This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
CASE Naguiat v. NLRC
IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Taxi drivers claiming TORT: consists in the violation of a right separation pay; given or the omission of a duty imposed by operation of taxi law; breach of a legal duty services within Clark Air Base Re-classification of cigarettes
SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S
Concept of a tort
Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune
Not bound by the definition because it is OBITER; definition is very broad - any crime or breach of contract may be included; we cannot consider every crime a tort because in some crimes, no single individual is injured whereas in tort, there should be a person injured TORT: a wrong, a tortious act which has been Definition is overly broad; also OBITER defined as the commission or omission of an act by one, without right, whereby another receives some injury, directly or indirectly, in person, property, or reputation A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict or crime Barredo doctrine not needed anymore because of Article 2177:
Concept of a QD
Barredo v. Garcia
Collision of taxi and caretela; employer of taxi driver sued for civil liability
Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under The same negligent act causing damages the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover may produce civil liability arising from a crime damages twice for the same act or omission of the under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, defendant. or create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. The Court so holds to make the father liable. The doctrine is intended to plug the hole in Article 2180
Concept of a QD
Elcano v. Hill
Minor killed another; parents of victim sued both minor and father
Concept of a QD
Cinco v. Canonoy
Concept of a QD
Baksh v. CA
Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligence" covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent Recovery of The concept of quasi-delict as enunciated in damages due to Article 2176 of the Civil Code, is so broad that vehicular accident; it includes not only injuries to persons but suspension of civil also damage to property. It makes no case pending final distinction between "damage to persons" on determination of the one hand and "damage to property" on criminal case the other Action for damages Article 2176 is limited to negligent acts or for breach of promise omissions and excludes the notion of to marry against willfulness or intent Iranian
Court used Article 2191(2) to illustrate damage to property but said Article pertains to Strict Liability, not QD - Strict Liab because whether or not there is negligence, proprietor is still liable
Not necessary because discussion is an OBITER. QD still includes intentional acts
TOPIC Concept of a QD
CASE Coca-Cola Bottlers v. CA
IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Discovery of fiber-like material and other foreign substances in Coke and Sprite Works made by the Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette caused damage to adjacent land of the Andamos Article 2176 is homologous but not identical to tort under the common law, which includes not only negligence, but also intentional criminal acts, such as assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit ELEMENTS of QD: 1) damages suffered by the plaintiff 2) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond 3) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff The acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case, unless in the event of an acquittal where the court has declared that the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist, in which case the extinction of the criminal liability would carry with it the extinction of the civil liability
SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S
Elements of QD and Tort
Andamo v. IAC
Elements part of RATIO #1 and 3 elements should be DAMAGE, not DAMAGES #2 element contemplates Article 2180
Elements of QD and Tort
PNR v. Brunty
Rhonda Brunty going to Baguio, the car she was riding collided with PNR train
Elements of QD and Tort
BPI v. Lifetime
REQUISITES of QD must concur: Tama na yong word - DAMAGE 1) damage to plaintiff 2) negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant, or some person for whose acts he must respond was guilty 3) connection of cause and effect between such negligence and damage After the deposit slips ELEMENTS of QD: Same with Andamo - bumalik sa DAMAGES were machine1) fault or negligence of the defendant, or validated, agent SC equated Tort with QD some other person for whose acts he must requested teller to respond reverse the 2) damages suffered by the plaintiff transactions 3) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff
TOPIC Elements of QD and Tort
CASE Garcia v. Salvador
IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Wrong result from Hepatitis test
SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S
ELEMENTS of an ACTIONABLE CONDUCT: Elements of an actionable conduct, not of QD 1) duty 2) breach 3) injury 4) proximate causation In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence: 1) damages suffered by him 2) fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person to whose act he must respond 3) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred 4) that there must be no preexisting contractual relation between the parties Actions filed under Article 2176 considered as a tort case Added another element - no preexisting contractual relation between the parties These are the elements of QD
Elements of QD and Tort
Gregorio v. CA
Gregorio charged with 3 counts of violation of BP 22; complainant desisted because Gregorio was not one of the signatories
Elements of QD and Tort
Ocean Builders v. Spouses Antonio
Employee contracted To successfully prosecute an action anchored Lumped two elements in #3 chicken pox and died on torts, three ELEMENTS must be present: These elements are usually for medical negligence 1) duty cases 2) breach 3) injury and proximate causation No statutory support to sue based on Torts Article 2176 only and correctly applies to QD; pwede may tort sa Article 2176 first sentece but the problem is the elements See Crime vs QD tab See Crime vs QD tab
Distinguishing Tort, QD from Delict Distinguishing Tort, QD from Delict Distinguishing Tort, QD from Delict
Barredo v. Garcia Elcano v. Hill Andamo v. IAC
See Crime vs QD tab See Crime vs QD tab
it employer. being contractual. It is possible to have BoC and Culpa Aquiliana at When such a contractual relation exists the the same time. parents of victim sued LG Foods (employer) Distinguishing Tort. QD from Delict CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender: 1) civil liability ex delicto 2) independent civil liabilities: (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as felony (e.TOPIC Distinguishing Tort. Two fields are concentric .g. Duty of defendant. QD from BoC Cangco v. and its nonperformance could not be excused by proof that the fault was morally imputable to defendant's servants .G. feet hit a sack of watermelon. culpa contractual or obligations arising from law. slipped from the train. the presumption that employer is negligent comprising the whole extent of juridical human relations. intentional torts. and an action for quasi-delict under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S L. Once negligence of employees is proven. Philadelfa Driver committed suicide after hitting a 7-year old child. Manila Railroad Clerk of Manila Railroad Company. that will not absolve The field of non-contractual obligation is broader than that of contractual obligations. Foods v. was direct and immediate.immediately attaches. obligor may break the contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes the source of an extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed between the parties. arm was amputated See QD vs BoC tab Negligence of employees should not be employer's defense because even if it is proven that employees are negligent. extra-contractual liability to such person. Employer should prove that it exercised due diligence in the selection and the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from supervision of its employees. culpa aquiliana) (b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action Victims of negligence or their heirs have a choice between an action to enforce the civil liability arising from culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code.
to excuse him from his ensuing liability Distinguishing Tort. Remedy serves to preserve the interests of the promisee: 1) expectation interest . a corresponding right of relief.TOPIC Distinguishing Tort. Sarmiento IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Delivery of refrigerators SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S CULPA CONTRACTUAL: mere proof of the Due diligence different from due diligence in the existence of the contract and the failure of selection and supervision of employees its compliance justify. placed the wrong markings Frank's negligence could be beyond contract. It could have been culpa aquiliana . QD from BoC CASE FGU Insurance v. that of extraordinary diligence) 2) attendance of fortuitous event. QD from BoC Batal v.interest in being reimbursed for loss caused by reliance on the contract by being put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract not been made 3) restitution interest . San Pedro Survey of land. See QD vs BoC tab spouses Batal contracted to determine boundaries of lot. prima facie.interest in having the benefit of his bargain by being put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract been performed 2) reliance interest .interest in having restored to him any benefit that he has conferred on the other party DEFENSE: 1) proof of his exercise of due diligence (diligence of a good father of a family or by stipulation or by law.
CA Moral damages in breach of contract Filipino ousted from first class seat to accommodate white man Credit card became hot card. not in actions involving breach of contract. QD from BoC Fores v. without a pre-existing contract between two parties. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Extension seat Doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict. not QD TEST whether a QD can be deemed to underlie the BoC: Where. the fact that the parties are contractually bound is no bar to the application of quasi-delict provisions to the case See QD vs BoC tab Far East qualified Air France doctrine . where there is a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. QD from BoC PSBA v. The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation between him and another party.QD should be independent of BoC Distinguishing Tort. QD from BoC CASE Calalas v. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Distinguishing Tort. it is the parties themselves who create the obligation. But. Common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence. restaurant did not honor the credit card payment See QD vs BoC tab The act that breaks the contract may be also a tort Culpa contractual easy in terms of proof. Miranda Air France v. an act or omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself. QD from BoC Far East v. In such a case. but difficult for moral damages to be awarded Does not contradict Article 2176 because this is a tort. Carrascoso Distinguishing Tort. CA Student stabbed to death inside PSBA Should the act which breaches a contract be done in bad faith and be violative of Article 21. QD from BoC Distinguishing Tort. and the function of the law is merely to regulate the relation thus created.TOPIC Distinguishing Tort. the obligation is created by law itself. then there is a cause to view the act as constituting a quasi-delict SC tried to temper the Air France doctrine by limiting its applicability by these tests: 1) Was it done in bad faith which will limit it to NCC Art 21? 2) Can the negligence still subsist without the contract? .
but if there is a contract and negligence is proven. QD from BoC CASE Syquia v. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Vault containing the coffin had a hole at the bottom SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S RULE: There may be culpa aquiliana in a contractual obligation. It would only be culpa aquiliana if there was no contract Rule of priority . A common carrier is liable for death of or injury to passengers a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees b) on account of wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission Distinguishing Tort. thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply. fell on the LRT tracks.kung may contract. killed by moving train When an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties. QD from BoC Light Rail Transit v.TOPIC Distinguishing Tort. fist fight with security guard. Navidad Drunk LRT passenger. CA Passbook given to another person See QD vs BoC tab The law on QD is generally applicable when there is no pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties Petitioner bound by the negligence of its employees under the principle of respondeat superior or command responsibility . sue based on contract muna Distinguishing Tort. the contract can be said to have been breached by tort. then it's culpa contractual. QD from BoC Consolidated Bank v.
term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require Employed PICART Test 1 SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Concept of Negligence PNR v. or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. would do. that degree of care. It is a relative or comparative. CA Driver of car stopped then proceeded accordingly. precaution. whereby such other person suffers injury No hard and fast rule whereby such degree of care and vigilance is calibrated. All that the law requires is that it is perpetually compelling upon a person to use that care and diligence expected of sensible men under comparable circumstances .TOPIC Concept of Negligence CASE PNR v. Look and Listen" sign NEGLIGENCE: failure to observe. it is dependent upon the circumstances in which a person finds himself. want of the care required by the circumstances. guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs. and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand. not an absolute. for the protection of the interests of another person. Brunty IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE NEGLIGENCE: the omission to do something which a reasonable man. defective "Stop.
or worse. it's gross negligence What determines if an act is negligent is the danger of an act . Rio Degrees of Diligence Marinduque v.the nature of the act of jumping into the sea involves danger Degrees of Diligence Amedo v. but it may be evidence of negligence .TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Seaman jumped into "Notorious negligence" has been held to be the water to retrieve 2. and is indifferent. to the danger of injury to person or property of others. the negligence must amount to a reckless disregard of the safety of person or property SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S If the act is dangerous per se and he still did it. Workmen’s Hitched a ride in the company's hauling truck which hit a coconut tree Notorious negligence = gross negligence GROSS NEGLIGENCE: implying 1) conscious indifference to consequences 2) pursuing a course of conduct which would naturally and probably result in injury 3) utter disregard of consequences Violation of a rule promulgated by a commission or board is not negligence per se.tantamount to "gross negligence" peso bill GROSS NEGLIGENCE: 1) want of even slight care and diligence 2) such entire want of care as to raise a presumption that the person in fault is conscious of the probable consequences of carelessness.
or the entire absence of care. Ronquillo Standard of Conduct . acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act.Sicam v. just got back from honeymoon in Hawaii GROSS NEGLIGENCE: implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence.Picart v. operation was only to determine infertility.one of many standards Standard of Conduct . not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected STANDARD supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law Conduct of a prudent man determined in the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case TESTS: 1) Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? 2) Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against its consequences SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Same with Amedo: whether the act in question is dangerous per se (here. not to cure a life-threatening disease) Degrees of Diligence Ilao-Oreta v. Smith In General Horse on the wrong side of the bridge Paterfamilias . It is characterized by want of even slight care.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Doctor did not arrive on time to perform operation. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. Jorge In General Pawnshop robbed The diligence with which the law requires the individual at all times to govern his conduct varies with the nature of the situation in which he is placed and the importance of the act which he is to perform .
Heirs of Completo v. capacity.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Subdivsion lot owners built house on a lot owned by another Collision of taxi and bicycle Same standard as in Picart v. Special Circumstance Albayda Standard of Conduct .Jarco Marketing v.Taylor v. CA Children Gift-wrapping counter Conclusive presumption that favors children fell on a 6-year old below nine years old in that they are child incapable of contributory negligence Child was pinned by a boulder 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.Culion v. Smith = discreet paterfamilias SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Standard of Conduct . and this is to be determined in each case by the circumstances of the case Standard of Conduct . such as dangerous weapons or substances Child lost his eye due to explosion of fulminating caps found in the premises of Manila Railroad The care and caution required of a child is according to his maturity and capacity only.Corinthian Gardens v. Philippine Experts in General Motors Back fire occurred in When a person holds himself out as being the cylinder chamber competent to do things requiring professional skill. and it is fortified by the fact that usually more will be required of a motorist than a bicyclist in discharging his duty of care to the other because of the physical advantages the automobile has over the bicycle Accidental discharge A higher degree of care is required of of a defective firearm someone who has in his possession or inside a gun store under his control an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character. Manila Children Railroad Standard of Conduct . he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he attempts to do . discretion.Pacis v. Aquino Children Standard of Conduct .Ylarde v. knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances Standard of Conduct . In General Spouses Tanjangco Standard of Conduct . Morales Special Circumstance The bicycle occupies a legal position that is at least equal to that of other vehicles lawfully on the highway.
no antibiotics. no blood supply. Needs expert testimony to establish the standard of care exercised by doctors in good standing. so that human life may not constantly be exposed to the danger flowing from the substitution of deadly poisons for harmless medicines Whether or not a physician has committed an "inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of his patient is to be determined according to the standard of care observed by other members of the profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of the profession at the time of treatment or the present state of medical science." "the highest degree of care known to practical men. For whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his patient is.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Pineda sold barium chlorate (poisonous) instead of potassium chlorate which killed two horses The profession of pharmacy is one demanding care and skill. De Pharmacists Leon Mercury Drug gave ear drops instead of eye drops Druggists must exercise the highest practicable degree of prudence and vigilance. a matter of expert opinion.Cruz v.Mercury Drug v. and the skill employed must correspond with the superior knowledge of the business which the law demands Mistake is negligence and care is no defense SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Standard of Conduct . and the most exact and reliable safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct of the business.US v. CA Medical Professionals Clinic untidy. in the generality of cases. to determine if medical procedure perfromed according to the standard. no oxygen supply ." "care of a special high degree." The care required must be commensurate with the danger involved. to determine if the breach of duty is the proximate causation of the injury Standard of Conduct . The responsibility of the druggist to use care has been variously qualified as "ordinary care. Pineda Pharmacists Standard of Conduct .
The emerging trend is to hold the hospital responsible where the hospital has failed to monitor and review medical services being provided within its walls. the physician has the duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably competent physician would use to treat the condition under similar circumstances. under similar conditions.Cayao-Lasam v. Medical Spouses Ramolete Professionals Ectopic pregnancy. a No need for expert testimony because it is already obvious (RIL) patient must only prove that a health care provider either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done. or that he did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done. was given Maxitrol. no expert testimony Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally. Left 2 sponges in the Medical Agana body of Agana. Standard of Conduct . a physician is under a duty to exercise that degree of care.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Standard of Conduct . patient did not return for a follow up check up Standard of Conduct .Lucas v. and that failure or action caused injury to the patient. Tuano Medical Professionals Eye problem. skill and diligence which physicians in the same general neighborhood and in the same general line of practice ordinarily possess and exercise in like cases. and in like surrounding circumstances In treating his patient. Dr. Stated otherwise. Professionals doctor did not inform her To successfully pursue this kind of case. .Professional Services v.
it affords reasonable evidence. or is overcome 1) where plaintiff has knowledge and testifies or presents evidence as to the specific act of negligence which is the cause of the injury complained of 2) where there is direct evidence as to the precise cause of the accident and all the facts and circumstances attendant on the occurrence clearly appear 3) once the actual cause of injury is established beyond controversy . IAC IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Repairing tire of cargo truck which was parked along the right side of the national highway. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S The one who usually raises RIL is the party injured. RIL not applicable because there is direct evidence Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant. not a rule of substantive law but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience.rule of evidence peculiar to the law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence. that the accident arose from want of care.TOPIC Res Ipsa Loquitor CASE Layugan v. it was defendant who raised the doctrine) Can defendant really raise RIL? IMPOSSIBLE Notes of KatM: Only allowed if the defendant is pursuing a counterclaim RIL . in the absence of an explanation by the defendant. cannot be availed of.can only be invoked when direct evidence is absent and not readily available. not the defendant (in this case. and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care. RIL . hit by another truck.
applied in conjunction with the doctrine of common knowledge . custody and control of his physician Simply a recognition that. taken with the surrounding circumstances.this is how you draw the line: 1) delivered his person over to the care. may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence. the qualifications of the physician was not involved Similar with Voss vs. Bridwell .TOPIC Res Ipsa Loquitor CASE Ramos v. as a matter of 2) physician had complete and exclusive control common knowledge and experience. the very over him nature of certain types of occurrences may 3) operation was never performed 4) at the time of submission he was neurologically justify an inference of negligence on the sound and physically fit in mind and body part of the person who controls the 5) injury was one which does not ordinarily occur in instrumentality causing the injury in the the absence of negligence absence of some explanation by the defendant who is charged with negligence. and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S What is involved here is pre-operation . wrong intubation by anaesthesiologist RIL .no operation happened. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Doctor late. or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case.the fact of the occurrence of an injury.
merely incidental Application for #3 requisite (could not have contributed to the injury because she was unconscious) .TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Malpractice suits: REQUISITES OF RIL: General Rule: Expert testimony needed 1) The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s Exception: Case can be gleaned from knowledge negligence. Go Gave birth. decisions you make prior to operation constitutes contribution . JAM Transit collided with jitney Requisites . JAM Transit Jitney loaded with quail eggs and duck eggs.not a proper application. all that the patient must do is prove a nexus between the particular act or omission complained of and the injury sustained while under the custody and management of the defendant without need to produce expert medical testimony to establish the standard of care Res Ipsa Loquitor Tan v. provided it is not clear and convincing to say that a person is negligent. caused by burn from droplight Why expert testimony was dispensed with? Because injury was not connected to the procedure. need only establish that the driver of JAM was negligent because he was violating traffic regulation Even if there is evidence. fresh Requisites .pls see above RIL should not have been applied here. 2) It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants.pls see above gaping wound on the arm. the need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence When RIL is appropriate. and 3) The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated When RIL is availed by the plaintiff. RIL still applies Res Ipsa Loquitor Cantre v.
REQUISITES for the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur: 1) the occurrence of an injury 2) the thing which caused the injury was under the control and management of the defendant 3) the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things. See above Agana Control also pertains to constructive control . in the absence of an explanation by the defendant. Where the thing which causes injury is shown doctor left rubber to be under the management of the glove inside the body defendant. that the accident arose from want of care. RIL applies Res Ipsa Loquitor Professional Services v. and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen in those who have the management use proper care. the most instrumental is the “control and management of the thing which caused the injury" SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Why is there no expert testimony when this pertains to a medical operation? Leaving a foreign thing inside the human body speaks for itself that doctor in charge is negligent. would not have happened if those who had control or management used proper care 4) the absence of explanation by the defendant Of the foregoing requisites.TOPIC Res Ipsa Loquitor CASE Batiquin v. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Caesarian operation. it affords reasonable evidence.
SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S . Some courts add to the three prerequisites for the application of the RIL doctrine the further requirement that for the doctrine to apply. It is not for the defendant to explain or prove its defense to prevent the presumption or inference from arising. may outweigh the inference. or that the party to be charged with negligence has superior knowledge or opportunity for explanation of the accident. such as that of due care or innocence. the burden then shifts to defendant to explain. The presumption or inference may be rebutted or overcome by other evidence and. Once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of all the elements. under appropriate circumstances a disputable presumption. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Construction worker fell 14 floors The inference which the doctrine permits is grounded upon the fact that the chief evidence of the true cause. is practically accessible to the defendant but inaccessible to the injured person.TOPIC Res Ipsa Loquitor CASE DM Consunji v. it must appear that the injured party had no knowledge or means of knowledge as to the cause of the accident. comes into play only after the circumstances for the application of the doctrine has been established. whether culpable or innocent. Evidence by the defendant of say. due care.
by his own carelessness contributes to the principal occurrence. accident caused by the abrupt swerving of the jeep from the inside lane Where the plaintiff's negligence was not merely contributory but goes to the very cause of the accident. Belfranlt IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Fire due to coffee perculator Requisites . This is equally true of the defendant. contributed to the determining cause of the accident. he has no right to recover damages for the injuries he suffered Defenses against PLDT v. neither can recover.TOPIC Res Ipsa Loquitor CASE College Assurance v. they pass the area/road frequently. that is. not proof of negligence. Legaspi charge of negligence plaintiff's negligence is proximate cause Where the plaintiff in a negligence action. he cannot recover. to the accident. RIL still applies If direct evidence of negligence is present. CA charge of negligence plaintiff's negligence is proximate cause . As long as there's no direct evidence as to the negligence of the defendant. RIL will not apply Defenses against Bernardo v. and as both of them.why is RIL applied? The evidence pertains to the source of the fire. by their negligent acts.pls see above SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Merong testimony/evidence .ch Plaintiffs' jeep ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench. as one of the determining causes thereof.
even though such injury would not have happened but for such condition or occasion. . charge of negligence .TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Repair of the media agua SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Defenses against Manila Electric v. unrelated. such condition was not the proximate cause. such subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause. If no danger existed in the condition except because of the independent cause. if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct. successive. And if an independent negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the circumstances which result in injury because of the prior defective condition.would have been the proximate basis of an action if such remote cause did cause if not for the intervening cause nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible. and efficient cause of the injury.Remoquillo plaintiff's negligence is proximate cause A prior and remote cause cannot be made the Remote cause .
CA charge of negligence contributory negligence of plaintiff Rig overtaking another rig hit an old woman.Casionan contributory negligence of plaintiff Pocket miner carrying Contributory negligence is conduct on the Definition of CN problematic because it makes CN bamboo electrocuted part of the injured party. it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warnings or signs on an impending danger to health and body.Atlantic contributory negligence of plaintiff Where he contributes to the principal Proximate cause . which falls below the standard which he is required to conform for his own protection.negligence which aggravates the injury own injury. Where.negligence which caused the occurrence.H. There is contributory negligence when the party’s act showed lack of ordinary care and foresight that such act could cause him harm or put his life in danger. Heirs of charge of negligence . contributing as a proximate cause legal cause to the harm he has suffered. Rakes v. concurring with the defendant’s negligence. as one of its determining factors. defense was old woman's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident The defense of contributory negligence does What about proximate cause? Can it be a defense? not apply in criminal cases committed through YES. accident he can not recover. The charge of negligence . It is an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured which. in conjunction with the occurrence.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Defenses against NPC v. is the proximate cause of the injury. since one cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence Defenses against M. less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own imprudence. On warning signs (Ma-ao Sugar Central ): To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries. CA reckless imprudence. citing Cruz v. . he contributes only to his CN . he may recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the event should pay for such injury. Defenses against Genobiagon v.
Contributory negligence is conduct on the part Doctrine is contradictory of the injured party. The determination of the mitigation of the defendant’s liability varies depending on the circumstances of each case. To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries. and not simply a condition for its occurrence. In a legal sense. between the negligence of the party and the succeeding injury. negligence is contributory only when it contributes proximately to the injury. Heirs of Ray charge of negligence . contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered.Castillon contributory negligence of plaintiff The underlying precept on contributory The court held 50-50.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Riding a motorcycle. It would make CN equal to negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly proximate cause responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. speeding. which falls Hindi si Rhonda ang may CN below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection. it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warning or signs of an impending danger to health and body. The only effect such contributory negligence could have is to mitigate liability Defenses against PNR v. it is still necessary to establish a causal link. although not proximate. Brunty charge of negligence contributory negligence of plaintiff See above . imbibed one or two bottles of beer SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Defenses against Lambert v. The defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence. tailgating Tamaraw. To prove contributory negligence.
whenever it appears that the defect would have been discovered by the carrier if it had exercised the degree of care which under the circumstances was incumbent upon it. such as an armed invasion.When the effect is found to be partly the result of the participation of man — whether it be from active intervention. Paras. with regard to inspection and application of the necessary tests All the requisites must concur before defense of FE is available Defenses against Juntilla v. Not necessary previous negligence. et al. floods. or (2) by the act of man. and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God. it must be impossible to avoid 3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner 4) The obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Necesito. Fontanar charge of negligence fortuitous event Defenses against Southeastern College charge of negligence fortuitous event Due to a storm. or neglect. fires. could be simultaneous negligence Not necessary gross negligence . it is necessary that he be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by reason of which the loss may have been occasioned.: A passenger is entitled to recover damages from a carrier for an injury. governmental prohibitions.. An act of God cannot be invoked for the protection of a person who has been guilty of gross negligence in not trying to forestall its possible adverse consequences. roof of school was ripped off and blown away. robbery In order that a fortuitous event may exempt a person from liability.. must be independent of the human will 2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito. storms. v.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Tire of jeep blew up Essential characteristics of caso fortuito: causing the vehicle to 1) The cause of the unforeseen and fall on its side unexpected occurrence. epidemics.. or if it can be foreseen. or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation.. such as earthquakes. attack by bandits. et al. destroying the roof of Dimaanos FE may be produced by two general causes: (1) by nature. or failure to act — the whole occurrence is hereby humanized.
And being injured by the animal under those circumstances. CA charge of negligence plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria Caretaker of It was the caretaker's business to try to carabaos gored by prevent the animal from causing injury or one of them and died damage to anyone. VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA . SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S The very measures which petitioners had allegedly adopted show that to them the possibility of robbery was not only foreseeable. Petitioner Sicam’s testimony contradicts petitioners’ defense of fortuitous event. Jorge charge of negligence fortuitous event Defenses against Afialda v. including himself.only makes the defense available to the negligent which in effect makes it impossible to raise as a defense Robbery is a FE but the defense of FE may or may not be available Defenses against Sicam v.applies to noncontractual relations REQUISITES: 1) plaintiff had actual knowledge of the damage 2) he understood and appreciated the risk from danger 3) he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk . as is commonly believed but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or anticipated. Old woman A person is excused from the force of the electrocuted while rule. Hisole charge of negligence plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria Defenses against Ilocos Norte v. The mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same. but actually foreseen and anticipated. It is akin to arguing that the injuries to the many victims of the tragedies in our seas should not be compensated merely because those passengers assumed a greater risk of drowning by boarding an overloaded ferry. SIR: Act of taking measures should not bar the defense of FE . It is therefore. was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences. CA charge of negligence plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria Defenses against Calalas v.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE See above Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable. that when he voluntarily assents to a she was going to her known danger he must abide by the store to check her consequences: merchandise 1) if an emergency is found to exist 2) if the life or property of another is in peril 3) when he seeks to rescue his endangered property See above Hard to give serious thought to contention that taking an "extension seat" amounted to an implied assumption of risk.
other tourists got irritated Collision of two sea vessels Why different from Nikko Hotel? Pantaleon's cause of action is BoC.it is reasonable to wait for the BMI's findings instituted within four years. even if he is not negligent in doing so. .Reyes plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria Defenses against Pantaleon v. were still under obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to unnecessary ridicule and shame. under Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code. not Articles 19-21 Under Article 1146 of the Civil Code.Express plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria Defenses against Kramer v. The prescriptive period begins from the day the quasi-delict is committed.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Gatecrasher during the birthday party of the manager of Nikko Hotel The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria ("to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury") refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger. American charge of negligence . SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Defenses against Nikko Hotel v. however. credit Same with Nikko Hotel but in this case. petitioners. this doctrine does not find application to the case at bar because even if respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave the party. As formulated by petitioners. Prescriptive period must be counted from the time of the commission of an act or omission violative of the right of the plaintiff. Roberto charge of negligence . the card company took doctrine is applicable long to approve transaction. an If multiple collision or oil spill where there are many action based upon a quasi-delict must be ships . CA charge of negligence prescription European tour. which is the time when the cause of action arises.
as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person. policy. would result therefrom as a natural and probable consequence. and without which the result would not have occurred SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Regardless of proximate cause. They had to discuss proximate PROXIMATE LEGAL CAUSE: that acting first cause to make carrier liable for the death of the and producing the injury. have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom Proximate cause is determined from the facts of each case. upon a combined consideration of logic. common sense. and precedent. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. passengers who were stuck inside were charred to death PROXIMATE CAUSE: that cause. CA Wrong account number. carrier is still liable. deposit posted in another account . Proximate cause does not matter is BoC Why did Court discuss proximate cause? Because under BoC. under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should. gasoline leaked. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor. apply Pilipinas Bank definition the result complained of and without which would not have occurred and from which it ought to have been forseen or reasonably anticipated by a person of ordinary case that the injury complained of or some similar injury. produces the injury. all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events. in natural and continuous sequence. defendant would only be liable for physical injuries. the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted. which. Medina IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Bus turned turtle. Proximate Cause Mercury Drug v.TOPIC Proximate Cause CASE Bataclan v. Baking Given a potent sleeping tablet Proximate Cause Pilipinas Bank v.to increase damages or by setting other events in motion. produces If there's a case similar to Pilipinas Bank. Foreseeability should not be a factor PROXIMATE CAUSE: any cause which. either immediately victims . caught fire. in natural and continuous sequence.
it being sufficient that the negligence of the person charged with injury is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have resulted to as great an extent. the degree of participation does not matter What is the rule on liability? Liability is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury Remote Cause Gabeto v. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the injury. Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent and each is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have happened. It is no defense to one of the concurrent tortfeasors that the injury would not have resulted from his negligence alone. the injury may be attributed to all or any of the causes and recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons although under the circumstances of the case. and that the duty owed by them to the injured person was not the same. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S If the concurrent act was the proximate cause. without the negligence or wrongful acts of the other concurrent tortfeasor. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Berthing of vessel Where several causes combine to produce injuries. It is therefore evident that the stopping of the Prove chronology of events to determine proximate rig by Agaton Araneta in the middle of the cause street was too remote from the accident that presently ensued to be considered the legal or proximate cause thereof. An appreciable interval of time elapsed before It was broken by an efficient intervening cause the horse started on his career up the street.TOPIC Concurrent Cause CASE Far Eastern v. Remoquillo See above . it may appear that one of them was more culpable. See above See above Remote Cause Manila Electric v. Araneta Horse nakawala No actor's negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely because it does not exceed the negligence of other actors. a person is not relieved from liability because he is responsible for only one of them. and that such cause is not attributable to the person injured.
to which the defendant has subjected the plaintiff has indeed come to pass. or the defendant may be negligent only for that reason. Foreseeable intervening forces are within the scope original risk. Jose Ching Prime mover parked askew There is no exact mathematical formula to determine proximate cause. policy and precedent. otherwise.TOPIC Intervening Cause CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Phoenix Construction v. no liability will attach. truck parked askew If the intervening cause is one which in When does it become an efficient intervening ordinary human experience is reasonably to cause? Should not be foreseeable be anticipated or one which the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances. Came home from a IAC cocktail party. because of failure to guard against it. and hence of the defendant's negligence. no headlights probably because driver has no pass. however. It is based upon mixed considerations of logic. Tests to Determine Proximate Cause Dy Teban v. common sense. That link must not be remote or farfetched. the defendant may be negligence among other reasons. establish a sufficient link between the act or omission and the damage or injury. The defendant cannot be relieved from liability by the fact that the risk or a substantial and important part of the risk. The damage or injury must be a natural and probable result of the act or omission. Plaintiff must. .
TOPIC Tests to Determine Proximate Cause CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE The distinctions between "cause" and "condition" have already been "almost entirely discredited. without reference to the prior negligence of the other party. Even the lapse of a considerable time during which the "condition" remains static will not necessarily affect liability. See above IAC Last Clear Chance Picart v. the latter are the result of other active forces which have gone before. as is invariably the case." It is quite impossible to distinguish between active forces and passive situations. particularly since. . SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Phoenix Construction v. Smith See above The person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences. It is not the distinction between "cause" and "condition" which is important but the nature of the risk and the character of the intervening cause.
is only one of the relevant factors that may be taken into account. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Collision between truck and bus. use LCC Issue of control is secondary. is to determine whose negligence was the legal or proximate cause of the injury. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S This is not a suit between the owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles Last Clear Chance Phoenix Construction v. See above IAC Under Article 2179. a negligent actor cannot defend by pleading that another had negligently failed to take action which could have avoided the injury.LCC tempers contributory negligence of plaintiff such that he can recover provided defendant has the last clear chance to avoid the accident (sa US kasi. if you cannot BUT-FOR to determine PC. the task of a court. in technical terms. and it cannot be invoked as between defendants concurrently negligent. the doctrine cannot be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of them should be held liable to the injured person by reason of his discovery of the latter's peril. heirs of passengers sued owners of colliding vehicles The principle of LCC applies in a suit between the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles.reason for the rule does not exist in our jurisdiction LCC . If nature of negligent act is relatively the same. For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence. As between defendants. first is nature of negligent act. As against third persons. Common law . kapag may CN plaintiff cannot recover) LCC not applicable in our jurisdiction because of Article 2179 . That task is not simply or even primarily an exercise in chronology or physics. as the petitioners seem to imply by the use of terms like "last" or "intervening" or "immediate.sort of back up to determine proximate cause. Of more fundamental importance are the nature of the negligent act or omission of each party and the character and gravity of the risks created by such act or omission for the rest of the community.TOPIC Last Clear Chance CASE Bustamante v. It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. person who is last in control may be applied ." The relative location in the continuum of time of the plaintiff's and the defendant's negligent acts or omissions.
who had the last fair chance. accomplished two deposit slips.TOPIC Last Clear Chance CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE LCC states that where both parties are negligent. or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident. The rule would also mean that an antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for the supervening negligence of.motorist in proper lane entitled show that the person who allegedly had the to assume that approaching vehicle coming from last opportunity to avert the accident was wrong side will return to proper lane aware of the existence of the peril or should. IAC Collision between jeep and truck The doctrine of the last clear chance provides Doctrine here counteracts Phoenix . have been aware of it Last Clear Chance Pantrangco v. altered the second one Last Clear Chance Glan v.difficult to determine what's the first negligent act Problematic: 1) there was already a breach of contract 2) Court already determined proximate cause 3) they still applied CN after applying LCC Phil Bank of Commerce Secretary entrusted v. if the latter. Baesa Two families on their way to celebrate wedding anniversary of the other couple . could have avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Commercial transactions are repetitive . with the exercise of due care. but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other. CA with funds deposits money in the bank account of husband. it is necessary to Vda de Bonifacio .LCC as valid and complete a defense to accident applicable in our jurisdiction liability today as it did when invoked and applied in the 1918 case of Picart vs. the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof. Smith. or bar a defense against liability sought by another. For LCC to be applicable.
SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Last Clear Chance Consolidated Bank v. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Mortgage executed by impostor LCC . CA Emergency rule Last Clear Chance PNR v. who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. even though it later appears that he made the wrong decision. is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom. The proximate cause of the injury having been established to be the negligence of petitioner. would exonerate the defendant from liability. Brunty See above .where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other. neither the contributory LCC does not apply in BoC negligence of the plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss.TOPIC Last Clear Chance CASE Canlas v. Thus. we hold that the above doctrine finds no application in the instant case. EMERGENCY RULE . and he must make a prompt decision based largely upon impulse or instinct.a person who is confronted with a sudden emergency might have no time for thought. The rule is that the antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude recovery of damages caused by the supervening negligence of the latter. the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so. Last Clear Chance Engada v. CA See above In culpa contractual. Such contributory negligence or last clear chance by the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery of damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from his breach of contract. or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident. he cannot be held to the same standard of conduct as one who had an opportunity to reflect.
upon the guardian. However. IAC Why was LCC applied here when the Court ruled that both were equally negligent? Shouldn't there have been concurrent negligence? Sweethearts killed. in case of his death or incapacity. this civil liability is now. upon the mother or. Under Article 2180. or who gun of the father live in their company. the mother. the enforcement of such liability shall be effected against the father and. under the Family Code. not alternative girlfriend and also offenses committed by their minor children killed himself using under their legal authority or control.TOPIC Last Clear Chance CASE Lapanday v. This was amplified by the Child and Youth Welfare Code which provides that the same shall devolve upon the father and. in case of her death or incapacity. unless it is proven that the former acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such damages.Persons Exercising Parental Authority Libi v.Parents are and should be held primarily Family Code amended Article 2180 such that boyfriend killed exliable for the civil liability arising from criminal parents are equally liable. . but the liability may also be voluntarily assumed by a relative or family friend of the youthful offender. in case of his death or incapacity. Angala IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Persons Vicariously Liable . the responsibility of the parents and those who exercise parental authority over the minor offender. without such alternative qualification. ex.
Persons Vicariously Liable Teachers/School Palisoc v. Parental liability is. doer of the tortious act. shall have been in the actual custody of the parents sought to be held liable for the ensuing damage. The parental dereliction is.Persons Exercising Parental Authority CASE Tamargo v. The civil law assumes that when an unemancipated child living with its parents commits a tortious acts. only presumed and the presumption can be overtuned under Article 2180 of the Civil Code by proof that the parents had exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. the parents were negligent in the performance of their legal and natural duty to closely supervise the child who is in their custody and control. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Parental authority contested if it lies with adoptive or natural parents SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S The civil liability imposed upon parents for the Law presumes minor living with parent is under the torts of their minor children living with them. in other words. Brillantes Contention was students were not living and boarding with teacher or school official (based on Mercado ruling) "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. Article 221 of the FC has similarly insisted upon the requisite that the child. anchored upon parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompanying such authority. including recess time . of course.TOPIC Persons Vicariously Liable . control of parent may be seen to be based upon the parental authority vested by the Civil Code upon such parents.
contemplates a situation of temporary adjournment of school activities where the student still remains within call of his mentor and is not permitted to leave the school premises. not over the person injured is technical in nature. QD because it requires proximate cause To determine when liability arises: 1) Look at person who caused the injury 2) Is he within custody? 3) Was he negligent? 4) Was negligence proximate cause of the injury? .TOPIC Persons Vicariously Liable Teachers/School CASE Amadora v. Persons Vicariously Liable Teachers/School St. or the area within which the school activity is conducted 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. Mary’s Academy v. Teachers in general shall be liable for the Issue should be custody over the person causing shot by fellow student acts of their students except where the school the injury. IAC Student and at the same time armorer A student not "at attendance in the school" cannot be in "recess" thereat RECESS . Persons Vicariously Liable Teachers/School Salvosa v. "in the custody" . in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable.as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its premises. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S About to graduate. whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended. Carpitanos Enrolment campaign There must be a finding that the act or drive omission considered as negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the negligence must have a causal connection to the accident Applying Article 218.
driver employee of the municipality. a presumption instantly arises of the actor. the employer must present adequate and convincing proof that he exercised care and diligence in the selection and supervision of his employees. not of the employer that the employer was negligent in the selection and/or supervision of said employee. it must be established that the injurious or tortuous act was committed at the time the employee was performing his functions Persons Vicariously Spouses Jayme v. De Vera Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Left middle finger cut Once negligence on the part of the employee Proximate cause should go into the the negligence off is established. vehicle owned by another person Doctrine of vicarious liability is not applicable in cases wherein there is no employeremployee relationship REQUISITES to sustain claims against employers for the acts of their employees: 1) That the employee was chosen by the employer personally or through another 2) That the service to be rendered in accordance with orders which the employer has the authority to give at all times 3) That the illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to him To make the employer liable under paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 2180. To rebut this presumption.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Persons Vicariously Lampesa v. Mayor on board vehicle on their way to airport. Liable Apostol Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Four-fold Test to determine the existence of an employment relationship: 1) the employer’s power of selection 2) payment of wages or other remuneration 3) the employer’s right to control the method of doing the work 4) the employer’s right of suspension or dismissal .
the employee is not acting within the scope of his employment. When employer liable: 1) As when the employer benefits from having the employee at work earlier and. an employee is enabled to reduce his time-off and so devote more time to the performance of his duties) Operation of Employer’s Vehicle in Going to or from Work In the absence of some special benefit to the employer other than the mere performance of the services available at the place where he is needed. or to go to and from his home to various outside places of work.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Fuente Osmena Rotunda in Cebu Filamer doctrine Operation of Employer’s Motor Vehicle in Going to or from Meals NOT ordinarily acting within the scope of his employment in the absence of evidence of some special business benefit to the employer (Example: by using the employer’s vehicle to go to and from meals. presumably. and his employer furnishes him with a vehicle to use in his work (“special errand” or “roving commission” rule) under which it can be found that the employee continues in the service of his employer until he actually reaches home SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Persons Vicariously Castilex v. spending more time at his actual duties 2) Where the employee’s duties require him to circulate in a general area with no fixed place or hours of work. Vasquez Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers .
including the latter's workers. IAC Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Persons Vicariously NPC v. CA Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Article 2180 of the Civil Code and not the To give laborers relief in cases of labor disputes Labor Code will determine the liability of a kaya sila considered as employees principal contractor in a civil suit for damages instituted by an injured person for any negligent act of the employees of the "labor only" contractor. the employer is not liable for his negligence where at the time of the accident. in furtherance of the interests of the employer or for the account of the employer at the time of the infliction of the injury or damage Labor only SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Persons Vicariously Filamer v. includes any act done by an employee. Use of Employer’s Vehicle Outside Regular Working Hours Generally not liable for the employee’s negligent operation of the vehicle during the period of permissive use.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE However. even where the employer contemplates that a regularly assigned motor vehicle will be used by the employee for personal as well as business purposes and there is some incidental benefit to the employer "within the scope of their assigned tasks" for purposes of raising the presumption of liability of an employer. . even if the employee be deemed to be acting within the scope of his employment in going to or from work in his employer’s vehicle. This is consistent with the ruling that a finding that a contractor was a "labor-only" contractor is equivalent to a finding that an employer-employee relationship existed between the owner (principal contractor) and the "labor-only" contractor. the employee has left the direct route to his work or back home and is pursuing a personal errand of his own.
See above Liable Agana Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Refer to KatM's notes Ramos ruling .to enable its managerial and other employees of rank or its sales agents to reach clients conveniently Since important business transactions and decisions may occur at all hours in all sorts of situations and under all kinds of guises. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Persons Vicariously Valenzuela v.there is ER-EE relationship between Medical City and Dr. Ampil Refer to KatM's notes Ramos doctrine stays . in providing for a company car for business use and/or for the purpose of furthering the company’s image. CA Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Persons Vicariously Professional Services v. As such.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Flat tire Company-issued car serves important business purpose: 1) Related to the image of success an entity intends to present to its clients and to the public in general 2) For practical and utilitarian reasons . the managerial employee or company sales agent. See above Liable Agana Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Persons Vicariously Professional Services v. the provision for the unlimited use of a company car therefore principally serves the business and goodwill of a company and only incidentally the private purposes of the individual who actually uses the car. a company owes a responsibility to the public to see to it that the managerial or other employees to whom it entrusts virtually unlimited use of a company issued car are able to use the company issue capably and responsibly.
the employer is required to examine them as to their qualifications.doctors are merely consultants without any ER-EE relationship Persons Vicariously Professional Services v.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Refer to KatM's notes SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S No EE-ER relationship between Medical City and Dr. Huang paralyzed The liability of the employer under Art. It is also joint and solidary with the employee. Ampil . 2180 of the Civil Code is direct or immediate. and impose disciplinary measures for their breach. including documentary evidence. . both in the selection of the employee and in the supervision of the performance of his duties. Huang Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Collision between truck owned by Mercury Drug and Toyota Corolla dirven by Huang. and service records. in the selection of its prospective employees. employers must submit concrete proof. monitor their implementation. the employer should show that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family. experience. It is not conditioned on a prior recourse against the negligent employee. To establish compliance with these requirements. With respect to the supervision of its employees. the employer should formulate standard operating procedures. Thus. See above Liable Agana Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Persons Vicariously Mercury Drug v. To be relieved of liability. or a prior showing of insolvency of such employee.
1) pubic official performing other task duly empowered by a definite order or 2) private individual perfroming governmental task commission to perform some act or charged with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim. SPECIAL AGENT .State CASE Meritt v.TOPIC Persons Vicariously Liable .one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission. and not where the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to a public official charged with some administrative or technical office who can be held to the proper responsibility in the manner laid down by the law of civil responsibility. Government passed an Act authorizing Meritt to sue the Government SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S The responsibility of the state is limited to that Special agent which it contracts through a special agent. Government IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Collision between motorcycle and PGH ambulance. foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official .
All of them are properly designated as servants of the people. the word official comprises all officials and employees of the government who exercise duties of their respective public offices. caught fire The Civil Code distinguishes the special agent from the official with specific duty or duties to perform. whether individual or juridical bodies. In qualifying the special agent with the adjective "special". De Leon Council members revoked a lease for an exclusive ferry privilege awarded to Mendoza and gave it to someone else It is the well-settled rule that the state is not liable to private persons who suffer injuries through the negligence of its officers — and the rule extends to township and cities — while in the performance of state functions. In so far as its governmental functions are concerned. so long as they perform their duties honestly and in good faith. which refers to all officers and employees in the public service. There cannot be any dispute that all persons in the active service of the government.State Mendoza v. because its authors could not miss the fact that the official is also an agent. the Civil Code aimed at distinguishing it from the regular or ordinary agent of government. . All others who are acting by commission of the government belong to the class of special agents. imposed upon them by law. nor are its officers. Servants are agents. a municipality is not liable at all. The Civil Code uses the adjective "special". Under the meaning of the paragraph.State CASE Rosete v. are agents of the State or of the people. violating an ordinance. Auditor General IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Emergency Control Administration stored gasoline in a warehouse.TOPIC Persons Vicariously Liable . regardless of department or branch. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Persons Vicariously Liable . unless expressly made so by statute.
Its contracts. As to such matters the principles of respondeat superior applies. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S .TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE A municipality is not exempt from liability for the negligent performance of its corporate or proprietary or business functions. it is to be regarded as a private corporation or individual so far as its liability to third persons on contract or in tort is concerned. validly entered into. may be enforced and damages may be collected from it for the torts of its officers or agents within the scope of their employment in precisely the same manner and to the same extent as those of private corporations or individuals. In the administration of its patrimonial property. It is for these purposes that the municipality is made liable to suits in the courts.
Maliaman Motion for Recon NIA is a government agency with a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government. Therefore.State CASE Fontanilla v. must not only be specially commissioned to do a particular task but that such task must be foreign to said official's usual governmental functions. and is commissioned to perform non-governmental functions. it may be held liable for the damages caused by the negligent act of its driver who was not its special agent.TOPIC Persons Vicariously Liable . . if a public official. then the State assumes the role of an ordinary employer and will be held liable as such for its agent's tort. it is acting through a special agent within the meaning of the provision. If the State's agent is not a public official. It is not a mere agency of the government but a corporate body performing proprietary functions. Where the government commissions a private individual for a special governmental task. the State has voluntarily assumed liability for acts done through special agents. 2180(6). Maliaman IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Pickup owned by NIA The liability of the State has two aspects: bumped a bicycle 1) Its public or governmental aspects where it ridden by Fontanilla is liable for the tortious acts of special agents only 2) Its private or business aspects (as when it engages in private enterprises) where it becomes liable as an ordinary employer Under Art. The State's agent.State Fontanilla v. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Persons Vicariously Liable .
the dog was tame and was merely provoked by the child into biting her. as the petitioners also contend. pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such animal may cause. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S . And it does not matter either that.Possessors of Animals CASE Vestil v. It is based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility.TOPIC Persons Specifically Liable . According to Manresa the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal causing the damage. The law does not speak only of vicious animals but covers even tame ones as long as they cause injury. IAC IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Little girl bitten by dog Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds the possessor liable even if the animal should "escape or be lost" and so be removed from his control.
On the other hand. by his acquiescence. and without the owner having a reasonable opportunity to prevent the acts or its continuance. Underwood Single-track street car line An owner who sits in his automobile. after he has had a reasonable Nearly impossible. if the driver.Owner of Motor Vehicles CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Chapman v. depends on his vehicle. or other Diligence required .TOPIC Persons Specifically Liable . . and permits his driver to continue in a circumstance violation of the law by the performance of negligent acts. although present therein at the time the act was committed. The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length a time that the owner. gamitin na lang ang Article 2180 opportunity to observe them and to direct that the driver cease therefrom. therefor. injures a person or violates the criminal law. the owner of the automobile. becomes himself responsible for such acts.subjective. is not responsible. either civilly or criminally. by a sudden act of negligence. makes his driver's act his own.
not QD. The theory is that ultimately the negligence of the servant. within the meaning of Article 2184. The basis of the master's liability in civil law is not respondent superior but rather the relationship of paterfamilias. Car owners are not held to a uniform and inflexible standard of diligence as are professional drivers. The article only requires that either control or supervision is exercised over the defective road or street. Cities. city or municipality for liability to attach. Decara Dingcong v. Do not apply but-for. The test of his intelligence.Head of a Family for things thrown/falling Quezon City v. transformed/characterized Article 2189 as QD because of proximate cause and basis of moral damages Strict liability.TOPIC Persons Specifically Liable . SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Persons Specifically Liable . Yu Khe Thai IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE One car on the way to the airport. to a great degree. Cities.Provincies.proximate cause of injury SC required negligence. Municipalities Persons Specifically Liable . The law does not require that a person must possess a certain measure of skill or proficiency either in the mechanics of driving or in the observance of traffic rules before he may own a motor vehicle. necessarily subjective. Dagupan It is not even necessary for the defective road Article 2189 not QD or street to belong to the province. Rammed into pile of earth/diggings QC negligent for not putting any warning or barricade . Kanaan Water dripping from a hotel room . intervening cause Persons Specifically Liable . the other one to Wack Wack to play golf The test of imputed negligence under Article 2184 of the Civil Code is. reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent injury or damage.Provincies. is his omission to do that which the evidence of his own senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the accident. if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction by him. Municipalities Guilatco v.Owner of Motor Vehicles CASE Caedo v.
but only for such injuries arising from or growing out of the risks peculiar to the nature of the work in the scope of the workman's employment of incidental to such employment.TOPIC Persons Specifically Liable . Singer Sewing Riding a bicycle from "arising out of" refer to the origin or cause Machine making collections of the accident.Owners of Enterprise/Other Employers CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Afable v. To come within the term "injury received in the course of employment " it must be shown that the injury originated in the work. and circumstances under which the accident takes place By the use of these words it was not the intention of the legislature to make the employer an insurer against all accidental injuries which might happen to an employee while in the course of the employment. and. it would still be necessary. If it be conceded that the injury originated in the work. and accidents in which it is possible to trace the injury to some risk or hazard to which the employee is exposed in a special degree by reason of such employment. further. in our opinion. place. to show that the employee was engaged in the furtherance of his employer's business. Risks to which all persons similarly situated are equally exposed and not traceable in some special degree to the particular employment are excluded. . and are descriptive of its character "in the course of" refer to the time. that it was received the employee while engaged in or about the furtherance of the affairs of the employer.
such as those operating a business or engaged in a particular industry or trade. requiring its managers to contract the services of laborers.TOPIC Persons Specifically Liable . To make such a requisite would defeat the main purpose of Article 32 which is the effective protection of individual rights. it is not the actor alone who must answer for damages under Article 32. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Independent Civil MHP Garments v. the person indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party. Public officials in the past have abused their powers on the pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the performance of their duties. the object of the Article is to put an end to official abuse by plea of the good faith. said "other employers" must be construed to refer to persons who belong to a class analogous to "owners of enterprises". The very nature of Article 32 is that the wrong may be civil or criminal. Alarcon IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Dig a well Under the principle of ejusdem generis. It is not necessary therefore that there should be malice or bad faith.Violation of Civil and Political Rights . The law speaks of an officer or employee or person "directly or indirectly" responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another.Owners of Enterprise/Other Employers CASE Alarcon v. CA Actions . Thus. workers and/or employees. Precisely.
Actions . An individual can hold a public officer personally liable for damages on account of an act or omission that violates a constitutional right only if it results in a particular wrong or injury to the former While a separate and independent civil action for damages may be brought against the employee under Article 33 of the Civil Code.Defamation. Aniceto Actions . Considering that bad faith and malice are not necessary in an action based on Article 32 of the Civil Code. otherwise. Physical Injuries . That is why it is not even necessary that the defendant under this Article should have acted with malice or bad faith. under which conviction of the employee is a condition sine qua non for the employer's subsidiary liability.Violation of Fortune Civil and Political Rights Independent Civil Joaquin v.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE The Code Commission thus deemed it necessary to hold not only public officers but also private individuals civilly liable for violation of rights enumerated in Article 32 of the Civil Code. no such action may be filed against the employer on the latter's subsidiary civil liability because such liability is governed not by the Civil Code but by the Penal Code. which is the effective protection of individual rights. the failure to specifically allege the same will not amount to failure to state a cause of action. The complaint in the instant case was brought under Article 32 of the Civil Code.Violation of Fortune Civil and Political Rights Independent Civil Vinzons-Chato v. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Independent Civil Silahis v. It suffices that there is a violation of the constitutional right of the plaintiff. Fraud. Actions . Soluta Actions .Violation of Civil and Political Rights Independent Civil Vinzons-Chato v. it would defeat its main purpose.
SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Independent Civil Madeja v. even if there has been no reservation made by the injured party. and after a criminal action has been commenced. the law itself in this article makes such reservation. a civil action may be filed independently of the criminal action. Physical Injuries . The present articles creates an exception to this rule when the offense is defamation. no civil action arising from the same offense can be prosecuted. It includes not only physical injuries but consummated. Caro Actions .Defamation. This is manifest from the provision which uses the expressions "criminal action" and "criminal prosecution. In these cases. or physical injuries. frustrated and attempted homicide. the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action. The general rule is that when a criminal action is instituted. It is not the crime of physical injuries defined in the Revised Penal Code. unless the offended party reserves his right to institute it separately. Fraud.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Death because of appendectomy The civil action for damages which it allows to be instituted is ex-delicto. fraud. The term "physical injuries" is used in a generic sense.
The term "physical injuries" in Article 33 includes bodily injuries causing death.Defamation. that is. Phil Actions . Pepsi Cola Actions . 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. Physical Injuries Independent Civil Capuno v. . An action based on a QD is governed by Article 33 not QD. Islamic Actions . SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Independent Civil Arafiles v. Fraud." which means from the day the quasi-delict occurred or was committed The institution of a criminal action cannot have the effect of interrupting the institution of a civil action based on a quasi-delict.Defamation. A civil action for libel under this article shall be instituted and prosecuted to final judgment and proved by preponderance of evidence separately from and entirely independent of the institution. Physical Injuries Independent Civil MVRS v. par 1 the prescriptive period of four years shall begin to run. Chan Fraud. as to the question of when been governed by Article 1146.Defamation. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed. Journalists Fraud. Prescriptive period should have Article 1150 of CC. Fraud. Elvin Actions . Physical Injuries Muslims treat pigs as Defamation of a large group does not give sacred rise to a cause of action on the part of an individual unless it can be shown that he is the target of the defamatory matter BP 22 The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE News report about Article 33 contemplates a civil action for the Arafiles being a rapist recovery of damages that is entirely unrelated to the purely criminal aspect of the case. pendency or result of the criminal action because it is governed by the provisions of the New Civil Code and not by the Revised Penal Code governing the criminal offense charged and the civil liability arising therefrom.Defamation. Physical Injuries Independent Civil Heirs of Simon v. "from the day (the action) may be brought.
is. to give the injured party personally the initiative to demand damages by an Criminal negligence. Physical Injuries FOOTNOTE: Physical Injuries is to be understood in its ordinary meaning and does not include homicide or murder because where physical injuries result in homicide or murder. which shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall be proved only by a preponderance of evidence. Physical Injuries Independent Civil Actions . People Dulay v.Defamation. It includes consummated. reckless independent civil action) ceases. CA Lawyer and security guard Velayo v. necessarily extinguished also the civil action for damages based upon the same act. 33 is used in a generic sense. is not one of the three crimes a dead person can no longer personally. Zosa Jervoso v. that is. The term "physical injuries" in Art. the reason for the law (namely.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Criminal negligence The extinction of the criminal action by acquittal of the defendant on the ground that the criminal act charged against him did not exist. Paje Actions . that damages. Fraud. Fraud.Defamation. such declaration is implemented by Article 21 Forgoing rule would vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide for specifically in the statutes . or physical injuries intentionally committed. fraud. for the reason that imprudence. Fraud. Physical Injuries Independent Civil Actions . Article 33 of the Civil Code assumes a defamation. through mentioned in Article 33 which authorizes the his lawyer institute an independent civil action for institution of an independent civil action.Abuse of Rights Bonite v. or attempted homicide Independent Civil Actions . SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Independent Civil Corpus v.Defamation. Fraud.Defamation. frustrated. of an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages. Physical Injuries Human Relation Torts . Shell Transferred credit to Shell US Article 19 only contains a mere declaration of principles and while such statement may be essentially correct.
TOPIC Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights
CASE Globe Mackay v. CA
IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE "Crook" and "swindler"
SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S
When a right is exercised in a manner which Damnum absque injuria does not apply when there does not conform with the norms enshrined in is an abuse of right Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper. In determining whether or not the principle of abuse of rights may be invoked, there is no rigid test which can be applied - depends on the circumstances of each case.
The right of the employer to dismiss an employee should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised and the effects flowing therefrom. If the dismissal is done abusively, then the employer is liable for damages to the employee Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights Albenson v. CA Person sued for insufficient check was the wrong person; it was the father who was sued (namesake) Right suspended by TRO The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19: 1) There is a legal right or duty 2) Which is exercised in bad faith 3) For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it disappears when it is abused, especially to the prejudice of others. Article 19 - act must be intentional Article 20 - either intentional or unintentional Article 21 - intentional
Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights
Amonoy v. Gutierrez
Damnum absque injuria does not apply when there is an abuse of right Strange because there is no right already
TOPIC Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights
CASE UE v. Jader
IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Law student not able to take the bar because she got a 5 for which she was not informed on time
SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S
Absence of good faith must be sufficiently In determining applicability of Article 19: established for a successful prosecution by 1) Apply words of provision the aggrieved party in a suit for abuse of right 2) See if elements are present under Article 19 of the Civil Code. Good faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking undue advantage of another, even though the forms and technicalities of the law, together with the absence of all information or belief of facts, would render the transaction unconscientious. No abuse of right Test of Abuse of Right - There is undoubtedly an abuse of right when it is exercised for the only purpose of prejudicing or injuring another. The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established, and must not be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to injure another. Good faith refers to the state of the mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. Good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment to simple negligence, dishonest purpose or some moral obloquy and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or ill-will that partakes of the nature of fraud. Malice connotes ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive.
Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights
Collection for a sum of money
Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights
Diaz v. Davao Light
Theft of electricity
TOPIC Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights Human Relation Torts - Illegal Acts
CASE Pantaleon v. American Express Garcia v. Salvador
IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE
SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S No abuse of right
Wrong hepatitis test result
Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores
Velayo v. Shell
Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores
Albenson v. CA
Article 20 provides the legal basis for the award of damages to a party who suffers damage whenever one commits an act in violation of some legal provision. This was incorporated by the Code Commission to provide relief to a person who suffers damage because another has violated some legal provision. Every good law draws its breath of life from morals, from those principles which are written with words of fire in the conscience of man. If this premises is admitted, then the proposed rule is a prudent earnest of justice in the face of the impossibility of enumerating, one by one, all wrongs which cause damages. Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the following elements: 1) There is an act which is legal 2) But which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy 3) And it is done with intent to injure.
From Albenson : Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own sanction. Thus, anyone who, whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall indemnify his victim for injuries suffered thereby.
Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores
Wassmer v. Velez
Groom to be went to Mindanao a day before the wedding
There is a common element under Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act must be intentional. This is not a case of mere breach of promise Humiliation + Expenses - basis of damages to marry. Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the abovedescribed preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21.
TOPIC Human Relation Torts . persuasions and wiles. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Woman got pregnant 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. that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals. It is essential. could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 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 which followed thereafter. proof that he had. She must be induced to depart from the path of virtue by the use of some species of arts. in reality. there is no seduction. no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act. If she consents merely from carnal lust and the intercourse is from mutual desire. and the defendant merely affords her the needed opportunity for the commission of the act. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Human Relation Torts .Acts Contra Bonus Mores Baksh v. . good customs or public policy. which are calculated to have and do have that effect. and which result in her ultimately submitting her person to the sexual embraces of her seducer. CA BAKSH RULE: Where a man's promise to Article 21 does not require proximate cause marry is in fact the proximate cause of the because it is not QD acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress. It is not seduction where the willingness arises out of sexual desire or curiosity of the female.Acts Contra Bonus Mores CASE Tanjanco v. however.
SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Pe took advantage of their family. the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious prosecution Dismissal of the case does not automatically give rise to a cause of action for malicious prosecution Presence of probable cause signifies as a legal consequence absence of malice . He has committed an injury to Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals.Acts Contra Bonus Mores CASE Pe v. there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person. good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code. Pe IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Man is married. tarnished their reputation No moral seduction Human Relation Torts . Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief.TOPIC Human Relation Torts . daughter and man eloped The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he is a married man.Acts Contra Bonus Mores Que v. acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor. Concededly. that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which be was prosecuted To constitute malicious prosecution. in a reasonable mind. IAC Stop payment order One cannot be held liable in damages for because goods were maliciously instituting a prosecution where he defective acted with probable cause. that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless.
One begun in malice without probable cause to believe the charges can be sustained. or other proceeding in favor of the defendant therein. 2217 and 2219 (8) . or other legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause. all three elements must concur: 1) the fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor and that the action finally terminated with an acquittal 2) that in bringing the action. 35. civil suit.Acts Contra Bonus Mores CASE Drilon v. 33. 26. for the mere purpose of vexation or injury SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S For a malicious prosecution suit to prosper. 29. after the termination of such prosecution. For this injury an action on the case lies. 21. 20. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Coup d'etat American Jurisdiction . the prosecutor acted without probable cause 3) that the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice. that is by improper or sinister motive The statutory basis for a civil action for damages for malicious prosecution are Articles 19. Instituted with intention of injuring defendant and without probable cause. and which terminates in favor of the person prosecuted. 32.An action for damages brought by one against whom a criminal prosecution. called the action of malicious prosecution Phil Jurisdiction .TOPIC Human Relation Torts . The gist of the action is the putting of legal process in force. suit. regularly.
give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith (Article 19. Civil Code). personality. Civil Code).TOPIC Human Relation Torts . Everyone must respect the dignity. but the deliberate initiation of an action with the knowledge that the charges were false and groundless Four elements: 1) the prosecution did occur.While generally associated with unfounded criminal actions. privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons (Article 26. why base policy to humiliate. Espino Accused of shoplifting Mere filing of a suit does not render a person liable for malicious prosecution should he be unsuccessful. Junsay IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Household helper accomplice in the theft MP .Acts Contra Bonus Mores CASE Magbanua v.not the filing of a complaint based on the wrong provision of law. the prosecutor acted without probable cause 4) the prosecution was impelled by legal malice -. for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate. and the defendant was himself the prosecutor or that he instigated its commencement. good customs and public Very easy to decide based on Article 19.Acts Contra Bonus Mores Grand Union v. embarrass and degrade it on Article 21? Why add Article 26? the dignity of a person. . It is against morals.an improper or a sinister motive SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Human Relation Torts . the term has been expanded to include unfounded civil suits instituted just to vex and humiliate the defendant despite the absence of a cause of action or probable cause. 2) the criminal action finally ended with an acquittal 3) in bringing the action. Gravamen . And one must act with justice.
good customs or public policy. the sanction for which. Human Relation Torts . but to malign diamond jewelry respondent without an iota of proof that she was the one who actually stole the jewelry is an act which.Violation of Human Dignity St Louis v.Violation of Human Dignity Human Relation Torts . privacy and peace of mind. no. Sta Ines Human Relation Torts . CA Article 26 grants a cause of action for damages. though not necessarily constituting a criminal offense. Makati Shangri-la . personality. then the respondents violated article 1701 of the Civil Code which prohibits acts of oppression by either capital or labor against the other. petitioner had the right to ascertain the accused of stealing identity of the malefactor. as the complaint alleges. by way of moral damages. and article 21. prevention.Acts Contra Bonus Mores Quisaba v. Petitioner had willfully caused injury to respondent in a manner which is contrary to morals and good customs.Acts Contra Bonus Mores CASE Carpio v. 10. Valmonte IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Wedding coordinator True. is provided in article 2219. Internal auditor constructively dismissed If the dismissal was done anti-socially or oppressively.Violation of Human Dignity Spouses Guanio v. Respondent’s lack of prudence is an affront to this right. Article 26 merely invoked SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Human Relation Torts . by any standard or principle of law is impermissible. and other relief in cases of breach.TOPIC Human Relation Torts . CA Mix up of houses Under which situation does it fall? Gregorio v. of the following rights: 1) right to personal dignity 2) right to personal security 3) right to family relations 4) right to social intercourse 5) right to privacy 6) right to peace of mind Bad service for wedding reception The Court recognizes that every person is entitled to respect of his dignity. which makes a person liable for damages if he wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals.
If disturbance or loss come as a result of competition. or the exercise of like rights by others. not merely de minimis. He has no right to be free from malicious and wanton interference. disturbance or annoyance. The elements of tort interference are: 1) existence of a valid contract 2) knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of contract 3) interference of the third person is without legal justification or excuse Justification exists where the actor's motive is to benefit himself Justification does not exist where his sole motive is to cause harm to the other Not necessary: 1) that the interferer's interest outweigh that of the party whose rights are invaded 2) that an individual acts under an economic interest that is substantial. it is damnum absque injuria.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Lease of film Everyone has a right to enjoy the fruits and advantages of his own enterprise. unless some superior right by contract or otherwise is interfered with. Cuddy Contractual Relations Interference with So Ping Bun v. skill and credit. such that wrongful and malicious motives are negatived. CA Contractual Relations Warehouse . for he acts in selfprotection SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Interference with Gilchrist v. industry.
Interference with Go v. or as otherwise expressed. Lack of malice precludes damages but does not relieve him of legal liability for entering into contracts and causing breach SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Interference with Lagon v. Damages may be defined as the pecuniary compensation.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Justification for protecting one's financial position should not be made to depend on a comparison of his economic interest in the subject matter with that of others. a contracting party may sue a third person not for breach but for inducing another to commit such breach. recompense. It is sufficient if the impetus of his conduct lies in a proper business interest rather than in wrongful motives. Cordero Contractual Relations Sea vessel Concept of Damages People v. Ballesteros . CA Contractual Relations Rental “induce” refers to situations where a person causes another to choose one course of conduct by persuasion or intimidation While it is true that a third person cannot possibly be sued for breach of contract because only parties can breach contractual provisions. or satisfaction for an injury sustained. the pecuniary consequences which the law imposes for the breach of some duty or the violation of some right.
or damage without wrong.illegal invasion of a legal right Damage . does not constitute a cause of action. since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong Injury .TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE To warrant the recovery of damages. Wrong without damage. CA .recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Concept of Damages Custodio v. there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant. hurt.loss. and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom. or harm which results from the injury Damages .
in QD.REFERENCE Barredo vs Garcia CRIMES Affect the public interest QUASI-DELICTS Affect only that of private concern SIR CASIS' COMMENTS QD has public concern under Article 2180 which embodies state interest in teacher and students. parent and child.exemplary and nominal Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act Civil Code. subject to the employee employer’s defense of exercise of the diligence of a good father of the family . Hill L. because Include all acts in which "any kind of fault or the former are punished only if there is a penal negligence intervenes" law clearly covering them Violation of the criminal law Of ancient origin. merely repairs the damage Elcano vs. the only one with locus standi is the injured party QD has a punitive aspect in that there are punitive kinds of damages . Foods v. having always had its own foundation and individuality. by means of indemnification. Philadelfa Delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts.G. state agents Difference really is STANDING TO SUE . separate from criminal negligence Plaintiff can hold the employer subsidiarily liable Plaintiff may hold the employer liable for the only upon proof of prior conviction of its negligent act of its employee.
CA TORTS An Anglo-American or common law concept Much broader than culpa aquiliana because it includes not only negligence. with certain exceptions. false imprisonment and deceit Commenced and maintained by injured person State can never sue in tort in its political or government capacity although it may do so as owner of property Primary purpose is to compensate for damage suffered at the expense of the wrongdoer Prosser and Keeton QUASI-DELICTS A civil law concept Intentional and malicious acts. but international criminal acts as well such as assault and battery. are to be governed by the Revised Penal Code while negligent acts or omissions are to be covered by Article 2176 of the Civil Code Offense against the public at large.REFERENCE Baksh vs. state will bring proceedings (criminal prosecution) Purpose of proceeding is to protect an vindicate interests of the public as a whole Criminal prosecution is not concerned directly with compensation of injured individual against whom the crime is committed Victim's part .accuser and witness of state .
that of extraordinary diligence) 2) Attendance of fortuitous event. Manila Railroad Liability of defendant employer Defendant employer's defense QUASI-DELICTS Presumptive liability Rebut presumption through proof of the exercise of due care in selection and supervision Created by the wrongful or negligent act/omission BREACH OF CONTRACT Direct and immediate Prove performance of contract or contributory negligence? SIR CASIS' COMMENTS Liability both direct and primary Vinculum juris (legal tie) Independent of the breach of duty assumed by the parties What a plaintiff needs to prove Defendant's fault or negligence The contract and its nonperformance. San Pedro Definition Governing law Mere proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance 1) Proof of his exercise of due Due diligence different from due diligence (diligence of a good diligence in the selection and father of a family or by stipulation supervision of employees or by law. to excuse him from his ensuing liability Wrongful or negligent act or Fault or negligence incident in the omission which creates a performance of an obligation vinculum juris and gives rise to an which already existed. negligence need not be proved FGU Insurance v.REFERENCE Cangco v. Sarmiento What a plaintiff needs to prove Defense Batal v. and which obligation between two persons increases the liability from such not formally bound by any other already existing obligation obligation Article 2176 of the Civil Code and Articles 1170-1174 of the Civil the immediately following Articles Code .
fraudulent. CA Source Has as its source the negligence of the tortfeasor Negligence or fault should be clearly established because it is the basis of the action What a plaintiff needs to prove Premised upon the negligence in the performance of a contractual obligation Action can be prosecuted merely by proving the existence of the contract and the fact that the obligor failed to fulfill his obligation Fores v. CA Moral damages Exemplary damages Not applicable Recoverable only if passenger dies or if there is malice or bad faith Proof of due diligence in selection and supervision of employees not available Carrier's fault or negligence Injury to passenger. par 2) Proof of due diligence in selection and supervision of employees What a plaintiff needs to prove Far East v. no need to prove that it was carrier's fault Recoverable for QD causing Recoverable only if passenger physical injuries (Article 2219. CA Proof required Defense of exercising the required diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is not a complete defense in culpa contractual. The burden is on the defendant to prove that he was not at fault or negligent Not a complete defense Consolidated Bank v. Miranda Proximate cause Moral damages Defendant carrier's defense Applicable Recoverable for QD causing physical injuries (Article 2219. there is a presumption that the defendant was at fault or negligent. or malevolent manner The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant was negligent Once the plaintiff proves a breach of contract. oppressive. par dies or if there is malice or bad 2) faith If the defendant is shown to have If the defendant is found to have been so guilty of gross negligence acted in a wanton.Calalas v. as to approximate malice reckless. unlike in culpa aquiliana Contributory negligence and last clear chance Complete defense Merely serve to reduce the recovery of damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from his breach of contract .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.