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-

1

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-

2

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-

3

CLASS NOTES


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

was instructed by the city school’s supervisor to attend a parade in honor of Rizal in San Pablo City. However. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent. or employees in the discharge of their duties. so long as they remain in their custody. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees. Casis _S. Delfin Capuno. 2182. apprentices. (1903a) Art. — In default of the persons criminally liable. 15 years old. 2181. The Exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability. the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Sec. or the person representing him. Third. 103.Y. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers. Parents (see table after cases) Exconde v. (1904) Art. pupils. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 authorities or their agents. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. Capuno June 29. the students boarded a jeep. Art. in which case such child will be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. the mother. 1957 FACTS: Dante Capuno. criminal liability. Art. and when it started to run. Civil Code Art. tavernkeepers. 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. which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. if there be no such persons. 2006 Sec. tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. while the driver sat on his left side (remember that the steering wheel is at the LEFT side). Criminal case: TC: Dante was convicted for Double homicide through reckless imprudence.A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from . Prof. 2007- 4 Lastly. (n)  CLASS NOTE  Basis: parental authority  Are the parents still liable for if above 18 but below 21? Yes. 6. 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. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. Dante took hold of the wheel. in case of his death or incapacity. of the deposit of such goods within the inn. — The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers. or. persons. The father and. and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. was not with Dante at the time of the accident. teachers. He only found out after the accident when Dante told him about it. the father. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardian. nor did he know that Dante was going to attend a parade. 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. CA: affirmed RA 9344 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 April 23. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. 20 of this Act. Legal basis: PD 603 1. 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. 2180. 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. 102. a student of the Balintawak Elementary School. 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. The jeep turned turtle and 2 passengers died. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. the persons using violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily. Minimum Age of Criminal responsibility. workmen. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. From the school. in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12. or for the payment of the value thereof. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations. and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants. saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution. innkeepers. those doing the act shall be liable. provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself. unless he/she has acted with discernment. Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein.

school authorities should be liable for the negligence. HELD: Yes. DISSENT: Reyes He wants TC affirmed (relieving Delfin of liability): There is no sound reason for limiting Art. 1903 to teachers of arts and trades and not to academic institutions. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. hence neither the teacher nor the head can be held liable. and. He rebutted the presumption of negligence under 1903 when he proved that he entrusted custody of Dante to the school authorities. there can be no responsibility. Delfin. 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. The phrase “teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades” does not qualify “teachers” but only “heads of establishments. jointly and severally with his son for damages. Art. But Gumersindo was insolvent. and not under Art. To hold that Art. the teacher. School is NOT liable Art. 1903 interpretation too limited. 2180 applies only to QDs will result in an absurdity that while for an act where mere negligence intervenes. Xxx Lastly. are liable for any damages caused by the minor children who live with them. How to avoid liability: prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. 2180 is the law that applies. Even if Dante was on the jeep pursuant to the city school’ supervisor’s instruction. which only applies to obligations arising form QDs. TC Modified. hence. the parents (and heirs) of Carlos. Sustained Jose’s theory that the civil liability of Gumersindo arises from his criminal liability and therefore must be determined under the RPC. when the parent places the child under the effective authority of the teacher. etc. but also for those persons for whom another is responsible. 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. Dissent: 1. resort should be made to the general law which is the Civil Code. 1903 is some culpa in vigilando that the parents. NOTES: This case is cited as basis of liability arising from parental authority. 1903 (now 2180) about teachers applies only to institutions of arts and trades and not to any academic educational institution. Balce April 27. Xxx Finally. TC reversed. as the father IS liable. 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. Once the parent entrusts custody to the school authorities. hence Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera (Salens). 2007- 5 2. 1960. his father. 2180 of the Civil Code. If there is no authority. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their authority. 1. He failed to prove that he exercised all the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the damage. Jose Balce is ordered to pay the indemnity. The father and.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Civil case: against Delfin and Dante Capuno (reserved by Sabina Exconde. 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. Casis _S. The civil liability which the law impose upon the father. Hence. teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody. Gumersindo was convicted of homicide and was sentenced to imprisonment and to pay Carlos’ heirs indemnity. or in the absence of. the mother. The father. Teacher. single and living with Jose Balce. 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). And Art. Balintawak Elementary School is an academic institution. who acts with discernment. 2.Y. 1 Prof. 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. master. Hence the suit. teachers. Delfin should not be made liable for a tort that he was in no way able to prevent. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. CA: certified to SC ISSUE: WON Delfin Capuno can be held civilly liable. in case of his death or incapacity. or the mother as the case may be is a necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise over them. and which he had every right to assume the school authorities would. TC: dismissed. mother of one of the deceased): TC: Convicted ONLY Dante to pay the damages. 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. . in case of his death or incapacity.” If the basis of presumption of negligence in Art. the civil liability arising form a crime shall be governed by the RPC. HELD: Yes. Delfin and Dante are jointly and severally liable for the damages. and not the parent should be the one answerable for the torts committed while under his custody. FACTS: Carlos Salen (single) died due to wounds caused by Gumersindo Balce. Salen and Salbanera v. so long as they remain in their custody. demanded from Jose to pay but he refused. Art. 1903 applies: “The obligation imposed by the next preceding articles is enforceable not only for personal acts and omissions. As a rule. the mother. RULES: Majority: Liability of teachers or directors are limited to institutions of arts and trades. 18. But since the RPC is silent as to the subsidiary liability of parents for a minor over 15.

ED and atty’s fees. Mary’s High School. Agapito claims that he could only be liable if the action was based on the subsidiary liability of the parents under the RPC. 2. 1. While Pepito was studying. Rico just got up and ran away. independently of the criminal case. SC: Case law is against him again. were classmates at St. The court convicted Arreglado but suspended his sentence because he was only 14. the owner and the driver of the truck are jointly and severally liable for damages. the law presumes that there was negligence on the part of his father. Arreglado-(the Arreglados-father. 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. and that if an injury is caused by the fault or negligence of his minor son. both 13. the father. any discussion of Rico’s criminal intent is of no moment. Only defense is proof of diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the damage. EXCLUDING Mr. Manresa: Children and wards do not have the capacity to govern themselves so parents and guardians have the duty to exercise special vigilance. WON the truck owner and driver are liable for damages. Exconde v. resort should be made to the general law which is the Civil Code. Up to the last day of the hearing of the case. specifically 2180. they should suffer the consequences of their abandonment or negligence by repairing the damage caused. Pepito’s forearm was seen to be shorter than his left and cannot be fully used. Gutierrez v. Prof. Gutierrez and driven by Bonifacio Gutierrez.   CLASS NOTES In this case. the father is liable for damages (yes) 2. a passenger. no liability would attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent. (yes) HELD: Manuel Gutierrez. SC: Jurisprudence proves him wrong. 1961 FACTS: Pepito Cadano and Rico Fuellas. Civil case for damages against Agapito Fuellas. And since Rico acted with discernment. A classmate asked them to shake hands but instead of shaking Pepito’s extended hand. Rico’s father is liable for damages. Fuellas v. A teacher broke up the fight and sent them home. CA: Reduced MD ISSUE: WON Agapito Fuellas. Gutierrez. the liability of father was deemed to be subsidiary. collided with a passenger truck while attempting to pass each other. Pepito has just gone down from the school house when he was met by a still angry Rico. Narciso Gutierrez.) The court held the father. 2007- 6 Salen and Salbarena v. Civil liability to be determined in the civil case Civil case: TC: Agapito liable under 2180 for medicine.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 held subsidiarily liable. parental liability was primary. Rico’s father. mother and son were held liable for damages) civil law liability under 2180 is not respondeat superior but pater familias. CA decided the case based on the evidence submitted by both parties. 1931 Note: The injured and the accused have the same surname. the provisions do not cover the case. owned by Mr. Casis _S. 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. Cadano October 31. it was Pepito who returned it. Criminal case: TC: Rico guilty.Y. Capuno-where the father was held solidarily liable for the crime his son committed. 2 separate actions were instituted: 1. Balce. Araneta v. WON Manuel Gutierrez. If they fail to comply with this duty. the mother and the son to pay the Aranetas damages. 3. FACTS: The car. HELD: Yes. with his mother and 7 other members of the family. breaking his arm. and Mrs. 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. Rico took a classmate’s pencil and put it in Pepito’s pocket. ISSUES: 1. hence. put him off-balance which caused Pepito to land on his right side. This angered Rico. 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. 18 years old. When the classmate asked Rico for the pencil. Criminal case against Rico for Serious Physical Injuries 2. which bases the liability of the father ultimately on his own negligence and not on that of his minor son.   CLASS NOTE In this case. Arreglado-(where Arreglado fired at Araneta because he resented the remarks Araneta made about his leaving Ateneo and enrolling in La Salle. Anent Manuel Gutierrez’s liability: . CA affirmed 1. Rico held him by the neck. Araneta v. thus he held Pepito by the neck and pushed him to the floor.(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. Agapito is liable for damages. Gutierrez September 23. As a result. MD. suffered a fractured leg.

If this case were decided now. Luis was only 13 and had no driver’s license. There were 2 versions of the story: Libis: another man shot the 2 Gotiong: Wendell shot Julie and then committed suicide. 1985 FACTS: Roberto Luna. 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. should be made primarily or subsidiarily liable for the liability of his son Luis. Dela Rosas invoke Elcano v. Question: Under 1903. SC granted award of atty’s fees plus interest from date of TC’s decision. If the liability of the parents for crimes or QDs of their minor children is subsidiary. 3. as a matter of equity. But if the liability is direct and primary. it is uniformly held that the head of a house. would be held liable for the damages caused by the minor. SC: Unwilling to apply equity instead of strict law in this case because it will not serve the ends of justice. TC: dismissed for insufficiency of evidence IAC: Set aside TC and found the Libis subsidiarily liable. Jose is liable for his son’s liability. and not the minor or the mother. Julie and Wendell died each from a single gunshot wound traced to the gun licensed in the name of Cresencio Libi. NOTES: technically. whom he designates or permits to run it.Y. IAC . it would not be unreasonable to suppose that his gross income would also increase. Based on these facts. 2nd CA set aside. 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). it was held that Art. incapacitated or absent will the mother be held liable. the speed and lack of care employed by the driver make them both liable. Hill to support their calim for subsidiary liability only. the diligence would constitute a valid and substantial defense. At that time. Rodriguez-Luna v. A month after their break-up. Libis are primarily liable CA affirmed. In the US. 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. driving a Toyota collided in the go-kart practice area in Greenhills. The writ of execution yielded only a nominal amount. but since his son attained age. 2180. The Libis were grossly negligent from preventing Wendell from having access to the key to the safety deposit box where the gun was stored. 2. 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. ISSUE: Whether the father. BUT. In Elcano. Hill’s liability had become merely subsidiary to that of his son. liability is not subsidiary. Plus. Diligence required is that of instruction and supervision of the kid. living with uncle in Madrid. Luis is abroad and beyond the reach of Philippine courts. Casis _S. IAC February 28. HELD: Yes. Hill despite the emancipation by marriage of his son. HELD: Primary liability. the owner of an automobile. Roberto died. the son should pay because he is of age already Prof. Atty. so that he is liable for the negligence of the child because of the relationship of master and servant. has no assets of his own. 2180 applied to Atty. 1st CA reinstated with the modification that the atty’s fees will earn interest. with the FC. 2. Bonifacio was an incompetent driver. Libi v. was speeding and lost his head when he approached the bridge and the truck. Anent the owner’s and driver’s liability: Basis: contract. Jose. he does not have nay property and his earnings are insufficient to support his family. Other issues: 1. the father of Wendell. Present status of Luis: married with 2 kids. driving a go-kart and Luis dela Rosa. 2007September 18. The heirs of Roberto (will be referred to as the Lunas) sued for damages. 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. and pursuant to 1903 (now 2180) the father alone. ISSUE: WON Art. The Gotiongs (julie’s parents) fiuled for damages against the Livis under Art. who maintains it for general use of his family is liable for its negligent operation by one of his children. 1992 7 FACTS: Julie and Wendell were sweethearts for 2 years when Julie broke it off due to Wendell’s sadistic and irresponsible nature. 2180 was correctly applied to hold the Libis liable.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. earnings hardly enough to support his family. CA’s reduction of life expectancy: SC said go-kart not dangerous. only if the father is dead. CA’s reduction of net annual income of Roberto due to increasing annual personal expenses: SC said if personal expenses increase. TC: Jose dela Rosa (father) and Luis dela Rosa are jointly and severally liable. The position of the truck.

Cadano was NOT correct because the liability in fuellas was PRIMARY (syllabus can be wrong kasi) Why primary liability? 1. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardian. are the indispensable parties to the suit for damages. in accordance with the civil law. TC: dismissed the complaint. the law imposes civil liability upon the father and. The Bundocs claimed that the Rapisuras should be held liable instead. in case of his death or incapacity. CA reversed and set aside. shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle. 3. the natural parents of Adelberto. complaint reinstated and case remanded. as so modified.Y. RPC says so. this civil liability is now. property of minor only liable when parents are insolvent   Tamargo v. they who had actual custody of Adelberto. are the indispensable parties. that they are indispensable parties because parental authority had already shifter to them the moment the successful petition for adoption was filed. ISSUE: Who are the indispensable parties? The Bundocs or the Rapisuras? HELD: The natural parents. the liability shall be effected against the father. CC for kids 9-15 with discernment. without such alternative qualification. This petition was granted after the shooting of Jennifer. RULES: 1. The principle of parental liability is a species of what is frequently designated as vicarious liability. for any damages that may be caused by a minor child who lives with them. the responsibility of the parents and those who exercise parental authority over the minor offender.    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. parental liability is made a natural or logical consequence of the duties and responsibilities of parents—their parental authority—which includes the instructing. the mother. Ratio: The act of Adelberto gave rise to a cause of action on QD. imbecile. civil complaint against the Bundocs. or minor shall respond with their own property. RPC with respect to damages ex delicto by kids 9 or under. The Tamargos filed: 1. For civil liability arising from QDs committed by minors: same rules in accordance with 2180 and 2182. Art. or the doctrine of “imputed negligence. his natural parents. RPC support this. Casis _S. 1992 FACTS: Adelberto Bundoc. said insane. 101. Arts. law provides a defense. or 15-21 (now 18) 2. 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. Tamargos lost their right to appeal.” where a person is not only liable for the torts committed by himself. BUT. xxx Should there be no person having such insane. parental authority was still lodged in the Bundocs. 2007- 8 liability on the ground that he had acted without discernment. applying 2194 (solidary liability of join tortfeasors) the parent is also solidarily liable with the child. NOTES: This case cleared up the issue on whether the parent’s liability is primary or subsidiary. CC and 1013. (n) 3 Art. 2182. or 9-15 but without discernment -Premised on Art. but also for torts committed by others with whom he has a certain relationship and for whom he is responsible. the Bundocs. Under 2180. . 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. Liability effected against father or mother? BOTH PARENTS AND THOSE WHO EXERCISE PARENTAL AUTHORITY OVER THE MINOR. On the other hand. 21822. In fact. CA: dismissed petition. Adelberto’s natural parents for damages. or if such person be insolvent. 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. Thus. Hence.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Hence. 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. controlling and disciplining of the child. The Bundocs are not indispensable parties to the action. the liability of parents for QDs of their minor kids as contemplated in 2180 is PRIMARY and not subsidiary. 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. When Adelberto shot Jennifer. and in case of his death or incapacity the mother-which rule was amplified by the Youth and Welfare Code. under 2176 against him. 101. CA June 3. For both QDs and crimes. 10 years old. 2. under the Family Code. criminal complaint for homicide through reckless imprudence but Adelberto was acquitted and exempted from criminal 2 Art. 2. the reliance on Fuellas v. 2180. The liability of parents for felonies is likewise PRIMARY & not subsidiary. legal guardianship or control. excepting property exempt from execution. imbecile or minor under his authority. causing injuries which resulted in her death. Prof.

by legal fiction. Art 101. the legislature has elected to limit such liability to cases in which the person upon whom such an obligation is imposed is morally culpable. RULE: Parents must have actual or physical custody over the minor to be held liable. IAC A2180. NCC. Hill where court allowed only subsidiary liability because it will not serve ends of justice Art 221. or in the control of persons who.Y. so as to include responsibility for the negligence of those persons whose acts or omissions are imputable. Hence. pa and son Libi vs. Here. whether of act or omission. the law presumes.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 The basis for the doctrine of vicarious liability was explained in Cangco v. 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. 2. the parents exercise supervision and control. no PA. to others who are in a position to exercise an absolute or limited control over them. Toyota) Prof. bus driver and owner jointly and severally liable as mentioned under Libi vs. If liability of the parents for crimes or QDs of their minor children is subsidiary. 2007- 9 Civil action vs. Rico for Serious Physical Injuries Civil action vs Agapito (the father) only SC: Pa liable . for reasons of public policy. 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. strict law -don’t apply Elcano v. Guitierrez (bus collision. 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. or on the contrary. or in having failed to exercise due care in the selection and control of one’s own agents or servants. Art 2180. 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. said to be insolvent but in Madrid!) SC: Libis are primarily and directly liable Salen and Salbanera vs. not parental authority Parental Authority: Control and supervision over children. common law. RPC Why primarily liable: 1. Balce (son above 15 but below 18 killed 18 yr old) Fuellas vs. Casis _S. 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. 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. family except pa in the car driven by minor) RodriguezLuna vs. 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. parents SC: Pa made primarily liable for the injury caused by son (son already of age. 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 extend that liability. no parental liability. occupy a position of dependency with respect to the person liable for their conduct. Art 58 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code: responsibility for child under parental authority Art. 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. IAC (Suicide or homicide?) Civil action vs. In other words. Basis of civil liability imposed on parents for torts of their minor kids living with them: PARENTAL AUTHORITY vested by the civil code. Manuel Guitierrez (the father) only (+ bus driver and owner) SC: The father. Case Exconde vs. parental liability is anchored upon parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompanying such authority. master and servant (not paterfamilias) – ma not liable even if present during time of incident A2180. Manila Raildroad: With respect to extra contractual obligations arising from negligence. 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. IAC (go-cart 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. without regard to the lack of moral culpability. NOTES: Only benefits retroact to the time of filing of the petition for adoption. by reasons of their status. 221. FC.

Natural parents of child SC: Bundocs (natural parents) are indispensable parties -the adopting parents had no actual custody yet par3) Art. The school. (349a. In case several survive. 217. the mother. In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian. The father and. taking into account the same consideration mentioned in the preceding article. 216. but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains. Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over the property of the child becomes necessary. Teachers and Heads of Institutions Family Code Art. in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. Guardians Family Code Art. 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. in case of his death or incapacity. so long as they remain in their custody. 2144. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. 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. substitute parental authority shall be exercised by the surviving grandparent. The parents. 351a. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions. (1904)  CLASS NOTE What is a foundling? A baby deserted by unknown parents. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. (355a) . 354a) 4 Art. CA (adopted child still with parents at time of incident) Criminal complaint Civil complaint vs. orphanages and similar institutions duly accredited by the proper government agency. 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. entity or institution. (2) The oldest brother or sister. the following person shall exercise substitute parental authority over the child in the order indicated: (1)The surviving grandparent. abandoned neglected or abused children and other children similarly situated. 2180. (1903a) Art. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of duties accompanying such authority. In case of death. (349a) Art. Lastly. 2. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they 3. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. 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. over twenty-one years of age. those left at the doorstep) Art. In case of foundlings. or the individual. 2180. (n) Art. 214. MANILA RAILROAD *IMPORTANT: PARENTS MUST HAVE ACTUAL OR PHYSICAL CUSTODY OVER THE MINOR TO BE HELD LIABLE Prof.Y. the same order of preference shall be observed. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. 2181. shall exercise the authority. (e. absence or unsuitability of the parents. and (3) The child's actual custodian. as provided in Art. judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable. parental authority shall be entrusted in summary judicial proceedings to heads of children's homes. over twenty-one years of age. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school. 219. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. 2007- 10 Art. unless unfit or disqualified. in case of his death or incapacity.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Tamargo vs. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions. The father and. All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts.g. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. instruction or custody. Casis _S. its administrators and teachers. (314a) observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. the one designated by the court. entity or institution engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent. 2176. doctrine of vicarious liability as explained in CANGCO VS. unless unfit or disqualified. the mother. 218.

2180 2. in case of his death or incapacity. This was answered in Exconde v. in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. nor does par 25 which makes the father or mother responsible for the damages caused by their minor children. Palisoc v. Mercado v. No moral damages because cases in Art. Hence. were classmates at the Manila Technical Institute. 16 years old and Virgilio Daffon. A fight ensued and Augusto wounded Manuel Jr. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries. et al May 30. But this provision only applies to an institution of arts and trades and not to any academic educational institution. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. 9 years old. The situated contemplated in the last par. 2180 means by “custody” 1. Daffon gave 6Art. 2219 were not shown to exist. Augusto resented this remark and aggressively poushed him. 2-probably because Manuel Jr. capuno doctrine7: academic institutions not included in Art. The pupils go to school during school hours and go back home to their parents after. Prof. but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains. teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damage caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody. so long as they remain in their custody. the mother. Hence. are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. exconde v. During recess. The pupils were not in the “custody” of the school. 5 The father and. Manuel Jr. CA Reversed as to MD but affirmed the award of medical expenses. even if this is a QD within the meaning of Art. The doctor who testified did not declare the amount he collected as fees and Manuel Jr. while working on a machine. 2180 par. Ciriaco Mercado is not responsible even under Art. was not hospitalized. HELD: No. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. Capuno through Justice Bautista: “we find merit in this claim. but no MD for the parents. 7 Although later cases say this is a mere obiter because the issue was won the father had civil liability . did not die nor was he incapacitated. Art. 2180 (I think he meant 2nd to the last par) does not apply. Even if there was a QD on Augusto’s part. 5. DOCTRINE: what Art. of art. 2007- 11 1. SUCH THAT THE CONTROL DIRECTION AND INFLUENCE ON THE PUPIL SUPERSEDES THOSE OF THE PARENTS . the claim of Mercado that responsibility should pass to the school. 2219. (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). It is true that under the law.Y. on the right cheek with a piece of razor. Such a situation does not appear in the case at bar. must be held to be without merit. of age.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. no criminal action for physical injuries has been presented 2. and his father CA: Ordered Ciriaco Mercado (the father) to pay for the medical expenses and MD. RULE: exconde v. Irked. CA. tired to intervene or interfere with Augusto’s attempt to recover his pitogo. no MD coz the cases in Art.” Custody (memorize!): “SO LONG AS THEY REMAIN IN THEIR CUSTODY”. Lourdes is not liable because they don’t retain custody (custody=living with the teachers or heads) of their pupils. Casis _S. 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. Anent the MD: Only possible circumstance in which MD may be granted is if a felony or QD has been committed. capuno doctrine: responsibility passes from parents to teachers or heads of ONLY institutions of arts and trades 3. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. 1960 FACTS: Augusto. TC: dismissed the complaint filed by Manuel Jr. 6.CONTEMPLATES A SITUATION WHERE THE PUPIL LIVES AND BOARDS WITH THE TEACHER. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent. Daffon made a remark that Palisoc was like a foreman because he was merely watching them. and so would the responsibility for the torts of the pupil. 1971 FACTS: Dominador Palisoc. When Augusto tried to retrieve his pitogo. interfered and told Augusto not to get it from Renato as Renato was better at putting the chain into the holes of the pitogo. Hence. Lastly. Brillantes October 4. the proximate cause of the injury was Manuel Jr’s own act of interference. the facts show that Augusto’s act was occasioned by the fact that Manuel Jr. Augusto was only 9 and was not shown to act with discernment 7. 2219 were not shown to exist. lent his pitogo to Benedicto who lent it to Renato. Palisoc bitch-slapped Daffon. thinking it was Benedicto’s. 4. In retaliation. 2219. the proximate cause of Manuel Jr’s injury is his own fault or negligence for having interfered. par 26. 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.

was shot by his classmate Pablito Daffon. president and instructor) should be held solidarily liable with Daffon HELD: Yes. The autopsy report said he died of broken ribs and hemorrhage on the brain caused “probably by strong fist blows. CA. as to their pupils and students. including recess time. “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. The TC based its decision on Mercado v. It’s unfair to hold teachers and/or administrative heads responsible for tortuous acts of their students considering the high number of enrollment. president of MTI 3. MTI is unquestionably a non-academic school.” 3. and are called upon to “exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child. THE PUPIL-TORTFEASOR MUST LIVE AND BOARD IN THE 2. Capuno. Casis _S. TC Modified. Prof. 3 days before his high school graduation. custody= live in company (like for parents and guardians) and 2. the president and instructor are liable solidarily for damages. Makalintal’s interpretation not in accord with the law. RULE: 1. 2007- 12 (MEMORIZE) NOTHING SCHOOL. The case here was instituted directly against the defendants (as against the cited cases where the father was the defendant). TC: defendants are liable for damages . The authority and custodial supervision (of the teachers and heads) over the pupil exists regardless of the pupil’s age. Governing Principle in law of torts In the law of torts.” 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. 17 yrs old. (MEMORIZE) Amadora v. the governing principle is that the protective custody of the school heads and teachers is mandatorily substituted for that of the parents. Moreover. 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. Rationale of the liability The rationale of the liability of school heads and teachers is that they stand to a certain extent. and not the parent should be the one answerable for the torts committed while under his custody. then it follows that 1. as well as to take the necessary precautions to protect the students in their custody from dangers and hazards that would reasonably be anticipated. making a corporation the owner of the school and not him anymore). including injuries that some students themselves may inflict willfully or through negligence on their fellow students. followed by fist blows on the stomach. Dissent: Makalintal Wants Mercado sustained. Reyes’ dissent rules! Adheres to Reyes’ dissent in Exconde: If the basis of presumption of negligence in Art. since the responsibility stems from loco parentis. CA April 15. The Amadoras sued for damages against the School (Colegio). Palisoc tried to retreat. Absolved the following because 2180 is not applicable: It applied Mercado v. 1903 is some culpa in vigilando that the parents. 1. Brillantes-member of the board of directors of MTI 2. Mercado overturned. He fainted and never regained consciousness. Hence. the dean of boys and.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Palisoc a strong flat blow on the face. INCLUDING RECESS TIME. 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.Y. Valenton and Quibulue are solidarily liable for damages. etc. but Daffon followed him. 3. the physics teacher and Daffon. the teacher. Wants to overturn Exconde (to include academic institutions in the scope of 2180) but has no chance because MTI is anon-academic institution. there can be no responsibility. Only the guardians and parents are exempt once the child reaches majority 2. Quibulue. If there is no authority. which in turn was based on a dictum in Exconde v. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their authority. 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. It would demand responsibility without the commensurate authority. teachers.” TC: Daffon liable for QD under 2176. in loco parentis. The school cannot be held liable as it was not impleaded as a party defendant. Under 2180. responsibility limited to minors only (like for parents and guardians) Concurring: Reyes Concurs with majority but dissents with the dissent. 1988 FACTS: Alfredo Amadora. Mercado doctrine abandoned/overturned 2. ISSUE: WON the other defendants (board member. 4. 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. Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence. hence. instructor of the class. CA’s definition of “custody” 1. They exchanged fist blows until Palsioc stumbled on an engine block which caused him to fall face downward. 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. when the parent places the child under the effective authority of the teacher. IN THE LAW REQUIRES THAT FOR SUCH LIABILITY TO ATTACH. including recess time. Valenton. 1. 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. The parents here are not involved since Daffon was already of age at the time of the incident. Daffon.

3. he is still within the custody and subject to the discipline of the school authorities under the provisions of Art. 3. if non-academic. Art. referring each phrase or expression to its appropriate object or let each be put in its proper place.Y.teacher is liable for the pupils and students (General Rule) b. 4. 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. teachers is to pupils and students as heads is to apprentices 4. Colegio is not a school of arts and trades and Daffon was not in custody since the semester already ended. AS LONG AS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE STUDENT IS IN THE SCHOOL PREMISES IN PURSUANCE OF A LEGITIMATE STUDENT OBJECTIVE. i. 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. school not directly liable under 2180 par 7. The same vigilance is expected from the teacher over the students under his control and supervision.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 CA: All the defendants were absolved. 2. the teacher is answerable for torts of his students regardless of the student’s age. Hence: 1. Jr. 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. 4.—defense which is also available to the teacher or the head. None are liable.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. whatever its nature may be held to answer for the acts of its teachers and heads under the general principle of respondeat superior. rector. School not liable because it is not an establishment of arts and trades -Defined “custody” as living and boarding with the teacher Palisoc. Casis _S. 2180 applies to both academic and nonacademic schools Reddendo Singula Singulis8 a. Physics teacher not liable because there was no showing that he was negligent in his duties. Alfredo Amadora was still in the school’s “custody” when the incident happened 2. Colegio not liable because 2180 does not apply to school but only to its teachers and heads. -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. the words should be taken distributively . if academic. If at all. whatever the nature of the school he is teaching. “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. 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. Pupil not required to be a minor to hold teacher liable Unlike the parent who will be liable only for his minor child.e. Amadora is the case! 1. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES OVER THE STUDENT CONTINUES.Set aside/abandoned the doctrines in Exconde and Mercado. the school. ISSUE: Interpretation of Art. 2180 applies so long as the student is under the control and custody and within the school premises. application of 2180 to both academic and non-academic schools 3. IN THE EXERCISE OF A LEGITIMATE STUDENT RIGHT. 2007- 13 exculpate itself by proof of exercise of diligence of bonus paterfamilias. AND EVEN IN THE ENJOYMENT OF A LEGITIMATE STUDENT PRIVILEGE. -reiterates the need for an amendment due to the nonexistent disparity between teachers of academic schools and heads of arts and trades RULE: 1.9 There is no substantial distinction between an academic and a non-academic school insofar as torts committed by their students are concerned. But that’s a task for the legislature. Mercado-reiterated Exconde. His absence cannot be taken against him as he was not required to report to school that day. Prof. 8 Referring each to each. 2180 HELD: Petition denied. -in a footnote. Custody definition 2. it may 9 This disparity no longer exist in view of the increase in enrollment. 2180. 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. Art. 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. 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.

There is no need to discuss the applicability of 2180 to educational institutions for the issue is actually whether or not. The school. w/n school premises. 1.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. he should’ve used adult laborers and not 10 year olds ii. knowing that a huge block was just nearby iii. the school or the university ITSELF (as distinguished form teachers or heads) is liable. The petition is based on) and may be held liable under 2180. 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. even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. CA reversed and set aside. The Ylardes (mom and dad) sued Aquino and Soriano. CA: Affirmed TC ISSUE: WON both Aquino and Soriano may be held liable. School may exculpate itself by proving diligence of a good father of a family. its administrators and teachers. Answer to that issue: NO! the provision speaks only of TEACHERS or HEADS. 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. HELD: petition dismissed. 5 negligent acts of Aquino i. entity or institution. digging was part of work education 2. He left while the work was unfinished and the kids. They had to dig a hole to bury the concrete blocks. 1988 FACTS: Reynaldo Pasco was mauled by a group of Muslim students and stabbed by Abdul while walking inside the Araneta University (Araneta). He is a Head of an academic school and not of a school of arts and trades (in line with Amadora) b. Melencio-Herrera Joins Sarmiento in his dissent. TC: dismissed case against Araneta ISSUE: WON Art. FC11 out of the in time. 2007- 14     CLASS NOTE facts: in Academic school. 2180 is applicable to academic institutions. Ylarde sustained injuries which caused his death 3 days later. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school. Soriano cannot be held liable a. 3. CFI of Bulacan. a teacher in Gabaldon Primary School gathered his male students aged 10-11 to clean-up the remnants of WWII. Aquino July 29. yet he require the kids to level the soil around the excavation iv. 1988 FACTS: Edgardo Aquino. the Ylardes based their petition on 2176.Y. Ylarde vs. the principal for damages. 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. Casis _S. HELD: Aquino is liable for indemnity. Pasco had just finished his classes and the Muslim group were also students of Araneta. he left the kids v. by student of the school. 218. he left the kids near an attractive nuisance        CLASS NOTE facts: by students. 11 Art. Aquino exercised utmost diligence 3. assisted by his father sued Abdul and Araneta for damages. Ylarde’s death was due to his own reckless imprudence. under 2180. ED and MD under 2176 (art. CA) Don’t sue school based on 2180 (7)  Pasco v. 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. (349a) . Soriano. Pasco. the stone was obviously at the brink of falling. as a head of an academic school. TC: dismissed the complaint. 1. jumped in the pit. QUESTION: Would the school be held liable after the Family Code? ANSWER: Yes! School can be held liable under 218. He did not order the digging 2. he required the kids to remain inside the pit. 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. cannot be held liable. BUT. 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. 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. Wrong issue. Branch V April 25. or the individual.

Held the school. IAC October 5. at the BCF parking lot at around 8pm. Napoleon’s heirs (Castros) sued for damages impleading Abon. Francis High School. School not liable under 2180 TO BE HELD LIABLE UNDER 2180. Salvosa and BCF Absolved other defendants RECESS BY ITS NATURE DOES NOT INCLUDE DISMISSAL. 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. Plus. 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. He was convicted of Homicide. in loco parentis. drowned during a school picnic while trying to save a female teacher. the principal and 4 teachers solidarily liable for AD. the dean and BCF. THE HIS 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. Francis High School vs. 4. 1991 FACTS: Ferdinand Castillo. RECESS IS A TEMPORARY ADJOURNMENT EMBRACED IN THE CONCEPT OF “AT ATTENDANCE IN THE SCHOOL. capacity. CA February 25. Abon was not in the “custody” of BCF when he shot Napoleon DEFINITION OF Prof.  Salvos v. IAC: Affirmed but modified award ISSUE: WON Salvosa and BCF can be held solidarily liable with Abon for damages under 2180. The picnic was not a . the principal and the 6 teachers who were at the picnic for damages. The Castillos sued the school. INCLUDING RECESS TIME. definition of custody…Victim is student of another school Ponente forgot Amadora—decided 6 months earlier. The ROTC Commandant. Abon shot Napoleon Castro. where: in parking lot of school. HELD: No. A minor should not be held to the same degree of care as an adult. as to their pupils and students. 1. It was but natural for kids to play around c. and are called upon to “exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 b. B. teachers and principal impleaded Applied Amadora doctrine: (teacher:ACAD::heads:Establishments of arts and trade) Qualifying “custody” In line with Palisoc. ISSUE: WON 2180 is applicable. Abon was not in the custody of BCF at the time of the incident. No MD coz case does not fall under any of the grounds for MD and they are not guilty of negligence. the negligent act of Aquino in leaving the kids in such a dangerous site has a direct causal connection to the death of Ylarde.” 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. 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. IAC Reversed in so far as it holds Salvosa and BCF solidarily liable with Abon. a truly careful and cautious person would’ve acted in all contrast to the way Aquino did.” or in the custody of BCF when he shot Napoleon. Abon cannot be considered to have been in “attendance in the school. against who: student of University of Baguio Memorize: recess and custody Amadora: legitimate student objective…Victim is own student Salvosa: applied Palisoc. CA set aside. Salvosa-the EVP of BCF. TC: Solidary liability of Abon. digging was not part of work education/ d. Rationale for liability Reiterated Palisoc: The rationale of the liability of school heads and teachers is that they stand to a certain extent. discretion.” 2. a commerce student of BCF with an unlicensed gun from the ROTC armory. HELD: No.Y. RULE: Defines “recess” Qualified Custody NOTE: Salvosa mitigates the effects of Amadora-but this was not cited in Salvosa. TC: Held the 6 teachers solidarily liable for AD & MD Absolved the school and the principal Both appealed CA: Modified TC. but his conduct should be judged according to the average conduct of persons of his age and experience. as contemplated in the law. So to reconcile both cases: If victim is a student of school—Amadora. MD and ED. J. If victim is NOT a student of school-Salvosa  “CUSTODY” (MEMORIZE!)-. B. None of them are guilty of either their own negligence or of the negligence of those under them 2. 1988 FACTS: Jimmy Abon. knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances. 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. ACT OR OMISSION MUST HAVE OCCURRED WHILE AN EMPLOYEE WAS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ASSIGNED TASKS. 13.   CLASS NOTE facts: students. 2007- 15       CLASS NOTE School: ACAD + Institute of Arts and Trade time: dismissal. Salvosa-president and chairman of BCF board. No one is guilty under 2180. Plus.THE PROTECTIVE AND St. he was supposed to be working when the incident happened. 1. and a freshman at St. Casis _S.

2007 16 A2180 applies to schools only if student liable but if student a victim. RCC filed a MTD on the following grounds: 1. 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. only oral instructions were given) b. The supposed life guards were not there! They were having a drinking spree 2. 1. 2. RCC and the RL for damages. They failed to observe the proper diligence BEFORE THE INCIDENT (water was deep.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 sanctioned school activity nor an extra-curricular activity. School is liable under 2180 par. Principal was negligent He knew of the activity and he did not take the appropriate measures to ensure the safety of his students. 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. 21. Tuazon May 18. teachers were negligent. ISSUE: WON PSBA can be held liable under 2180 HELD: No. 21. Soliman sued Solomon. 2180 applies only if the offender was a student of the school Prof. The Principal is not liable under 2180 Mere knowledge of the picnic is not enough He did not consent to the picnic 4. RCC may be held liable under the a contract. 1. PSBA may be held liable based on breach of contract When a student enrolls. In this case though. Jr. RCC was only a client of RL-the employer of Solomon. unless the negligence occurs under the circumstances set out in Art. Solomon was employed by RL Security Agency. a student of the Republic Central Colleges. as per jurisprudence. Teachers are not negligent hence not liable a. RCC not the employer of Solomon 2. PSBA  CLASS NOTE 12 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. it was established that the offenders were not PSBA students. v. there is an established contract between him and the school. . PSBA’s negligence would only be relevant in the existence of a contract. PSBA’s negligence cannot exist independently of the contract. 2180. Casis _S. if the act which breaches the contract is done in BF & be violative of Art. 2180 doe not apply because offender was not a student of PSBA Under 2180. CA February 4. Art. 1992 FACTS: Carlos Bautista was stabbed to death by outsiders within PSBA’s premises. resulting in a bilateral obligation---therefore. hence RCC had no hand in the selection and supervision process.Y. Art. PSBA vs. instructors and scout masters who had knowledge in 1st aid and swimming were invited b. 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. Art. they did all that is humanly possible to save Ferdinand DISSENT: Padilla 1. Although a QD may still arise even when there is a contract. Many of the teachers were present. But. TC: MTD denied CA: Affirmed TC coz 2180 applies to all kinds of educational institutions. a. 1992 FACTS: Maximo Soliman Jr. Case remanded to determine if there was a breach of contract. under the case of PSBA. In this case. The Bautistas sued PSBA and its corporate officers for damages. par 512 does not apply RCC was not the employer of Solomon. a security guard assigned to the school. this is not based on a QD which arises when parties are not bound by any contract. the offender should be a pupil of the school. Activity was stamped with school authority. BOC Soliman. RULE: Art. and the activity was organized by the teachers for the students.life savers were brought c. 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. Because Solomon was not an employee of RCC and neither was he a student. 3. 3. was shot by Jimmy Solomon. does not include academic institutions.

Y. But. (n) proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances.13 349. 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. a. Sherwin sustained injuries which caused his death. It was the grandson of Villanueva. The persons named in the preceding article shall exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child. Mary’s Academy v. (349a) Art. In no case shall corporal punishment be countenanced. NOTES: applied FC-this seems to imply strict liability but SC here allowed defense of diligence. parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable. entity or institution engaged in child care This special parental authority and responsibility applies to all authorized activities. the parents must be held primarily liable. 219. entity or institution. 349. who had control and possession of the jeep who allowed James to drive. for St. ISSUE: WON St Mary’s is liable HELD: No. its administrators and teachers. 352. Parents are Primarily liable Whether the accident was due to James negligence or the mechanical failure. 1. premises of the school. Casis _S. if the person under custody is a minor. but the mechanical defect of the jeep. entity or institution. Carpitanos February 6. xxx (4) Directors of trade establishments. the school has an implicit obligation to provide students with an atmosphere conducive to learning. There’s no evidence that St. par7: Art. instruction or custody. FC. The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is Art. They were on their way to an elementary school when the jeep turned turtle due to James’ reckless driving. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the 14 Art. The following persons shall exercise substitute parental authority: (2) Teachers and professors. its NCC A2180. The parents. teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages Art. 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. James was absolved due to his minority. or the individual. The Carpitanos sued St. St. Villanueva was likewise absolved. along with other HS students. Who liable . Villanueva. St. St. Such authority and responsibility applies to field trips. so long as they remain in their custody. Arts. 3. are fixed by government regulations and those of each school or institution. 2002 FACTS: St. to nonemployees This case should have used the provisions from the Family Code. Sherwin Carpitanos. 2007- 17 Under 219. The teacher or professor shall cultivate the best potentialities of the heart and mind of the pupil or student. James. & 35214 does not apply Solomon was not a student of RCC. Mary’s is liable for damages under 218 & 21915. with regard to apprentices. 13 Lastly. Mary’s Academy conducted an enrollment drive for the incoming school year. The relations between teacher and pupil. the individual. and other affairs of the pupils and students outside the school premises whenever authorized by the school or its teachers. 218. a 15 year old student. and either the Daniels’ negligence or the mechanical failure was the intervening cause. 4.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 2. This involved visitation of schools. The proximate cause of the accident was not the negligence nor the reckless driving of James. The jeep was owned by Villanueva and was driven by James Daniel II. 2180 par. Mary’s insolvency. 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. who was part of the campaigning group rode the jeep. school had no substitute parental authority over him. 350. 2. 3. PSBA applies RCC may be held liable under the implied contract between RCC and Soliman. Mary’s. The steering wheel guide was detached while the jeep was running. 7. Hence. FC 2. whether inside or outside the premises of the school. Mary’s is not liable The special parental authority under 218. All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. 350. excursions. CA: Affirmed but reduced AD. St. 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. 15 Prof. CA reversed and set aside. Mary’s. must have a causal connection to the accident. 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.    CLASS NOTES A2180 not applicable to nonstudents. Mary’s negligence was only a remote cause. b. 3. Mary’s to be held liable. caused by their pupils and students or apprentices. TC: 1. Mary’s allowed the minor James to drive the jeep. Case remanded for determination of liability of defendants excluding St. its administrators and teachers 2. The school. professor and student. The Daniels were held subsidiarily liable in the event of St. the Daniels (parents of James) and Villanueva. Under this contract. FC applies to: 1. 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. the school.

Salvosa: defines “recess”. Balingit. Owners Establishments and Managers of *Rationale of employers being liable: policy consideration—allocating risks 2. 1975 FACTS: Fernando Pineda. qualifies (mitigates amadora’s effects) custody Prof. For damages caused by Liability 12. PAF is a corporation with a personality separate and distinct from that of Balingit (this was not alleged in the complaint). Libi: Primary liability of parent-CLEARED UP ISSUE ON PRIMARY OR SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY 6. No chance to Overturn Exconde. entity or institution Minor child while under their supervision. 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.  2180 not limited to minors and liability of teacher is only when academic and not arts and trades Summary of cases: 1. 1. Casis _S. Their pupils and students or apprentices. Does not have to live or board with teacher or head Overturned Mercado. judicial guardians. 10. PSBA: offender must be a student of the school. PhilAmerican Forwarders. . (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. no distinction is made WON School is ACADEMIC or NONACADEMIC Incident happened WITHIN OR OUTSIDE school premises. Inc March 25. not an outsider for 2180 to apply. The terms “employers” and “owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise” DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MANAGER OF A CORPORATION. persons exercising substitute parental authority teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades *In St. Salen: subsidiary liability of parent 3. so long as they remain in their custody Primarily and directly 8. Inc. Rodriguez-Luna: primary liability of parent 5. Mary’s. Palisoc: custody-protective and supervisory custody. as the manager of PAF and Pineda were sued based on a QD. 2007- 18 Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines. Pasco: 2180 applies to teachers or heads not to school itself. The argument that PAF is a mere business conduit of the Balingit spouses implies the piercing of the veil of corporate fiction. driver of a Philippine American Forwarders freight truck hit a Philippine Rabbit Bus along a national highway. 11.Y. vs. instruction or custody A219: unemancipated minor Principally and solidarily liable – schools Subsidiarily liable – parents. Exconde: Primary liability of parent 2180 applies only to arts and trades 2. Francis Case. The bus driver suffered injuries and the bus was unusable for 79 days resulting in loss of income. 13. Since this was not raised in the lower court. Ylarde: head of an academic school not liable. Soliman: No substitute parental authority over security guard who was neither an employee nor a student 15. activity should be inside school premises 4. But may invoke contractual obligation 14. Fuellas: primary liability of parent (did not categorically state that parent is subsidiarily liable) (DEPENDIENTE) OF THE 4. it cannot be countenanced in this appeal.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 administrators and teachers. Mercado: Custody=living and boarding with teacher or head 7. 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. Who may be liable under special parental authority. ISSUE: WON Balingit is liable under 2180. Overturned Exconde -Academic school-teacher-pupil -Arts & trades-head-apprentice Broad definition of custody 9. Francis: 2180 applies to school sanctioned activities and in the failure to perform assigned tasks. Important to note that:  Under the FC. (WON employers/owners/managers of an establishment/enterprise includes managers of corporations) HELD: No. or the individual. St. 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. St. Amadora: 2180 applies to all schools.

Philtranco argues it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. driven by Manhilig was being pushed and jumpstarted along a perpendicular street. Abad came from a different place. 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. ISSUE: WON Philtranco may be held liable for the act of Manhilig HELD: YES. par5) RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR: CONCLUSIVE FAULT/NEGLIGENCE OF EMPLOYEE PATERFAMILIAS: PRESUMPTION JURIS TANTUM (REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION)   16 Art. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. 2181. Acuesta’s heirs sued Manhilig and Philtranco for QD. ISSUE 2: WON Castilex has the burden of proving that Abad was not working within the scope of his assigned tasks HELD: NO. ISSUE 1: WON CA erred in applying par 5 and not par 4 of Art 2180 HELD: NO. The Court made distinctions between the 2 paragraphs. 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. . but was forced to by a cop who saw the accident and boarded the bus.Y. a production manager of Castilex. The plaintiffs have the burden. The action is an action for damages for QD under Art 2176 and 2180. It started suddenly and ran over Acuesta. 2194. The latter is called the “special errand” or “roving commission” rule. The driver didn’t stop. The criminal case did not prosper for failure to prosecute.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 5. (1904) HELD: NO. was driving his company-issued vehicle after office hours. Vasquez December 1999   CLASS NOTES Castilex sold furniture (relevance: on “engaged in a business or industry” under A2180. 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. in general. Use of Employer’s Vehicle Outside Regular Working Hours The employer is liable if he derives some incidental benefit. 2007- 19 Jurisprudence even if the relationship is Respondeat superior18 not Pater familias. 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. Abad brought him to the hospital. direct and joint and several or solidary with the driver (Art 2194)16. NOTES: IMPLICATION: 4th par covered by 5th par. Employers NOTES: JURIS TANTUM (REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION) WHY?coz hard for victim to prove that employer was not negligent (similar to res ipsa). He was working beyond office hours and was coming from a place where he had snacks. making Castilex liable   CLASS NOTE Employers liable because of paterfamilias Castilex v. He hit Vasquez. He who alleges must prove. TC and Ca ruled for Vasquezs. but he died anyway. a biker. The fact that Abad was a manager and driving a company-issued vehicle is not sufficient to charge Castilex with liability.. ISSUE 3: WON Abad was working within the scope of his assigned tasks. SC ruled that the 5th par merely says being engaged in a business is not necessary for the paragraph to apply. CA June 1997 FACTS: A Philtranco bus. 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. The civil case for damages was filed by Vasquez’s parents. NOTE: Sir says this case has the implication that par 4 is superfluous because par 5 encompasses everything. The employer is not liable when the vehicle is used for a personal benefit and returned to where it is normally kept. Sir says there is no contradiction. Note: This seems to contradict with Valenzuela v CA. hence employer should prove diligences as a defense WHY OWNER?-deeper prockets FACTS: Abad. The employer’s only recourse is to recover what it has paid from the employee who committed the fault or negligence (Art 2181)17. (n) 17 Art. 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. saying Manhilig had an excellent record and exercised the diligence of a very cautious person. Casis _S. in Philtranco v. who had a student’s permit. The place where the employee is coming from is material. 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.CA held the liability of Cadtilex was “vicarious not solidary contrary to TC’s ruling. and on a motorcycle. The Court cited principles in American 18 The act of the agent is the act of the principal.

He got into a fistfight with Escartin. 2. Filamer did not exercise the diligence of a good father of the family. Sir says there is a policy considerations. Navidad February 2003 FACTS: Nicanor was drunk when he entered the LRT station after buying a token. Employee must be acting within the scope of his assigned task American Jurisprudence: 3 situations (General Rule: Employer NOT liable. is burdened with the duty of exercising utmost diligence. Roman (the train driver). by the nature of its business and reasons of public policy. averring it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. Requisites to hold the employer liable for torts under 2180: 1. Funtecha drove the jeep not for his enjoyment but for the service of Filamer. he requested Masa. knew of the license. Exception: Benefit to the ER GOING TO AND FROM WORK General rule: ER not liable OUTSIDE REGULAR WORKING HOURS Supervision includes: 1. ER-EE relationship 2. the employer may be held liable if it is in furtherance of the latter’s interests. The Labor Code applies only to liability caused by non-compliance with substantive labor standards on working conditions. NPC and PHESCO are pointing fingers. formulation of suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of its employers. In this case. liable with him HELD: NPC.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. Common carriers. The train hit him and he died instantly. employee must be acting within the scope of his assigned task NOTE: In Filamer. Having a driver’s license. NCC applies! LC not strictly applied.    CLASS NOTES par4 and 5 of 2180. • 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. Masa yielded and on the way they hit a pedestrian. LRTA. Casis _S. it may hire its own employees or avail of . The presumption of liability was overcome. PHESCO is a labor-only contractor because it does not carry on an independent business and does not have substantial capital. etc. ISSUE: Who is the employer of Ilumba. Filamer v. It appears that Agustin Masa. there must exist an ER-EE relationship THAT IS APPLICABLE EVEN IF THE EMPLOYEE DERIVES SOME BENEFIT FROM THE ACT. 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. school president. resulting in the death of 3 persons in the Tamaraw and injuries to 17 passengers. ISSUE: WON LRTA is liable HELD: YES.   LRT v. the issuance of proper instructions intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has relations through his employees. driver and son of school president. Nicanor’s widow and children sued Escartin. 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. The fact that he was not the school driver is insignificant. CA August 1998 FACTS: A dump truck driven by Ilumba and owned by NPC collided with a Toyota Tamaraw. to let him drive them home where Funtecha also lives. 2007- 20 2. because Funtecha swerved right to avoid a fast-moving truck. Q: is there an ER-EE relationship between the school and the student working part-time in the school? Prof. a security guard and he fell unto the tracks. Kapunan. 3. ISSUE: WON Filamer is liable HELD: YES. Exception: Employer LIABLE when he derives special business benefit) GOING TO AND FROM MEALS General rule: ER is not liable. Metro Transit and Prudent (security agency). The Court tries to utilize doctrine to support their cause. Labor Code provisions do not apply even n the determination of an employer-employee relationship. 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. 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. It is merely an agent of NPC. IAC August 1992 FACTS: Funtecha is a part-time janitor and scholar of Filamer. each claiming Ilumba is the employee of the other. IN FURTHERANCE OF THE INTERESTS OF THE EMPLOYER OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYER AT THE TIME OF THE INFLICTION OF THE INJURY.Y. and 2. NOTE: Sir thinks this is a dangerous doctrine because even if the activity is far removed from the business/institution. and therefore. PHESCO supplied Ilumba as a driver to NPC. LRTA and Roman filed counterclaims and Prudent denied liability. just used to determine the existence of EER 1. Besides. 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 did not concede liability to Merritt. he came from a coemployee’s place in BF Homes Pque.Y. resulting in the death of 3 and injuries to 3 others. ISSUE: WON Alexander was liable HELD: YES. PRIMARY LIABILITY-but can be negated by due diligence in selection and supervision (allegedly drunk). she was bumped by Li 6. the driver is not a special agent within the contemplation of the law. In this case. The only defense is due diligence of a good father of a family. 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. the carrier is not relieved of its responsibility under the contract of carriage. The presumption is they came from a company function or discussed work-related matters. The car of the latter was registered to Alexander Commercial. CA February 1996 FACTS: Valenzuela had a flat tire and had to park her midnight blue Mitsubishi lancer on the side of the road. 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.. While standing on the left rear side of the car. in which the ultimate liability falls upon the employer. driver of the Ford. 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. There is a presumption of negligence on the part of the employer. In this case. watching someone changed her tire. 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. ISSUE: WON the employer of Galang is liable HELD: YES. McKee v. presumption juris tantum that employer failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in selection and supervision 3. The accident was caused by 2 boys who darted into the street causing Kho. In either case. Practical and utilitarian reasons (to reach clients conveniently) Thus.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 the services of a contractor.     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. 2007- 21 juridical person capable of acquiring rights and contracting obligations)   CLASS NOTE Very useful provision in our day and age Merritt v. Casis _S. At the time of the accident. all passengers of the Ford. The State is not liable for torts. establish 1st employee’s fault or negligence 2. Li. which is subversive to public interest. an Asst. 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. The Government passed an Act authorizing Merritt to sue the Government. agents and employees (unless special agent. IAC July 1992 FACTS: A head-on collision between a cargo truck driven by Galang and a Ford Escort driven by Jose Kho. and except when state acts as a . Mngr of the company. State -not liable for acts of its officers. uses the car to facilitate meetings with clients. the Court averred the privilege of using a company car serves 2 purposes: 1. 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. Although the accident was caused by a government employee. They did not interpose nor prove this defense. This case is more of a roving commision Valenzuela case says that A2180 was modified by FC. 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. Employer’s liability under 2180: 1. to swerve into the truck’s lane. ISSUE: WON the State is liable for damages HELD: NO. 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. Image of success 2. Prof. except when it acts through a special agent. 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. 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 relationship between Li and Alexander is Pater familias not Respondeat superior. Though the State waived its immunity from suit.

streets. As he was about to board one. RA 3601 and PD 552 provide that NIA is a body corporate invested with a corporate personality and distinct from the government. So. The council revoked a lease for an exclusive ferry privilege. 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. ISSUE: Which applies: Sec 4 of RA 409 (Charter of the City of Manila) or the Civil Code HELD: CIVIL CODE. He hit his head on the rim. cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. or injuries suffered by. the driver was an agent. His parets fled a suit for damages. he may be considered a special agent within the contemplation of the provision. any person by reason of the defective condition of roads. Frayno negligently lit a cigarette 5 meters from a gas drum.     CLASS NOTE Differentiated special agent from officials The case used Merritt’s definition of special agent Perfecto dissented. De Leon February 1916 . IN PARTICULAR. (n)   City of Manila v. IN GENERAL. Where a private individual is commissioned to do a special task. ISSUE: WON NIA is liable HELD: YES. 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. broke his glasses and the pieces of which pierced his eyelid. bridges. There is no showing that whatever negligence may be imputed to the ECA or its officers was not done by any special agent. Auditor General August 1948 FACTS: Employees of the Emergency Control Administration had gasoline stored in their warehouse. CLASS NOTES when state acts in their proprietary function. There is no justifiable reason for revoking the lease awarded to Mendoza. The municipality has 2 functions: governmental and proprietary/corporate. ART 2189 GOVERNS LIABILITY DUE TO “DEFECTIVE STREETS”. Whereas SEC 4 RA 409 REFERS TO LIABILITY ARISING FROM NEGLIGENCE. Teotico January 1968 FACTS: Teotico was waiting a jeepney. Prof. He filed a suit for damages against the City of Manila.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Rosete v. It applies because it is ore specific. Court always makes someone liable. city treasurer and chief of police. Maliaman February 1991 FACTS: National Irrigation Administration was created for the purpose of constructing. Provinces. improving. city engineer. city health officer. Casis _S. NIA’s driver caused the death of Fontanilla due to the fault and/or negligence. 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. Fontanilla v. the tortfeasors may be sued in capacities such as those in private corporations. ISSUE: WON the Government should pay damages HELD: NO. NIA’s functions are basically proprietary and incidentally governmental. whether individual or juridical bodies. and other public works under their control or supervision. public buildings.   CLASS NOTES added special agent: aside from special commission. it may be sued. In a case for damages. 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.Y. 2189. which was awarded to Mendoza and gave it to someone else. mayor. It’s all about allocating risks. 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. 2007- 22 FACTS: This is an action for damages against the individual members of the municipal council of Villasis.Pangasinan. saying ECA special agent. Rosete’s building were damaged. The award of the lease was a proprietary function. he fell into an uncovered and unlighted manhole/catchbasin. Such storage was contrary to a Manila ordinance. In such a case. Mendoza v. Manila’s assertion that it did not own the street is of no moment. ISSUE: WON the individual members of the council are liable HELD: YES. rehabilitating and administering all national irrigation systems of the Philippines. The fact that it is under their control or supervision is enough to make them liable. He also got contusions and abrasions on other parts of his body. At the time. Respondeat superior applies.

if not caused by force majeure. (2) By excessive smoke. (1137a) 20 Art. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states. The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building. Prof. 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. The collapse took place within 15 years from the completion of the structure b. or due to any violation of the terms of the contract.-if a. 1723 speaks of a building that should collapse or edifice that falls. 120719. 1723. or that each one of the latter is bound to render. the action for damages is brought within 10 years following the collapse 3. does not imply waiver of any of the cause of action by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph. All three’s acts made them liable for the unauthorized disbursement of company funds. proposed to Ace Management to send Taylor to the US for further studies. 1207. ISSUE: WON De Joya is liable HELD: YES. 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. Araneta’s defense of good faith falls on its face when he didn’t testify to prove it.Gen. Others 1. Araneta discovered the arrangement and sued De Joya. De Joya sent Taylor despite the Board’s disapproval. He remained passive and even approved the payroll thrice. and c. (1908) Taylor from company funds (signed by Vicente and Luis Araneta). The contractor is likewise responsible for the damages if the edifice falls. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse. Engineer/Architect Art. canals. he shall be solidarily liable (see Arts. (n)     CLASS NOTES *under Lease Contract: the lessor is responsible for necessary repairs! 2. 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. the action for damages is brought within 10 years following the collapse 2. Acceptance of the building. Joya May 1974 FACTS: De Joya. (1907) Art. (3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes. within the same period. the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications. which may be harmful to persons or property. Casis _S. 121620) with the contractor. 2007- 23 1. Employees CLASS NOTES A2176 to make fellow employee liable Sir: take note of 1723 (interesting provision) Araneta v. entire compliance with the prestation. 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 engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications shall be liable for damages. Art. sewers or deposits of infectious matter. They were joint tortfeasors and have solidary liability under Art 2194. or due to any violation of the terms of the contract. Liability of engineer or architect. Effect of acceptance of work. or due to defects in the ground. 2190. 2191. or due to the defects in the ground. hence. he shall be solidarily liable with the contractor. so long as the debt has not been fully collected. Rule in a contract for a piece of work is that acceptance of 19 Art. 4. after completion. The demand made against one of them shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed against the others. and c. Solidary liability-In case the engineer or the architect supervised or directed the construction. Vicente and Luis were informed about Taylor’s trip and gave their approval. (4) By emanations from tubes. if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs. 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. 1216. If the engineer or architect supervises the construction.Y. if: a. against the engineer or architect or contractor. constructed without precautions suitable to the place. general manager. the edifice falls within the same period b. on account of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him. (1144a) . and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate place. Proprietor of Buildings Art. A 3rd person suffering damage as a result of any defect in the construction may proceed.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 C. 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. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. Liability of contractor. it does not apply to minor defects. the collapse took place on account of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him. it took place by reason of a defect in the plans and specifications.

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. just follow orders – but GF not needed        CLASS NOTES Art. intelligence units of the AFP. VII. and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted). (18) Freedom from excessive fines. Only judges may issue warrants for seizure not fiscals. Ver April 1988 FACTS: Task Force Makabansa. but this does not matter because ART 32 DOES NOT REQUIRE A SHOWING OF GOOD FAITH/BAD FAITH. (9) The right to be secure in one's person. (12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. defeats. but records show there was ample time. The violations of the plaintiffs’ rights were geared towards obtaining evidence to incriminate them. (10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same. the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages. Fiscal Ponce de Leon filed an info against Taha. (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self. FACTS: Jikil Taha sold Timbangcaya a motor launch. He next claims good faith. or cruel and unusual punishment. or from being forced to confess guilt. or (2) The employer expressly reserves his rights against the contractor by reason of the defect.Y. Acceptance of the work by the employer relieves the contractor of liability for any defect in the work. (2) Freedom of speech. (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. (6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law. After initial hesitation. 32. or any private individual. In any of the cases referred to in this article. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Taha forcibly took the launch back so Timbangcaya filed a complaint. or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession. The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is protected by the Constitution. Ponce de Leon claimed there was no time to get a warrant. It conducted raids with defective search warrants where personal items were confiscated. 21 Art. IT IS ENOUGH THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. (11) The privacy of communication and correspondence. expected to recognize the same. whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense. Ponce ordered Provincial Commander of Palawan Maddela to impound the vehicle even though it had already been sold to a third party. and for other relief.21 But mere acceptance of the building after completion. 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. people were arrested without warrant and interrogated without proper procedures. 2007- 24 (15) The right of the accused against excessive bail. (14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form. TORTS W/ INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION A. Subordinate officer not liable  illogical because Court already said that good faith is not a defense. Take note: Art. Maddela seized the launch so Lim filed this case. (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws. Ponce de Leon August 1975 . and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel. Violation of Civil and Political Rights Art. who directly or indirectly obstructs. house. (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention. unless: (1) The defect is hidden and the employer is not. Provincial commander NOT LIABLE because of chain of command – Subordinate. (5) Freedom of suffrage. (3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication. by his special knowledge. Casis _S. except when the person confessing becomes a State witness. (n) Prof. (7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use. 1719. 32 is the basis for a civil action for violation of civil liberties. (13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances. and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence. ISSUE: WON Ponce de Leon may seize the launch without warrant HELD: NO. does not imply waiver of any of the causes of action arising from any defect in the construction. Any public officer or employee. There is no law which authorizes the fiscal to seize the corpus delicti of the crime. Special rule: Judges are not covered unless done in excess of jurisdiction. unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional. to meet the witnesses face to face.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. Lim. to have a speedy and public trial. The Lim v. and (19) Freedom of access to the courts. papers. 32 says DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY Private persons may be sued under this! Aberca v. conducted pre-emptive strikes against “known communist-terrorist underground houses”. The indemnity shall include moral damages. After discovering where the launch was.

— A libel committed by means of writing. discredit. 32 may or may not constitute a criminal offense. entirely separate and . They sought the aid of the Philippine Constabulary. 353. AS THE PROVISION INCLUDES NOT ONLY THOSE DIRECTLY BUT ALSO INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE. except in the following cases: (1) A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal. forms. or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. 1 Sangco 228-255 (1993) . 1 of Rule 107 of the 1940 Rules of Court ( Sec. went to the stalls. theatrical exhibition. (3) Direct and open violations of the Penal code trampling upon the freedoms named are not so frequent as those subtle. or of any statement. The invocation of state immunity is misplaced because there is no blanket license to transgress upon rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. of any judicial. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. phonograph. hence not negligence. 1162 thereof. report or speech delivered in said proceedings. because they are indirectly responsible Writ’s effect: suspension immaterial Respondeat superior: liable INDIRECTLY responsible (A32) because Art. or any act. and (2) A fair and true report. The evidence presented did not justify the treatment of the respondents. 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. and the Rules on Civil Procedure. Fraud and Physical Injuries Art. The suspension does not destroy the right or cause of action for illegal arrest and other violations of constitutional rights. Requirement for publicity. or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor. the threat to freedom originates from abuse of power by government officials and peace officers. 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. painting. Defamation. and physical injuries a civil action for damages. 355. HELD: NO. may be brought by the injured party.000 pesos. if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. condition. 2007- 25   CLASS NOTE Take note: even private persons who participate can be held liable under Article 32 distinct from the criminal action. the civil action to enforce liability for damages is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code according to Art. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime. made in good faith. or both. representative of MHP. Art. and punishment of this crime. In cases of defamation. -the nature of civil action for damages which Art. What is merely suspended is the right to seek release through the writ as a speedy means of obtaining liberty.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. Art. seized the goods and caused a commotion. 33 allows to be instituted is ex delicto. 100 of the RPC and an independent civil action under Art. . or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.   MHP Garments v. radio. They were informed that Cruz. ART 32 RENDERS THE DEFENDANTS LIABLE. Lugatiman and Gonzales were selling BSP uniforms without authority.A violation of any of the individual rights and liberties enumerated in Art. Casis _S. or contempt of a natural or juridical person. . or of a vice or defect. B. the victim may opt between a civil action under Art. clever and indirect ways which do not come within the pale of penal law. without any comments or remarks. INCLUDING THEIR SUPERIORS. (2) The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt often prevented the appropriate punishment. 354. 33. They instigated the raid which was conducted with the active participation of De Guzman. Constabulary men and De Guzman. {{{   CLASS NOTE May superiors be liable? Yes. even if it be true.If act constitutes a criminal offense. 32. all without warrant. lithography. Libel means by writings or similar means. 1 Rule 111 of the 1964 Revised rules of Court) . cinematographic exhibition. The proper method would have been to report the matter and secure a warrant. Revised Penal Code Title Thirteen-CRIMES AGAINST HONOR Chapter One-LIBEL Section 1— Definitions. The Constitution protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. engraving. ISSUE: WON MHP and De Guzman may be held liable HELD: YES. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious. shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6. status.The right to institute an independent civil action under Arts. MHP was indirectly involved. . legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature. ISSUE: WON the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus bars the civil action for damages. moral or social duty.Y. fraud.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. printing. Definition of libel. –criminal in nature.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. Prof. 33.If act is not a criminal offense. omission.for these reasons: (1) In most case. or any similar means. in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party. . real or imaginary. 32.

In actions for libel.000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall perform any act not included and punished in this title. It cannot overturn an en banc decision. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings. or both. his widow filed a civil action for damages. 1. Phil. *Crim case and civil case (for the same act) may proceed independently of each other    CLASS NOTE Reckless Imprudence is not included in Art. therefore. saying reckess imprudence is not included in Art 33. daily or magazine. the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos. Slander. 357. Defamation MVRS v. spirit and motive of the piece. alleging gross negligence. shall be imposed upon any reporter. a separate civil action may be instituted. editor or manager or a newspaper. The libel suit will not prosper because NOT IDENTIFY SPECIFICALLY NOR REFER TO ANY INDIVIDUALS TO BE THE SUBJECT OF THE PUBLICATION. If said act is not of a serious nature. 359. Heirs of Marcia instituted this separate civil action for damages. Trial court dismissed. child. 1983 FACTS: Victory Liner bus driven by Paje collided with a jeep driven by Marcia. Japzon for the death of Madeja after an appendectomy.   CLASS NOTE Art 33 does not affect in any way the criminal action. Journalists March 2004 PARTICULAR They cannot . Morales could have used better words. CA acquitted Paje stating that the case was a pure Arafiles v. To be liable under Art 33. It depends on the scope. is not authoritative. but he did state that his story was based on the account of Despuig at the station. Physical injuries is used in the generic sense. 356. Note: According to Sir. Art. Art. Under the Rules of Court and Art 33. virtue and reputation of said person. his editor and the president of the publisher. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 2. Casis _S. saying his reputation was ruined by the story. Threatening to publish and offer to present such publication for a compensation. 33  no independent civil action Article 33 construed strictly Madeja v Caro December 1983 FACTS: A criminal action was filed against Dr. 2007- 26 FACTS: Despuig filed a complaint against Arafiles for forcible abduction with rape and forcible abduction with attempted rape. — 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. spouse. IT DID Marcia v CA January 27. Islamic January 2003 FACTS: An issue of Bulgar wrote an article stating that Muslims don’t eat pigs because they treat them as Gods. This case also says Corpus v 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. alleging the story was a product of sheer ignorance but with the intent to hurt the feelings.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Art. 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. ISSUE: WON the accused were liable for damages HELD: NO. 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. Note: Madeja v Caro is a division case. ISSUE: WON Judge Caro erred in dismissing the civil action HELD: YES. shall be imposed upon any person who threatens another to publish a libel concerning him or the parents. Art. but this was dismissed. Marcia died and 2 other were seriously injured.000 pesos. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines and individual Muslims filed a complaint for damages. discredit or contempt upon another person. 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. Pending the criminal case. the published work must be examined and viewed as a whole. 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. otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos. The civil action is ex-delicto and aimed to allow the offended party to enforce his rights in a private action. cast insult and disparage Muslims of the world. or both. no civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution. It must be read in the sense readers to whom it is addressed would ordinarily understand it. An info for homicide and double serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed against Paje. She executed a sworn statement to that effect witnessed by Morales. meaning bodily injury not the crime in the RPC. ISSUE: WON MVRS may be held liable HELD: NO. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of from 20 to 2. accident. who shall publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor. which shall cast dishonor.000 pesos. 358. Slander by deed.Y. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1. Prof. the damage should arise from a crime. Arafiles filed a complaint for damages against Morales.

While the case was pending. which is defamatory 3. can file independent and distinct civil action based on Article 33 There is no such finding in this case. 2. ISSUE: WON the acquittal of Paje in the criminal case bars the civil action HELD: YES. but Judge Purisima granted the other.Y. According to Puno. Rayon sold the machinery without turning over the proceeds to Prudential as agreed upon so it violated the agreement. 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 CASE FOR RECOVERY UNDER QD MUST BE INSTITUTED WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE ACCRUAL OF THE RIGHT OF ACTION. Salta filed motions to dismiss based on the acquittal. Later. An info for homicide and double serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed against Paje. The parties in the latter case compromised so the case was dismissed. 2007- 27   CLASS NOTES fraud here is not simply estafa. Heirs of Maria reserved the right to file a civil action separately and later did. Capuno and his passengers. Rayon wilfully and fraudulently misapplied or converted the money for their own use. ISSUE: WON the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations HELD: YES. for a member to have a cause of action. The letter of credit and trust receipt remained unpaid. Sec 13 of the same law considers the violation as Estafa. ISSUE: WON the MTD should be granted HELD: NO. Casis _S. published statement 2. Capuno heirs filed a similar complaint. 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. NOTE: cf Worcester Prof. manifest partiality and upon securities not commensurate to the loan. 33.    CLASS NOTES important: definition of defamation. CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.  CLASS NOTE  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 Corpus v. THAT IS RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE. died. As a manager. FACTS: A Pepsi delivery truck driven by Elordi collided with a private car driven by Capuno. Buan spouses. Pepsi April 1965 . Fraud Salta v. 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. of and concerning the plaintiff If the article refers to a group. the estate and heirs of the Buan spouses filed a separate complaint for damages against Pepsi and Elordi. Anent 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. Prudential Bank v. Physical Injuries Capuno v. 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. 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 machinery was sold and the proceeds kept. but 2 civil cases were filed. The Court said that it included bodily injury resulting in death. there being an allegation of fraud and negligence. there are prerequisites to recovery: 1. Paje July 1969 FACTS: Victory Liner bus driven by Paje collided with a jeep driven by Marcia.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 be held liable just because the words were insulting or offensive. Elordi was charged with triple homicide through reckless imprudence. Marcia died and 2 other were seriously injured. Swindling is just a specie of an offense committed by means of fraud. A trust receipt was signed in favor of Prudential. Judge de Veyra denied one MTD. 3. Art 33 applies. Acquittal was based on insufficiency of evidence. Contrary to the Capuno’s assertion.    CLASS NOTES violation of a trust receipt is a violation under Article 33 Since there is FRAUD. 33 MAY BE BROUGHT. Veyra September 1982 FACTS: Salta was an employee of PNB. Prudential filed an action for damages against Rayon and its president. Rayon applied for a commercial letter of credit with Prudential in favor of Nissho. he must prove that the article particularly pertains to him. ISSUE: WON Rayon is liable HELD: YES. ESTAFA COMES UNDER FRAUD AND SO AN ACTION UNDER ART. The criminal case was dismissed. There is a fiduciary relationship between Rayon and Prudential. he indiscriminately granted some loans in a manner characterized by negligence fraud.

or physical injuries.Meaning and scope of physical injuries: Like that provided in Art. THE DAMAGE SHOULD ARISE FROM A CRIME.Y. 34. his widow filed a civil action for damages. the law secures payment by holding the City or municipality subsidiarily liable. a security guard. Art. (3) a civil action for physical injuries under Art. ISSUE: WON an independent civil action may proceed HELD: YES. Pending the criminal case.  2 things to remember about A33.   C. members of the force are directly and personally liable for damages caused by their refusal or failure to render this basic service.  Action has also already prescribed. This separate civil action is similar to the action in Tort for libel or slander.  Sir does not think that “physical injuries” should be limited to the crime with the same name. reserves the right to institute it separately 3.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 IS NOT ONE OF THE Prof. waives the civil action 2. fraud. attempted and frustrated homicide. not the result FACTS: A criminal action was filed against Dr. 365 of the RPC. this article “creates an independent civil action in case of defamation. CA April 1995 FACTS: Torzuela. based on the Constitution. 33 and of reckless imprudence being the crime itself and not its results. MEANING BODILY INJURY NOT THE CRIME IN THE RPC. The act of the Dulays of instituting a separate civil action under Art 33 is allowed. . Caro December 1983 .” (People v Feller) . 2176 of the Civil Code. said that the civil action is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party (Civil action deemed instituted): 1. in that. and assault and battery under American law. For this. Caro) to include consummated. Under the Rules of Court and Art 33. the injured party will have three causes of action to choose from and bring a civil action for. 2007- 28 3 CRIMES MENTIONED IN ART 33 WHICH AUTHORIZES THE INSTITUTION OF AN INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION. Since policemen are usually insolvent. Dulay’s widow filed an action for damages against Torzuela.  CLASS NOTES  Law punishes the negligent act. is not authoritative because no sufficient number of votes). only 9 justices took part. Neglect of Duty CLASS NOTES Art. alleging gross negligence. Japzon for the death of Madeja after an appendectomy.According to the Code Commission. also of the Civil Code. It cannot overturn an en banc decision. The term physical injuries has been held (in Madeja vs. 33 hence the effect: NO independent civil action—Art. It is simply a way of committing it and merely determines a lower degree of criminal liability. 33.On Corpus and Marcia: This is an apparent misconception of the independent civil action contemplated in Art. (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. This case also says Corpus v Paje. Casis _S. 4 of which merely concurred with the result. TO BE LIABLE UNDER ART 33. and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action. 2. act punished negligent/careless act. fraud or physical injuries which may or may not constitute criminal offenses.  According to Sangco. institutes it prior to the criminal action This case differs from Marcia v CA. The civil action is ex-delicto and aimed to allow the offended party to enforce his rights in a private action. However. “Reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself. SC. but this was dismissed. This is clearly an exception to its non-suability as a political subdivision of the State. CC: 1. This is analogous but not identical to that provided in Art 102 1 Sangco 255-282 (1993) . 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. Superguard and Safeguard (both companies believed to be Torzuela’s employers). 100 will apply with respect to civil liability  In Criminal negligence. 33: ex-delicto acts acts should constitute a crime. 32. . a separate civil action may be instituted.Where the physical injuries results from a negligent act or omission. Note: Madeja v Caro is a division case. such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages. reckless imprudence is included in A365. 33 is for damages caused by defamation. deceit. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings. and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor.  Rule: RI not included in Art. the independent civil action contemplated in Art. shot Atty. Physical injury refers to bodily injury and is not the same as physical injury as defined in the RPC. 100 in relation to Art. here.  In Corpus v Paje. (2) a civil action for physical injuries arising from a quasi-delict under Art. the crime is homicide not reckless imprudence so a separate civil action may be filed. 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. Dulay v. a division case cannot overturn an en banc decision. saying reckess imprudence is not included in Art 33. Dulay while he was on duty at the “Big Bang sa Alabang” due to some altercation. looking at Art 111 of the ROC. PHYSICAL INJURIES IS USED IN THE GENERIC SENSE. namely: (1) a civil action for damages resulting from reckless imprudence under Art.” Madeja v.

the plaintiff suffered damages. if no criminal action is filed during its pendency. American Shell Oil filed a complaint against . The creditors agreed to form a committee that would take charge of the distribution of assets. 35. act with justice.may bring a civil action for damages under Art. 35. 19. plaintiff may file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. which may or may not affect it. He is granted the right to institute such civil action for damages WON the criminal action upon which it is based is filed. 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. The defendant is a member of the city or municipality police force. 32. But this must be further qualified. 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code or by a special law. Casis _S. . such civil action shall be suspended until final judgment in the criminal case. Key elements of a civil action for damages under Art 34: 1. 30: 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. an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney. prosecute it to final judgment. and observe honest and good faith. Under Art. was appointed a member of the committee. but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed. 33. 35.Implicit are the ff propositions of fact and law: 1. 30. Every person must. and may be proved by preponderance of evidence.Y. 2. Fitzgerald. Where no criminal action is instituted because a prima facie case cannot be established. October 31. charges another with the same. When a person.In all cases not covered by Arts. Where a criminal action is subsequently instituted.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. INTENTIONAL TORTS Art. If during the pendency of the civil action.principle of abuse of rights Art. If the criminal action is filed during its pendency. 2007- 29 1 Sangco 335-338 (1993) . but the latter refused or failed to render the same. After the committee met. for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law. Action for Damages where no independent civil action is provided Art. the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. Shell Co. an employee of Shell.deals with acts contra bonus mores Casis: real catch-all. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. and prove the same by a preponderance of evidence. 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.general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not essentially provide for their own sanction Art. Shell made a transfer of credit against CALI to American Shell Oil Company. or defendant was aware of plaintiff’s need for such assistance or protection. claiming to be injured by a criminal offense. is alleged and shown to be the proximate cause of the damage or injury he sustained. et al. 100 of the RPC.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. 20 . Upon the defendant's motion. 21 .An aggrieved party need not be the victim of a criminal or punishable act or omission to be entitled to damages. of the Phils. The plaintiff either sought police assistance or protection against danger to his life or property. 1956 FACTS: CALI informed its principal creditors that it was in a state of insolvency and had to stop operations. . 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. there is no need to file an indemnity bond where a crime has indubitably been committed or such a criminal action is subsequently instituted. is rendered.  there is a bond because of the high probability that the suit may be malicious 7.Distinguished from Art.    catch all provision what’s punished in 365. covers everything D. As a consequence of such refusal or failure to render assistance or protection. 4. Abuse Of Rights Art. the A. any person who believes that he is the victim of a criminal offense. plaintiff is not required to file an indemnity bond because there is no possibility that it was maliciously instituted. or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings. he is entitled to bring a civil action therefor and obtain a judgment on the basis thereof. but also to institute such civil action ahead of and separately from the criminal action to enforce defendant’s criminal liability 2. etc. 5. 19 . presumably no indemnity bond may be sought or required since there is no apparent justification for it. civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings. v. VIII. give everyone his due. So long as the act or omission complained of. It may also be consolidated with the criminal action. the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. Velayo. RPC is the negligence and the resulting damage Take note of this—not a very often used provision Prof. . Art 34 specifically applies only to members of the police force of the city or municipality. 3. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. WON it is punishable. Aggrieved part has opted not only to recover his damages in a civil action therefore under Art.

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 CALI and a writ of attachment was issued on CALI’s C54 plane. Hendry. going to disco.    CLASS NOTES Right to dismiss should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised: there was name-calling. She then attended a hearing. G. 20 or 21 or other applicable provisions. The working committee was formed specifically for the creditors to not sue CALI  The court used A2253 and A2254. threats. the employer may not do so in an abusive manner. Despite this. A 19. Philippine Law applied because it is where Saudi Arabian deceived Morada. 21.Y. this is to be determined upon the unique circumstances of each case. her employer failed to protect her. 1989 FACTS: Tobias was employed by Globe Mackay as a purchasing agent. He uncovered certain fraudulent transactions.  A21 implements A19 by providing for a consequence which is not found in A19. CA August 25. According to her. and socializing with male crew. ISSUE: WON Tobias was entitled to damages. she was pressured to drop the case while her employer’s Chief Legal Officer stood by. it is clear that the petitioners abused the right that they invoke – right to dismiss an employee. 3. Baltao. 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. ISSUE: Morada had cause of action. depends on the circumstances of each case. Tobias filed an action for damages against Hendry and Globe. She filed a case against them. Standards: 1. Tobias was charged with estafa. RULE: Q of WON the principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages under Art. CA October 8. Her two co-workers tried to rape her. CA January 11. A. NCC to rule upon the issue Albenson v. this case is actually wrong: If the concept of Lex Loci delicti commisi would be followed. a LEGAL WRONG is committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. Globe Mackay v. 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.to act with justice employer that it was routinary. 1993 FACTS: Guaranteed issued Albenson a check as payment for the mild steel plates it ordered. However. The elder Baltao then filed a suit for damages against Albenson. ISSUE: WON Shell can be held for damages. 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”   CATCH ALL    What constitutes the abuse of right? Not the transfer of credit per se but Mr. Upon the facts of the present case. Hendry then sent a letter to Tobias’ potential employer alleging his dishonesty. Shell had no vested right to betray the confidence of the insolvent CALI or of its creditors. 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. and was sentenced to be lashed. 19 has been violated. Instead. However. the place where most of the crimes was committed would determine what law should be applied. 2. 19. ISSUE: WON Albenson was liable for damages. YES HELD: Even though Arts. Although an employer who suspects an employee to be dishonest may dismiss the latter. Prof. He employer refused to help her. Tobias was fired. it appears that the respondent had a namesake. after being assured by her . accused him of being a crook and a swindler. The cases against him were dismissed. However. YES Saudi Arabian Airlines v. in violation of Islamic laws.to give everyone his due O -to observe honesty and GF CLASS NOTES   CLASS NOTES In the context of international law. 2007- 30 HELD: There is no rigid test to determine when Art. his son Eugenio Baltao III. The check bounced. 20. 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. YES HELD: Article 19 merely declares a principle of law and Article 21 gives flesh to its provisions. Casis _S. Fitzgerald was already appointed as 1 of the members in the working committee tasked to determine the division of assets. they are still applicable. Albenson found out that the check belonged to Eugenio Baltao. “You Filipinos cannot be trusted!” A19: Principle of abuse of rights. She was shocked when she was sentenced to be imprisoned for adultery. 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. an EVP. and 23 only came into effect after the incident. 1998 FACTS: Morada was employed by Saudi Arabian Airlines as a flight attendant. In this case. It filed a complaint for violation of BP 22 against Eugenio S.

(Volenti non fit injuria). Albenson’s complaint was a sincere attempt to find the best possible means to collect the money due to them. Amonoy was granted an order for the demolition of the house. It also showed bad faith in belatedly informing Jader of the result of his removals. He later learned of his deficiency. Should be the school. In this case. 2007- 31 advantage of another. 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. their continuation even after the TRO was issued amounted to an abuse of his right. a teacher at the Immaculate Concepcion Institute was granted an indefinite leave of absence to go to Austria. There was no more right for him to abuse! This is not a case of abuse of right. and it disappears when it is abused. particularly when he was already preparing for the bar. UE’s defense was that Jader should have verified grade! ISSUE: WON UE was liable for damages. The Board of Directors reinstated her. Gutierrez February 15. Art 20intentional or negligent acts (does not distinguish) Albenson claims that MP should have been filed. decided to terminate her services (BUT ONLY Board of Directors has the power to terminate her services). However.” Petitioner (university) cannot just give out its students grades at any time… Can you sue professor for not giving grades on time? No. The legal principle applied in this case is damnum absque injuria. together with the absence of all information or belief of facts. -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 former are useless. The Gutierrez spouses then filed a suit for damages. What we have here is an illegal act. On Art. 2001 FACTS: The lot on which the Gutierrez spouses built their house was bought by Amonoy in an auction sale. 1992 FACTS: Garciano. 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. for without the latter. Wiertz’s. She was later sent a letter informing that Fr. 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. 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. 19 when there is supposedly no “hard and fast rule?” Art 19 and 21. especially to the prejudice of others. 3. ISSUE: WON respondents were liable for damages. He took the removals but he was given a grade of five. a temporary restraining order was granted enjoining the demolition. ISSUE: WON Amonoy was liable for damages. YES honest intention ARTICLE 19.Y. NO HELD: Whatever loss Garciano may have incurred in the form of lost earnings was self-inflicted. 19 can be committed via negligence . The SC then made the TRO permanent. The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears.abuse of duty is not a right 2. 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. The ICI faculty has reacted “acidly” her reinstatement. CA August 10. Arts. Which is exercised in bad faith For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. but not when he acts with negligence or abuse NOTES: -does not adhere strictly to the 3 elements -seems to say that Art. by the time the decision was rendered. Jader attended the graduation and prepared for the bar. 2000 FACTS: Jader was a law student at the University of the East. He failed to take the regular exam for Practice Court I so he was given an incomplete grade. Garciano failed to report back in time. Casis _S. However.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 are: 1. the house was already destroyed. Jader sued UE for damages. There is a legal right or duty HELD: Even though Amonoy’s actions were legally justified at the start. Good faith connotes an to abstain from taking undue . the school’s founder. Garciano then filed a complaint for damages. Jader February 17. 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. would render the transaction unconscientious. A19 presupposes an existing right. The law does not impose a penalty on the right to litigate. Amonoy’s acts constituted not only an abuse of a right.intentional acts. Amonoy v. Prof. UE v. but an invalid exercise of a right that was suspended. even though the forms and technicalities of the law.

CA: Affirmed ISSUE: WON BPI abused its right to suspend the card. Barons admitted purchasing the items but denied the amount. 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. The provision. contrary to its socio-economic purpose is an abuse which will give rise to liability. which it sold to MERALCO. Prof. being based on equity. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another BF (on BPI’s part) was not proven. which is exercised in bad faith 3. it may only be invoked by someone who comes to court with clean hands.     CLASS NOTE Respondents did not physically prevent her from working Teachers were simply exercising Right to speech. Barons purchased items on credit. HOW ABUSE? Rejection. 19 prescribes a primordial limitation on all rights by setting certain standards that must be observed in the exercise thereof. It also stated that it suffered injury to its reputation. One of his guests had to pay the bill. CA FACTS: Atty. did not report for work. NO HELD: Phelps had legitimate reasons for rejecting Barons’ offer and instituting the action for collection.Y.  CLASS NOTE .Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 indefinite LOA. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. Marasigan’s credit card was denied at Café Adriatico after he failed to pay his outstanding balance. considering relationship of the parties) ISSUE: WON Barons was entitled to damages. Damnum absque injuria. It gave Marasigan a chance to settle his account. Phelps filed a complaint to recover the amount. and must not be excessive or unduly harsh. there was damage but no injury (Custodio vs. good customs. The terms and conditions of the contract were clear=automatic suspension for failure to pay outstanding balance after 30 days from original bill. 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. He issued a postdated check. Barons asked if it can pay its outstanding account in monthly installments but Phelps declined. right to dissent from board’s decision Board ordered her to report to work! Barons Marketing Corp. 2007- 32 1. CA) B. HELD: No. refused to sign written employment contact.    CLASS NOTE There was no arbitrariness on the part of BPI. BPI did not capriciously and arbitrarily canceled the use of the card. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. Rejection of offer of payment is not an abuse of right BPI v. Casis _S. or public policy as to violate Article 21. Citing Tolentino:    CLASS NOTE Violate concept of social solidarity BF not proven (that Phelps just wanted to directly deal with Meralco). She did not comply with the order to return to work. A person who. The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it has established. CA February 9. Their contract provides for automatic suspension or cancellation. there is a legal right or duty 2. Elements of Art. Test of Abuse of Right: modern jurisprudence does not permit an act although lawful is anti-social. there must be NO INTENTION TO INJURE ANOTHER. GF presumed. Garciano was also at fault. Her claim for moral damages under Art 21 also fails. v. 3. 1998 FACTS: Phelps Dodge appointed Barons as one of its dealers of electrical wires and cables. Settled doctrine: check is not a substitute for money. TC: in favor of Marasigan. In its answer. In this case. it is plain to see that it’s a mere exercise of rights. in exercising his rights. There is no need for BPI to notify Marasigan of the suspension or cancellation. =automatic cancellation after 60 days 2. 21. Every abnormal exercise of a right. 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. 19: 1. Acts Contra Mores Art. does not act in an abusive manner is not deemed to have acted in a manner contrary to morals. Marasigan was not able to comply with their agreement. The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that an individual was injured in contemplation of the law. Art. and not an abuse thereof. In this case. (damages as result of “creditor’s abuse”.

material or otherwise. CA February 19. [as cited in Tolentino] 2. 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.    CLASS NOTES Issue of deceit: Deceit can come in many forms and can result in attraction (so there is no moral seduction.actionable under A 21.Y. there must be deception and the woman must have yielded because of the inducement. 21 is the actual catch-all provision according to Sangco. ISSUE: WON Article 21 was applicable. A judicial declaration of professional prestige is unnecessary because a brilliant professional is respected even without a court declaration. courted Gonzales. Santos was of age. he wired Wassmer a note saying that he would return soon. As a result. only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized. If she consents merely from carnal lust and the intercourse is from mutual desire. she maintained sexual relations with each other for one year. When Baksh visited her home. crime if under 18 years old. Prof. FACTS: Baltao case. 1993 FACTS: Baksh. And it is done with intent to injure Code commission  damages for seduction CA misapplied the example. A day before the wedding. Wassmer sued for damages. sued to be recognized as the architects of the hospital. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparation and publicity. Santos resigned from her job. Secretary of National Defense December 28. But which is contrary to morals. were the architects of the building but only Panlillo was recognized. 1963 FACTS: A contract was executed between Allied Technologies and the Republic of the Philippines to build the Veterans Memorial Hospital. there is no seduction. supra. 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. He never showed up again. 1959. Gonzales’ parents allowed them to sleep together. Baksh then forced her to live with him. CA. The question of whether or not there was abuse of rights. The construction of the hospital was terminated. She accepted his love on the condition that they would get married.   Albenson v. Ruiz and Herrera. and Sexual Assault pregnant. or public policy 3. an Iranian. Santos then sued Tanjanco for damages. To avoid embarrassment. moral wrong No seduction if promise came after Agoncilla became pregnant Wassmer v. Also.     CLASS NOTES Who is Agonciila? Unmarried woman of chaste character Seduction of Agoncilla. There is no seduction when there is mutual desire and the opportunity was merely afforded to the woman. ISSUE: WON there was a violation of Article 21. Such conduct is incompatible with the idea of seduction.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008  Art. 2. good customs. Casis _S. In consideration of Tanjanco's promise of marriage. This is PALPABLY AND UNJUSTIFIABLY CONTRARY TO GOOD CUSTOMS for which Velez must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21.) Critique of Tanjanco: “Seduction” in this case only covers the initial sexual contact. Velez wrote a note stating that they would have to postpone the wedding because his mother was opposed to it. Tanjanco succeeded in having carnal access with Santos until Dec. 2007- 33 1. Ruiz and Herrera citing Article 21. Elements Ruiz v. Gonzales later . CA December 17. Seduction: 1. Santos got Baksh v. He beat her. is quite different. both being of adult age. HELD: No. public order. Art. ISSUE: WON Tanjanco was liable for damages. It presupposes losses or injury. Santos consented to sexual intercourse. 1964 FACTS: Wassmer and Velez were about to get married. courted the Santos. Rule in Buenaventura: For seduction to be actionable. inducement by deceit. Seduction. 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. MERE BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY IS NOT AN ACTIONABLE WRONG. or public policy. two days before the wedding. which one may suffer as a result of said violation. 21-“injury” refers not only to any indeterminate right or property. HELD: YES. Velez December 26. good custom. This is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. There is an act which is legal 2. ISSUE: WON Velez can be held liable for damages. Breach of Promise to Marry. Examples a. However. The elements of Article 21 are: 1. but also to honor or credit. 1966 FACTS: Tanjanco. together with Panlillo. resulting in damages under Article 20 and 21 or other applicable provision of law depends on the circumstances of each case. In this case.

Constantino was already 28 years old. 2007ATTRACTED TO 34 MENDEZ. Quimiguing herself had a cause of action for damages. Despite this. HELD: A breach of promise to marry per se is not actionable. Cirilo filed for a complaint for damages for breach of promise to marry. no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a ploy to obtain her consent to the sexual act. A victim of rape may recover moral damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code. Through a promise of marriage. It is essential that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals. where she was a waitress. 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. However. In this case. Gonzales was a victim of moral seduction. a married man. v. Icao July 31. ISSUE: WON Quimiguing had cause of action. good customs or public policy. ISSUE: WON Baksh was liable for damages. Pe May 30.    CLASS NOTE This case is similar to say Tanjanco. Gonzales sued for damages. or public policy shall compensate the latter for moral damages. 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. 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: Bunag brought Zenaida Cirilo to a motel where he raped her. Bunag’s actions constitute acts contrary to morals and good customs. was the moving force that made her submit herself to Mendez. She then sued for recognition of her unborn child and damages for breach of promise to marry.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 found out that Baksh was already married. Even if there is deceit but the deceit resulted in attraction of the woman to the man. they had repeated sexual contact. On Art. In this case. It is also supported by Article 2219. Quimiguing sued for damages and support. 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. More importantly. 1970 FACTS: Quimiguing and Icao. in reality. Bunag then withdrew his application. YES HELD: Independently of the right to support the child she was carrying. and not the alleged promise of marriage. frequented Lolita’s house on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary. Bunag and Cirilo then filed for a marriage license. then there will be no more seduction. Constantino got pregnant. Correlatively. except where the plaintiff has actually incurred expenses for the wedding and the necessary incidents thereof. could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21. Their repeated sexual intercourse indicates that passion. she admitted that SHE WAS Bunag. he succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Constantino. Casis _S. She became pregnant. In this case. Lolita's parents heard about the affair (exchange of notes. proof that he had. the award of moral damages is allowed in cases specified in or analogous to those provided in Article 2219. CA July 10.    CLASS NOTE Compare this case with Tanjanco In this case. any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. Mendez then confessed that he was married. ISSUE: WON Bunag was liable for damages. RULE: Generally. Icao succeeded in having carnal intercourse with Quimiguing several times through force and intimidation. a married man and a collateral relative. ISSUE: WON Mendez was liable for damages.Y. “trysts” in different barrios) so they refused to let them see each . Mendez May 14. 1992 FACTS: Constantino and Mendez met at Tony’s Restaurant. Damages should only be awarded if sexual intercourse is NOT A PRODUCT OF VOLUNTARINESS AND MUTUAL DESIRE. YES    CLASS NOTE Sexual assault = rape There was a criminal action for rape in this case Pe v. He then brought her to his grandmother’s house where they lived together as husband and wife for 21 days. 1962 FACTS: Alfonso Pe. Alfonso and Lolita then fell in love. were neighbors. under Article 21. Jr. good customs. Mendez professed his love during their first date. 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. NO HELD: Mere sexual intercourse is not by itself a basis for recovery. it would be equivalent to inducement and he would be liable under A21 Constantino v. Quimiguing v.

General Rule: one cannot be held liable in damages for maliciously instituting a prosecution where he acted with Probable Cause. was made with an honest belief in its truth and justice. 3.    CLASS NOTE Dismissal of the case does not automatically give rise to a cause of action for malicious prosecution If there is probable cause. 2001 FACTS: A letter complaint sent to Drilon resulted in an order to investigate several individuals. 3. no sinister motive could be imputed). PURPOSE OF VEXATION OR INJURY. AND THAT IT WAS INITIATED DELIBERATELY BY THE DEFENDANT KNOWING THAT HIS CHARGES WERE FALSE AND GROUNDLESS. . Casis _S. Prof. who had tolerable ground of suspicion. Prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person 2. seduced Lolita through trickery to the extent that she fell in love with him. OR OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN INSTITUTED MALICIOUSLY AND WITHOUT PROBABLE AFTER THE TERMINATION OF SUCH 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. The preliminary investigation stated that there was probable cause to hold respondents for the crime of rebellion with murder and frustrated murder. there is no malice 2. ISSUE: WON Alfonso was liable for damages. There is no malicious prosecution because none of the three elements were present (not terminated with an acquittal.Y. Alfonso committed an INJURY TO LOLITA'S FAMILY IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO MORALS. CIVIL SUIT. a married man. ’89 coup. THAT IN BRINGING THE ACTION. including Adaza. CA April 20. a suit will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on without probable cause. Drilon acted with probable cause as found in PI. HELD: Neither of them is GUILTY OF MALICE. Initiated deliberately by the defendant Knowing that his charges were false and groundless. ONE CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR MALICIOUSLY INSTITUTING A PROSECUTION WHERE HE ACTED WITH PROBABLE CAUSE.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 other. FOR THE MERE TO CONSTITUTE MP. the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for MP. YES HELD: Alfonso. 2007*MEMORIZE! MALICIOUS PROSECUTION: AN CAUSE. THE DEFENDANT WAS HIMSELF THE PROSECUTOR AND THAT THE ACTION FINALLY TERMINATED WITH AN ACQUITTAL.    CLASS NOTES Reminder: memorize the definition of malicious prosecution. The presence of probable cause signifies as a legal consequence the absence of malice. there must be proof that the prosecution was: 1. Nicolas allegedly did not continue payment because of the defective canvass strollers which he never returned to Que. REGULARLY. To constitute MP. SUIT OR OTHER PROCEEDING IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT THEREIN. Lolita left the house and disappeared. and there were reasonable grounds on which such a belief could be founded. NO. although false. Concededly. WHY? coz it would be a very great discouragement to public justice. Adaza filed a complaint for damages against Drilon for malicious prosecution. THE GIST OF THE ACTION OF THE PULLING OF LEGAL PROCESS IN FORCE. the accusation could not be held to have been false in the legal sense. were liable to be sued at law when their indictment miscarried. Malicious Prosecution Que v. In other words. Once cannot be held liable for maliciously instituting a prosecution where one has acted with probable cause. THE MERE ACT OF SUBMITTING A CASE TO THE AUTHORITIES FOR PROSECUTION DOES NOT MAKE ONE LIABLE MP. The charge was dismissed in the fiscal level. for their participation in the failed Dec. If the charge. 1989 FACTS: Que filed a complaint for estafa against Nicolas because of the checks the latter issued as payment for canvass strollers were dishonored. GOOD CUSTOMS AND PUBLIC POLICY AS CONTEMPLATED IN ARTICLE 21 of the new Civil Code. FOR    CLASS NOTE The lower court presented a more romantic version of the love story Both Alfonso and Lolita were of age CONCEDEDLY. if prosecutors. To constitute malicious prosecution. A suit for MP will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on without probable cause. THE FACT OF THE PROSECUTION AND THE FURTHER FACT THAT b. 3 ELEMENTS OF MP: 1. ISSUE: WON Drilon et al was guilty of malicious prosecution. THERE MUST BE PROOF THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS PROMPTED BY A SINISTER DESIGN TO VEX AND HUMILIATE A PERSON. NO. ISSUE: WON Que was guilty of malicious prosecution. Nicolas filed a complaint for malicious prosecution. IAC January 13. Lolita’s relatives filed an action for damages. HELD: There is no malicious prosecution in this case because the presence of probable cause signifies the absence of malice. 35 FOR ACTION DAMAGES BROUGHT BY ONE AGAINST WHOM A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. 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.

2. in this case. The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice. he was told to just go to the office.  Cited Manila Gas definition of Malicious prosecution Prof. if acted with BF then liable for damages) However. ISSUE: WON Leviste was liable for damages. Since no gas consumption was registered in the meter.    CLASS NOTE Dismissal of qualified theft case in fiscal level only  still possible to file MP. Manila Gas issued instructions to change the gas meter. The filing of the cases despite the police reports exculpating Tobias 4. The fact that the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor. wounded feelings and social humiliation. He then approached Patricio.This is not applicable if the doctrine is clear enough. Patricio filed a complaint for slander by deed which was dismissed. YES. 1980 FACTS: Manila Gas installed additional appliances and gas service connections in Ongsip’s compound. It was an innocent mistake. 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. A   CLASS NOTE Competent proof of bad faith in filing the suit is essential. Manila Gas v. ISSUE: WON there was malicious prosecution. He then filed for damages. If the case only reached fiscal level… GEN RULE: no MP EXCEPTION: if BF. supra FACTS: Tobias was alleged to be the #1 suspect for the fraudulent transactions he allegedly uncovered.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008   If there is probable cause. CA October 30.If doubtful or difficult question of law is applied – the law always accords to public officials the presumption of good faith . (Even if still in the fiscal level. Casis _S. THE MERE ACT OF SUBMITTING A CASE TO THE AUTHORITIES FOR PROSECUTION DOES NOT MAKE ONE LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. he was told of the existence of a jumper and was threatened with deportation. 1989 FACTS: Leviste smashed a beer bottle on the table causing his hand to bleed. Coronal then went to the compound and changed the meter without informing Ongsip.  Albenson v. Public Humiliation Patricio v. Coronal returned in the afternoon and took pictures. The act of slapping was contrary to morals and good customs and caused Patricio mental anguish. Leviste April 26. CA. NO HELD: The MERE ACT SUBMITTING a case to the authorities for prosecution (only fiscal level) DOES NOT MAKE ONE LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. and that the action was finally terminated with an acquittal 2. 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. That in bringing the action. 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. HELD: Article 2219 applies. 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. Cited Manila Gas definition of malicious prosecution and Que for probable cause c. 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). No gross negligence in this case. moral shock. the circumstances of the case showed that there was malicious intent in the filing of the complaint for qualified theft. YES HELD: To constitute malicious prosecution. . The eventual dismissal of the cases However. Bad faith = gross negligence. with Malicious intent     CLASS NOTE Gross negligence can prove bad faith. CA.Y. and slapped him. in this case. When Ongsip asked about it. there was a malicious intent as shown by the facts: 1. Take note of the statutory basis of malicious prosecution. Globe Mackay v. The elements of malicious prosecution are: 1. In the office. Hernandez case ruling: . a Catholic priest. there is no malice. the prosecutor acted without probable cause 3. 2007- 36 complaint for qualified theft was filed against Ongsip but it was later dismissed. Ongsip then filed a complaint for damages ISSUE: WON there was malicious prosecution. All the complaints were dismissed in the fiscal level. 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.

Unjustified Dismissal Quisaba v. fright. for a wrong inflicted by the defendant and the damage resulting therefrom to the plaintiff. besmirched reputation. mental anguish. good customs. does not constitute a cause of action. Espino December 28. THEY ARE AWARDED ONLY TO ENABLE THE INJURED PARTY TO OBTAIN MEANS. Inez August 30. To warrant recovery of damages. Carpio refused to apologize so Valmonte filed a suit for damages. give everyone his due and observe honesty and GF (Art. to purchase logs for the company’s plant. was ordered by Robert Hyde. 19 and 21 in relation to Art. privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. Grand Union v. Defendants willfully caused loss or injury to the plaintiff in a manner contrary to morals. Ines. YES HELD: Quisaba’s complaint was grounded not on his dismissal but rather ON THE MANNER OF HIS DISMISSAL AND ITS CONSEQUENT EFFECTS. 2007- 37 Wrong without damage. GC.contrary to morals and good customs. there must be both a right of action. MD not awarded to penalize defendant or to enrich complainant. moral shock. He was approached by the guard and made to file an incident report. CONSIDERING THAT THEY ARE AWARDED FOR WANTON ACTS. LIQUIDATED OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES   (ART. social humiliation. was publicly accused by the bride’s aunt. Prof. of stealing her jewelry. YES. It is against morals. the VP. and public policy to humiliate. HELD: Espino was falsely accused of shoplifting. 21. 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. BY REASON OF THE DEFENDANT’S CULPABLE ACTION. Valmonte September 9. does not adversely affect the petitioner’s right to recover MD. 2219 of the Civil Code. 19-36). PURPOSE OF ED OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES: IMPOSED BY WAY OF EXAMPLE OR CORRECTION FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. 2004 FACTS: Valmonte. or public policy making them amenable to damages under Arts. MD: ESSENTIALLY INDEMNITY OR REPARATION. MD may be awarded in appropriate cases referred to in the chapter on human relations of the CC (Arts. by reason of defendant’s culpable action. CLASS NOTE Art 21 applies to even a slap in the face   CLASS NOTE Manner of attacking without any amount of proof. Sta. ISSUE: WON Valmonte should be awarded damages. A lot of people witnessed the incident. She was searched and questioned by the guard and the police. embarrass and degrade the dignity of a person. BOTH PUNISHMENT OR CORRECTION NOT INTENDED TO ENRICH A COMPLAINANT AT THE EXPENSE OF A DEFENDANT. his money was taken as an incentive to the guards for apprehending pilferers. PURPOSE OF Carpio vs. or public policy. Moral damages are awarded whenever the defendant’s wrongful act or omission is the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s physical suffering. 1974 FACTS: Quisaba. and attorney’s fees. IN ADDITION TO THE MORAL. THE REASON UNDERLYING THE AWARD OF DAMAGES UNDER ART. good customs. Carpio. IF THE DISMISSAL WAS DONE ANTI-SOCIALLY OR OPPRESSIVELY. Quisaba filed a complaint for damages. diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone. 26). which prohibits acts of oppression by either capital or labor against the other. CANNOT BE RECOVERED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. but to enable the latter to obtain means. she should not have openly accused Valmonte without further proof. ISSUE: WON the regular courts had jurisdiction.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 On Moral Damages: The fact that no AD or CD was proven before the TC. an internal auditor of Sta. IS TO COMPENSATE THE INJURED PARTY FOR THE MORAL INJURY CAUSED UPON HIS PERSON. award of MD must be proportionate to the sufferings inflicted. Although Carpio had the right to know the identity of the thief. Ines said that the NLRC had jurisdiction. serious anxiety. which makes a person liable for damages if he willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. Everyone must respect the dignity. Arts. TEMPERATE. THEN THE RESPONDENTS VIOLATED ARTICLE 1701. and similar injury specified or analogous to those provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. YES HELD: Carpio willfully caused Valmonte injury in a manner contrary to morals and good customs. d. a wedding coordinator. DIVERSION OR AMUSEMENTS THAT WILL  CLASS NOTE . and Article 21. AND IT MUST BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE SUFFERING INFLICTED. Casis _S. personality. 1979 FACTS: Jose Espino forgot to pay for a cylindrical rat tail file when he left Grand Union Supermarket. OF THE SPIRITUAL STATUS QUO ANTE. 2229). Quisaba refused because it wasn’t part of his job. (Art.Y. THE COURT WILL DECIDE WON THEY COULD BE ADJUDICATED. Sta. (from report of the code) SERVE TO ALLEVIATE THE MORAL SUFFERING HE HAS UNDERGONE. Espino offered to pay for the file but instead. 19). IN OTHER RESTORATION WORDS: THE AWARD OF MD IS AIMED AT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE POSSIBLE. ISSUE: WON Espino can claim damages. termination pay. he was demoted. without need of proof that the wrongful act complained of has caused any physical injury upon the complainant. And one must act with justice. wounded feelings. In any case. As a result. 20 & 21 provide the legal bedrock for the award of damages. or damage without wrong.

St. prevention. Casis _S.    CLASS NOTE Unfair competition: designed to place your products in a better light. CA November 14. Such being the case. 2007- 38 Medina v. The city attorney was about to file an information for illegal discharge of firearms against the assailant. Art. (2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another. and other relief: (1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence. (4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs. Aramil protested. to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter. oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to aright of action by the person who thereby suffers damage. intimidation. Should be in the context of giving advantage to one party (eg. without just cause. Unfair competition in agricultural or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force. coercing them to sign an affidavit absolving the police officers of any liability. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects. 27 is that the refusal must be without just cause. It never made any written apology and explanation of the mix-up. he along with his father and witnesses. privacy and peace of mind of his neighbor and other persons. which was his duty to do as an officer of the law. place of birth. Dereliction of Duty Art. 1982 FACTS: Cosme de Aboitiz. Amaro v. 1962 FACTS: Jose Amaro was assaulted and shot near the city government building. Every person shall respect the dignity. 1984 FACTS: St. Louis Realty caused to be published an ad depicting the Arcadio Family in front of Dr. derogatory commercials) C. lowly station in life. 2200. He suffered diminution of income and mental anguish. Unfair Competition Art. It was dismissed since the jurisdiction of claims was transferred from the CFI to the Labor Arbiters. shouted and cursed at the plaintiffs in front of their subordinate employees. the Chief of Police started to harass the Amaros. What is required under Art.Y. IX. ISSUE: WON the Amaros’ action under Article 21 and/or 27 would prosper. The petitioners filed a case of oral defamation against de Aboitiz. Plaintiff stopped publication. without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. 27. Aramil extra judicially demanded damages. The following day. It was an action for damages for tortious acts allegedly committed by the defendants. TC awarded actual and moral damages. Persons who know Dr. machination or any other unjust. ISSUE: WON the Labor Code applies. went to the Chief of Police to seek assistance but were not rendered assistance. Damages fixed by TC are sanctioned by Arts. 26 HELD: Yes. Castro-Bartolome September 11.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008  Standard of dismissal laid down in this case: dismissal was done “anti-socially or oppressively. Aramil filed complaint for damages claiming mental anguish and reduction in income. Louis v. Sumaguit July 31. The following and similar acts. B. 2208 and 2219 of the Civil Code. President and CEO of Pepsi. CA affirmed. Aramil’s residence. Aramil were confused by the distorted lingering impression that he was renting his residence. NO HELD: The plaintiffs did not allege any unfair labor practice. Louis Realty was grossly negligent in mixing up the residences. deceit. OTHER TORTS A. (3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends. making it appear that the house was owned by the Arcadios. or other personal condition. Violation of Human Dignity Art. the governing statute is the Civil Code and not the Labor Code. YES HELD: The Amaros’ claim for relief was based on the Chief of Police’s refusal to give assistance.” Elements: (1) material or moral loss (2) public servant’s refusal or neglect to perform duty (3) without just cause Prof. 26. 2219 allows moral damages for acts and actions mentioned in Art. This is when St Louis Realty published a new ad showing the Arcadios in their real home. The Amaros then filed a suit for damages. personality. physical defect.   CLASS NOTE This is an action for damages for wrongful advertisement  shows that Art 26 is very broad. St. shall produce a cause of action for damages.  CLASS NOTE . ISSUE: WON acts and omissions of the firm fall under Art. but did not rectify. However. 26. though they may not constitute a criminal offense. His private life was mistakenly and unnecessarily exposed. 28.

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-

39

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.

X. DAMAGES


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-

40

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

THEY

PROCEED FROM A SENSE OF NATURAL

  1. 2.

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-

41

CLASS

 

 

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

3. Certainty
-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.

2. Extent
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

preclude recovery of this species of damages. Besides who in the provinces makes an inventory of bangus. are not granted on the basis of mere speculation. v. the TalisaySilay Milling Co. Where. i. 2007CA: reduced it to 1M 42     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. The problem then would be ascertainment.   o o  CLASS NOTES Financias Postradas? Lost profits Standard required by the Court for this: accounting standards. I saw you with long hair but now you have a short hair. In short. pricing of Sugar Quota Administration When a property is damaged and you claim AD. And Ramon Nolan in his personal and official capacity as administrator of the Sugar Quota administration. uncertainty as to the precise amount of such unrealized profits will not prevent recovery or the award of damages.300 as actual damages on the basis of mere testimony of the victim’s sister. in violation of Section 4 of RA 1825. 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. without any tangible document to support such claim. Uncertainty as to whether or not a claimant suffered unrealized profits at all. established experience or direct inference from known circumstances. the defendants had their sugar milled at FFMCI instead. 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. ISSUE: WON the extent of the unrealized profits suffered by the plaintiffs were proven with the certainty required by law. In the instant case. This case shows that you should be ready with documents Of the expenses alleged to have been incurred. it is reasonably certain that injury consisting of the failure to realize otherwise reasonably expected profits had been incurred. (TSMC) and the Talisay-Silay Industrial Cooperative Association. Jr. these provide sufficient basis for a reasonable estimate of the unrealized net income or profit sustained by plaintiffs. If this takes into account profits=FMV  . During the trail.. of course.” 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. Inc. First Farmers Milling Co.300 in connection with his death and the trial court awarded this amount as actual damages. (TSICA) instituted an action for damages against defendants Asociacion de Agricultores de Talisay-Silay. Combined with credible testimony. conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages. Jr. (AATSI). uncertainty as to the very fact of injury. In the end. Dominador Agravante and other individual sugar planters. “An Act to Provide for the Allocation.   CLASS NOTES This case demonstrates how important the quality of your evidence is (i. conjecture or surmise but rather by reference to some reasonably definite standard such as market value. The rule is that damages consisting of unrealized profits. however. Assosiacion August 15. Subsequently.e.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Prof. etc. testimony for damages by someone who is an interested party is weak)  Talisay-Silay v. In crimes and quasi-delicts. what happened was that instead of having the sugar forming their export quota milled by TSMC as they had always done in the past. 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. Malaspina’s sister testified that she incurred expensed of P8. will. This started nearly thirty years of litigation between the parties. However. Casis _S. Fuentes was convicted of murder. frequently referred to as ganancias frustradas or lucrum cessans.” whereupon Fuentes stabbed Malaspina in the abdomen with a hunting knife and fled. Inc. CA Julieto Malaspina was at a benefit dance when Alejandro Fuentes. HELD: Yes. put his arm on the former’s shoulder saying “Before. (FFMCI).Y. 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. the Supreme Court held that the trial court was in error to have awarded the P8. alleging an illegal transfer of sugar quota allotment or production allowance from TSMC to FFMCI. 1966. TC: 15. Inc. Re-allocation and administration of Absolute Quota on Sugar. 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. Courts cannot simply rely on speculation. the defendant is liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of.4 M Fuentes.e. 1995 FACTS: On the 15th of February.

legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. 2007- 43 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. not what the price is at the time of the ruling 2. 2206. up to the time of the trial. In the instant case. unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant. If fair market value already includes the possible contracts. In addition: (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased.  o CLASS NOTES PNOC gives guidance as to how actual damages are computed: 1. 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) . normally. such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court. 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. that regard must be had to existing and pending engagements. from the nature of the case be made with certainty. inflation was taken into account. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos. 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). that is. (3) The spouse. 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. the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession. the sum of money which he would have to pay in the market for identical or essentially similar goods. 2206 provides for earning capacity which is NOT equal to actual income  • CLASS NOTES According to the Court. even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. Personal Injury and Death Art. Ramos pay for hospital bills 4. Prof. plus in a proper case damages for the loss of use during the period before replacement. and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. cf Gatchalian v. Price (fair market value) at the time of loss. may demand support from the person causing the death. had no earning capacity at the time of his death. if they are to adequately correspond to the injury caused should be one which compensates for the pecuniary loss incurred and proved. Damage to property PNOC v. Delim (where the girl was given 15k for plastic surgery) HELD: 5. In other words. 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 Ramos v. for a period not exceeding five years. CA Where goods are destroyed by the wrongful act of the defendant the plaintiff is entitled to their value at the time of destruction. then that is the value to be used. the exact duration to be fixed by the court. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291. 1999 • . In PNOC.” then the amount of damages which should be awarded. at least in the case of ships. In other words.Y. and this means. Casis _S.   CLASS NOTES Art. NOTES: Rule: amount at the time of the loss. and one which would meet pecuniary loss certain to be suffered but which could not. CA December 29.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. 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 case of profit-earning chattel s. (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.

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. a 75 year-old farmer. 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. ensued and ending with Gestala’s death from three gunshot wounds. wake. In Reynalda’s case. or burial of the victim. 1991 FACTS: Reynalda Gatchalian boarded. Mangahas was found guilty sentenced to reclusion perpetua. as Malecdan was crossing the highway. the Court cannot take account of receipts showing expenses incurred before the date of the slaying of the victim. wake or burial of the victim. went off the road. or those incurred for purely aesthetic or social purposes. RESULTING FROM THE INFLICTION OF INJURY UPON HER. were injured and were promptly taken to a hospital for medical treatment. Thus. a bus of petitioner Victory Liner bypassed the Dalin bus and in doing so hit the old man and his carabao. Heirs of Andres Malecdan December 27. such as the lining of the tomb. 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). allegedly . 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.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. HELD: Not entirely. P14. IS A VIOLATION OF BODILY People v. HELD: Yes. was crossing the National Highway on his way home from the form. 2007- 44 over the sale of a handgun. and food expenses was proper. it was easier to remove the scar. 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. generating mental suffering and feeling of inferiority on her part. • • • • •  CLASS NOTES SC-removed from AC what it thought was extravagant • • Victory Liner. respondents in this case. eventually killing both of them. turned turtle and fell into a ditch. Petitioner Gatchalian is entitled to be placed as nearly as possible in the condition that she was in before the mishap. 890 for food during the vigil. a Dalin Liner bus stopped to allow him and his carabao to pass. However. Mangahas July 28. ESPECIALLY ONE ON THE FACE OF A WOMAN. IF THAT INTEGRITY IS VIOLATED OR DIMINISHED. those incurred after a CONSIDERABLE LAPSE OF TIME FROM THE BURIAL and which do not have any relation to the death. a snapping sound was suddenly heard and shortly thereafter. a minibus owned by the Delim spouses. GIVING RISE TO A LEGITIMATE CLAIM FOR RESTORATION TO HER CONDITION ANTE. A SCAR. and 1st year anniversaries of the death of the victim. Later.Y. the Court can only give credence to those supported by receipt and which appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death. 950 was also awarded for funeral and burial expenses as well as P28. Casis _S. 2002 FACTS: While Andres Malecdan. The aforementioned events led Gatchalian to file an action extra contractu to recover compensatory and moral damages. Several passengers.  • • • • • • CLASS NOTES This case is always cited to support that plastic surgery can be the subject of AD. burial. After trial. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ARE DUE AND ASSESSABLE. Inc. while the bus was running along the highway. 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. She alleged in her complaint that her injuries had left her with a conspicuous white scar on her forehead. She also alleged that the scar diminished her facial beauty and deprived her of opportunities for employment. 9th day. Prof. ISSUE: WON the Delims are liable for the cost of plastic surgery to remove the scar on Gatchalian’s forehead. Therefore since in this case it was just a boy. as a paying passenger. Delim October 21. ISSUE: WON the award of damages for funeral. 40th day. 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. She was allegedly on her way to confer with the district supervisor of public schools for a substitute teacher’s job. During the trial. vs. including Gatchalian. Of the expenses allegedly incurred. the vehicle bumped a cement flower pot on the side of the road. A ACTUAL INJURY PERSON IS ENTITLED TO THE PHYSICAL INTEGRITY IS SUFFERED FOR WHICH ACTUAL AND OF HIS OR HER BODY.

and exemplary damages. ordered PHILAMGEN to pay the plaintiff the amount of the surety bond equivalent to P120. Inc. The Court cannot take into account receipts showing expenses incurred some time after the burial of the victim. Dr. the cost of one pig. 339 as actual damages. it is not. other than judicial costs. John Quirante. guilty of gross negligence and awarded. except: (1) When exemplary damages are awarded. Casasola and aside from awards of actual. therefore the injured party may recover from the employers DIRECTLY. 000. (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. 339. To justify an award for actual damages. sued both Guerrero and PHILAMGEN. ISSUE: WON the award of P88. Intermediate Appellate Court January 31. laborers and skilled workers. 339 in actual damages is proper.   CLASS NOTES The Court cherry-picked! Specifically deleted an item which was too extravagant. 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. This item cannot be allowed. 2007- 45 • • interest and for “at least double judicial costs”. Prof. (PHILAMGEN) acted as bondsman for Guerrero. (5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid. regardless of the solvency of their employees. (6) In actions for legal support. (9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime. through his counsel. Indalecio Casasola had a contract with a building contractor named Norman Guerrero. (4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff. 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. (8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws. 90. moral. the trial court awarded P88. HELD: No. the attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. . However. While these are duly supported by receipts. actual damages amounting to P88. Inc. In view of Guerrero’s failure to perform his part of the contract within the period specified. such as expenses relating to the 9th day. (3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff. Casasola died leaving his widow and several children. A petition was filed before the IAC to compel the trial court to give due course to the appeal. In the meantime.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 The trial court found both the driver and Victory Liner. In the absence of stipulation. the petition was dismissed and so the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. Attorney’s Fees Art. there should be proof of the actual amount of loss incurred in connection with the death. The trial court thereafter issued a writ of execution. among others. attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. sir said it can be BOTH Why may one recover attorney’s fees under those listed? –person is forced to protect his 5. The Philippine American General Assurance Co. In the instant case.Y. wake or burial of the victim. 1989 FACTS: Dr. Casis _S. which had been butchered for the 9th day death anniversary. 2208. Dr. cannot be recovered. The trial court granted the motion despite opposition thereto hence the instant petition before the Supreme Court. PHILAMGEN filed a notice of appeal but the same was not given due course because it was supposedly filed out of time. After Casasola’s death. just and demandable claim. Atty. Casasola with regard to the said fees and allegedly confirmed by his widow in writing.  • • • • • • 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. 40th day and 1st year death anniversaries. Casasola. 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. In all cases. PRIMARY Responsibility of employers: for the negligence of their employees in the performance of their duties. (10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded.” (Except 2208) Quirante v. (11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. (7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers. The trial court found for Dr. these included the amount of P5.

When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory. and the debtor incurs in delay.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. the rate of interest. 3. not of his counsel. HELD: No. The interim period is deemed to be equivalent to a forbearance of credit. he might not be able to recover -plaintiff must try to avoid further damage Crismina Garments v. In Keng Hua Paper Products Co. from requiring the borrower or debtor to repay a loan or debt then due or payable. and the litigant. be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract. be adjudicated in the discretion of the court. Furthermore. a loan or forbearance of money. the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default. interest as a part of the damages may. Interest Art. 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. 2209. 2212. where the demand is established with reasonable certainty. as well as the accrual thereof. the indemnity for damages. an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. Court of Appeals. the legal interest. not his counsel. In crimes and quasi-delicts.  • • • • • CLASS NOTES 12% from CB Circular 416-for loan and forbearance of money. regardless of whether or not the case involves a loan or forbearance of money. 2007March 9. shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Art..e. CA. 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. v. Casis _S. Art. is breached. this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. CA Take note of complications like compounding of interest When would interest accrue? From time of judicial demand 8. 3. In the absence of stipulation. stipulation. the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. 2. the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. CA . except when the demand can be established with reasonably certainty. No interest. from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.. as opposed to 6% which was imposed by A2209 Forbearance of money: basically a loan. 1999 46 1. the rate of legal interest. Rule: 1. a credit but loan has a specific legal definition under the Civil Code Memorize rules laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines. Rules on Interest In Eastern Shipping Lines. 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. as follows: When the obligation is breached. and it consists in the payment of a sum of money. is the judgment creditor who may enforce the judgment for attorney’s fees by execution. 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.Y. v. i. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages. and in the absence of stipulation. When an obligation. although the obligation may be silent upon this point. Inc. Here. with them as the creditors and the private respondents as the debtors. i. Art. in a proper case. 2210. in the discretion of the court. 7. which is six per cent per annum. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction. in any case. is imposed. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money. Interest may. Mitigation of Liability Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences: -if the plaintiff does not try to reduce damages. 2211.. The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall. however. Accordingly. v. whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2. Inc. 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. above. be xxx the amount finally adjudged. 2.e. Art. shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon. the petitioner’s claims are based on an alleged contract for professional services. there being no stipulation to the contrary. wherein the award is made in favor of the litigant. not constituting a loan or forbearance of money. 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). Inc. 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. Prof. 2213.

Moral 1. Moral damages include physical suffering. the lower court found defendant liable to the plaintiff for damages resulting from breach of contract. In contracts. WELL- Burden of Proof: rests on the defendant that the PLAINTIFF MIGHT HAVE (COULD HAVE) REDUCED THE DAMAGE. Art. Kierulf v. Some time during the month of May.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Art. that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel. About one week before the end of the repair period the defendant sold the casco to Siy Cong Bieng and Co. CA March 13. in CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 2203.  • CLASS NOTES 2203 is known as the Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences which is different from the Doctrine of Contributory Negligence DOCTRINE OF AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES. rented it to the plaintiff Vivencio Cerrano at a monthly rental of P70. wounded feelings. After trial. (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded. quasi-contracts. 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. or the price he would have been able to obtain the use of one. 2204. the defendant notified the plaintiff that the following month it would be necessary to send the casco off for repairs. the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. (4) That the loss would have resulted in any event. as in the following instances: (1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract. There was no express agreement as regards the duration of the contract. moral shock.  • • • • • • 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. the party has to minimize the damages. Prof. social humiliation. 1033. 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. In crimes. Concept Art. Upon the arrival of the casco in Manila. 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. mental anguish. 1997 . 2215. 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.Y. Santos. (2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract. In the instant case the defendant made no effort whatsoever to show that any other similar cascos were in fact available to the plaintiff. *DOCTRINE OF AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES: IT RECOVERABLE. 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. to which the defendant indicated that he was willing but that the rent would be increased to P80. 2214. 2217. 1918 FACTS: The defendant Tan Chuco. Art. •  CLASS NOTES IS A RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT DAMAGES RESULTING FROM AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE BREACH OF A CONTRACT ARE NOT IT IS THE DUTY OF ONE INJURED BY THE ACT OF If the professor allowed you to stand for three (3) hours. Tan Chuco August 1. and similar injury. 1916. In quasi-delicts. serious anxiety. 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. (5) That since the filing of the action. who was then the owner of casco No. the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury. however. the rent being payable at the end of each month. 2007- 47 Cerrano v. HELD: No. Casis _S. the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article. Plaintiff then informed defendant that he would like to rent the casco again after the repairs had been completed. Though incapable of pecuniary computation. the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. fright. besmirched reputation. 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. and quasidelicts. moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission. Art.

National Labor Relations Commission. Clearly. causing damage to both vehicles and injuries to both Legaspi and his passenger Lucila Kierulf. and its imposition is required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts of an offender. In order that moral damages may be awarded. affection. owner of the pickup and employer of Legaspi. Bethlehem was cited as authority for the claim of damages based on loss of marital consortium. 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. She sustained multiple injuries on the scalp. ISSUE: WON an increase in the amount awarded as moral damages is warranted given the circumstances. The loss is immediate and consequential rather than remote and unforeseeable. fright. and then to fly over the center island. 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. Be that as it may. Atchison. comfort and sexual relations to his or her spouse. Lucila suffered injuries which required major surgery and prolonged treatment by specialists. but he had not testified that. it is personal to the spouse and separate and distinct from that of the injured person. if the plaintiff fails to take the witness stand and testify as to his/her social humiliation. x x x social humiliation." no "abusive language and highly scornful reference" was given her. Thus. Rodriguez v. grave anxiety. 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. these being. Lucila) had failed to make out a case for loss of consortium.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. She felt that she has not fully recovered from her injuries. mental anguish. that spouse has suffered a direct and real personal loss. wife of Victor Kierulf. there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering." *MORAL DAMAGES ARE AWARDED TO ENABLE THE INJURED PARTY TO THE MORAL SUFFERING HE/SHE HAS UNDERGONE. However. unlike the Rodriguez spouse. causing it to swerve to the left. Prof. Rodriguez ruled that when a person is injured to the extent that he/she is no longer capable of giving love. etc. She suffered sleepless nights and shock as a consequence of the vehicular accident. it cannot be ITS AWARD IS AIMED AT RESTORATION. THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST RULE IN DETERMINING THE PROPER AMOUNT. On Exemplary Damages: -designed to permit the courts to mould behavior that has socially deleterious consequences. Victor (and for that matter. AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. Neither should it be so little or so paltry that it rubs salt to the injury already inflicted on plaintiffs. His wife might have been badly disfigured. wounded feelings. 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.Y. no "menacing attitude. 2007- 48 wounded feelings and anxiety. The spouses Kierulf. While no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded. 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. BY OBTAIN MEANS. As a consequence of the incident. prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial judge. In Francisco vs. a California case. limbs and ribs. that resulted therefrom. In the instant petition. 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. The social and financial standing of Lucila cannot be considered in awarding moral damages. the Court held that "additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code. The factual circumstances prior to the accident show that no "rude and rough" reception. The front of the bus bumped the front portion of an Isuzu pickup driven Porfirio Legaspi. DIVERSIONS OR AMUSEMENTS THAT WILL SERVE TO ALLEVIATE REASON OF THE DEFENDANT'S CULPABLE ACTION. She had to undergo several corrective operations and treatments. . THUS. Victor's claim for deprivation of his right to consortium. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found for Legaspi and the Kierulfs. They also averred that the social and financial standing of Lucila should also be considered in fixing the award of moral damages. Casis _S. that a wife could not recover for the loss of her husband's services by the act of a third party. fright and the like. She lost all her teeth. The Court noted that the Rodriguez case clearly reversed the original common law view first enunciated in the case of Deshotel vs.. in consequence thereof. moral damages cannot be awarded. her chin was still numb and thick. although argued before Respondent Court." no "supercilious manner. IT MUST BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE SUFFERING INFLICTED. his right to marital consortium was affected. SINCE EACH CASE MUST BE GOVERNED BY ITS OWN PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES. However. ending up on the wrong side of the road. She even had to undergo a second operation on her gums for her dentures to fit. not only for Lucila. Despite treatment and surgery. GSIS. In Cocoland Development Corporation vs. was not supported by the evidence on record. the Court held that there must be clear testimony on the anguish and other forms of mental suffering. mental anguish. however. OF THE SPIRITUAL STATUS QUO ANTE. 000 to one million pesos. serious anxiety and wounded feelings. it is still proper to award moral damages to Petitioner Lucila for her physical sufferings. but also for her husband.

as much as possible. the wrongful act must be accompanied by BF. The contract itself could be renewed by agreement of the parties. There is no hard and fast rule in determining the proper amount since each case must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances. • • • AND while EXEMPLARY DAMAGES MAY ONLY BE AWARDED IF DEFENDANTS ACTED . HELD: No. Prof. 49 IN A WANTON. It was stipulated that the management could revoke the contract before the expiration of the term if the union failed to render proper service. 000 in favor of defendant on or before May 15. On May 24. IF Moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of the defendant. plaintiff informed defendant that a letter of credit had been opened with BPI but that the transmittal of the same was delayed. defendants received a letter of advice from BPI informing them that a letter of credit had been opened in their favor. fraudulent. On Moral Damages: -MD. However. Proof and Proximate Cause Compania Maritima v. the plaintiff sent a series of telegrams to the defendant demanding that the latter comply with the deed of sale. of the spiritual status quo ante. 1983. claimant must 1st establish his right to moral. RECKLESS. Inc. are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant at the expense of the defendant. by reason of the defendant’s culpable action. MORAL DAMAGES DEFENDANTS ACTED FRAUDULENTLY MAY IN BE BAD RECOVERED FAITH. and it must be proportional to the suffering inflicted. by way of example or correction in addition to CD 2. v. 2007MANNER. “Equipment was not damaged. OPPRESSIVE OR MALEVOLENT Visayan Sawmill Co.  CLASS NOTES 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. and defendant Visayan Sawmill Co. etc. Causal connection between factual basis and defendant’s wrongful act or omission 2. liquidated or compensatory damages. 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. though incapable of pecuniary estimation. of the spiritual status quo ante. Its award is aimed at the restoration. On July 19. -awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means.Y. within the limits of the possible. temperate. Requirements before ED may be awarded: 1. diversion or amusements that will serve to obviate the moral suffering he has undergone. 1993 FACTS: Plaintiff RJH Trading. On May 26. Casis _S. Allied Free Workers Union May 24. & 3. oppressive or malevolent manner. CA March 3. 1983. Its award is aimed at restoration. ISSUE: WON the moral damages awarded in favor of RJH trading were proper. 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. and the award would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanton. thus it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. In contracts. The Union found out later that the contract was to be oppressive and unduly favorable to the company. 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. 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. On may 17.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. by reason of the defendant’s culpable action. They are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means. 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. 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.”) 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. diversity or amusement that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone. 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. FRAUDULENT.

she visited Bautista in his Greenhills home and was impressed by the size of his residence. In the instant case. She subsequently sold him several pieces of jewelry paid for with postdated checks issued by Bautista. 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. Bautista January 28. Also. the spouses Del Rosario purchased a quantity of the defendant Metal Forming Corporation’s Banawe roofing shingles for use in their house. GSIS because in Francisco. HELD: No. 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. 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 . Sometime in 1968. therein Plaintiff failed to take the witness stand and defendant’s breach of contract was held to be not malicious and fraudulent. found that their claim for actual damages was baseless. Miranda-Ribaya later discovered that most of the jewelry she had sold to Bautista had been pledged to various pawnshops.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. 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. It was held to be sufficient that these exact terms were pleaded in the complaint and evidence was adduced amply supporting the same. WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE GROUNDLESS (NO SALES INVOICES PRESENTED. able to confront Bautista and obtain. RULE: FAILURE TO MENTION IN TESTIMONY THE SACRAMENTAL PHRASES IS NOT ENOUGH TO DENY CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Del Rosario v. or moral shock” and the like justified the denial of the claim for damages. When the maturity of the checks given in payment arrived. helplessness. is not entitled to moral damages. portions of the roof were blown away by strong winds which also led to the interior of the house being damaged as well. it follows that the company. the pawnshop tickets for the jewelry she had sold him which she used. embarrassment and anger. serious anxiety. moreover. Accompanied by her agent. one must plead and prove Prof. to redeem the same from the pawnshops where they had been pledged. The Court differentiated the instant case from Francisco v. However. 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. CA January 29. ISSUE: WON the company is entitled to moral damages. 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. ARE IN THE CATEGORY OF AN AWARD DESIGNED TO COMPENSATE THE CLAIMANT FOR ACTUAL INJURY SUFFERED AND NOT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY ON . This led to a labor dispute and a strike by the workers of the Union." *IT IS ESSENTIAL IN THE AWARD OF DAMAGES THAT THE CLAIMANT HAVE SATISFACTORILY PROVEN DURING THE TRIAL THE MUST EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE DAMAGES AND ITS CAUSAL CONNECTION TO DEFENDANT'S ACTS. Considering that the company’s claim for moral damages was BASED ON THE SAME FACTS ON WHICH IT PREDICATED ITS CLAIM FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES. during a storm. Casis _S. is adequately demonstrated by the recorded proofs. HELD: Yes. HELD: Yes. ISSUE: WON the Del Rosario spouses are entitled to moral damages. at her own expense. the grant to them of moral damages is warranted. they experienced "feelings of shock. 1980 FACTS: Mrs.Y. It was found that MFC DID IN TRUTH ACT WITH BAD FAITH. During the litigation. She was. a juridical person. 1997 FACTS: Impressed by the defendant’s advertising. OF THE  • • CLASS NOTES Nature of contract was for arrastre and stevedoring services ARRASTRE: hauling of cargo. Much to chagrin. The court. claiming that the company was the one obligated to pay for the stevedoring services. all of them were dishonored for the reason that the accounts of Bautista were closed. satisfactory evidence of the psychological and mental trauma actually suffered by the Del Rosarios. wounded feelings. however. the COMPANY DID NOT PLEAD AND PROVE moral damages. however. ISSUE: WON Miranda-Ribaya is entitled to an award of moral damages. Niceta Miranda-Ribaya was in the pawnshop business and in the business of buying and selling jewelry. fright. fear. JUST SELFSERVING TESTIMONIES. with great difficulty. 2007- 50 Miranda-Ribaya v. the company claimed actual and moral damages resulting from the strike. THE “INDEPENDENT AUDITOR” HIRED WAS ACTUALLY A FRIEND OF THE BRANCH MANAGER…) . RULE: In order to recover MD. This was not held to be sufficient. Thus the Union was only compensated for arrastre work performed and not for stevedoring. It MERELY CLAIMED MORAL DAMAGES in the prayer of its complaint. THIS IS SO BECAUSE MORAL DAMAGES THOUGH INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION. Over a period of about a month." There being.

Defendants filed their answer stating. 2219 in respect to moral damages. as it did in Art. 2219 also provides that moral damages may be awarded in "analogous cases" to those enumerated. 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. 28. Besides. 1968 FACTS: Defendant Bienvenido Carciller. the Court found the plaintiff’s civil action to be entirely unfounded. Prof. the sum of P2. 309. 2219). 2219. 1998 . ran over the three year old son of plaintiff spouses Melquiades and Adela Raagas. 10. 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. Art. which they are intended to be. while no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary IN ORDER THAT MORAL DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED. THE AMOUNT OF INDEMNITY BEING LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT (Art. essential that the (ART. A like enumeration is made in regard to the recovery of attorney's fees as an item of damage (Art. 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. ESSENTIAL THAT THE CLAIMANT SATISFACTORILY PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE DAMAGE AND ITS CAUSAL CONNECTION TO DEFENDANT’S ACTS. among other things. It is true that Art. it is. 000 for moral damages. Such a conclusion would make of moral damages a penalty. ISSUE: WON moral damages were properly awarded despite there being a judgment on the pleadings. 9.Y. 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. The lower court rendered a judgment on the pleadings condemning the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs. rather than a compensation for actual injury suffered. 2219).Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 THE WRONGDOER AND ARE ALLOWABLE ONLY WHEN SPECIFICALLY PRAYED FOR IN THE COMPLAINT. 32. 35 on the chapter on human relations (par. 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. 2217) AND ITS CAUSAL RELATION TO CLAIMANT SATISFACTORILY PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE DAMAGE DEFENDANT'S ACTS. But the two enumerations differ in the case of a clearly unfounded suit. Art. while “recklessly” driving a truck owned by his co-defendant Octavio Traya. De La Torre January 28. excepting. 2208. HELD: The court reaffirmed the rule that although an allegation is not necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded. are not corrective or exemplary damages. HELD: No. of course. 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. the special torts referred to in Art. 1974 FACTS: Petitioner Roque Enervida filed a complaint against the defendant-spouses Lauro and Rosa de la Torre. 2208 (par. among others.” 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. 26. the Code has chosen to enumerate the cases in which moral damages. and 34. ISSUE: WON the defendant spouses are entitled to moral damages by reason of the unfounded civil action filed against them. 2202). 21. 2208). nevertheless. 29. Moral damages. which is expressly mentioned in Art. par. Traya February 27. 30. may be recovered (Art. 2007- 51 Raagas v. Bugayong December 2. Casis _S. 2216). 2208 by reference in Art. The Supreme Court ruled that: “with respect to moral damages. as an instance when moral damages may be allowed. 27. nevertheless. we are inclined to agree with petitioner that these damages are not recoverable herein. though incapable of pecuniary estimation. 2219. 2219 and in Arts. hence they made no definite finding as to what the supposed moral damages suffered consist of. Furthermore. Ruling in favor of the defendant. or else incorporated Art. or it would have expressly mentioned it in Art.  • • 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. This is so because moral damages. which they are not. but is not included in the enumeration of Art. Art. it is. 4). thereby implying that all other quasi-delicts not resulting in physical injuries are excluded. notwithstanding the finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that his complaint against respondents were clearly unfounded or unreasonable. in other words. He further prayed that he be allowed to repurchase the said parcel for being the legitimate son and sole heir of his deceased father. 2219 Specifically mentions "quasi-delicts causing physical injuries". causing the child’s instantaneous death. as justifying an award of attorney's fees.

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries. Expertravel caused several demands to be made. the one-year period of redemption had expired.Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that. 29. Casis _S. Expertravel and Tours. The parents of the female seduced. This led to litigation as to the nature of the agreement in which the plaintiff eventually prevailed. Acts of Lasciviousness and Physical injuries: NO NEED to prove MD. This continued until the GSIS sent the plaintiff and her father three letters asking for a proposal for the payment of her indebtedness. slander or any other form of defamation. The plaintiff’s father. 9 of this article. WOUNDED FEELINGS. has almost invariably been held not to be a ground for an award of moral damages. rape. HELD: Yes. such filing. Rodolfo Andal. GSIS March 30. (9) Acts mentioned in Article 309. Atty.. raped. Inc. . payable within 10 years in monthly installments. 1963 FACTS: Plaintiff Trinidad Francisco in consideration of a loan. In exchange. Dela Torre). Abduction. and 35. 1999 FACTS: Expertravel issued to respondent Ricardo Lo (Ricky Lo! Showbiz!) four round-trip plane tickets to Hong Kong. Expertravel filed a complaint for recovery of the amount. without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof as had heretofore been the practice. Some time later. proposing to partially pay off his daughter’s indebtedness. The Court held that Bugayong should also be ordered to pay the victim the additional amount of P50. *Rationale for the rule: THE LAW COULD NOT HAVE MEANT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY ON THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE. 2007- 52 HELD: No. ISSUE: WON plaintiff is entitled to moral damages by reason of defendant’s breach of contract. under the circumstances. 000 as moral damages. however. The trial court found for the respondent and held that the amount claimed by Expertravel had already been paid. sent a letter to the general manager of the defendant corporation. Vicente Francisco. 28. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.    CLASS NOTES For Rape. The GSIS was itself the buyer of the property in the foreclosure sale. (7) Libel. v. emotionally. In People v. The account had been remitted to Expertravel through its then Chairperson Ma. CA June 25.. Seduction. Since the demands were ignored by Lo. ascendants. Damage automatically comes from being a victim of such crimes and it is assumed that the victim suffered mentally. 26. 27. 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. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries. 2220. in such amount as the Courts deems just. P50k awarded as indemnity ex delicto + P50k as MD 3. (3) Seduction. 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. CC . ISSUE: WON damages can be recovered by reason of a clearly unfounded suit. (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest. The spouse.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. 32. abduction. ETC. abducted. (4) Adultery or concubinage. NOT BEING MALICIOUS OR FRAUDULENT.. GSIS appeared amenable to the proposal and the various sums therein were paid by the plaintiff and her father to the defendant. Prades. Francisco v. mortgaged in favor of the defendant GSIS a parcel of land known as the Vic-Mari Compound in Quezon City. the GSIS extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage on the ground that up to that date the plaintiff was in arrears on her monthly installments.20. 2219. Art. or other lascivious acts. his eleven year old stepdaughter. descendants. the foreclosure on the property would be set aside. (8) Malicious prosecution. and to cover the balance. Prof. Rocio de Vega who was theretofore authorized to deal with the respondent’s clients. Respondent Lo answered that his account with Expertravel had already been fully paid. Alleging that Lo had failed to pay the amount due. such damages are justly due. as the decision holds.There was no error in the appealed decision in denying moral damages. referred to in No. but primarily because a BREACH OF CONTRACT LIKE THAT PF THE DEFENDANT’S. and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned 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. in the order named. together with hotel accommodations and transfers for a total cost of P39. 3 of this article. 677. Cases where allowed (MEMORIZE!) Art. 34. (6) Illegal search. ISSUE: WON the victim is entitled to moral damages. may also recover moral damages. or abused. not only on account of plaintiff’s FAILURE TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND and TESTIFY TO HER SOCIAL HUMILIATION. A SITUATION THAT CANNOT BY ITSELF BE A COGENT REASON FOR THE AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES. the Court ruled that moral damages may additionally be awarded to the victim in the criminal proceeding. DOES NOT WARRANT THE AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES. 30. since according to the GSIS. (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21.Y.

Silverio issued a check. serious anxiety. PI b. then moral damages must every time be awarded in favor of the prevailing defendant against an unsuccessful plaintiff. A PERSON’S RIGHT TO LITIGATE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED BY HOLDING HIM LIABLE FOR DAMAGES. mental anguish. MMD made deliveries to Silverio’s store for almost a year. 1746 in relation to Art. *ELEMENTS OF MP: (1) MALICE. b. Sia. 26-huma relations torts) -also applies to contracts when breached by tort In Culpa Criminal: when accused is found guilty of a. 2219. 1. fright. as an officer of the Co-op. Marketing Corp. 2007- 53 ISSUE: WON Moral damages should be awarded to the Mijares spouses. DOCTRINE: Moral Damages cannot be recovered from a person who has filed a complaint against another in good faith. 21. WAS MOTIVATED BY BAD FAITH WHEN IT INSTITUTED THE ACTION FOR It is merely an unfounded suit not Malicious Prosecution.Y. Nature of MD: not punitive. when an act or omission causes P “J” filed the complaint based on . Mijares spouses COLLECTION. besmirched reputation. Prof. Lascivious acts c. Unfounded Suits Unfounded suits Malicious prosecution ART. Under Culpa contractual or breach of contract: when the defendant acted in: a. Upon confrontation. Mijares v. must be PROPORTIONAL TO AND IN APPROXIMATION OF THE SUFFERING INFLICTED. despite having been informed that they no longer did business in Ospital. when the act of breach of contract itself is constitutive of torts resulting in physical injuries (PI).  • • • 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. *REQUISITES OF MD: 4. 2206: when death results from a breach of carriage J. or b. 20. amounting to 32K.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 If the rule were otherwise. “J” filed a complaint for replevin against Sia. which was dishonored. Defamation Malicious Prosecution The term “analogous causes” in Art. moral shock. wounded feelings. or without malice or bad faith. MMD filed a complaint to collect from Editha. Adultery or concubinage d. The Co-op was dissolved and ceased operations in 1986. for partial payment under the account name of his store. FACTS: J Marketing discovered that a motorcycle was missing from its bodega. Amount of MD: though incapable of pecuniary estimation. “J’s” representative examined the chassis and motor numbers of the motorcycle and found them tampered. a. 19. 1. following the ejusdem generis rule must be held similar to those expressly enumerated by the law. Casis _S. Jr. which is also operated by Editha Mijares. special rule: e. or c. Illegal arrest f. ESPECIALLY WHEN HE BELIEVES HE HAS A RIGHTFUL CLAIM AGAINST ANOTHER. HELD: No. HELD: No. in wanton disregard of his contractual obligation. Illegal detention e. social humiliation. or g. but are designed to compensate and alleviate in some way the physical suffering. Illegal search. and its space was leased out to Solomon Silverio who also put up a drugstore. 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. Court found suit to be unfounded. 2219 (CASIS: PENDING ISSUE) When MD allowed: must be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission. Sia refused to return the motorcycle and dared the representative to file a case in court. 2. THERE MUST BE AN INJURY. was guilty of gross negligence (amounting to BF). the factual basis for which is satisfactorily established by the aggrieved party. in Art. BF. v. where the defendant is guilty of an intentional tort (casis: Arts. CA FACTS: Metro Manila Drug supplied pharmaceutical products to the Mijares spouses’ drugstore and to the Ospital ng Maynila Consumers Cooperative Drugstore. 2. ALTHOUGH FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS. 3. (2) ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE. FAILED TO SHOW THAT MMD 3. WHETHER PHYSICAL. in Culpa Aquiliana or QD: a. Motorcycle was traced to Sia. & exceptionally: d. and similar injury unjustly caused to a person. 4. ISSUE: WON the award of Moral Damages is proper. RTC and CA dismissed the complaint and awarded moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees in favor of Sia.

serious anxiety. (4) the prosecutor was actuated by malice. 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. HELD: Yes. so “J” could not be deemed to have done so with bad faith. CA FACTS: SITI (Cometa: president) extended loans to GIDC (Guevara: president). wounded feelings. SITI foreclosed the mortgages and was the highest bidder in the foreclosure sale. TC and CA: exculpated the Bondads. NOTE: SC did not equate mp with an unfounded suit MORALES’ CAR. a jeep. HELD: No. not unfounded suit SUFFERED ANY MENTAL ANGUISH OR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS FROM THE i. social humiliation. (3) prosecutor acted without probable cause. ii. so she filed an illegal dismissal case. FACTS: A 3-automobile collision involving a bus. The case focused more on how Osdana was treated when she worked in Saudi Arabia. No damages can be charged on those who may exercise their right to litigate in good faith. The effects of this was that Ligorio could not work. (2) prosecution terminated in the plaintiff’s acquittal. She was dismissed from work and not given any separation pay. good customs. ISSUE: WON the case for malicious prosecution states a cause of action and warrants a full blown trial on the merits. HELD: Yes. DOCTRINE: The adverse result of an action does not make a complainant subject to pay moral damages. The bus bumped the jeep that was parked at the shoulder to fix a tire and the bus went on to hit the car. even if done erroneously. ISSUE: WON the award of Moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees was proper. Guevara filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against Cometa. LA and NLRC both ruled in her favor and awarded her damages. NLRC FACTS: Erlinda Osdana was recruited by Triple 8 as a food server in Saudi Arabia. Cometa filed a falsification case against Guevara which was dismissed by the prosecutor for lack of probable cause. Bad working conditions made her ill and she had to be confined in a hospital. ISSUE: WON the award of moral and exemplary damages was justified. HELD: Yes. as a result of the other party’s acts. DOCTRINE: Requirements to sustain an award of moral damages: (1) Claimant suffered injury. IIC ACTED IN BAD FAITH WHEN IT COMPELLED THE BONDADS TO TRAVEL FROM LAGUNA TO MAKATI TO LITIGATE AN UNFOUNDED CLAIM. IIC was RECKLESS WHEN IT IMPLEADED THE BONDADS IN SPITE OF CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE NOT LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO Prof. 2007- 54 Triple Eight Integrated Services v. Criminal Taking Of Life People v. and a car. 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. After this. et al were found guilty of murdering Pedro Torrenueva. DOJ Secretary reversed prosecutor’s finding but the RTC eventually dismissed the case. Labor Cases DEATH OF HER HUSBAND. Bondad The absence of any generic aggravating circumstance precludes the award of exemplary damages. or was done in a manner contrary to morals. she was no longer given any assignments even if she was willing and able to do light work.    CLASS NOTES Moral damages are not just awarded because of violations of the Labor Code. Cometa v. Pirame  • •    CLASS NOTES Purpose of requirements: to temper the filing of suits in order to get damages. 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. which the latter failed to pay. Sue someone who could readily be impleaded (based on legal basis) FACTS: Pirame. .Y. and Pablo became sick and even suffered a mild stroke. 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. All the requirements for a valid cause of action were present. The award of Moral Damages is justified. (3) Necessary that such acts be shown to have been tainted with bad faith or ill-will. The owner of the car (Morales) and the insurance company filed a complaint for damages against the bus company.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Sia’s own challenge for them to sue him. but she again became ill and required 2 surgeries. She was transferred several times. Triple 8 refused to help her. (2) Injury sprung from any of the cases listed in Art. or public policy. It is not enough that the claimant alleges mental anguish. Industrial Insurance Company v. etc. The Bondads denied any responsibility or liability to IIC and Morales. 2219 or 2220 (CC). and the jeep’s driver and owner (Ligorio and Pablo Bondad). its driver. Casis _S. ISSUE: WON the award of moral and exemplary damages were justified. The award of damages was proper.

 • 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  CLASS NOTES Fule v. Flores’ character and personality are irrelevant to the issues in the case. (2) 1M in Moral Damages is grossly disproportionate to the 100K in actual damages. HELD: Yes. a prominent businessman in Baguio engaged in the real estate business of buying and selling house and lots. However. The Supreme Court reduced the award of 1M to 100k as moral damages. he learned that the hotel expenses of some passengers were reimbursed. CA FACTS: Carlos Arcona was convicted of homicide and was ordered to pay 10K as moral damages. and held in high esteem in San Pablo.Y. PAIN AND ANGER WHEN A LOVED ONE BECOMES THE VICTIM OF A VIOLENT OR BRUTAL KILLING. HELD: Yes. PAL gave out cash assistance to its stranded passengers. a small city. The case is analogous to malicious prosecution under Art. TC & CA dismissed the complaint and ordered him to pay Cruz 300K. SUCH BRUTAL DEATH NOT ONLY STEALS FROM THE FAMILY OF THE DECEASED HIS LIFE. Pantejo sued PAL for damages for discriminating b. respected.    CLASS NOTES This seems to be in conflict with the Pirame case. It was found during . Casis does not seem to agree with. Cruz presents a possible distinction between Arcona and Pirame: the manner of death was taken into account (violent nature of the death) which Prof. He had to share a room with another passenger whom he promised to repay in Surigao.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 DOCTRINE: Proof of suffering must be attested to justify the award of moral damages. considered 1M in Moral Damages to be excessive because (1) Flores did not prove that he lost the Baguio House. Prof. (4) The length of time the case has dragged on during which their reputations were tarnished and their names maligned. Flores filed this MFR contending that the award was too small. PNB. he complained that the earrings were fake. SC increased the award to 200K. Pantejo requested that he be billeted at a hotel at PAL’s expense because he wasn’t carrying cash. attacked his character by alleging that he was a known gambler and big time casino player. The bank also alleged that the proceeds of the checks were used by Flores in gambling. CA the trial that the bank was negligent of its duties. moral damage must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs’ emotional sufferings. DOCTRINE: Factors considered in determining amount: (1) Cruz & Belarmino are well-known. only to be stunned with a court case. For this reason. From this it is obvious that PNB besmirched Flores’ reputation causing him undue humiliation. RULE: MD does not need actual proof. 2219 (8). ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages was correct. Moral damages should be increased to 50K. ISSUE: WON the award of damages is proper. Casis _S. NOTE: cf Arcona v. That because of the incident whenever he tries to make a deal people doubt his capacity to pay. Belarmino. Due to a typhoon. CA FACTS: Fule. This is the sales case on BARTER! PAL v. and Belarmino 250K as moral damages. (3) Since the filing of the case. Preponderance of evidence suggests that the cause of action in this case was contrived by Fule himself. bought from PNB 2 manager’s checks worth 500k each. that this had caused him his integrity and dependability as a businessman in Baguio. He appealed claiming self-defense. HELD: Yes. On the flight. a banker/jeweler bartered his 10 ha. 2007- 55 Carlos Arcona y Moban v. He filed a case against Cruz and Belarmino seeking the nullification of the Deed on the ground of fraud and deceit. Enough IT IS INHERENTLY HUMAN TO SUFFER SORROW. Fule was able to examine the jewelry and accepted them (he had already examined them before and even made a sketch). Flores also testified in court regarding his woes when PNB refused to honor his checks. without proofs. TORMENT. 2 hours later. PNB later refused to honor the checks because of alleged shortage in his payment. SC took into account the following: that despite the fact that Mr. (2) Both are near the twilight of their lives after maintaining and nurturing their good reputation in the community. the flight to Surigao was cancelled while on a stopover in Cebu. LOVE. but also besmirched their reputations. they were living under a pall of doubt which surely affected not only their earning capacity. Cruz under a Deed of Absolute Sale with Atty. ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages should be increased. Factors in Determining Amount PNB v. as shown by Fule’s wanton bad faith and his filing of a malicious and unfounded case against Cruz & Belarmino. SUPPORT AND AFFECTION BUT ALSO LEAVES THEM WITH A GNAWING FEELING THAT AN INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE TO THEM. Property for a pair of diamond earrings from Dr. CA FACTS: Pantejo. 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. Casis Commentary: SC reduced the award. but PAL refused. CA FACTS: Carmelo Flores. that displays wanton bad faith. the City Fiscal of Surigao took a PAL flight from Manila to Surigao.

The bank dishonored checks drawn out by the Chuas on the ground of insufficient funds. CLASS NOTES Casis Commentary: Valenzuela must have been really beautiful. They grappled for the gun. ISSUE: WON the award of damages is proper. PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY AND MENTAL AND PHYSICAL PAIN IS INESTIMABLE. “under protest. serious anxiety and mental anguish as a result of Pan-Am’s breach in bad faith of their contracts. wounded feelings. Producer’s Bank v. P1M in moral damages is proper. SLEEPLESSNESS. Although it is not humiliating to travel as tourist passengers. These injuries have left indelible marks on his body and will serve as a constant reminder of his traumatic experience. TC awarded him actual (300K).” Lopez filed a suit for damages. they share his prestige and therefore.Y. DOCTRINE: Factors: Pantejo was exposed to humiliation and embarrassment especially because of his GOVERNMENT POSITION and SOCIAL PROMINENCE. ISSUE: WON the increase in the amount of Moral Damages was proper. his wife (50K). CA FACTS: The Chuas had substantial savings and current deposits with the Bacolod Branch of Producers Bank. and in doing so. IT IS HUMILIATING TO BE COMPELLED TO DO SO . HELD: Yes. Her left leg was severed & she had to get a prosthetic leg. his humiliation. The TC awarded them 2M in moral damages. The damage done was permanent and lasting. They were constrained to take the flight as tourist passengers. but the amount was not credited to their account because the Branch Manager absconded with the money of the bank’s depositors.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 against him. because first class was already fully booked. and exemplary (100K) damages. HELD: SC reduced moral damages to 300K. The dishonor of the Chuas’ checks and the foreclosure initiated by the bank AFFECTED THE CREDIT STANDING AND THE BUSINESS DEALINGS OF THE CHUAS. The nature of the injuries and the degree of physical suffering endured by Ramos warrants it. his daughter (25K) and his son-in-law (25K). increased the damages awarded by the TC. secured by a real estate mortgage. The damages awarded to each of them are reasonable. 100K (exemplary). PAL acted in bad faith in disregarding its duties as a common carrier to its passengers and in discriminating against Pantejo. although the offended party had not appealed from said award. They filed an action for damages against the bank. The incident caused the mutilation of Ramos’ ear and a permanent scar on his arm. HELD: No. The refund of hotel expenses was discriminatorily made since it was not made known to all its passengers. he bit Ramos’ arm and left ear. which altogether necessarily subjected him to ridicule. despite their having over 1M in savings. The amount of damage which goes with the SUDDEN SEVERING OF A VITAL PORTION OF THE HUMAN BODY AND THE RESULTANT ANXIETY. and asked for 500K as actual and moral damages. Valenzuela v. but missed. Pan American FACTS: Senate President Pro Tempore Fernando Lopez reserved first class tickets with Pan-Am for him. they were informed that they could not be accommodated as first class passengers. The Lopezes suffered social humiliation. his wife. The SC finds the 10K award of Moral Damages justified under the circumstances. Considering the prestige of his rank and position. as their suppliers discontinued credit lines resulting in the collapse of their businesses. to be divided among Senator Lopez (100K). NOTES: his stature demanded that he be given MD. shame and anguish. The tickets were issued and paid for. DOCTRINE: The amount of moral damages awarded DEPENDS ON THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PHYSICAL INJURIES. CFI awarded 150K in moral damages. The CA has in many cases. the artificial leg would have to be adjusted to the physiologic changes her body would normally undergo through the years. COMMENSURATE TO THE . but on the day of the flight. CA FACTS: Sumalpong shot twice at Ramos. CA modified the award of damages. He was convicted of attempted homicide and was made to serve sentence and ordered to indemnify Ramos for loss of crops. alleging breach of contracts in bad faith. The damage to their REPUTATION AND SOCIAL Lopez v. moral (150K). but CA reduced moral damages to 500K. 180K (medical expenses + loss of earnings). SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO EXCESSIVE DAMAGES Prof. His family too coz they shared in his prestige and humiliation. 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. 2007- 56  • • ISSUE: WON the amount of damages was proper. hospitalization expenses and Moral Damages (5K). They obtained a P2M loan. The Chuas deposited 960K. who in turn filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. Valenzuela filed a case claiming damages: 1M (moral). ISSUE: WON the reduction of the award of moral damages was justified. Valenzuela’s left leg was amputated. CA reduced it to 500K. Senator Lopez was the Senate President Pro Tempore and a for VicePresident of the Philippines. TC awarded. increasing Moral Damages to 10K. but the bank refused. The Chuas filed a complaint for injunction and damages. DOCTRINE: The award should be SUFFERING INFLICTED. The Chuas requested to see the ledgers of their account. ISSUE: WON the award of moral damages is proper. Sumalpong v. It was PAL’s standard policy to extend cash assistance or hotel accommodations to stranded passengers. his daughter and her husband. HELD: Yes. mutilating the latter. As to the members of his family. Permanent nature of damage HELD: SC raised the amount to 200K. the amount awarded is appropriate. Casis _S. Li and his employer were found jointly and severally liable.

Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 entitles them to moral damages. or for injury to the plaintiff’s business standing or commercial credit. Director of Labor Jose and Assistant City Fiscal Ruperto. whether or not such damages could have been reasonably foreseen by the defendant. (CF: PEOPLE VS. Deals with ABS failed. CA FACTS: ABS and Viva executed a Film Exhibition Agreement whereby Viva gave ABS an exclusive right to exhibit some Viva films. 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. it being a significant part of the foundation of his business. BF. Who May Recover Strebel v. It therefore cannot experience physical suffering and mental anguish. a Mobilgas station owner sued Acting Labor Secretary Figueras. STANDING Prof. 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. According to Lopez of ABS. value of he loss suffered 2. Complaint was dismissed and moral damages were awarded to RBS for having its reputation debased by the filing of the complaint. ISSUE: Can Strebel recover damages inconvenient transfer of Hernandez? for the HELD: No. In one of his causes action.” RBS made print ads of the anticipated airing of “Maging Sino Ka Man. legal & equitable justification. (2) MENTAL ANGUISH is restricted to such mental pain or suffering as arises from an injury or wrong to the person himself.enumerates the cases where MD may be recovered Art. atty’s fees may be recovered as AD or CD under any of the circumstances in Art. Casis _S. HELD: No. Assuming that such act amounted to any wrong. it has no feelings. or for fright due to a wrong against a third person.defines what are included in MD Art. Figueras. DOCTRINES: (1) The RIGHT OF RECOVERY FOR MENTAL SUFFERING RESULTING FROM BODILY INJURIES is restricted to the person who has suffered the bodily hurt. including the 14 films in the “napkin agreement. 2217. 2219. Viva’s agent denied such agreement. The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation. 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. The bank caused them serious anxiety. which can be experienced only by one having a nervous system. -The power of the court to award atty’s fees under Art. 2208 demands factual.” ABS filed a complaint for specific performance w/ a prayer for injunction. 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.  • • 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. so then Viva made a deal with RBS granting the latter the exclusive right to 104 film. 2007- 57 NOTES: one cannot be awarded MD for the suffering one did not endure (sympathy) cf Art. embarrassment. Viva’s agent gave ABS (through Charo Santos) a list of 36 films to choose 24 from. there was a “napkin agreement” for Viva to sell 14 films for P36M. the right of action would accrue in favor of Hernandez.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. no senses. The transfer was within the power of the DOJ Secretary. On Moral Damages: Art. et al FACTS: Strebel. On Atty’s fees: -in the absence of stipulation. -Indemnification shall comprehend: 1. Any adverse reflection thereon constitutes some financial loss to him. he cited the incident of the transfer of his son-inlaw (Hernandez) from the BOI to the Bureau of Prisons. malice or wanton attitude: actor shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonable attributed to the nonperformance of the obligation. ISSUE: WON the award of damages to RBS was proper. 2220. Santos only liked 10 (including “Maging Sino Ka Man”) and did not accept it. He claims that Figueras influenced the DOJ Secretary to effect such transfer and is seeking moral and actual damages. 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. 2219. no emotions. ABS was given a right of first refusal to 24 films. and humiliation. and there can be no recovery for distress caused by sympathy for another’s suffering. -AD may also be recovered for loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury.Y. . last paragraph.

and should be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in Article 1157. and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. of the spiritual status quo ante. 1962 and was able to fully pay her installments on Dec. The amount. 22. Centeno to represent him in an action for recovery with damages. Moral Damages not proper: Ventanilla v. Art. The right of the vendee to acquire title to the lot she bought was violated by the petitioner and this entitles her. according to the circumstances of the case. Casis _S. the amount that he seeks to recover here as nominal damages is excessive. to nominal damages. The damages awarded are proper. NAPOCOR v. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff. experience physical suffering and mental anguish. TC awarded her P20K in nominal damages. Millan filed a complaint for specific performance.  • 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 C. DOCTRINE: Nominal damages are recoverable where some injury has been done. 2221. CFI FACTS: Lolita Millan bought a lot from the petitioner in May. NAPOCOR did not act in bad faith in disapproving PHIBRO’s application for prequalification to bid. Robes-Francisco Realty Corp. but NAPOCOR disapproved their application. petitioner still has not given her the TCT of the lot. the amount of which the evidence fails to show.Y. Centeno screwed up the filing of appeal. * A CORPORATION BEING AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON AND HAVING EXISTENCE ONLY IN LEGAL CONTEMPLATION. The deed of absolute sale however. but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded. or in every case where any property right has been invaded. TC: awarded him P200 as nominal damages. 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. PHIBRO’s bid was accepted. IT CANNOT EXPERIENCE PHYSICAL SUFFERING AND MENTAL ANGUISH. no senses. DOCTRINE: Besmirched reputation cannot cause mental anguish to a corporation. Considering that nominal damages are not for the indemnification of loss suffered. oppressive or malevolent manner. HELD: Yes. moral damages are not awarded to corporations. HAS NO FEELINGS. which can be experienced only by having a nervous system. 1971. NO SENSES. moral and exemplary damages. PHIBRO filed an action for damages on the ground that NAPOCOR’s act of disqualifying them was tainted with malice and bad faith. reckless. It merely exercised its reserved right to reject bid applicants who previously failed to perform properly. should be reduced since there was no showing of bad faith on the part of the petitioner. ISSUE: WON the award of nominal damages was proper. v. It cannot therefore. Art. On Exemplary Damages: -imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude further contest upon the right involved and all accessory questions. Prof.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 MD aimed at restoration. ISSUE: WON PHIBRO is entitled to damages. Lower courts ruled in favor of PHIBRO and awarded actual. ISSUE: WON the TC erred in awarding only P200 instead of P2000 as nominal and other damages. NO EMOTIONS. DOCTRINE: Nominal damages are not indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded. Nominal Art. liquidated or compensatory damages. 2223. as between the parties to the suit. PHIBRO participated in the bidding again. unlike in the case of a natural person. and that the perfection of the appeal was no assurance that Ventanilla would succeed in his first action for recovery. Assessment of Nominal Damages is left to the discretion of the court. it has no feelings. and (2) as a general rule. for A CORPORATION HAS NO REPUTATION IN THE SENSE AN INDIVIDUAL DOES. . Nearly 3 years after her last payment. PHIBRO was not able to deliver. in addition to moral. at the very least. (1) there was no bad faith. 2007- 58 HELD: No. 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. however. or their respective heirs and assigns. Centeno FACTS: Ventanilla hired Atty. the assessment of damages is left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of the case. It is inherently impossible for a corporation to suffer mental anguish. which has been violated or invaded by the defendant. 2222. THEREFORE. Ventanilla now seeks to recover damages against Centeno. no emotions. within the limits of the possible. PHIBROS FACTS: NAPOCOR issued invitations to bid for the supply and delivery of imported coal. temperate. was only executed in her favor in 1973. may be vindicated or recognized. HELD: No. fraudulent. so NAPOCOR advertised again for bidding of the same products.

Francisco (owner of Fountainhead) sent a letter of apology and 5K. or (2) where there has been a breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages have been or can be shown. The wedding cake arrived at 10pm. a minor. Temperate or moderate damages. Gopio FACTS: Gopio raped and molested Princess Millano. Armovit was unable to keep his appointments with his US patients. CA FACTS: Dr. RTC awarded damages (Dr. nominal: 100K. daughter: moral: 300K. 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. On the wedding day. CA modified: sustained award of actual damages. causing it to hit a cargo truck parked along the shoulder.: actual: P1300. This is not for the purpose of indemnifying any loss suffered. CA where temperate damages were awarded for continuing injury Pleno v. 2224. TC and CA awarded moral and exemplary damages. However. moral: 500K. which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages. They made a follow-up call and were assured that it was on its way. 2007- 59  • • 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. Pleno filed a complaint for damages against the owner of the red truck and its driver. Assessment of ND is left to the discretion of the court. CA FACTS: A red Ford cargo truck hit a blue Volkswagen kombi driven by Pleno. THE AWARD OF NOMINAL DAMAGES  CLASS NOTES Armovit v. which was denied for being deemed inadequate.a. Mrs. wounded feelings and serious anxiety until they were finally able to fly back to the US. exemplary: 300K. violated by the accused may be vindicated or recognized. the cake was not there. HELD: Yes. DAMAGES CANNOT COEXIST WITH ACTUAL HELD: No. inadvertence or inattention to their customer’s anxiety and need of the hour. Petitioners gave lame excuses for the delay in the delivery of the cake.: moral: 300K. Ferrer and Lo filed a case against Francisco for breach of contract w/ damages. from the nature of the case. ISSUE: WON the deletion of nominal damages was proper. Pleno was seriously injured and was confined for 5 months in Makati Med and had to undergo 5 surgeries. nominal: 50K). Casis _S. but they refused to accept it because it only had 2 layers. Ferrer FACTS: Rebecca Lo and her daughter Anette Ferrer ordered a 3-layer wedding cake from Fountainhead Bakeshop. They were later informed that there would be no cake because the order slip got lost. hitting its driver who was urinating in front of it. Temperate Sir: awarded when there is no basis for AD Art. THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF AN ALTHOUGH NO ACTUAL DAMAGES D. he and his family suffered anguish. may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can not. (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. Nominal Damages (P2K) should be awarded in order that the right of the victim. Nominal damages should not be awarded when actual damages were. CA reduced the . LEGAL RIGHT. nominal: 50K.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Prof. Armovit and his family decided to spend Christmas in the Philippines and bought 3 round-trip US-Manila tickets from Northwest Airlines. but was delayed by traffic. exemplary: 500K. *DOCTRINE: WHENEVER ASCERTAINED IS PROPER. Their prevarication made them liable for nominal damages for insensitivity. *DOCTRINE: NOMINAL DAMAGES. be provided with certainty. HELD: Actual damages should be deleted as no proof was presented to show the actual amount of pecuniary loss. 2225. RESULTED OR NONE ARE SHOWN. ISSUE: WON moral and exemplary damages should have been awarded. exemplary: 300K. Dr. Ferrer was compelled to buy a sans rival cake instead.  • 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. Temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances. NOMINAL DAMAGES ARE PROPER. deleted moral and nominal damages. They filed an action for damages in the Manila RTC after Remember Ramos vs.Y. He was convicted of statutory rape and ordered to indemnify the victim through damages (actual= P3727. at around 6pm. CFI ruled in favor of Pleno. People v. moral= P30K) ISSUE: WON the award of damages is proper. On the return trip (Manila-US). Art. 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. However. according to the circumstances of the case.

Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed. HELD: No. Such AWARDS PARTAKE OF DAMAGES WHICH MUST BE PROVEN NOT ONLY BY CREDIBLE AND SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE. F. Singh FACTS: Dalvir. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party. the court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated. exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Art. In contracts and quasi-contracts. Temperate damages under Art. killing him. HELD: Yes. by way of example or correction for the public good. liquidated or compensatory damages. civil indemnity. the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to moral. the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral. but the court is convinced that there was an injury or loss. 2229. Art. In criminal offenses. although award for loss of earning capacity should be deleted. ISSUE: WON the reduction of damages was proper. Liquidated Casis: 3rd parties are not bound by the stipulation of LD in the contract. The accused were convicted of murder and frustrated murder. People v. considering that the DEFINITE PROOF OF PECUNIARY LOSS CANNOT BE OFFERED AND THE FACT THAT LOSS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. to be paid in case of breach thereof. 2227. Bare allegation is insufficient. Each item of damages is adequately supported by evidence. Plazo FACTS: Edison Plazo boxed and stabbed Romeo Fabula. although no proof of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated damages may be recovered. actual damages. 2233. reckless. Exemplary or Corrective Art. 2232. temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for liquidated damages. A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are renounced in advance shall be null and void.Y. Can AD and TD be warded at the same time? YES in Ramos vs. • appellants should pay the heirs of the victim temperate damages. When the breach of the contract committed by the defendant is not the one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the liquidated damages. Art. in addition to the moral. who was cleaning his motorbike nearby. 2228. Art. 2226. 2231. Prof. before the court may consider the question of granting exemplary in addition to the liquidated damages. Art. shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable. DOCTRINE: Temperate damages may be `awarded in cases where definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered. fraudulent. Art. 2234. Art. ISSUE: WON damages should be awarded. 15K as temperate damages was awarded. ISSUE: WON temperate damages should be awarded. tried to stop the attack. Liquidated damages. While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved. Casis _S. moral: 200K – 100K). In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon. . but he too was stabbed. and not the stipulation. attorney’s fees and compensation for loss of earning capacity. Lower courts awarded hospitalization and medical expenses. nevertheless. 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. Nevertheless. CA – but sir says it’s an aberration since TD is awarded when there is no basis for AD People v. 2007- 60  CLASS NOTES Fact of loss established but AD cannot be proved Art. BUT ALSO BY UNBIASED PROOF  • • CLASS NOTES LD intended as indemnity or penalty Juris: LD vs.  CLASS NOTES E. -For LD: prove breach -For MD on top of LD: prove breach + BF 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). et al ganged up on Surinder. 2235. The lower court’s award of damages are more in consonance with the factual circumstances of the case. the law shall determine the measure of damages. In quasi-delicts.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 amount of damages for being excessive (Temperate: 200K – 100K. Dilbag. moral damages. HELD: Yes. or malevolent manner. exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. 2230. the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton. oppressive. temperate or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. Plazo was convicted of murder. 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). temperate. whether intended as an INDEMNITY OR A PENALTY. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right.

Less than 2 months after installation. reckless. fraudulent. there is no basis for the award of exemplary damages. Although there was a breach of PNB’s obligation to Tan. It cannot be recovered as a matter of right. 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. Del Rosario v. The Del Rosarios filed a complaint with the DTI and another with the RTC to recover damages. portions of the roof were blown off by a typhoon. 1996 FACTS: Tan owned a parcel of land which was expropriated by the government. FRAUDULENT. CASIS: implies that ED is attached to MD  • • CLASS NOTES How did court arrive at final amount? Compare with other cases (3) THE ACT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY BAD FAITH OR DONE IN A WANTON. CA: affirmed. FACTS: The sps. HELD: Yes. Del Rosario bought roofing materials from MFC. CA Janunary 29. PNB was ordered to pay Tan the amount. The Del Rosarios hired an adjuster to determine the cause of the destruction. MFC acted in bad faith when it flagrantly breached its express warranties made to the general public. HELD: No. but left to the discretion of the court. 2007- 61  CLASS NOTES ED and ND: • ND vindicates right ~ declaratory relief • ED is penalty-like PNB v. *(MEMORIZE) DOCTRINE: REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF EXEMPLARY DAMAGES: (1) THEY MAY BE IMPOSED BY WAY OF EXAMPLE IN ADDITION TO COMPENSATORY DAMAGES. 1997 . Tan file a motion with the court requiring PNB to pay. oppressive. DOCTRINE: Exemplary damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. CA April 2. having already paid the amount to Tan’s “agent”. MFC replaced and repaired them free of charge because of a warranty. The adjusters found that MFC did not attach the tiles properly and the project was hastily done.Torts Magic Notes for FINALS_revised by A2010 2008 Prof. Exemplary damages may be awarded if a party acted in a wanton. TC: ruled in favor of Tan and ordered PNB to pay the amount and exemplary damages. The awards of moral and exemplary damages are justified. AND ONLY AFTER THE CLAIMANT’S RIGHT TO THEM HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. THEIR DETERMINATION DEPENDING UPON THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATORY DAMAGES THAT MAY BE AWARDED TO THE CLAIMANT.Y. Casis _S. which advertised the materials as durable and sturdy. OPPRESSIVE OR MALEVOLENT MANNER. Gonzaga took the money for herself. Tan demanded payment which was refused by PNB. (2) THEY CANNOT BE RECOVERED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. or malevolent manner. ISSUE: WON the award of damages is justified. but deleted the award of exemplary damages. ISSUE: WON exemplary damages should be awarded to Tan. He filed a motion w/ the TC requesting that it issue an order for the payment of P32K as expropriation price.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.