v. DOES NOT WARRANT THE AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES.. rape. The account had been remitted to Expertravel through its then Chairperson Ma. emotionally. The plaintiff’s father. 2007-
HELD: No. 2220. or abused. Since the demands were ignored by Lo. (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21. The parents of the female seduced. (6) Illegal search. and 35. 000 as moral damages. Some time later. mortgaged in favor of the defendant GSIS a parcel of land known as the Vic-Mari Compound in Quezon City.. Inc. GSIS appeared amenable to the proposal and the various sums therein were paid by the plaintiff and her father to the defendant. The spouse. 27. The trial court found for the respondent and held that the amount claimed by Expertravel had already been paid.
Prof. his eleven year old stepdaughter. such filing. CC . as the decision holds. since according to the GSIS. proposing to partially pay off his daughter’s indebtedness.
Upon confrontation. in Art. Illegal search.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
If the rule were otherwise. which is also operated by Editha Mijares. Sia refused to return the motorcycle and dared the representative to file a case in court. BF.
1. serious anxiety. Motorcycle was traced to Sia. or b. or without malice or bad faith. Illegal arrest f. fright. Court found suit to be unfounded. Unfounded Suits
Unfounded suits Malicious prosecution
ART. HELD: No. special rule: e. DOCTRINE: Moral Damages cannot be recovered from a person who has filed a complaint against another in good faith. 1. and similar injury unjustly caused to a person. for partial payment under the account name of his store. which was dishonored. 20. 2206: when death results from a breach of carriage
J. The Co-op was dissolved and ceased operations in 1986. MMD made deliveries to Silverio’s store for almost a year. or c. where the defendant is guilty of an intentional tort (casis: Arts. Under Culpa contractual or breach of contract: when the defendant acted in: a. CA
FACTS: Metro Manila Drug supplied pharmaceutical products to the Mijares spouses’ drugstore and to the Ospital ng Maynila Consumers Cooperative Drugstore. was guilty of gross negligence (amounting to BF). Defamation Malicious Prosecution The term “analogous causes” in Art. 2219. MMD filed a complaint to collect from Editha. & exceptionally: d. in wanton disregard of his contractual obligation. when the act of breach of contract itself is constitutive of torts resulting in physical injuries (PI). *REQUISITES OF MD: 4. Sia. HELD: No. Marketing Corp. Casis _S. Amount of MD: though incapable of pecuniary estimation.
a. but are designed to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical suffering. *ELEMENTS OF MP: (1) MALICE. 21. RTC and CA dismissed the complaint and awarded moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees in favor of Sia. wounded feelings. social humiliation. ALTHOUGH FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS. moral shock. when an act or omission causes P
“J” filed the complaint based on
. Adultery or concubinage d.
THERE MUST BE AN INJURY. Mijares spouses
COLLECTION. mental anguish. Lascivious acts c. 19.
Mijares v. WHETHER PHYSICAL. “J” filed a complaint for replevin against Sia.
in Culpa Aquiliana or QD: a.
ISSUE: WON Moral damages should be awarded to the Mijares spouses.Y. amounting to 32K. the factual basis for which is satisfactorily established by the aggrieved party. MENTAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL THERE MUST BE A CULPABLE ACT OR OMISSION FACTUALLY ESTABLISHED THE WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY THE AWARD OF DAMAGES IS PREDICATED ON ANY OF THE CASES STATED IN
5. Illegal detention e. PI b. Jr. v. A
PERSON’S RIGHT TO LITIGATE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED BY HOLDING HIM LIABLE FOR DAMAGES.
FACTS: J Marketing discovered that a motorcycle was missing from its bodega. 4. besmirched reputation. 1746 in relation to Art. or g. Silverio issued a check. ISSUE: WON the award of Moral Damages is proper. 26-huma relations torts) -also applies to contracts when breached by tort In Culpa Criminal: when accused is found guilty of a.
Prof. (2) ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE. must be PROPORTIONAL TO AND IN APPROXIMATION OF THE SUFFERING INFLICTED. Nature of MD: not punitive. 2219 (CASIS: PENDING ISSUE)
When MD allowed: must be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission. 2.
WAS MOTIVATED BY BAD FAITH WHEN IT INSTITUTED THE ACTION FOR
It is merely an unfounded suit not Malicious Prosecution. FAILED TO SHOW THAT
3. “J’s” representative examined the chassis and motor numbers of the motorcycle and found them tampered. ESPECIALLY WHEN HE BELIEVES HE HAS A RIGHTFUL CLAIM AGAINST ANOTHER.
• • •
CLASS NOTES Court applied same elements for MP and unfounded suits Sir: this should not have been the case because it lumps together the two (2) kinds of action The enumeration of the elements was probably a mistake because malicious prosecution is not equivalent to unfounded suits. then moral damages must every time be awarded in favor of the prevailing defendant against an unsuccessful plaintiff. following the ejusdem generis rule must be held similar to those expressly enumerated by the law. as an officer of the Co-op. despite having been informed that they no longer did business in Ospital. 3. and its space was leased out to Solomon Silverio who also put up a drugstore. b.
CLASS NOTES Moral damages are not just awarded because of violations of the Labor Code. The effects of this was that Ligorio could not work. but she again became ill and required 2 surgeries. etc. DOCTRINE: What must be alleged in a complaint for malicious prosecution so that there is a valid cause of action: (1) defendant himself instigated the prosecution. No damages can be charged on those who may exercise their right to litigate in good faith. HELD: No. CA
FACTS: SITI (Cometa: president) extended loans to GIDC (Guevara: president). Bondad
The absence of any generic aggravating circumstance precludes the award of exemplary damages.
. so “J” could not be deemed to have done so with bad faith. The award of damages was proper. or was done in a manner contrary to morals.
Industrial Insurance Company v. or public policy. Torrenueva’s widow
DID NOT TESTIFY ON HAVING
CLASS NOTES Lesson here as opposed to earlier discussion to sue as many as you can: don’t implead people without any reason or a suit will also be filed against you MP was filed against SITI and Cometa. LA and NLRC both ruled in her favor and awarded her damages. HELD: Yes. TC and CA: exculpated the Bondads. (2) prosecution terminated in the plaintiff’s acquittal. Pirame
CLASS NOTES Purpose of requirements: to temper the filing of suits in order to get damages. et al were found guilty of murdering Pedro Torrenueva. social humiliation. HELD: Yes. Ordered IIC to pay them moral damages for recklessly and baselessly impleading them in spite of the clear language in the Traffic Investigation report that they were not responsible in any way for the accident. The case focused more on how Osdana was treated when she worked in Saudi Arabia. which the latter failed to pay.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Sia’s own challenge for them to sue him. she was no longer given any assignments even if she was willing and able to do light work. so she filed an illegal dismissal case. Casis _S. All the requirements for a valid cause of action were present. its driver. She was transferred several times. IIC was RECKLESS WHEN IT IMPLEADED THE BONDADS IN SPITE OF
CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE NOT LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO
Prof. DOCTRINE: The adverse result of an action does not make a complainant subject to pay moral damages. NOTE: SC did not equate mp with an unfounded suit
MORALES’ CAR. and the jeep’s driver and owner (Ligorio and Pablo Bondad). Bad working conditions made her ill and she had to be confined in a hospital. FACTS: A 3-automobile collision involving a bus. The bus bumped the jeep that was parked at the shoulder to fix a tire and the bus went on to hit the car. (3) prosecutor acted without probable cause. DOJ Secretary reversed prosecutor’s finding but the RTC eventually dismissed the case. 2007-
Triple Eight Integrated Services v. serious anxiety. Guevara filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against Cometa. Sue someone who could readily be impleaded (based on legal basis) FACTS: Pirame. and Pablo became sick and even suffered a mild stroke. 2219 or 2220 (CC). ISSUE: WON the case for malicious prosecution states a cause of action and warrants a full blown trial on the merits. ISSUE: WON the award of moral and exemplary damages were justified. IIC ACTED IN BAD FAITH WHEN IT COMPELLED THE BONDADS TO TRAVEL FROM LAGUNA TO MAKATI TO LITIGATE AN UNFOUNDED CLAIM. Triple 8 refused to help her.
Cometa v. Labor Cases
DEATH OF HER HUSBAND. After this. ISSUE: WON the award of Moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees was proper. (2) Injury sprung from any of the cases listed in Art. She was dismissed from work and not given any separation pay. DOCTRINE: Moral damages are recoverable where the dismissal of the employee was attended by bad faith or fraud or constituted an act oppressive to labor. and a car. NLRC
FACTS: Erlinda Osdana was recruited by Triple 8 as a food server in Saudi Arabia. The award of Moral Damages is justified. not unfounded suit
SUFFERED ANY MENTAL ANGUISH OR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS FROM THE
i. Criminal Taking Of Life People v. (3) Necessary that such acts be shown to have been tainted with bad faith or ill-will. SITI foreclosed the mortgages and was the highest bidder in the foreclosure sale. as a result of the other party’s acts. Cometa filed a falsification case against Guevara which was dismissed by the prosecutor for lack of probable cause. ISSUE: WON the award of moral and exemplary damages was justified. (4) the prosecutor was actuated by malice.
ii.Y. DOCTRINE: Requirements to sustain an award of moral damages: (1) Claimant suffered injury. even if done erroneously. It is not enough that the claimant alleges mental anguish. The owner of the car (Morales) and the insurance company filed a complaint for damages against the bus company. HELD: Yes. wounded feelings. The Bondads denied any responsibility or liability to IIC and Morales. good customs.
He filed a case against Cruz and Belarmino seeking the nullification of the Deed on the ground of fraud and deceit. However. that displays wanton bad faith. SUPPORT AND AFFECTION BUT ALSO LEAVES THEM WITH A GNAWING FEELING THAT AN INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE TO THEM. Fule was able to examine the jewelry and accepted them (he had already examined them before and even made a sketch). a prominent businessman in Baguio engaged in the real estate business of buying and selling house and lots. 2007-
Carlos Arcona y Moban v. CA
FACTS: Fule. Belarmino.Y. Factors in Determining Amount PNB v. Casis does not seem to agree with. He had to share a room with another passenger whom he promised to repay in Surigao. bought from PNB 2 manager’s checks worth 500k each. Cruz under a Deed of Absolute Sale with Atty.
BRUTAL DEATH NOT ONLY STEALS FROM THE FAMILY OF THE
DECEASED HIS LIFE. moral damage must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs’ emotional sufferings. attacked his character by alleging that he was a known gambler and big time casino player. only to be stunned with a court case. respected. the City Fiscal of Surigao took a PAL flight from Manila to Surigao. The Supreme Court reduced the award of 1M to 100k as moral damages. CA
FACTS: Pantejo. CA
FACTS: Carmelo Flores.
CLASS NOTES This seems to be in conflict with the Pirame case.
HELD: Yes. PNB later refused to honor the checks because of alleged shortage in his payment. the flight to Surigao was cancelled while on a stopover in Cebu. but PAL refused. Property for a pair of diamond earrings from Dr. HELD: Yes. It was found during
HUMAN TO SUFFER SORROW. From this it is obvious that PNB besmirched Flores’ reputation causing him undue humiliation. without proofs. a banker/jeweler bartered his 10 ha. LOVE. CA
FACTS: Carlos Arcona was convicted of homicide and was ordered to pay 10K as moral damages. he learned that the hotel expenses of some passengers were reimbursed. SC increased the award to 200K. that this had caused him his integrity and dependability as a businessman in Baguio. CA the trial that the bank was negligent of its duties.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
DOCTRINE: Proof of suffering must be attested to justify the award of moral damages. Due to a typhoon. Casis Commentary: SC reduced the award. PAL gave out cash assistance to its stranded passengers. Flores also testified in court regarding his woes when PNB refused to honor his checks. 2219 (8). TORMENT. (4) The length of time the case has dragged on during which their reputations were tarnished and their names maligned.
Prof. (2) 1M in Moral Damages is grossly disproportionate to the 100K in actual damages.
NOTES: Q: why ANALOGOUS TO MP only and not MP? A: can’t be MP coz no prior case that ended or was qualified as MP
CLASS NOTES Seems to consider MD similar to AD
Fule v. Casis _S. PAIN AND ANGER WHEN A LOVED ONE BECOMES THE VICTIM OF A VIOLENT OR BRUTAL KILLING. (2) Both are near the twilight of their lives after maintaining and nurturing their good reputation in the community. considered 1M in Moral Damages to be excessive because (1) Flores did not prove that he lost the Baguio House. Cruz presents a possible distinction between Arcona and Pirame: the manner of death was taken into account (violent nature of the death) which Prof. and held in high esteem in San Pablo. Preponderance of evidence suggests that the cause of action in this case was contrived by Fule himself. PNB. Pantejo requested that he be billeted at a hotel at PAL’s expense because he wasn’t carrying cash. Flores’ character and personality are irrelevant to the issues in the case. and Belarmino 250K as moral damages. they were living under a pall of doubt which surely affected not only their earning capacity. Pantejo sued PAL for damages for discriminating
b. DOCTRINE: Factors considered in determining amount: (1) Cruz & Belarmino are well-known. That because of the incident whenever he tries to make a deal people doubt his capacity to pay. The bank also alleged that the proceeds of the checks were used by Flores in gambling. (3) Since the filing of the case.
For this reason. ISSUE: WON the award of damages is proper. a small city. RULE: MD does not need actual proof. 2 hours later. Flores filed this MFR contending that the award was too small. The case is analogous to malicious prosecution under Art.
This is the sales case on BARTER!
PAL v. On the flight. but also besmirched their reputations. as shown by Fule’s wanton bad faith and his filing of a malicious and unfounded case against Cruz & Belarmino. TC & CA dismissed the complaint and ordered him to pay Cruz 300K. NOTE: cf Arcona v. SC took into account the following: that despite the fact that Mr. HELD: Yes. ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages should be increased. ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages was correct. AS BORNE OUT BY HUMAN EXPERIENCE A VIOLENT DEATH
INVARIABLY AND NECESSARILY BRINGS ABOUT EMOTIONAL PAIN AND ANGUISH ON THE PART OF THE VICTIM’S FAMILY. Moral damages should be increased to 50K. he complained that the earrings were fake. He appealed claiming self-defense.
NOTES: his stature demanded that he be given MD. They grappled for the gun. They obtained a P2M loan. but the bank refused. who in turn filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. he bit Ramos’ arm and left ear. HELD: SC reduced moral damages to 300K. The SC finds the 10K award of Moral Damages justified under the circumstances. they share his prestige and therefore. HELD: Yes. they were informed that they could not be accommodated as first class passengers. He was convicted of attempted homicide and was made to serve sentence and ordered to indemnify Ramos for loss of crops. Pan American
FACTS: Senate President Pro Tempore Fernando Lopez reserved first class tickets with Pan-Am for him. The amount of damage which goes with the
SUDDEN SEVERING OF A VITAL PORTION OF THE HUMAN BODY AND THE RESULTANT ANXIETY. serious anxiety and mental anguish as a result of Pan-Am’s breach in bad faith of their contracts. Considering the prestige of his rank and position.
COMMENSURATE TO THE
. PAL acted in bad faith in disregarding its duties as a common carrier to its passengers and in discriminating against Pantejo. ISSUE: WON the increase in the amount of Moral Damages was proper. which altogether necessarily subjected him to ridicule. the amount awarded is appropriate. but on the day of the flight. DOCTRINE: The amount of moral damages awarded DEPENDS ON THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PHYSICAL INJURIES. The damage done was permanent and lasting. The Chuas filed a complaint for injunction and damages. HELD: No. his wife (50K). Valenzuela filed a case claiming damages: 1M (moral). CFI awarded 150K in moral damages. DOCTRINE: Factors: Pantejo was exposed to humiliation and embarrassment especially because of his GOVERNMENT POSITION and SOCIAL PROMINENCE. and exemplary (100K) damages. CA
FACTS: The Chuas had substantial savings and current deposits with the Bacolod Branch of Producers Bank. secured by a real estate mortgage.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
against him. ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages is proper. his daughter (25K) and his son-in-law (25K). but CA reduced moral damages to 500K. because first class was already fully booked. SLEEPLESSNESS. moral (150K). TC awarded. wounded feelings. The TC awarded them 2M in moral damages. ISSUE: WON the reduction of the award of moral damages was justified. Although it is not humiliating to travel as tourist passengers. It was PAL’s standard policy to extend cash assistance or hotel accommodations to stranded passengers. These injuries have left indelible marks on his body and will serve as a constant reminder of his traumatic experience. The bank dishonored checks drawn out by the Chuas on the ground of insufficient funds. the artificial leg would have to be adjusted to the physiologic changes her body would normally undergo through the years. hospitalization expenses and Moral Damages (5K). Li and his employer were found jointly and severally liable. DOCTRINE: The award should be SUFFERING INFLICTED. HELD: Yes. CLASS NOTES Casis Commentary: Valenzuela must have been really beautiful. but missed. They were constrained to take the flight as tourist passengers. Casis _S. Senator Lopez was the Senate President Pro Tempore and a for VicePresident of the Philippines. his daughter and her husband. and in doing so. shame and anguish. Permanent nature of damage HELD: SC raised the amount to 200K. CA
FACTS: Sumalpong shot twice at Ramos. They filed an action for damages against the bank.
Producer’s Bank v. Her left leg was severed & she had to get a prosthetic leg. “under protest. to be divided among Senator Lopez (100K). although the offended party had not appealed from said award. CA
FACTS: Lourdes Valenzuela was fixing a flat tire on the roadside when she was hit by Alexander Li who was driving a company car. The Lopezes suffered social humiliation.
P1M in moral
damages is proper. The Chuas deposited 960K. but the amount was not credited to their account because the Branch Manager absconded with the money of the bank’s depositors.
Sumalpong v. alleging breach of contracts in bad faith. increasing Moral Damages to 10K. The CA has in many cases. TC awarded him actual (300K). his wife. Valenzuela’s left leg was amputated. The incident caused the mutilation of Ramos’ ear and a permanent scar on his arm. The tickets were issued and paid for. his humiliation. mutilating the latter. The damages awarded to each of them are reasonable. The refund of hotel expenses was discriminatorily made since it was not made known to all its passengers.Y. PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY AND MENTAL AND PHYSICAL PAIN IS INESTIMABLE. The damage to their REPUTATION AND SOCIAL
Lopez v. as their suppliers discontinued credit lines resulting in the collapse of their businesses. and asked for 500K as actual and moral damages. The dishonor of the Chuas’ checks and the foreclosure initiated by the bank AFFECTED THE CREDIT STANDING AND THE BUSINESS DEALINGS OF THE CHUAS. ISSUE: WON the award of damages is proper. 100K (exemplary). CA modified the award of damages. SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO
Prof. His family too coz they shared in his prestige and humiliation. increased the damages awarded by the TC.” Lopez filed a suit for damages. The Chuas requested to see the ledgers of their account.
Valenzuela v. CA reduced it to 500K. despite their having over 1M in savings. As to the members of his family. 2007-
ISSUE: WON the amount of damages was proper. 180K (medical expenses + loss of earnings). The nature of the injuries and the degree of physical suffering endured by Ramos warrants it. IT IS HUMILIATING TO BE COMPELLED TO DO SO .
NOTES: one cannot be awarded MD for the suffering one did not endure (sympathy) cf Art. On Atty’s fees: -in the absence of stipulation. The transfer was within the power of the DOJ Secretary. 2208 demands factual. Deals with ABS failed. It therefore cannot experience physical suffering and mental anguish.defines what are included in MD Art. Viva’s agent gave ABS (through Charo Santos) a list of 36 films to choose 24 from.Y. and there can be no recovery for distress caused by sympathy for another’s suffering. value of he loss suffered 2.” ABS filed a complaint for specific performance w/ a prayer for injunction. atty’s fees may be recovered as AD or CD under any of the circumstances in Art. it has no feelings. which can be experienced only by one having a nervous system. so then Viva made a deal with RBS granting the latter the exclusive right to 104 film. he cited the incident of the transfer of his son-inlaw (Hernandez) from the BOI to the Bureau of Prisons.
CLASS NOTES Cf: Lopez – wife shared in “prestige” of hubby (goes into the amount of MD) What about Strebel and son-in-law? Sufferering suffered by vicarious relations?
CLASS NOTES Rule on Damages is jurisprudential: amounts do not change but basis for fixing damages are changed!
ABS-CBN v. 2220. In one of his causes action. MANERO) In Crimes and QDs: defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES of the act or omission complained of. They are not awarded everytime a party wins a suit. (CF: PEOPLE VS. there was a “napkin agreement” for Viva to sell 14 films for P36M. legal & equitable justification. value of the profits that the oblige failed to obtain In Contract and Quasi-Contracts: the damages which may be awarded are dependent on whether the obligor acted in GF or otherwise In case of GF: damages recoverable are those which are the NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES of the breach of the obligation which the parties have FORESEEN or COULD HAVE REASONABLY FORESEEN at the time of the constitution of the obligation In case of Fraud. Figueras.
. 2217. CA
FACTS: ABS and Viva executed a Film Exhibition Agreement whereby Viva gave ABS an exclusive right to exhibit some Viva films. and humiliation.
-Indemnification shall comprehend: 1.
Prof.enumerates the cases where MD may be recovered Art. HELD: No. malice or wanton attitude: actor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonable attributed to the nonperformance of the obligation. no senses.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
entitles them to moral damages. (2) MENTAL ANGUISH is restricted to such mental pain or suffering as arises from an injury or wrong to the person himself. DOCTRINES: (1) The RIGHT OF RECOVERY FOR MENTAL SUFFERING RESULTING FROM BODILY INJURIES is restricted to the person who has suffered the bodily hurt. ABS was given a right of first refusal to 24 films. last paragraph. Director of Labor Jose and Assistant City Fiscal Ruperto. 2219. 2208 General Rule: atty’s fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.provides that MD may be recovered in breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in BF
DOCTRINE: The financial credit of a businessman is a prized and valuable asset. The bank caused them serious anxiety.” RBS made print ads of the anticipated airing of “Maging Sino Ka Man. ISSUE: Can Strebel recover damages inconvenient transfer of Hernandez? for the
HELD: No. According to Lopez of ABS. Who May Recover Strebel v. Complaint was dismissed and moral damages were awarded to RBS for having its reputation debased by the filing of the complaint. as distinguished from that form of MENTAL SUFFERING which is the accompaniment of sympathy or sorrow for another’s suffering or which arises from a contemplation of wrongs committed on the person of another. including the 14 films in the “napkin agreement. et al
FACTS: Strebel. Viva’s agent denied such agreement. ISSUE: WON the award of damages to RBS was proper. Any adverse reflection thereon constitutes some financial loss to him. Santos only liked 10 (including “Maging Sino Ka Man”) and did not accept it. -The power of the court to award atty’s fees under Art. no emotions. The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation. He claims that Figueras influenced the DOJ Secretary to effect such transfer and is seeking moral and actual damages. or for fright due to a wrong against a third person. 2219. whether or not such damages could have been reasonably foreseen by the defendant. a Mobilgas station owner sued Acting Labor Secretary Figueras. On Moral Damages: Art. BF. Assuming that such act amounted to any wrong. the right of action would accrue in favor of Hernandez. it being a significant part of the foundation of his business. or for injury to the plaintiff’s business standing or commercial credit. On Actual Damages: -One is entitled to compensation for AD only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved (except as provided by law or by stipulation)
c. Casis _S. -AD may also be recovered for loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury.
for A CORPORATION HAS NO REPUTATION IN THE SENSE AN INDIVIDUAL DOES. unlike in the case of a natural person. however.
Robes-Francisco Realty Corp. 22. the assessment of damages is left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of the case. NO EMOTIONS. Centeno to represent him in an action for recovery with damages. Millan filed a complaint for specific performance. and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. oppressive or malevolent manner. TC: awarded him P200 as nominal damages. PHIBRO participated in the bidding again. so NAPOCOR advertised again for bidding of the same products.
NAPOCOR v. TC awarded her P20K in nominal damages. ISSUE: WON the award of nominal damages was proper. petitioner still has not given her the TCT of the lot. Nominal
Art. No MD for corporations: The award of MD cannot be granted in favor of a corporation because being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation. which can be experienced only by having a nervous system. or their respective heirs and assigns. at the very least. 2221. Casis _S. Art. Art.
CLASS NOTES Code lists all kinds of suffering but MENTAL ANGUISH should be involved – open question
CLASS NOTES ND small but ok according to SC because it is not supposed to account for anything ND only symbollic
FACTS: Lolita Millan bought a lot from the petitioner in May. PHIBROS
FACTS: NAPOCOR issued invitations to bid for the supply and delivery of imported coal. 2222.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
MD aimed at restoration. (1) there was no bad faith. of the spiritual status quo ante. DOCTRINE: Nominal damages are recoverable where some injury has been done. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in Article 1157. 1962 and was able to fully pay her installments on Dec. reckless. THEREFORE. Lower courts ruled in favor of PHIBRO and awarded actual. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff.Y. moral and exemplary damages. Centeno screwed up the filing of appeal. HELD: Yes. which has been violated or invaded by the defendant. Centeno
FACTS: Ventanilla hired Atty. and should be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. It merely exercised its reserved right to reject bid applicants who previously failed to perform properly. or in every case where any property right has been invaded. In criminal cases: recoverable as part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstance In QD: when defendant acted with gross negligence In contracts and quasi-contracts: if the defendant acted in a wanton. no emotions. * A CORPORATION BEING AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON AND HAVING EXISTENCE ONLY IN LEGAL CONTEMPLATION. 2007-
HELD: No. NO SENSES. but NAPOCOR disapproved their application. fraudulent. PHIBRO filed an action for damages on the ground that NAPOCOR’s act of disqualifying them was tainted with malice and bad faith. within the limits of the possible. HELD: No. no senses. Nearly 3 years after her last payment. HAS NO FEELINGS. The damages awarded are proper. The right of the vendee to acquire title to the lot she bought was violated by the petitioner and this entitles her. was only executed in her favor in 1973. temperate. as between the parties to the suit. It cannot therefore. but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded. DOCTRINE: Nominal damages are not indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded. DOCTRINE: Besmirched reputation cannot cause mental anguish to a corporation. PHIBRO was not able to deliver.
. 2223. On Exemplary Damages: -imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. should be reduced since there was no showing of bad faith on the part of the petitioner. liquidated or compensatory damages. may be vindicated or recognized. The amount. the amount of which the evidence fails to show. according to the circumstances of the case. 1971. to nominal damages. Ventanilla now seeks to recover damages against Centeno. PHIBRO’s bid was accepted. Considering that nominal damages are not for the indemnification of loss suffered. ISSUE: WON the TC erred in awarding only P200 instead of P2000 as nominal and other damages. Assessment of Nominal Damages is left to the discretion of the court. Moral Damages not proper:
Ventanilla v. the amount that he seeks to recover here as nominal damages is excessive. and (2) as a general rule. and that the perfection of the appeal was no assurance that Ventanilla would succeed in his first action for recovery. ISSUE: WON PHIBRO is entitled to damages. IT CANNOT EXPERIENCE PHYSICAL SUFFERING AND MENTAL ANGUISH. NAPOCOR did not act in bad faith in disapproving PHIBRO’s application for prequalification to bid. The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude further contest upon the right involved and all accessory questions. experience physical suffering and mental anguish.
Prof. it has no feelings. It is inherently impossible for a corporation to suffer mental anguish. The deed of absolute sale however. in addition to moral. v. moral damages are not awarded to corporations.
Assessment of ND is left to the discretion of the court. a minor. exemplary: 500K. inadvertence or inattention to their customer’s anxiety and need of the hour.
People v. TC and CA awarded moral and exemplary damages. CA reduced the
CLASS NOTES Why ND can’t coexist with AD? Sir says that award of AD already presupposes invasion of right so awarding ND would lead to double recovery
Francisco v. *DOCTRINE: WHENEVER
ASCERTAINED IS PROPER. at around 6pm. They were later informed that there would be no cake because the order slip got lost. 2225. CA modified: sustained award of actual damages. Temperate or moderate damages. Temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances. Nominal Damages (P2K) should be awarded in order that the right of the victim. THE AWARD OF NOMINAL DAMAGES
Armovit v. which was denied for being deemed inadequate.
RESULTED OR NONE ARE SHOWN. wounded feelings and serious anxiety until they were finally able to fly back to the US. he and his family suffered anguish. violated by the accused may be vindicated or recognized. LEGAL RIGHT. They filed an action for damages in the Manila RTC after
Remember Ramos vs. causing it to hit a cargo truck parked along the shoulder. ISSUE: WON the deletion of nominal damages was proper. deleted moral and nominal damages.: moral: 300K. THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF AN ALTHOUGH NO ACTUAL DAMAGES
FACTS: A red Ford cargo truck hit a blue Volkswagen kombi driven by Pleno. Armovit and his family decided to spend Christmas in the Philippines and bought 3 round-trip US-Manila tickets from Northwest Airlines.: actual: P1300. nominal: 100K. be provided with certainty.a. Temperate
Sir: awarded when there is no basis for AD Art. They made a follow-up call and were assured that it was on its way. but they refused to accept it because it only had 2 layers. hitting its driver who was urinating in front of it.
DAMAGES CANNOT COEXIST WITH ACTUAL
HELD: No. Pleno filed a complaint for damages against the owner of the red truck and its driver. HELD: Yes. Dr. exemplary: 300K. CFI ruled in favor of Pleno. NOMINAL DAMAGES ARE PROPER. Francisco (owner of Fountainhead) sent a letter of apology and 5K. according to the circumstances of the case. However. However. the cake was not there. Nominal damages should not be awarded when actual damages were. daughter: moral: 300K. exemplary: 300K. CA
FACTS: Dr. Armovit was unable to keep his appointments with his US patients. nominal: 50K. HELD: Actual damages should be deleted as no proof was presented to show the actual amount of pecuniary loss. Ferrer and Lo filed a case against Francisco for breach of contract w/ damages. Art. they were rudely informed that they cannot be accommodated because their supposed flight was already taking off and the time on their tickets was wrong. from the nature of the case. which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages. RTC awarded damages (Dr. Their prevarication made them liable for nominal damages for insensitivity. (could be wrong because SC seemed to equate penal clause with liquidated damages)
NWA refused to give them compensatory damages for breach of contract of air-transport carriage. *DOCTRINE: NOMINAL DAMAGES. CA where temperate damages were awarded for continuing injury
Pleno v. but was delayed by traffic. or (2) where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages have been or can be shown. moral= P30K) ISSUE: WON the award of damages is proper. This is not for the purpose of indemnifying any loss suffered. ISSUE: WON moral and exemplary damages should have been awarded. 2224. Ferrer was compelled to buy a sans rival cake instead. The wedding cake arrived at 10pm. Ferrer
FACTS: Rebecca Lo and her daughter Anette Ferrer ordered a 3-layer wedding cake from Fountainhead Bakeshop. Pleno was seriously injured and was confined for 5 months in Makati Med and had to undergo 5 surgeries. Casis _S. moral: 500K. Gopio
FACTS: Gopio raped and molested Princess Millano. 2007-
CLASS NOTES 20K award of ND by TC excessive Penal clause issue: no penal clause because even if without it Millan still entitled to legal interest more than 4% p.Y. On the return trip (Manila-US). nominal: 50K). Petitioners gave lame excuses for the delay in the delivery of the cake. DOCTRINE: Nominal damages are recoverable where (1) a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Prof. He was convicted of statutory rape and ordered to indemnify the victim through damages (actual= P3727. On the wedding day. Mrs. may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not.
moral: 200K – 100K). or malevolent manner. although no proof of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated damages may be recovered. actual damages.
E. the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to moral. nevertheless. considering that the DEFINITE PROOF OF PECUNIARY LOSS
CANNOT BE OFFERED AND THE FACT THAT LOSS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. 2232. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved. 2235. Art.
F. Dilbag. before the court may consider the question of granting exemplary in addition to the liquidated damages. ISSUE: WON damages should be awarded. although award for loss of earning capacity should be deleted. Plazo
FACTS: Edison Plazo boxed and stabbed Romeo Fabula. to be paid in case of breach thereof.
People v. Lower courts awarded hospitalization and medical expenses. but the court is convinced that there was an injury or loss. ISSUE: WON the reduction of damages was proper. In quasi-delicts. 2234. Such AWARDS PARTAKE OF DAMAGES WHICH
MUST BE PROVEN NOT ONLY BY CREDIBLE AND SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed. In criminal offenses. HELD: Yes. reckless. HELD: No. The accused were convicted of murder and frustrated murder. in addition to the moral.
Prof. DOCTRINE: Temperate damages may be `awarded in cases where definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered. Nevertheless. oppressive. fraudulent. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract. 2233. In contracts and quasi-contracts. the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral. ISSUE: WON temperate damages should be awarded. Art. whether intended as an INDEMNITY OR A PENALTY. and not the stipulation. -For LD: prove breach -For MD on top of LD: prove breach + BF Art. temperate. et al ganged up on Surinder. Temperate damages were based on the impairment of income of actual capacity (since the actual income of Pleno as president of Mayon Ceramics company was not proven). who was cleaning his motorbike nearby. attorney’s fees and compensation for loss of earning capacity. Temperate damages under Art. the court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party. 2230.
Casis: 3rd parties are not bound by the stipulation of LD in the contract. exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. 15K as temperate damages was awarded. 2224 may be recovered where it has been shown that the victim’s family suffered some pecuniary loss but the amount thereof cannot be proved with certainty. When the breach of the contract committed by the defendant is not the one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the liquidated damages. Each item of damages is adequately supported by evidence. the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton. 2007-
Fact of loss established but AD cannot be proved
Art. tried to stop the attack. Art. Penal clause -intent behind LD penalty is deterrent -LD is measure of damage which does not matter in penalty -LD is perceived loss if other party does not comply with his obligation because AD would be difficult to determine But in A2227: “indemnity or penalty”
(Such as income tax reports). Art. A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are renounced in advance shall be null and void. Liquidated damages. 2231. liquidated or compensatory damages. 2227. exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.
Can AD and TD be warded at the same time? YES in Ramos vs.Y. civil indemnity. Art. shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable. HELD: Yes. but he too was stabbed. temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. 2229. moral damages. Singh
FACTS: Dalvir. BUT ALSO BY UNBIASED PROOF
CLASS NOTES LD intended as indemnity or penalty Juris: LD vs. Plazo was convicted of murder. Art. temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for liquidated damages. CA – but sir says it’s an aberration since TD is awarded when there is no basis for AD
People v. Casis _S. Exemplary or Corrective
Art. Bare allegation is insufficient. The lower court’s award of damages are more in consonance with the factual circumstances of the case. In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon.
appellants should pay the heirs of the victim temperate damages. the law shall determine the measure of damages. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right. killing him. Art.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
amount of damages for being excessive (Temperate: 200K – 100K. 2226. 2228. by way of example or correction for the public good.
OPPRESSIVE OR MALEVOLENT MANNER. but left to the discretion of the court. TC: ruled in favor of Tan and ordered PNB to pay the amount and exemplary damages.
FACTS: The sps. ISSUE: WON the award of damages is justified.Y. Gonzaga took the money for herself. CA April 2. fraudulent. The awards of moral and exemplary damages are justified. Casis _S. MFC acted in bad faith when it flagrantly breached its express warranties made to the general public. CA Janunary 29. The adjusters found that MFC did not attach the tiles properly and the project was hastily done. Del Rosario bought roofing materials from MFC. (2) THEY CANNOT BE RECOVERED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008
Prof. CA: affirmed. there is no basis for the award of exemplary damages. AND ONLY AFTER THE CLAIMANT’S RIGHT TO THEM HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. HELD: No. DOCTRINE: Exemplary damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. It cannot be recovered as a matter of right. PNB was ordered to pay Tan the amount. which advertised the materials as durable and sturdy. Exemplary damages may be awarded if a party acted in a wanton. Although there was a breach of PNB’s obligation to Tan. having already paid the amount to Tan’s “agent”. THEIR
DETERMINATION DEPENDING UPON THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATORY DAMAGES THAT MAY BE AWARDED TO THE CLAIMANT. HELD: Yes. PNB issued and delivered a manager’s check to Sonia Gonzaga who had a Special Power of Attorny supposedly executed by Tan in her favor. 2007-
ED and ND: • ND vindicates right ~ declaratory relief • ED is penalty-like
PNB v. ISSUE: WON exemplary damages should be awarded to Tan. CASIS: implies that ED is attached to MD
CLASS NOTES How did court arrive at final amount? Compare with other cases
MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY BAD FAITH OR DONE IN A WANTON. reckless. Tan file a motion with the court requiring PNB to pay. 1996
FACTS: Tan owned a parcel of land which was expropriated by the government. or malevolent manner.
Del Rosario v. MFC replaced and repaired them free of charge because of a warranty. Tan demanded payment which was refused by PNB. The Del Rosarios filed a complaint with the DTI and another with the RTC to recover damages. He filed a motion w/ the TC requesting that it issue an order for the payment of P32K as expropriation price. 1997
. The Del Rosarios hired an adjuster to determine the cause of the destruction. FRAUDULENT. portions of the roof were blown off by a typhoon. Less than 2 months after installation. but deleted the award of exemplary damages. oppressive. *(MEMORIZE) DOCTRINE: REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF EXEMPLARY DAMAGES: (1) THEY MAY BE IMPOSED BY WAY OF EXAMPLE IN ADDITION TO COMPENSATORY DAMAGES.