You are on page 1of 2


28, 1966 When culpa aquiliana may arise even when there is a pre-existing contract between the parties FACTS: Carrascoso, a civil engineer, was a first class passenger of Air France on his way to Rome for a pilgrimage. From Manila to Bangkok, he traveled in first class, but at Bangkok, the Manager of Air France forced him to vacate his seat in favor of a white man who had a better right to the seat. Carrascoso filed for moral damages, averring in his complaint the contract of carriage between Air France and himself. Air France claims that to authorize an award for moral damages there must be an averment of fraud or bad faith, upon which Carrascosos complaint is silent. ISSUE: Whether or not Carrascoso is entitled to award for moral damages HELD: The foregoing substantially aver: First, That there was a contract to furnish plaintiff a first class passage covering, amongst others, the Bangkok-Teheran leg; Second, That said contract was breached when petitioner failed to furnish first class transportation at Bangkok; and Third, That there was bad faith when petitioners employee compelled Carrascoso to leave his first class accommodation berth after he was already seated and to take a seat in the tourist class, by reason of which he suffered inconvenience, embarrassment and humiliation, thereby causing him mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation, resulting in moral damages. It is true that there is no specific mention of the term bad faith in the complaint. But, the inference of bad faith is there; it may be drawn from the facts and circumstances set forth therein. The contract was averred to establish the relation between the parties. But the stress of the action is put on wrongful expulsion.

NOTA BENE: Here there is a contract of carriage between the parties and such contract was breached by Air France when it wrongfully forced Carrascoso to vacate the first class seat which he paid for. The wrongful expulsion is independent of the breach since even without the contract, such wrongful expulsion may still make Air France liable for damages. In other words, the wrongful expulsion is in itself a tort.

ELCANO VS HILL 77 SCRA 100 May 26, 1977 Torts and Damages Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes Reginald Hill, a minor, caused the death of Agapito (son of Elcano). Elcano filed a criminal case against Reginald but Reginald was acquitted for lack of intent coupled with mistake. Elcano then filed a civil action against Reginald and his dad (Marvin Hill) for damages based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Hill argued that the civil action is barred by his sons acquittal in the criminal case; and that if ever, his civil liability as a parent has been extinguished by the fact that his son is already an emancipated minor by reason of his marriage. ISSUE: Whether or not Marvin Hill may be held civilly liable under Article 2180. HELD: Yes. The acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case does not bar the filing of a separate civil action. A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if accused is actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused. Briefly stated, culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law. While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child (Article 327, Civil Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place by the marriage of the minor child, it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute. Thus Emancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental authority over the childs person. It shall enable the minor to administer his property as though he were of age, but he

cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real property without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian. Therefore, Article 2180 is applicable to Marvin Hill the SC however ruled since at the time of the decision, Reginald is already of age, Marvins liability should be subsidiary only as a matter of equity.


Facts: On May 3, 1936, there was a head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate taxicab driven by Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Dimapilis. The carretela was over-turned, and a passenger, a 16-year old boy, Garcia, suffered injuries from which he died. A criminal action was filed against Fontanilla, and he was convicted. The court in the criminal case granted the petition to reserve the civil action. Garcia and Almario, parents of the deceased, on March 7, 1939, filed a civil action against Barredo, the proprietor of the Malate Taxicab and employer of Fontanilla, making him primarily and directly responsible under culpa acquiliana of Article 2180 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. It is undisputed that Fontanillas negligence was the cause of the accident, as he was driving on the wrong side of the road at high speed, and there was no showing that Barredo exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, a defense to Article 2180 of the said Code. Barredos theory of defense is that Fontanillas negligence being punished by the Revised Penal Code, his liability as employer is only subsidiary, but Fontanilla, was not sued for civil liability. Hence, Barredo claims that he cannot be held liable. Issue: Whether or not Barredo, as employer is civilly liable for the acts of Fontanilla, his employee. Held: Quasi-delict or culpa acquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code of the Philippines is entirely distinct and independent from a delict or crime under the Revised Penal Code. In this jurisdiction, the same negligent act causing damage may produce civil liability (subsidiary) arising from a crime under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines; or create an action for quasi-delicto or culpa aquiliana under Articles 2179 and 2180 of the Civil Code and the parties are free to choose which course to take. And in the instant case, the negligent act of Fontanilla produces two (2) liabilities of Barredo: First, a subsidiary one because of the civil liability of Fontanilla arising from the latters criminal negligence under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, and second, Barredos primary and direct responsibility arising from his presumed negligence as an employer under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Since the plaintiffs are free to choose what remedy to take, they preferred the second, which is within their rights. This is the more expedious and effective method of relief because Fontanilla was either in prison or just been released or had no property. Barredo was held liable for damages. SINGSON AND DEL CASTILLO VS. BPI AND FREIXAS JULIAN SINGSON and RAMONA DEL CASTILLO vs. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and SANTIAGO FREIXAS (Pres. Of BPI) G.R. No. L-24837. 29 June 1968. CONCEPCION, C.J.: Facts: Appeal by plaintiffs from a decision of the CFI Mla dismissing their complaint against defendants. On May 8, 1963, the Singsong commenced the present action against the Bank and its president, Freixas, for damages in consequence of said illegal freezing of plaintiffs' account. After appropriate proceedings, the CFI Mla rendered judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that plaintiffs cannot recover from the defendants upon the basis of a quasi-delict, because the relation between the parties is contractual in nature. Issue: WON the existence of a contractual relation between the parties bar recovery of damages. Ruling: The judgment appealed from is reversed holding defendant BPI to pay to the plaintiffs nominal damages, and attorney's fees, apart from the costs. The SC have repeatedly held that the existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the commission of a tort by the one against the order and the consequent recovery of damages therefore. In view, of the facts obtaining in the case at bar, and considering, particularly, the circumstance, that the wrong done to the plaintiff was remedied as soon as the President of the bank realized the mistake they had committed, the Court finds that an award of nominal damages the amount of which need not be proven in the sum of P1,000, in addition to attorney's fees in the sum of P500, would suffice to vindicate plaintiff's rights.