You are on page 1of 15

(DAY 10) NUISANCE : TORT ARISING FROM PROPERTY USE Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property. Art. 697. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person injured to recover damages for its past existence. Art. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are: (1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or (2) A civil action; or (3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings. Art. 703. A private person may file an action on account of a public nuisance, if it is specially injurious to himself. Art. 704. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to him by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But it is necessary: (1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to abate the nuisance; (2) That such demand has been rejected;
(3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and executed with the assistance of the local police;

(4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand pesos. Art. 705. The remedies against a private nuisance are: (1) A civil action; or (2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings. Art. 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance, without committing a breach of the peace or doing unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensable that the procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance by a private person be followed. Art. 707. A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable for damages: (1) If he causes unnecessary injury; or (2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance.  CONCEPT • • • • Derived from the French word nuire, which means to injure, hurt or harm. Literally: it means annoyance, or anything that works hurt, inconvenience, or injury. Nuisance doctrine operates as a restriction upon the right of the owner of property to make such use of it as he pleases. NUISANCE is applied to that class of wrongs which arises from the unreasonable, unwarrantable, or unlawful use by a person of his own property,

Torts | Day 10 | 1

and which produces such material annoyance. Negligence: does not apply • It has been held that where the acts or omissions constituting negligence are the identical acts which. discomfort. the failure to use the degree of care required under particular circumstances. The building of a structure may be negligence and at the same a nuisance rendering the one creating it liable without proof of negligence. liability for negligence: based on a want of care. inconvenience. To be liable for a nuisance. NEGLIGENCE (1) As to Liability: there must be some breach of duty. Nuisance: violation of an absolute duty. harm or prejudice to an individual or the public is a nuisance. or hurt. a. with the exercise of due care. (2) As to Violation: a. the rules applicable to negligence will be applied. and can include injury to rights or property enjoyment. Where however. Injury need not be physical. Negligence: violation of a relative duty. the liability of the lessor of a land or building in a condition dangerous to the health or safety of the public depends upon whether he knew. ought to have . Greenville) • • • o o • In trespass. it is consequential. Torts | Day 10 | 1 o Ex.  An encroachment upon the space about another’s land but not upon the land itself is a nuisance and not a trespass. or. • Anything that works an injury. liability for nuisance: a person who creates or maintains nuisance is liable for the resulting injury to others regardless of the degree of care to avoid the injury. or is incident to the business itself a. it is asserted. TRESSPASS o A nuisance consists of a use of one’s own property in such a manner as to cause injury to the property or other right or interest of another. in nuisance. A trespass is a direct infringement of another’s right of property. (3) As to Consequence: the damage is the necessary consequence of what the defendant is doing. the doing of an act which is wrongful in itself. Nuisance: applies b. that the law will presume a consequent damage. the injury is direct and immediate. NUISANCE vs. NUISANCE vs. b. give rise to a cause of action for nuisance . and generally results from the commission of an act beyond the limits of the property affected. there must be resulting injury to another in the enjoyment of his legal rights. (Conestee Mills v. b. It embraces both intentional harms and those caused by negligence or recklessness. Law of nuisance is a subcategory of tort law in that the gravamen of the complaint in nuisance is the allegation of injury to person or property .

or surroundings. All squatters on government resettlement projects. Houses constructed without governmental authority on public streets and river beds for they obstruct at all times the free use by the public of said places. As such. location.  The difference between nuisance per se and nuisance per accidens lies in the proof. occupation. • EXISTENC E • • ABATEME NT • • Torts | Day 10 | 1 . Generoso. not a nuisance per se. A nuisance because of its inherent qualities. not in the remedy. of its dangerous condition. persons and property would not have the right to compel the abatement of a may be summarily abated under particular thing or act as a the undefined law of necessity nuisance without reasonable notice to the person alleged to be maintaining or doing the same at the time and place of hearing before a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing or act does in law constitute a nuisance (Monteverde vs. the manner of its conduct or other circumstances existence may be proved • proof of the act and its without a showing of specific damages consequences is necessary. occupation. (Mendoza vs. 1982)  NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS: an act.   The coal hole. PER SE PER ACCIDENS whether it is a nuisance or not is generally a question of fact the thing becomes a nuisance as • depends upon its location and a matter of law surroundings. or structure which is unquestionably a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances. they can be abated or ejected without judicial proceedings. National Housing Authority . they may be summarily removed without judicial proceedings. regardless of location or surroundings . but which may become a nuisance by reason of circumstances.known. The tumbledown house abutting on a highway is transformed into an unlawful structure if its ruinous condition is a menace to the traveler. productive of injury or dangerous to life or property without regard to circumstance. gambling houses. or structure. an action by one injured as a result thereof may take the form of one for nuisance or one for negligence. The responsibility for a nuisance for either sort is the same. • • • A house of prostitution is a nuisance per se aside from being a public nuisance. • Raising and breeding pigs in a house within city limits is a nuisance per accidens. o NUISANCE based on their nature: PER SE & PER ACCIDENS  NUISANCE PER SE: an act. the right to relief is established by averment and proof of the mere act affects the immediate safety of • even the municipal authorities. built under a license. may involve a liability for nuisance if there is negligence in covering it. o There may be situations where what was lawful in its origin may be turned into a nuisance by negligence in maintenance .

 the complainant need not have property or use interest in any property affected by the defendant’s conduct. unwarrantable. It is a nuisance which causes hurt. • •  PRIVATE NUISANCE: • • one which violates only private rights and produces damage to but one or a few persons. inconvenience. SCOPE REMEDY  TEST OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE Torts | Day 10 | 1 • • The distinction between a public nuisance and a private nuisance lie in the extent or scope of its injurious effect. Injunctive relief may be granted against a private nuisance. It is a condition of things which is prejudicial to the health. or the holder of one or more other use rights. safety. or morals of the citizens at large. current interest in the undisturbed enjoyment of or benefit from property. discomfort.  private nuisance are actionable. or such a part of the public as necessarily comes in contact with it in the exercise of a public or common right. or hurt that the law will presume a consequent damage. .  The plaintiff need not own the property — he need only be a lawful occupant. inconvenience. or both. comfort. sense of decency. but to all who come within its sphere. The test of a public nuisance is the possibility of injury or annoyance not to the public.1928) o NUISANCE according to the extent or scope of their injurious effects : PUBLIC & PRIVATE  PUBLIC NUISANCE: • the doing of or the failure to do something that injuriously affects safety. or unlawful use of one’s property produces such material annoyance. either for their abatement or for damages. or damage to the public generally.  The complainant seeks to protect his own. and cannot be said to be public. or works some substantial annoyance. inconvenience. resulting either from an act not warranted by law. It has been said to exist where one is injured in relation to a right which he enjoys by reason of his ownership of an interest in land. or injury to the public. property. PUBLIC  affects the public at large or such of them as may come in contact with it  Public nuisances are indictable. health. and where an individual wrong arising from an unreasonable. PRIVATE  affects the individual or a limited number of individuals only. or neglect of a duty imposed by law. or morals of the public.

o Raising and breeding animals (pigs. Example: o A house abutting on a street railway track is a private nuisance to the railway company and a public nuisance because it obstructs the street. or is imperatively demanded by public convenience. Whether or not it becomes a nuisance depends upon the location. While it would not necessarily depend upon the degree of care used in the storage.  Injury to a particular person in a peculiar position or of specially sensitive characteristics will not render the noise an actionable nuisance. it may be a public nuisance because it violates public rights to the injury of many persons. or is authorized by a valid statute or ordinance. if their effects are such as to fall within the definition of a nuisance. Torts | Day 10 | 1 • TEST: . (Javier v. Ozaeta)  NOISE AS A NUISANCE • GENERALLY: everyone is bound to bear the habitual or customary inconveniences that result from the proximity of others. it must be a noise which affects injuriously the health or comfort of ordinary people in the vicinity to an unreasonable extent. by an invasion of its rights which all are entitled to exercise if they see fit. pernicious to health. the manner in which the tanks are constructed and operated may be considered. and so long as this level is not surpassed. constitutes a public nuisance as well as nuisance per se and. etc. goats and sheep) for commercial purposes in a vicinity that is fast becoming a fashionable residential district and where it is shown that the place where the animals are kept are found to be unsanitary on account of the offensive odors. Example: A private basketball court built on government land devoted to public use. he may not complain against them. and it may also be private in character in that it produces special injury to private rights to any extent beyond the injury to the public. The fact that it is also used as a venue for public meetings does not make it less a nuisance. the neighbor who causes such disturbance is held responsible for the resulting damage.  MIXED NUISANCES • A nuisance may be both public and private in character.o o there is a tendency to the annoyance of the public. and other surrounding circumstances. • WHEN ACTIONABLE o A noise may constitute an actionable nuisance. o • Public nuisance always arise out of unlawful acts. the quantity. therefore. that acts or conditions may be beneficial to the public in some degree will not prevent them from being a nuisance. either private or public. being guilty of causing nuisance. constitutes both public and private nuisance. can be summarily abated. coming from manure scattered therein. and an act cannot be a nuisance if it is lawful. stagnant water. • • The keeping or storage of gasoline may constitute a nuisance. o BUT: if the prejudice exceeds the inconveniences that such proximity habitually brings.

wherever they go. even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises. one who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play . is the so-called “attractive nuisance” doctrine.) EXCEPTION — An exception to the rule absolving from liability owners or occupants of premises. in their immature judgment. in reference to injuries sustained by persons trespassing upon their property. Balandan)   BASIS OF LIABILITY. v. might naturally suppose o Torts | Day 10 | 1 . and others. must be expected to act upon children’s instincts and impulses. in a particular locality in fact devoted to uses which involve the emission of noise although ordinary care is taken to confine it within reasonably bounds. who are chargeable with a duty of care and caution toward them. and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto. Inc. —found in the general rules which determine the duty of an owner or occupant to trespassers and the degree of care which must be exercised toward children of tender years. o the tender age of the child requires the owner to take precautions for safety that he would not be bound to take for the protection of an adult. and to exercise ordinary care for the safety of such children. The use of the expression “ attractive nuisance” is to designate a class of cases within the general rule that one is liable for injury resulting to another from failure to exercise the degree of care commensurate with the circumstances.  One who maintains upon his premises an instrumentality or conditions attractive to children is bound to anticipate the presence of children who will be allured to and upon the premises by the attraction. or of holding property.o Whether rights of property. • Children acting upon their instincts and impulses to be expected o Children. • Thus. 2d 804. If they are exposed to injury from unseen dangers. must calculate accordingly. (38 Am. ( Hidalgo Enterprises. without right or invitation. the responsibility therefor is upon themselves.  • Extra precautions to be taken for their safety. or comfort are so injuriously affected by the noise in question that the sufferer is subjected to a loss which goes beyond the reasonable limit imposed upon him by the condition of living. Jur. o ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE  GENERAL RULE —that when people come to the lands or premises of others for their own purposes. • Presence of children to be anticipated — o GENERAL RULE: an owner or occupant must exercise ordinary care to prevent an injury to a trespasser whose presence upon the premises is reasonably to be anticipated. they must take the lands or premises as they see them. If they leave exposed to the observation of children anything tempting to them which they. health. is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby .

erecting guards. Thus. o • Without serious inconvenience and great expense to owner o There is no duty to take precautions where to do so would be impracticable. v. Balandan) •  DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED. artificial as well as natural. provided he exercises ordinary care or reasonable care to prevent them from being injured while playing therewith. providing fences or barricades. Torts | Day 10 | 1 .  APPLICATION TO BODIES OF WATER • generally is not applicable to bodies of water. as are reasonably sufficient to prevent trespassing by children It is the failure to take such precautions which authorizes a recovery under the doctrine of attractive nuisance. or intolerable. it should be expected that such liberty will be taken. but only against such injuries as can be reasonably anticipated to occur from the object or instrumentality involved. Inc. … he is not liable because of having created an attractive nuisance. Lurking in their waters is always the danger of drowning. merely duplicating the work of nature without adding any new danger. — No one is an insurer of the safety of children merely because he is the owner of places or appliances that may appeal to their youthful fences. children are earlier instructed so that they are sufficiently presumed to know the danger. “Nature has created streams. Against this danger. take such measures or precautions:     giving warning of danger.they were at liberty to handle or play with. in the absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and its location. unreasonable. and if the owner of private property creates an artificial pool on his own property.” (Hidalgo Enterprises. or furnishing other means. a swimming pool or pond or reservoir of water is not considered an attractive nuisance. lakes and pools which attract children. installing safety devices. • Ordinary or reasonable care o A landowner has a right to maintain a dangerous instrumentality on his premises that are attractive to children. Any requirement must not be so onerous as to make ownership or possession of property burdensome instead of being profitable or enjoyable. o • Remote or improbable injuries o An owner of land is not required to provide against remote or improbable injuries to children who came upon the premises.

The owner’s knowledge of the child’s peril may appear from the nature and kind of attraction or from the location and accessibility of the attraction. unless the presence of the injured child is reasonably to be anticipated. Where a child is in a place where he has a right to be. they owe no duty to keep their land free from dangerous conditions. Example: one of the reasons given for the general rule that a fire escape is not an attractive nuisance is that it is impracticable to construct fire escapes so that they will serve usefully for the purpose for which they are intended and yet be inaccessible to adventurous children. or where the child was present by invitation of one not authorized by the owner or occupant to act in this respect. o the danger to the child be caused by the attraction itself. as where the child was brought upon the premises by his parent when the latter entered on a personal errand. since. Ground for anticipating child’s presence o — One of the essential conditions of liability under the doctrine of attractive nuisance is that there must have been ground for anticipating the presence of the injured child. or as a vantage point for viewing an independent attraction upon other premises. It may be shown that the child was upon the premises for another reason. o o  • Dangers to which doctrine applicable/not applicable . To children whose presence upon the premises cannot be reasonably anticipated. o  ANTICIPATION OF INJURED CHILD’S PRESENCE • The defendant is not liable unless he knew. that the structure or instrumentality was alluring to children and endangered them.o The duty to safeguard the dangerous attraction is subject to the qualification that it can be done without serious inconvenience and great expense to the owner. Torts | Day 10 | 1 . • o • Reason For Child’s Presence o The reason for an injured child’s presence upon the premises is important in determining whether the proprietor should have anticipated his presence. or where he was merely using the premises for a shortcut. Child’s presence due to the attraction  It must be shown that the presence of the child was due to the attraction. there is no reason for anticipating its presence. The owners of land are not required in using it for legitimate purposes to guard against every possible dangers to children. or reasonably ought to have known. or by something with which the attraction brings the child in contact. the duty of taking precautions for his safety does not arise.

is an important consideration. The right to successive actions serves the double purpose of compensating the plaintiff and inducing the defendant to abate the nuisance. all damages must be obtained in one action. but it does not protect a child against the owner of the premises if the danger was not an incident to the place. as where the defendant repeatedly floods the plaintiff’s lands.  Pits and excavations on land embody no dangers that are not readily apparent to everyone. or hidden and latent. but was created by the child himself.  The action for damages permits the plaintiff to recover for all damages caused up to the time of the suit if the nuisance was such that the defendant may be expected to abate it. Again. In addition. however. it prevents one person from practically compelling another to sell a legal right. to fence or otherwise guard such places. The character of the danger. as a rule. as open and obvious. For this reason. Dangers of an ordinary character as those from fire and steam.   o ACTION FOR DAMAGES AGAINST A NUISANCE. and he will not be liable for injuries to children who may have fallen therein. its continuance constitutes a new nuisance and gives rise to another action for damages.   Torts | Day 10 | 1 . considering the instrumentality from which it arises. is not within the meaning of the attractive nuisance doctrine. If the defendant fails to abate the nuisance. and affords no basis for a recovery where the injury complained of was produced by a peril of an obvious or patent character. The abatement of a nuisance may have taken place after injury or damage has already been caused. o o o o o Nor is the landowner liable for injuries sustained by earth falling into excavations as a result of the embankment being undermined by children. be so concealed as to authorize a recovery. o ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND RECOVERY OF DAMAGES. But if the nuisance cannot be abated or is such that the court will not enjoin its continuance. may. The injured person may still recover damages resulting from or growing out of the nuisance which has been abated. The rule is just and serves to discourage and punish anyone who causes a nuisance.o Applicable for the protection of even a meddling child. a child’s knowledge of the danger may be inferred from the fact that he has been warned thereof. for the reason that an owner or occupant is entitled to assume that the parents or guardian of a child will have warned him to avoid such a peril.  The action to abate and the action to recover damages are distinct remedies either or both of which the plaintiff may pursue at his election. The owner of property abated as a nuisance is not entitled to compensation unless he can show that the abatement is unjustified. A danger which is not only obvious but natural. even to very young children. The age of the injured child is material consideration in determining whether the peril was one which he should have recognized. The doctrine is limited in its application to cases where the danger is latent. the proprietor is under no obligation.

the compensation shall be equitably reduced. mechanics or other employees . if the death or personal injury arose out of and in the course of the employment . OR VOLUNTARY ACT. liable independent of fault . When the employee's lack of due care contributed to his death or injury . THE EMPLOYER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR COMPENSATION . o o Torts | Day 10 | 1 . workmen. UNLESS it should be shown that the latter did not exercise due diligence in the selection or supervision of the plaintiff’s fellow-worker (1217. Note:  if the death or injury is due to the negligence of a fellow-worker. Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to pay compensation for the death of or injuries to their laborers. That the owner or posssesor of the animal is still liable even if damage was caused by the animal through the fault of third persons. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage. EXCEPTION: when the damage was caused by force majeure or by the person who suffered the damage. 1989). NCC)  • OWNER OF ANIMALS Art. even though the event may have been purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause. IF THE MISHAP WAS DUE TO THE EMPLOYEE'S OWN NOTORIOUS NEGLIGENCE. 2183.JUDICIAL ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE. It serves the dual purpose of providing a sort of deterrent against the improvident or unreasonable resort to the remedy by unscrupulous parties AND at the same time affords the victim a civil remedy to recover damages without prejudice to such other remedies granted by law. (Defiras v. the latter and the employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation. the employer shall not be answerable . then the situation is similar to that of force majeure and the possessor is not liable. 1711. If the acts of a third person cannot be foreseen or prevented. IAC. The employer is also liable for compensation if the employee contracts any illness or disease caused by such employment or as the result of the nature of the employment . although it may escape or be lost. • STRICT LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER TO PAY FOR DEATH OR INJURIES TO EMPLOYEES Art. The Civil Code provision is applicable whether the animal is domestic. Escaño). o o The language of the provision indicates that the same is strict liability because liability exists even if the cause is purely accidental. OR DRUNKENNESS. If a fellow-worker’s intentional or malicious act is the only cause of the death or injury. (Vestil vs.o LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES IN CASE OF EXTRA. (1905) o The language of the provision reveals an evident intent to make the possessor or whoever makes use of the animal. domesticated or wild.  Article 707 provides for two grounds to hold a private person or public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance liable for damages. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause.

(Arts. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof. actions for damages in the situations specified thereunder can still be maintained under Article 2176 because any damage may be considered as damage resulting from the proprietor’s failure to exercise due care in the maintenance of his building and that he used his property in such a way that he injured the property of another. 2193.• PROPRIETOR OF BUILDING/THING Art. (4) By emanations from tubes. and the inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate place. the third person suffering damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with said article. (2) By excessive smoke. for the damages he may have been required to pay third parties injured by the collapse of the property. constructed without precautions suitable to the place. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles should be the result of any defect in the construction mentioned in Article 1723. 1663.  Nevertheless. (1909) Art. 2191. 593. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs. toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used. o 2nd paragraph of Article 2191: SC considered the excessive smoke a nuisance that might bring about depreciation in the value of adjoining properties. if not caused by force majeure. the Court ruled that there is no certain pecuniary standard by which such damage can be measured. However. (3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes. and in that sense the threatened injury is irreparable and may appropriately be restrained by injunction (Ollendorf v. 2187. drinks. Abrahamson). Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused: (1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with due diligence. even in the absence of the above-quoted provisions. o • PRODUCT & SERVICE LIABILITY Art.) The failure of the lessee or usufructuary to give this notice will entitle the owner to reimbursement. sewers or deposits of infectious matter. The fact that the property is leased or in usufruct will not exempt the owner from liability for his duty to make necessary repairs remains although the property is legally in the possession and control of another. (1910) o 3rd persons who suffered damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect or contractor if the damage referred to in Articles 2190 and 2191 should be the result of any defect in construction. within the period therein fixed. (1908) Art.  The lessee or the usufructuary is obliged to notify or advise the owner of the need for urgent or extraordinary repairs. (n) o PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW Torts | Day 10 | 1 . is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same. 2192. which may be harmful to persons or property. canals. although no contractual relation exists between them and the consumers.

Towards this end. producer. presentation or packing of their products. Judge Sanco explained that: “That Article 2187 is included in Chapter on Quasidelicts is of no moment because it does not preclude an action based on negligence for the same act of using noxious or harmful substance in the manufacturer or processing of the foodstuffs. 97. shall be liable for redress. Article 97 of the statute expressly provides for liability for defective products “independently of fault. independently of fault. d) provision of adequate rights and means of redress. 2 of the law reveals the general plan implemented in its specific provisions  Declaration of Basic Policy. for damages caused to consumers by defects resulting from design. — Any Filipino or foreign manufacturer.  Privity of contract is not required under Article 2187 because it expressly allows recovery although no contractual relation exists. if the injured party opts to recover on that theory. including but not limited to: Torts | Day 10 | 1 . c) provision of information and education to facilitate sound choice and the proper exercise of rights by the consumer. as well as for the insufficient or inadequate information on the use and hazards thereof. The distinction lies in the kind of recoverable damages and defenses available under each cause of action which will be discussed separately. CA. 1993). In this respect strict liability in tort is indistinguishable from liability for quasi-delict. and e) involvement of consumer representatives in the formulation of social and economic policies. (Coca-Cola Bottler’s Philippines vs. unfair and unconscionable sales acts and practices. The policy statement stated in Art. negligence. manufacture. formulas and handling and making up.” The provision is broad enough to cover cases governed by Article 2187 of the Civil Code. And even under that theory it seems obvious that proof of negligence is likewise unnecessary because it is subsumed from the mere allegation and proof of the essential facts constituting the cause of action under this article. and any importer. promote his general welfare and to establish standards of conduct for business and industry. drinks. taking relevant circumstances into consideration. — It is the policy of the State to protect the interests of the consumer. Liability for the Defective Products. • • “shall” indicates that the liability of the manufacturer and processor is strict. the State shall implement measures to achieve the following objectives: a) protection against hazards to health and safety. b) protection against deceptive. that is meant to protect the consumers by providing for certain safeguards when they purchase or use consumer products. or strict liability. assembly and erection. Liability for defective products may be based on fraud. construction. governs the liability of manufacturers and sellers for damages resulting from defective products. toilet articles or similar goods which caused the death or injury complained of. warranty. A product is defective when it does not offer the safety rightfully expected of it. Consumer Act of the Philippines .” o RE CONSUMER ACT vis-à-vis STRICT LIABILITY  The problem that is encountered in justifying strict liabilityunder Article 2187 of the Civil Code is not present in the strict liability provisions of the Consumer Act because the language of the applicable provision is clear and unmistakable .

•  Tradesman (Article 98. Consumer Act) • • Ordinarily is not liable for damages caused by defective products under the Consumer Act. Strict liability even extends to services under Article 99 of the Consumer Act which imposes liability for defective service “independently of fault.  o PERSONS LIABLE  Imposed on the manufacturer. the manufacturer’s representatives or. builder. builder. except that if the goods are manufactured. The manufacturer. services supplied in connection with a contact for construction.”  • It shall include a supplier or distributor if: o the seller is a subsidiary or affiliate of the supplier or distributor. and he does not adequately preserve perishable goods. o Thus. b) that although it did place the product on the market such product has no defect. c) the time it was put into circulation. it was produced by another person or entity. A product is not considered defective because another better quality product has been placed in the market. shall be deemed the manufacturer. b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it. the importer. Torts | Day 10 | 1 Seller • a person engaged in the business of selling consumer products directly to consumers. In case of IMPORTED PRODUCTS. “with respect to repair and service firms.  “the party making payment to the damaged party may exercise the right to recover a part of the whole of the payment made against the other responsible parties. in fact. assembles or processes consumer products. the product is supplied.. without clear identification of the manufacturer.”. or transportation of goods.” Service under Article 99 means. in his absence. Liable only when: o o o it is not possible to identify the manufacturer. . a supermarket that sells certain products using its own trademark. assembled or processed for another person who attaches his own brand name to the consumer products. in accordance with their part or responsibility in the cause of the damage effected. is considered the manufacturer even if. the latter shall be deemed the manufacturer. maintenance.a) presentation of product. producer or importer. repair. treatment or cleaning of goods or of fixtures on land. or distribution of goods. • any person who manufactures. builder or importer. producer. producer or importer shall not be held liable when it evidences: a) that it did not place the product on the market. processing.

a distributor and a supplier are defined as follows: o REASONS WHY LIABILITY IS IMPOSED ON MANUFACTURERS 1. Therefore.  Minimum labeling requirements:      whether it is flammable or inflammable. 5. Strict liability provides an effective and necessary incentive to manufacturers to make their products as safe as possible. The manufacturer is in a better position to protect against harm. in some case. presentation or packing of the products.o o the seller interchanges personnel or maintains common or overlapping officers or directors with the supplier or distributor. The consumer finds it too difficult to prove negligence against the manufacturer. if necessary. quality and quantity of the contents of consumer and to facilitate his comparison of the value of such products . o LACK OF WARNING: DUTY TO WARN  Art. Absence of Appropriate Warning — defect resulting from the insufficient or inadequate information on the use and hazards of the products. or the supplier or distributor provides or exercises supervision. voltage or amperes. therefore negligence should be dispensed with. all should be responsible when injury results from a normal use of a product. and fair packaging to enable the consumer to obtain information as to the nature. having knowledge. 2. wattage. Manufacturing Defect — defects resulting from manufacture. On the other hand. directions for use. and. Design Defect — defects resulting from design and formulas. 3. 4. o MEANING OF DEFECTIVE PRODUCT  Article 97 of the Consumer Act contemplates (4) kinds of defects in products: 1. 2. to impose liability upon producers who have not in fact been negligent. construction. by insuring against liability for it. Reputable manufacturers do in fact stand behind their products. by adding the costs of the insurance to the price of the product. direction or control over the selling practices of the seller. assembly and erection. Torts | Day 10 | 1 . o o o are engaged in the packaging or labeling of such products. 74 enforce accurate products of the Consumer Act expressly states as a policy that the State shall compulsory labeling.  The obligation is primarily imposed on the manufacturer  EXCEPTION: the wholesaler or retailer may have such obligation if they: (Article 76).” (Article 4[bn]). prescribe or specify by any means the manner in which such products are packaged or labeled. making up. to pass the loss on to the general public. 4. refuse to disclose the source of the mislabeled or mispackaged products. Presentation Defect — defects resulting from handling. 3. and many of them issue agreements to do so. replacing and repairing those which prove to be defective. or process of manufacture used if necessary. Res ipsa loquitur is in fact applied. warning of toxicity.

 However.  Article 99 provides that the supplier of the services shall not be held liable when it is proven: 1. but fundamental to any case is that some defect must be proved. No general rule can adequately apply to the wide range of such cases. proof of the defect must necessarily be by circumstantial evidence and inference as well as opinion of experts. builder. beyond any possibility of analysis. give rise to a permissible inference that it was defective and that the defect existed when it left the hands of the defendant.    o DEFENSES  Article 97: provides that the manufacturer. 2. statements. producer or importer shall not be held liable when it evidences: 1. that there is no defect in the service rendered. Strictly speaking. the fact that the product went wrong may. each involving a different mixture of fact and inference. statement or other information required shall appear on the label or labeling with such conspicuousness as compared with other words.Any word. Torts | Day 10 | 1 . 3. In most cases. o PROOF OF DEFECT  Frequently the product in dispute will have been destroyed. that it did not place the product on the market. designs or devices therein. in proper cases. that the consumer or third party is solely at fault. that the consumer or a third party is solely at fault. 2. that although it did place the product on the market such product has no defect. or be so complex that a plaintiff would have a greater difficulty in determining the presence of defect than would the manufacturer. res ipsa loquitur has no application to a strict liability case because determination of negligence is not material. and in such terms as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase or use.