Right to Privacy (the Right to be Let Alone)

Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The
following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages,
prevention and other relief:

-as a Tort
-four types of invasion, namely:
(1) Intrusion upon the plaintiffs seclusion or solitude or into
his private affairs;

(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence:

(2) Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the

plaintiff;

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of

another;

(3) Publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the

public eye; and

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;

(4) Appropriation for the defendants advantage, of

plaintiffs likeness or name.

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs,

lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal
condition.

- generally invoked by natural persons (basis of right is

injury to feelings and sensibilities)

- Constitutional Right

-corporations can invoke right against illegal search and

seizures

- the right to privacy is protected by:

- personal right (may be waived)

- the due process clause of the Constitution.

-right against unreasonable searches and seizures,
-the right to privacy of ones communication and
correspondence, and
-the right against self-incrimination.
-Bill of Rights
The reasonableness of a persons expectation of privacy depends
on a two-part test: (1) whether by his conduct, the individual has
exhibited an expectation of privacy; and (2) whether this
expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable. The
factual circumstances of the case determine the reasonableness of
the expectation. However, other factors, such as customs, physical
surroundings and practices of a particular activity, may serve to
create or diminish this expectation. (The Supreme Court, Morfe v.
Mutuc), also, seee discussion below.)

-ceases upon death (the law provides for the heirs,

however)
-The standard to be applied in determining if there was
violation of the right is that of a person of ordinary
sensibilities. It is relative to the customs of time and place,
and is determined by the norm of an ordinary person
-Intrusion
-prying into the privacy of anothers residence
-Criminal trespass
-The law has long held that it is illegal to peep, snoop, or
eavesdrop on people in private places.

-Generally, there is no invasion of the right to privacy when

a journalist records, photographs or writes about something
that occurs in public places. (BUT one does not
automatically make public everything he does in public.)
- public persons or private persons are protected
- right to privacy is superior to freedom of press in most
instances (exception: matter of public importance)
- no intrusion in an administrative investigation
- in technological sense, hacking, wiretapping and the like
are violations
- matters of public record are not intrusion
-Publication of private facts
-right to be free from unwarranted publicity, from the
wrongful publicizing of the private affairs and activities of an
individual which are outside the realm of legitimate public
concern.
-Elements:
(1) publicity is given to any private or purely personal
information about a person,
(2) without the latters consent,
(3) regardless of whether or not such publicity
constitutes a criminal offense, like libel or
defamation, the circumstance that the publication
was made with intent of gain or for commercial
and business purposes invariably serves to
aggravate the violation of the right.
-Newsworthiness of information about a public figure is a
defense. (unless with reckless disregard for the truth).

-The publication of facts derived from the records of official

proceedings, which are not otherwise declared by law as
confidential, cannot be considered a tortious conduct
-There can be no invasion of privacy if what is sought to be
divulged is a product of action undertaken in the course of
the performance of official functions.
False Light
-Defamatory (The tort of putting another in false light may
be distinguished from defamation primarily because in the
former the gravamen of the claim is not reputational harm
but rather the embarrassment of a person in being made
into something he is not)
-Libel
Commerical Appropriation of likenes
-The tort of commercial appropriation of likeness has been
held to protect various aspects of an individuals identity
from commercial exploitation: name, likeness,
achievements, identifying characteristics, actual
performances and fictitious characters created by a
performer.

VEXATION:
a. Infliction of emotional distress
- the conduct was intentional and in reckless disregard of
the plaintiff.
- the conduct was extreme and outrageous.
- there was a causal connection between the conduct
and the mental distress.
- the mental distress was extreme and severe.
b. discrimination
- social discrimination (racial, ethnical, LGBTs)

c. Sexual harassment (abuse of power NOT a violation of

sexuality)
Valmonte vs. Belmonte Lesson: Although they are required to
disclose public information, they are NOT REQUIRED to give out
alphabetically-arranged information. It is the duty of the requester
to do that, not the corporation.
Ayer v. Capulong Lesson: Public Figures Generally, public
figures public lives are NOT SUBJECT to the right to privacy. Their
private lives, however, are applicable to the protection.
St. Louis Realty Corp. vs CA Lesson: False Light Wrongful
advertisement. Private life was mistakenly and unnecessarily
exposed.
Tenchavez V. Escano Lesson: Interference will only bear fruit if
it is proven by substantial evidence.
Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corporation vs. NLRC
and Cortez Lesson: The gravamen of sexual harassment is NOT
the violation of the victims sexuality BUT the abuse of power.
Sexual Harassment is a TORTIOUS act.
Conception vs. CA Lesson: the enumerations in Article 26 and
1219 are not exclusive but are merely examples and do not
preclude other similar or analogous acts. Damages therefore are
allowable for actions against a person's dignity, such as profane,
insulting, humiliating, scandalous or abusive language.
Strict Liability
-liability without fault. A case is one of strict liability when neither
care nor negligence, neither good nor bad faith, neither knowledge
nor ignorance will save the defendant.

only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from
the fault of the person who has suffered damage.
Vestil v CA Lesson: POSSESSOR liable OWNER NOPE!
Falling Objects
Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part
thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or
falling from the same.
-

Even lesses (even co-lessees) ARE LIABLE!

No provision on Force majeure

Nuisance
Under the Civil Code, 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.
VELASCO VS. MANILA ELECTRIC CO Lesson: Noise may
constitute a nuisance but it must be of such character as to
produce actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of
ordinary sensibilities.
PRODUCT AND SERVICE LIABILITY

Animals (strict liability)

Navida Case - Jurisdiction over products made ABROAD Damage

done in the Philippines = Philippines jurisdiction (Territoriality)

Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of

the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause,
although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease

Continental Cement Case Warranty is implied if the product is

BRAND NEW. Hidden defect, warranty applies.
Contractual Interference

Elements:
1. There exists a valid contract
2. Knowledge on the part of the 3rd person on the existence of
the contract.
3. Interference of the 3rd person without legal
justification/excuse
Unfair Competition the use of force, intimidation, deceit,
machination, or any other unjust, oppressive, or high-handed
method in enterprises shall give rise to a right of action by the
person who thereby suffers damages.

CAEDO vs YU KHE THAI and BERNARDO Employer (yu) NOT

LIABLE for driver even if he was inside the vehicle BECAUSE he
COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN the overtaking manoeuvre from
happening.
Person Vicariously Liable for Acts of Others (Art 2180)
The basis of vicarious liability is responsibility of a person over
other persons under their legal authority, control or influence.
Violation or remission of duty arising from such relationship makes
them liable for damages caused by other person under their care or
charge.

GRAVAMEN: Passing of ones product as that of another.

NOTE: MONOPOLY is PROHIBITED by law.
Respondeat superior - "let the master answer" is a legal doctrine
which states that, in many circumstances, an employer is
responsible for the actions of employees performed within the
course of their employment. This rule is also called the "MasterServant Rule", recognized in both common law and civil law
jurisdictions.
- Employer CANNOT escape liability by claiming that he exercised
due diligence in the selection or supervision of the employee.
WHEN APPLIED:
1. Criminal Acts (Art. 103 RPC)
2. Partnership both natural & juridical persons may be held
liable for quasi-delict
Bonus Pater Familias - Good father of a family, whereby the
employer ultimately becomes liable on his own negligence
It means that the employer is liable upon a finding that he has been
negligent in the selection of his employees (culpa in elgiendo) or in
the supervision of his employees (culpa in vigilando).

1.Parent father, if dead or incapacitated, mother are

responsible for damages caused by minor children living in
their company (Art 2180 NCC)
2.Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors
or incapacitated person who are under their authority and
live in their company. (ibid)

Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the
preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for
damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated
minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising
substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily
liable.
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding
paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised the
proper diligence required under the particular circumstances.
All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall
be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts.

Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority

shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the
acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their

company and under their parental authority subject to the

appropriate defenses provided by law.
Art. 236. Emancipation shall terminate parental authority over the
person and property of the child who shall then be qualified and
responsible for all acts of civil life, save the exceptions established
by existing laws in special cases.
Contracting marriage shall require parental consent until the age of
twenty-one.
Nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate from the duty
or responsibility of parents and guardians for children and wards
below twenty-one years of age mentioned in the second and third
paragraphs of Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

The Basis of the civil liability which is primary-direct and solidary

imposed by law is the necessary consequence of parental authority
exercise over their children. This authority imposed a duty upon
parents to support them, keep them company, educate and instruct
them, and grand the right to correcting punish with moderation.
The parents are relieved of this liability only upon proof that they
have exercise the diligence of a good father of a family (Exconde
vs Capuno, 101 Phil 843) to prevent damage.
RPC Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. The
exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3,
5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code
does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be
enforced subject to the following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil
liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by
a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under
fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall
devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority
or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence
on their part.

Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor

under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if such person
be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with
their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in
accordance with the civil law.
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the
persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be
civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have
received.
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate
amount for which each one shall be liable.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even
approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the
Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and,
in all events, whenever the damages have been caused with the
consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be
made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the
persons using violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable
and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the
act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their
property exempt from execution.
Cuadra vs Monfort The father COULD NOT HAVE exercised due
diligence inside the school.

Libi vs. IAC Parents are liable since they were negligent in the
secure placing of the gun.
Amadora vs CA - School DID NOT have custody over the student.
- Head NOT liable.
Philippine School of Business Administration vs. CA School
is NOT LIABLE for actions of persons NOT ASSOCIATED with the

school. However, School is LIABLE for BREACH OF CONTRACT for

NOT PROVIDING a safe and secure learning environment for their
students.

a.Owner and Manager of establishment or enterprises are liable for

damage caused by their employees in the service of employment
or on the occasion of their functions.

ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE Lesson: Higher degree of care by

teachers.

b.Employer of household helper though not engaged in any

business or industry are liable for damages caused by helper acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks.

SALUDAGA vs. FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY Lesson: Security

Agency is liable for quasi-delict but school is liable for contractual
breach for not providing a safe and secure learning environment for
their students.
FEU is liable for contractual breach BUT NOT for torts.
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. In default of the
persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other
persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed
in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal
ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have
been committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods
taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging
therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such
guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the
person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the
inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such
innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect
to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach
in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
unless committed by the innkeepers employees.
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. The
subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall
also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations
engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their
servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the
discharge of their duties.
Employers: Master

Basis of Liability is not Respondent Superior (Anglo-American

doctrine where the negligence of the employee is conclusively
presumed to be the negligence of the employer) but on the
relationship of Pater-Familias, (master-servant) a theory basing the
liability of the master ultimately on his own negligence and not that
of the servant as manifested in his negligence in the selection of
their employee-servant (culpa eligiendo) or in the supervision over
their employee-servants (culpa in vigilando). This negligence is
prima facie presumption juris tantum- overcome or rebutted by
proof that they have observed and exercised all the diligence of a
good father of a family (diligantissimi bonus fater familias). The
theory is deduced from the last par of Art 2180 NCC providing the
responsibility shall cease upon proof of exercise of the diligence of
a good father of a family to prevent the damage.
The term Manager in Art 2180 is used in the sense of employer,
not employee.
Filamer v. CA Ee-Er relationship SHOULD exist.
- Liability will be incurred if done with the exercise of his employee
functions (Art. 2180 NCC).
Valuenzuela vs CA If employee incurred an accident while doing
his official functions, employer will be held liable.
CASTILEX INDUSTRIAL VS VASQUEZ Employee incurred an
accident while NOT DOING his official functions. Own liability, not
companys.
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum vs CA Control test of SUPERVISION:
PSP must exercise control; Contractor is NOT an employee. PSP not
liable.

- An insurer can be subrogated the rights of the one he insured.

Philippine Rabbit vs Phil-Am Forwarders the term manager
in article 2180 is used in the sense of employer.
Sps. Jayme vs Apostol No negligence may be imputed against
a fellow employee although the person may have the right to
control the manner of the vehicles operation. Ee vs Ee DOES NOT
apply for vicarious liability.
Sps. Mamaril vs TBSP Security Agency is LIABLE for
NEGLIGENCE of security guards under Bonus Pater Familias
(Selection and Supervision)
Duavit vs CA stolen car owner NOT liable for acts of the thief.
Equitable Leasing vs Suyom Unregistered deed of sale is
binding only upon the involved parties, NOT to 3rd parties. Hence,
liability is STILL on the registered owner.
FGU Insurance Corp. vs CA Registered owners are NOT LIABLE
for leased vehicles, except if the lease was only to HIDE the Ee-Er
relationship.
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed
that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the
time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
Anonuevo vs CA Preponderance of Evidence is needed to prove
liability and contributory negligence. Motorized vehicles DOES NOT
include bicycles.
Special Agent one who receives a definite and fixed order or
commission, FOREIGN to the exercise of the duties of his office if he
is a special official.
Merritt vs Govt of the Philippines the State is liable for the
acts of the SPECIAL AGENT, but NOT for damages caused by the
official caused by doing his official functions.
City of Manila vs Teotico Article 2189 NCC LGU is liable for
damages caused by its defective roads.
Malayan Insurance vs CA An insurer CANNOT be held
SOLIDARILY LIABLE

* Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable (Art. 100, RPC)
* This includes principals, accomplices, and accessories.
* The accused is FREE from civil liability IF there are established
JUSTIFYING circumstances.
* EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT erase civil liability.
Ozoa vs Madula Art. 103 Employers are subsidiarily liable for
their employees acts.
Tan vs Standard Vacuum Oil The following have NO CRIMINAL
LIABILITY but HAVE CIVIL LIABILITY:
Art. 11 RPC
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act
which causes damage to another, provided that the following
requisites are present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid
it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it.
Art 12 RPC
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted
during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which
the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave
without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
2. A person under nine years of age.

3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has
acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of
this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the
court, in conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding
paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family
who shall be charged with his surveillance and education otherwise,
he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person
mentioned in said Art. 80.
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
of an equal or greater injury.
Effect of Acquittal Beyond reasonable doubt of acquittal: NO
CIVIL LIABILITY! No source of action. Otherwise, CIVIL LIABILITY is
present.
Effect of Death
1. BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENT No BOTH.
2. In case of LIBEL/PHYSICAL INJURIES and there are claims for
damages in the CRIM CASE File another case to enforce
CIVIL LIABILITY.
3. AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT No CRIM, but there is still CIVIL
4. PARDON Still CIVIL LIABILITY
5. DEATH ON APPEAL No BOTH.
* A civil action is impliedly instituted with a criminal action UNLESS:
1. The Civil Action is filed ahead of the criminal action.
2. Filing of civil action has been reserved.

Torts with Independent Civil Actions

General Rule ALL TORTS have independent civil actions!
Casupanan vs Laroya the accused in a pending criminal case
can validly file SIMULTANEOUSLY a separate civil action for quasidelict against complainant in a crim case.
Article 32 NCC Any public officer, employee, or private individual
violates your CONSTITUTIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS.
* In any of these cases, WON the defendants act constitutes a
CRIM OFFENSE, the aggrieved party has the right to commence an
ENTIRELY SEPARATE civil action.
Lim vs De Leon Illegal S&S. Motorized boat. GOOD FAITH NOT a
tenable defense against a violation of a constitutional right. There
is liability.
Abercka vs Ver the lifting of the Writ of Habeas Corpus DOES
NOT destroy petitioners right to cause of action and damages
against illegal arrests and S&S.
Defamation invasion of the interests in reputation and good
name, by communication to others which tends to diminish the
esteem in which the plaintiff is held, or to excite adverse feelings or
opinions against him.
- libel (written defamation) and slander (oral defamation) are KINDS
of defamation.
Requisites: (Absent ONE requisite, it is NOT DEFAMATORY)
1. It must be defamatory.
2. It must be malicious.
3. It must be given publicity.

- communication to a single individual is SUFFICIENT.

4. The victim must be identifiable.

ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY DAMAGES (2 Classification)

- GROUP LIBEL = statements directed against a fairly large

group.
Manuel vs Cruz Pano The statements were made in GOOD
FAITH. Hence, it is NOT DEFAMATORY.
Borjal vs CA To be considered malicious, libellous statements
must be written with the knowledge that they are FALSE or in
reckless disregard whether false or not.
MVRS Publication vs Islamic DaWah Council of the Phil
GROUP LIBEL = must apply to EVERY INDIVIDUAL in that
group/class so that each individual in said group can say that they
were DEFAMED. No articulated limit for number of people in a
group (25 or more).

1. Dano Emergente loss of what a person already

possesses.
2. Lucro Cessante failure to receive as a benefit that would
have pertained to him.
Custodio vs CA To warrant recovery of damages, there must
be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant
and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom. Wrong without
damage, or damage without wrong does not constitute a cause of
action, since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for
the injury caused by a breach of wrong.
Marikina Auto Line Transport Corp. vs People Actual
damages SHOULD BE PROVEN with independent evidence.

Philippine Journalists, Inc. vs Thoenen Privileged

Communication:

Villarey vs CA Net Earning Capacity = Life expectancy X (gross

annual income necessary living expenses)

2 Kinds: ABSOLUTE (not actionable even if the author acted in BAD

FAITH) and QUALIFIED (not actionable UNLESS found to be done
without justifiable motive or BAD FAITH)

Life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 age at death)

Lim vs Kou Co Ping - In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical

injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct
from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such
civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution,
and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. (Art. 33 NCC)
Damnum Absque Injuria There is NO LIABILITY even if there is
damage because there was NO INJURY.
INJURY
Legal invasion of a legal
right

DAMAGE
Loss, Hurt, or harm which
results from the injury

Mercury Drug vs Huang Actual damages must be supported by

RECEIPTS. Loss of earning capacity is computed based on the state
of the plaintiff BEFORE the accident.
Eastern Shipping vs CA Interest on Breach/Money Claims =
STIPULATION of parties.
Absent STIPULATION, the rate of interest for loan or forbearance
shall be 12% to be computed FROM judicial or extra-judicial
demand (when he sued).

NOT a forbearance of money = 6%

The recompense or
compensation awarded for the
damage suffered

IF there is NO KNOWLEDGE on WHEN judicial demand was made =

COURT JUDGMENT will be the starting point.
Avoidable Consequences a party cannot recover damages
flowing from consequences which the party could reasonably have
avoided.

FEELINGS, no emotions, no senses. It cannot therefore experience

physical suffering and mental anguish which can be experienced
only by one having a nervous system.
* Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous
cases:

- Libel, slander or any other form of defamation = DOES NOT

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
DISTINGUISH
natural/juridical persons.
Plaintiffs act or omission occurs
BEFORE between
or
AT the time of the act or omission of the
* A corporation may have a good reputation which, if besmirched,
defendant
may also be a ground for the award of moral damages (Obiter
Moral Damages includes physical suffering, mental anguish,
Dictum only).
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury.
Buenaventura vs Buenaventura award of MORAL DAMAGES
AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCES
Acts of the plaintiff occur AFTER the
act/omission of the defendant

- NO PROOF of pecuniary loss is NECESSARY.

may be recovered IF THE ACT is wilfully done to cause LOSS/INJURY

to another. Absent that, NO RECOVERY!

GENERAL RULE: The plaintiff must ALLEGE and PROVE:

Nominal Damages (recognition of the injury)

1. The factual basis for moral damages; and

2. Its causal relation to the defendants act.
EXCEPTION: Moral damages MAY BE awarded to the victim in CRIM
PROCEEDINGS without the need for pleading of proof of the basis
thereof.
Requisites for award of Moral Damages:
1. There must be an injury whether physical, mental, or
psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant;
2. There must be a CULPABLE act/omission;
3. Such an act/omission is the PROXIMATE CAUSE of the injury;

- Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the

plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may
be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him
-in all obligations enumerated in Art. 1157
-left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of
the case.
-not as an equivalent of wrong inflicted, but simply in recognition of
the existence of a technical injury
-in the absence of competent proof of actual damages
-nominal damages cannot co-exist with actual or compensatory
damages.
Temperate and Moderate Damages

4. The damages is PREDICATED on the cases cited in Art. 2219.

* The award of MORAL DAMAGES cannot be granted in favor of a
corporation because, being an ARTIFICIAL PERSON, it has NO

-Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal

but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the
court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its

amount can not, from the nature of the case, be provided with
certainty.

3. The act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in wanton,

fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner.

-must be reasonable under the circumstances.

-can and should be awarded on top of actual or compensatory
damages in instances where the injury is chronic and continuing.

Must be given when:

Liquidated Damages

1. when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating

circumstances

-are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in

case of breach thereof.

2. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the

defendant acted with gross negligence

-the court cannot change the amount of liquidated damages agreed

upon by the parties.

3. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary

damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive, or malevolent manner

-whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be

equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.
-when the breach of the contract committed by the defendant is
not the one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the
liquidated damages, the law shall determine the measure of
damages, and not the stipulation.
Exemplary or Corrective Damages
- are required by public policy to suppress wanton acts. They are
antidotes so that the poison of wickedness may not run through the
body politic.
- imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in
addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory
damages.
Requisites:
1. They may be imposed by way of example in addition to
compensatory damages, and only after the claimants right to them
has been established;
2. They cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their
determination depending upon the amount of compensatory
damages that may be awarded to the claimant;

4. the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or

compensatory damages before the court may consider the question
of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded (in cases
of liquidated damages, proof must be shown that moral, temperate,
actual or compensatory damages are due).
5. A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are renounced in
advance shall be null and void.
Attorneys Fees
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorneys fees and
expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be
recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(2) When the defendants act or omission has compelled the
plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect
his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against
the plaintiff;

(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in
refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs plainly valid, just and demandable
claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers,
laborers and skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmens compensation and
employers liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a
crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;

(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable
that attorneys fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorneys fees and expenses of litigation must be
reasonable.