You are on page 1of 32

Torts and Damages – Session 15-19

Session 15 – Art 2216-2220, Cases 269-290

in a particular case such an objective has been duly pursued is a
matter of proof.

Ventura v Bernabe (1971) – V presented to B a letter supposedly
wrote by Commander Calinawan Jr, Presidential Fact Finding
Committee, asking for a loan of P350. The letter stated that
Calinawan is waiting in his home and to hand V the money. B issued
a check and was encashed. V found out that C did not make such
letter. B sued V for falsification of private document. V claims no
justifiable cause but merely for vengeance and to smear honor and
reputation.
It is of no moment that there is no such crime of malicious
prosecution in the Revised Penal Code. The present civil action
need not be based on the existence of such a crime Article
2219 (8) of the Civil Code for “Malicious prosecution" It
serves as a basis for relief in court against a party who has
maliciously caused another to baselessly and unjustifiably
undergo a criminal prosecution for an offense he knows the
latter has not committed. Article 21 is related to such
providing, "any person who willfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage"
and Article 2176 on torts or quasi-delict may also serve the
purpose.
Elements in Malicious prosecution: these 3 must concur
whether actions for criminal prosecution or civil suits. No distinction
between criminal and civil.
1. requires MALICE and
2. WANT of PROBABLE CAUASE
3. Defendant himself be the prosecutor of the instigator of the
prosecution, ended in acquittal

American Home Assurance Co v Chua (1999) – Chua procured
a fire insurance for their company’s stocks-in-trade for 200k. He
issued a check for renewal of policy to petitioner’s agent. The next
day, the whole business was gutted by fire amounting to a loss of
4M-5M. Chua asked for insurance claim with petitioner and other
insurers. Petitioner denied claim because of fraudulent income tax
return, failure to establish actual loss and failure to notify them to
cover the insured goods.
His loss of profit cannot be shouldered by petitioner whose
obligation is limited to the object of insurance, which was the stockin-trade, and not the expected loss in income or profit.
Under Article 2220 of the Civil Code, MORAL DAMAGES
may be awarded in breaches of contracts where the
defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. No such fraud or
bad faith in case at bar. Moral damages are emphatically not
intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant. Such
damages are awarded only to enable the injured party to
obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to
obviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of
the defendant's culpable action. Its award is aimed at the
restoration, within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual
status quo ante, and it must be proportional to the suffering
inflicted. When awarded, moral damages must not be palpably
and scandalously excessive as to indicate that it was the result of
passion, prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial court judge.
Moral of 200k deleted

In malicious prosecution, the following must be present to
be granted damages:
1.he has been denounced or charged falsely of an offense by
the defendant,
2. defendant knows that the charge was false
3. acted with malice;
4. he has suffered damages
The determination of the issue of malice must always be made
to rest on all the attendant circumstances, including the possibility
of the fiscal or judge being some-how misled by the accuser's
evidence. No doubt, the very purpose of preliminary investigations
is to avoid baseless and malicious prosecutions, still, whether or not

Fores v Miranda (1959)– M was one of the passengers of the
jeep that hit the bridge wall because of its excessive speed the
driver lost control of such. M was injured and fractured part of body.
Paz Fores was the registered owner of the jeep, but she claims that
she sold it to Sacherman the day before the accident.
Moral damages are not recoverable in damage
actions predicted on a breach of the contract of
transportation, in view of Articles 2219 (1 and 2) and 2220.
GR: By contrasting the provisions of these two article it
immediately becomes apparent that:
(a) In case of breach of contract (including one of transportation)
proof of bad faith or fraud (dolus), i.e., wanton or deliberately
injurious conduct, is essential to justify an award of moral damages;
and

1|thil lozada

Torts and Damages – Session 15-19
(b) That a breach of contract cannot be considered included
in the descriptive term "analogous cases" used in Art. 2219;
not only because Art. 2220 specifically provides for the damages
that are caused by contractual breach, but because the definition
of quasi-delict in Art. 2176 of the Code expressly excludes the
cases where there is a "preexisting contractual relation between
the parties."
EXCEPTION: mishap resulting in DEATH of PASSENGER,
Art 1764 makes the common carrier expressly subject to the rule of
Art. 2206, that entitles the deceased passenger to "demand moral
damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the
deceased.” Where the injured passenger does not die,
moral damages are not recoverable unless it is proved that
the carrier was guilty of malice or bad faith. Mere
carelessness of the carrier's driver does not per se constitute of
justify an inference of malice or bad faith on the part of the carrier
Lopez v Pan America (1966) – Sen Lopez, wife, son-in-law and
daughter made reservations for 1st-class accommodations in TokyoSan Francisco flight. But due to mistake in travel agency’s agents, it
was cancelled. It was included in the cancellation of Rufinos. PAMAM’s supervisor withhold the information expecting cancellations of
bookings before flight time. While they were Toko, they weretold
that they could not be accommodated in first-class. Mr. Lopez had
an engagement in US, his wife has a medical check-up so they took
the tourist class but under protest. They sued PAN-AM for moral
damages.
Moral damages – 100k for Sen Lopez, since Senate
President and former VP of Phils. His wife, 50K – shared his
prestige and subjected to humiliation and discomfort for 13hours
considering she was sick. 25K for daughter – shared his prestige
and experienced social humiliation.
The amount of damages is determined by considering the
official, political, social and financial standing of the
offended parties on one hand, and the business and financial
position of the offender on the other. Also the present rate of
exchange.
Moral damages for breach of contract of carriage is
not recoverable unless it results to (1) death or (2) bad
faith. PAN-AM is in bad faith. (1) failure to inform of cancellation
intentionally. It was done to promote self-interest and closing the
chances of having the Lopez family seek reservations from other
airlines.
2|thil lozada

Zulueta v Pan America (1972) – Zulueta spouse and daughter
were aboard PANAM from Honolulu to Manila. On its first lag, it
landed on Wake Island, the stopover was 30 mins. Mr Z went to the
CR at terminal but was full of soldiers, he was forced to look a CR
down the beach. Upon boarding, Mr Z could not be found. The takeoff was delayed and he blamed the EEs. Z claims that he was
stopped at the gate and asked that Z open his luggage but he
refused. He was disallowed to board and plane and was left in the
island. He stayed there for 2 nights.
In relation between carrier and passenger involves special
and peculiar obligations and duties, differing in kind and degree,
from those of almost every other legal or contractual relation. On
account of the peculiar situation of the parties the law implies a
promise and imposes upon the carrier the corresponding duty of
protection and courteous treatment. Therefore, the carrier is
under the absolute duty of protecting his passengers from
assault or injury by himself or his servants.
Where a conductor uses language to a passenger which is
calculated to insult, humiliate, or wound the feelings of a person of
ordinary feelings and sensibilities, the carrier is liable, because the
contract of carriage impliedly stipulated for decent, courteous, and
respectful treatment, at hands of the carrier’s EEs. Among the
factors court take into account is assessing moral damages
are the professional, social, political and financial standing
of the offended parties on one hand, and the business and
financial position of the offender on the other.
Moral damages of 1M excessive, only 500K. Contributory
negligence that aggravated the gravity of situation, mainly because
of his arrogant and overbearing attitude and behavior.
Ortigas v Lufthansa (1975) – Ortigas bought a 1st class ticket to
Lufthansa because he was advised by the doctor to take only 1 st
class ticket because of his weak heart. But he was not given the
seat. L promised 4 times that he will be transferred. It was
aggravated by the fact that his seat was given to a Belgian and the
improper conduct of its agents in dealing with him during the
occasion of such discriminatory violation of its contract of carriage.
Moral damages 150k. Nobody, much less a common
carrier who is under constant special obligation to give utmost
consideration to the convenience of its customers, may be
permitted to relieve itself from any difficulty situation created by its
own lack of diligence in the conduct of its affairs in a manner
prejudicial to such customers. When it comes to contracts of
common carriage, inattention and lack of care on the part

Torts and Damages – Session 15-19
of the carrier resulting in the failure of the passenger to be
accommodated in the class contracted for amounts to bad
faith or fraud which entitles the passenger to the award of
moral damages. Article 2220. But in the instant case, the breach
appears to be of graver nature, since the preference given to the
Belgian passenger over plaintiff was done willfully and in wanton
disregard of plaintiff's rights and his dignity as a human being and
as a Filipino, who may not be discriminated against with impunity.
An air carrier is liable only in the event of death or injury
suffered by a passenger, because, according to the Court, to so
hold would be tantamount to declaring the carrier "exempt from
any liability for damages in the event of its absolute refusal, in bad
faith, to comply with a contract of carriage, which is absurd."
Yutuk v Meralco (1961) – Yutuk was a lawyer by profession. She
was recovering from broncho- pneumonia ailment. She just moved
in new house in Paranaque. Electirc meter was installed at outside
wall of the house. Meralco’s inspector, Jaime inspected it, then
disconnected the meter alleging that Y uses a jumper and only
pays half of her electric bill. Because of the incident, Y suffered a
relapse.
Moral damages include mental anguish, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation. While these moral damages are incapable of
pecuniary estimation, they are made recoverable, in the
amount determined by the court, provided they are the
proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or
omission. As most of these damages affect the aggrieved
party’s moral feeling and personal pride, “these should be
wighed in the determination of the indemnity.” Meralco not in
bad faith but did with reckless negligence. The meter was
disconnected without the presences of the homeowner which
shows trickery. The Meralco seal was not tampered nor opened but
Jaime was the one who broke the seal.
Northwest Airlines v CA (1990) – 3 siblings were given their first
trip abroad as graudation gifts by their parents. While they were in
Tokyo with their grandma, they were to pick up their tickets to US
which were paid by their parents in Manila thru Northwest’s agent.
However, NOA refused to give their tickets claiming that their agent
made a wrong computation of the price – wrong conversion rate
and 10% mileage surcharge was not included. They have a deficit
of $261.60 each. They were forced to pay $1,046.40, which
depleted their pocket money and was forced to check-in in a cheap
3|thil lozada

hotel in Tokyo. Because they are worried that their money will not
be enough, their grandpa was forced to go to Japan.
Even if there is a breach of contract, as admitted in this
case, moral damages are nevertheless not justified where only
simple negligence can be imputed to the defendant. With respect
to moral damages, the rule is that the same are recoverable in a
damage suit predicated upon a breach of contract of carriage only
where (1) the mishap results in the death of a passenger and (2) it
is proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud or bad faith, even if
death does not result.
Moral damgages – 10k each plus 10k for 2 for their
humiliation at NOA office. There was clear malice here, manifested
in the contemptuous disregard of the passenger's protest and the
abrupt rejection of their request that the Manila office be contacted
for verification of the correct billing. Rudeness is never excusable. It
is especially condemnable if it is committed in one's own country
against a foreign guest, as in the case at bar.
PANAM v IAC (1990) – Ongsiako boarded PANAM with one checkin luggage. It was not carried on board and found after a week in its
office in Manila. EE instead of helping him, arrogantly threatened to
bump him off if persist. PANAM offered to forward it to LA or San
Francisco but O refused, because he was about to leave.
Art 2220 – moral damages based on breach of contract with
fraud or bad faith. Article 2220 of the Civil Code says that moral
damages may be awarded in "breaches of contract where the
defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith." So, proof of
infringement of an agreement by a party, standing alone,
will not justify an award of moral damages. There must, in
addition, as the law points out, be competent evidence of fraud
of bad faith by that party. If the plaintiff, for instance, fails to
take the witness stand and testify as to his social humiliation,
wounded feelings, anxiety, etc., moral damages cannot be
recovered. The rule applies to common carriers. In this case,
the breach was substantial cause in bringing injury to plaintiff.
Heirs of Amparo de los Santos v CA (1990) – A vessel sank
when it met a typhoon causing the death of A de los Santos and
other poor litigants. Heirs sought damages. Board of Marine Inquiry
found that crew were negligent in operating the vessel and
suspended its license. Compania Maritima claims the sinking was
due to force majeure. The case is pending for almost 23 years.
Moral damages – 10k each heir for mental anguish suffered
due to death of their relatives. But does not apply to Reyes

for the employee simply to receive separation pay. C still sued for damages claiming he had a ready buyer at 0. negligence caused the private respondent to suffer mental anguish.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 (survived the tragedy). S claims F is guilty of malicious prosecution. serious anxiety. M sued for illegal dismissal alleging that he was dismissed because his parents threatened to expose 4|thil lozada the massive diversion of funds to company president’s private accounts. Alejandrino suffered humiliation. Moral damages would be recoverable. Account was cancelled one day then reinstated the next. where the dismissal of the employee was not only effected without authorized cause and /or due process for which relief is granted by the Labor Code but was attended by bad faith or fraud. Mere carelessness of carrier does not constitute per se or justify an inference of malice or bad faith on its part. Maglutac v NLRC (1990) – M was an EE of Commart as a Manager of Energy Equipment Service. C accepted it noted “all cleared”. It is however not enough that such injuries have arisen. but also moral and other forms of damages governed by the Civil Code. He was dismissed because of his family’s establishment of MM Int’l.01/share to M for safekeeping only. But any award of moral damages by the Labor Arbiter obviously cannot be based on the Labor Code but should be grounded on the Civil Code. M instead placed it with his COS. While petitioner was not in bad faith. However.014/share. M was in good faith – replaces C’s COS and tried to recover it. moral damages cannot be awarded. Alejandrino presumed that his card has been restored. No proof of bad faith in this case. Which is a direct competition with the company. M failed to produce it because it was given to an officer of said corporation. it states “after he was found mentally unfit to work.” H sued G for damages. Moral damages 40k. He asked for a certification of employment. but petitioner apologized. properly set aside damages. exceptionally. All guards are required to take a psychiatric exam regularly because a general manager was previously shot by one of their guards. The 2 COS was more than C’s previous shares. or constituted an act oppressive to labor. besmirched reputation. G was the administrative officer of MMIC. Petitioner was only protected by stopping anyone who wrongfully uses it. wounded feelings and social humiliation. it is essential that they have sprung from a wrongful act or omission of the defendant which was the proximate cause thereof. F tried to built a drainage on the property out of spite and expectation to acquire such. No moral damages. embarrassment and humiliation. Capco v Macasaet (1990) – The parties are stockholders of Monte Oro Mineral Resources. Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to award to the dismissed employee not only the reliefs specifically provided by labor laws. alleging that the statement was false and derogatory which ruined his chances of employment elsewhere. F allegedly used political influence as Under Sec of Labor to cause City Fiscal the right to construct drainage and to transfer temporarily the husband of S step daughter from BOI to Bureau of Prison. In the absence of a wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith. He did not always pay the fee on time. Moral damages may be awarded to compensate one for diverse injuries such as mental anguish. but did not materialize because of M’s failure to return his COS. The card was cancelled so he was forced to surrender it at Bon Department at Seattle since there was no pre-set spending to use the card. for example. they issued a press statement . C indorsed his 2 certificate of stocks (COS) value at 0. H was found to be unfit to work and was subsequently dismissed. for which he is entitled to recover reasonable moral damages (Article 2217. Civil Code). Strebel v Figueras (1954) – S was a lessee of a lot which he subleased to Standard Vacuum who constructed a gas station operated by S and Eustaquio. When he demanded its return. Guita v CA (1985) – Haguisan was a security guard of MMIC. or was done in a manner contrary to morals good customs or public policy for which the obtainable relief is determined by the Civil Code (not the Labor Code). Considering that in the absence of malice and bad faith. Relate to Northwest Airlines v CA regarding the exceptions. M then was able to return 1 COS of C. moral damages cannot be awarded and that the grant of moral and exemplary damages has no basis if not predicated upon any of the cases enumerated in the Civil Code. The Labor Arbiter's judgment shall be for the employer to reinstate the employee and pay him his backwages or. These are reliefs explicitly prescribed by the Labor Code. American Express Intl v CA (1988) – Alejandrino was granted a credit card by the petitioner.

as distinguished from that form of mental suffering which the accompaniment of sympathy or sorrow for another’s suffering or which arises from a contemplation of wrongs committed on the person of another. malice or bad faith on the part of the carrier. its left front tire blew out and swerved gradually on the left side of the road. The case is but as a result of an admitted breach of contract of carriage and against the defendant employer alone. plaintiff. Cachero v Manila Yellow Taxicab (1957) – Cachero boarded a taxi of def. Therefore. The parents of Ramon and Nita herself sued for damages. transportation. Tamayo v Univ of Negros Occ (CA:1962) – . We. See Fores v Miranda. should be such as may be reasonable and just under the circumstances in a given case. in case at bar. 2119” for which the new Civil Code authorizes indemnification for moral damages in favour of the injured party. to such mental pain or suffering as arises from an injury or wrong to the person himself. “Art 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier. The ONLY damages recoverable in an ejectment suit are the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the real property. The one that committed the offense against plaintiff is the driver of the defendant’s taxicab but he was not made party defendant to the case. Felisilda v Villanueva (1985) – F spouse’s lot was levied and sold to Dr. Only Article 2219 (1 and 2) have any bearing on the case at bar. Art 1764. plaintiff is not entitled to compensation for moral damages as his case does not come within the exception of Art 2219 (1). The defendant herein has not committed in connection with this case any "criminal offense resulting in physical injuries (Art 2219-1)". Award of moral and exemplary damages in an EJECTMENT SUIT. Moral damages are only recoverable in this case when there is evidence of fraud. However. Moral damages may not be recovered in cases of CRIME or TORT. He sought payment for his medical expenses. That bumped against a Meralco post.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 that S and E violated 8-Hour Law since their EEs were required to work beyond 8 hours a day. Jr. Mere vexation or mental anguish is not sufficient to warrant moral damages.” which are lacking in this case. and in addition. F was ordered by MTC to vacate the lot and pay Dr Galeon for the use of his land. While under the law. into a ravine some 270 meters away. Damages in excess of P3k may be awarded for the death of a passenger. Mental anguish is restricted as a rule. Once the abovementioned heirs of the deceased claim compensation for moral damages and are able to prove that they are entitled to such award. Pursuant to such. it becomes the duty of the court to award moral damages to the claimant in an amount commensurate with the mental anguish suffered by them. the heirs may demand moral damages commensurate with the mental anguish suffered by them. the amount of moral damages to be awarded. Comp. Trial judges have a reprehensible propensity to adjudge moral and exemplary damages without any justification. Article 2219 of the Civil Code. does not maintain his action against all the persons who might be liable for the damages caused but on an alleged breach of contract of carriage and against the defendant ER alone. One of its bus. actual monetary loss.” Art 2206(3). Several passengers died and others were injured. No redemption was made so the sale 5|thil lozada was registered and new titles were given. The cause of the accident was merely the bursting of tire. while on the trip from Batangas to Manila. therefore. unless either results or causes “physical injuries. a husband or wife cannot recover for mental suffering caused by his sympathy for the other’s suffering. hold that the case at bar does not come within the exception of paragraph 1. manifestly erroneous. The case must come within the terms of Art 2217-2220 of the Civil Code. Mercado v Lira (1961) – M and others were owners and operators of Laguna Transpo. Moral damages 4k for death of Ramon. the defendant taxicab company has not committed any criminal offense resulting in physical injuries against the plaintiff. moral and exemplary damages. There is none in this case. Art 2219. Of course. Galeon at public aution. A passenger who suffered physical injuries because of the carrier’s negligence (culpa contractual) cannot be considered in the descriptive expression “analogous cases used in Art. Ramon Lira. C fell into the ground and suffered slight physical injuries. died while Nita Lira was injured. ERs are made responsible for the damages caused by their EEs acting within the scope of their assigned task. Other damages must be claimed in an ordinary action.

Buenaventura v CA (2005) – The marriage of Noel Buenaventura. which must have been caused to the wounded boy Quisumbing (Art. the award of moral damages was without basis in law and in fact. He was ordered to pay 2. It does not appear that a criminal action for physical injuries was ever presented. was nine years old and it does not appear that he had acted with . and griefs of life. therefore. When M was trying to get it to Q. then Lim lent it to Legaspi then to Q. Augusto Mercado. and hence beyond the control of the party because of an innate inability. while at the same time considering the same set of acts as willful. Nevertheless. No such evidence appears to have been adduced in this case. The negligence of PAL is clearly a quasi-delict. Even form the standpoint of the petitioner PAL that there is an EE-ER relationship between it and Samson as respondent arising from the contract of employment. It is contradictory to characterize acts as a product of psychological incapacity. M has a pitogo (piggy bank) which he lent it to Lim. and therefore a product of his incapacity or inability to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. Art 2219(2) is applicable. otherwise the grant of moral damages would have no leg to stand on. M cut the cheeks of Q with a razor. and when Q became weak. Q refused. sorrows. The only possible circumstance in the case at bar in which moral damages are recoverable would be if a criminal offense or a quasi-delict has been committed. the lower courts could not but have assumed that the acts on which the moral damages were based were done willfully and freely. Art 21 referred to Art 2219. In granting moral damages. no senses. no emotions. Mercado v CA (1960) – Mercado. it was not due to a willful act on the part of the petitioner. Because of B’s very slow reaction and poor judgment overshot the airfield. petitioner and Lucia Singh. petitioners’ child and Quisumbing. Mental suffering can be experienced only by one having a nervous system and it flows from real ills. said courts considered these acts as willful and hence as grounds for granting moral damages. There is a need that the act is willful and hence done in complete freedom. S sued PAL for damages. A fight ensued. Legaspi and Q did not know that the pitogo is owned b y M. He experiences periodic dizzy spells. it cannot experience physical suffering and mental anguish. applying Art 2220 relate to Art 19 (act with justice.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 A corporation. He was subsequently dismissed for physical disability. It must be noted that Article 21 states that the individual must WILLFULLY cause loss or injury to another. 2217. general debility and nervousness.5M moral damages to Lucia. the decision of the court below does not declare that any of the cases specified in Article 2219 of the Civil Code in which moral damages may be recovered. Civil Code). While moral damages included physical suffering. 6|thil lozada Psychological incapacity was defined as “truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage… utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage…” The Court of Appeals and the trial court considered the acts of the petitioner after the marriage as proof of his psychological incapacity. If the private respondent was deceived. Therefore. respondents’ child are classmates. being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation. justifying the recovery of moral damages. The award of moral damages should be predicated. not on the mere act of entering into the marriage. Art 2217. has attended or occasioned the physical injury. The offender. The plane crash landed beyond the runway and the head of Samson hit and break through the thick front windshield of the plane which caused him severe concussion and wounds. The trial court referred to Article 21 because Article 2219 of the Civil Code enumerates the cases in which moral damages may be recovered and it mentions Article 21 as one of the instances. Moral damages 50k . respondent was declared null and void for the psychological incapacity under Art 36 FC of B. has no feelings. He request for medical treatment but PAL merely refer him to the company doctor who is a only a general practitioner. The definition of psychological incapacity removes the basis for the contention that the petitioner purposely deceived the private respondent. Samson is still entitled to moral damages in view of the finding of bad faith and malice by CA. but on specific evidence that it was done deliberately and with malice by a party who had knowledge of his or her disability and yet willfully concealed the same. PAL v CA (1981) – Samson was a co-pilot in PAL while Capt Bustamante was the commanding pilot on their Manila to Legaspi flight. give everyone his due) .

On the day of auction sale. division of Solid Corp. and 322 Araneta v Areglado (1958) – Araneta. In all events. (Art. 291310. but of the corporation itself. legal and equitable justification. However. without which the award is a conclusion without a premise. Herbosa v CA (2002) – H sued for damages for breach of contract. other than that for moral damages due to "extreme mental anguish. A writ of execution was issued. its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture. RA 809 was enacted compelling increased participation of majority planters. They sued for annulment of such. reckless. exemplary and attorney’s fees. Indeed the interests of the said stockholders. were already represented by the corporation itself. the legal reason for the award of attorney's fees. Arreglado fell from the ground. It is apparent that the proximate cause of the injury caused to Quisumbing was Quisumbing's own fault or negligence for having interfered with Mercado while trying to get the pitogo from another boy. MORAL damages -75k . Inc v Yap (1965) – Nuqui and son sold land with 2 schools (Mindanao Academy and Misamis Academy) to Yap. 238." Attorney's fees P2k should be upheld. Through their utter disappoint. Inc. Def claims that plaintiffs action was . and not only in the decretal portion thereof. Article 2208 demands factual. unless there is express statutory provision to the contrary. Yap took possession and renamed it to Harvardian Colleges. and payable to their common counsel as prayed for in the complaint. moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees must each be independently identified and justified. It was sold & Solidbank sued for damages – moral. and no cause of action accruing to them separately from the corporation is alleged in the complaint. to record their wedding ceremony. serious anxiety and wounded feelings. the court must explicitly state in the text of the decision.. They are partners in buying and selling such. levied personal properties of Solid Corp. an injunction was issued but was delivered late. They had a share of 60% in sugar produced. should not enter in the assessment of the damages to which the injured party is entitled. oppressive or abusive. 2229-2235. 2208. not of the plaintiff stockholders of the Mindanao Academy. 251. Deleted award of such Mindanao Academy. although the same should be for the account. Civil Code. 2179. and counsel's fees are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. former Atenean because of transferring to La Salle. Moral damages in case of physical injuries are only recoverable by the party who suffered them and not by his next of kin. ATTORNEY’s FEES is an award thereof as an item of damages is the exception rather than the rule. 200. 261. if actually necessary. Exemplary damages – 40k – a warning to all entitled to observe good faith and due diligence in fulfilling contractual obligations Attorney’s fees of 10k – Art 2208 Central Azucarera de Bais v CA (1990) – Def are sugar cane planters milling their sugarcane with petitioner without any written milling contracts. Jr. it is recoverable 7|thil lozada if breach was wanton. Atenean teased Arreglado.Lazatin sued Twano for price of 225 autotrucks purchased from the US government. 4 Annotations on Attorney’s Fees. Cases 133. Central gives 62% share for those who signed but 60% share if without milling contract. if any.) Session 16 – Art 2015. malicious or in bad faith. Lazatin v Twano (1961) . PVE failed to record of problems in the equipment. which was the proper party plaintiff.cannot be recovered in an action for breach of contract because such an action is not among those expressly mentioned in Art 2219 of NCC.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 discernment when he inflicted the physical injuries on Manuel Quisumbing. The claim for actual. The father’s failure to submit the son to a plastic operation as soon as possible does not prove that such treatment is not called for or that its cost. 265. But found out that there are many co-owners in such school that has not consented the sale. They hired PVE.

Fracture.500 and 15. She sustained phyiscal injuries like brain concussion. became lame or that even one of his legs became short. simple. Atty Fess – 3k. Suddenly. " There is no evidence showing that as a consequence thereof.00 moral damages quite excessive. claiming that he will do a ritual to ward off the infidelity of his husband. deceased. and taking into account the work done by said attorney. She proceeded when she saw that there no cars. the sale of the land was done. A protested. Article 2231: In quasi-delicts. SC: the case was dismissed on purely technical ground – prescription and res adjudicata. When she was about to cross the intersection to Taft Ave. Corona v CA (1983) – Popioco was driving jeep owned by Ong. People v Bautista (1981) – Abalayan went to B. Considering the fact that defendants-appellant lees were drawn into this litigation by plaintiff-appellant and were compelled to hire an attorney to protect and defend them.G. Moral damages from 50k to 20k. Looked for the Ong Oh and shot him. Art 2208 (4). a driver running at full speed on a rainy day. as the name implies. an inseparable 8|thil lozada liability to the punitive portion of the sentence imposed on all convicted rapists.500 was released.200. Exemplary damages-5K. . 5433-R. People v Ruiz (1981) – Ruiz found that Atty Jose Ong Oh. still one cannot nullify. However. M failed to pay and the sheriff filed a notice of foreclosure mortgaged land and the chattel mortgage. without cause. Only 27. And having to face public trial that would expose the lurid details of her unhappy experience. M deposited 738. left” for which he underwent "an intramedullary nailing of the left femur on March 15.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 clearly unfounded. he now limps. Exemplary 10k. faith healer several times to seek help since she suspects that his husband is cheating on her. Amount awarded for damages in a criminal case shall be reduced where there are mitigating circumstances. and in disposing of the chattels in gross for the miserable amount of P4. simple. when a litigant goes to court for the determination of his alleged right.000. refused to load his copra through Ruiz union. femur left. Attorney’s fees 3k. considering that on record the injuries suffered by private respondent Popioco were as follows: “Fracture. Attorney’s fees 3k. Atty’s fees 1k each to be paid to Ong and Popioco. But for the wrongful acts of herein appellee bank and the deputy sheriff of Camarines Norte in proceeding with the sale in utter disregard of the agreement to have the chattels sold in Manila as provided for in the mortgage contract. collided with pick-up driven by Pineda owned by Corona. throughout the proceedings. the good and honest motive. which should be presumed. complainant undeniably felt mental anguish and distress. The rationale behind exemplary or corrective damages is. 1969 and removal of patellar fructure fragments and patellar tendon repair on April 2. distal third. No. P50. 1969. B started caressing the breasts and vagina. patella.59 which represents payment of the its whole debt. However. drunkenness and voluntary surrender. 3 mitigating circumstances: passion and obfuscation. that too had the effect of besmirching her reputation to warrant the award of moral damages. One day. exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with grave negligence. Mambulao Lumber Co v PNB (1968) – Mambulao Lumber granted industrial loan of 100k by PNB. While it may appear also that the move was a scheme to prevent the defendants-appellees from reaping the benefits of the final judgment rendered in their favor in said case CA. to provide an example or correction for the public good.908. on a slippery road in complete disregard of the hazards to life and limb of other people cannot be said to be acting in anything less than gross negligence. PNB claims that there is still a balance. B instead gave her a potion but A after drinking it felt weak. Moral damages 20k.R. and was granted. As a victim of rape. B asked A to lie down and unzip her pants in the woods. as reflected in the record. complete. She was hypnotized and B abused her. a taxi of defendant bumped her car. she stopped and looked at both sides for any on-coming vehicle. to which their attentions were timely called by herein appellant. The frequent incidence of accidents of this nature caused by taxi drivers indeed demands corrective measures. Popioco suffered injuries. complete. M requested the suspension of foreclosure of the chattel mortgage. Prudenciado v Allied Transport System (1987) – Dra Prudencio was about to hold a class at Philippine Normal College. The proceeds is 56.

does not seem to have much capital because she only pays for the mangoes when the same is sold. Exemplary damages are corrective in nature and are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good (Art. Actual: 12k. Tan filed 6 cases against Masa. mental anguish and serious anxiety and similar injury. whereby petitioners were wantonly "paid" with bouncing postdated checks and besides not being paid what was due them. but the offender should be required to pay punitive damages in the amount of P2. 2 mitigating: voluntary surrender. evidently. Masa filed in CAR for such but Tan opposed and filed for ejectment. Determination of nature of human life discretionary upon trial court. Attorney's fees 1k reasonable. but a malicious defraudation and gross abuse of petitioners' good faith. . assessed by the court a quo. even if the transaction were viewed as a breach of civil contract. Moral damages 4k. Civil Code). petitioners rejected. is excessive. and the situation before Us calls for the imposition of this kind of damages to deter others from taking into their hands a motor vehicle without being qualified to operate it on the highways thereby converting the vehicle into an instrument of death. P1. The assessment will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a manifest showing that the same is arbitrary or excessive.000. Masa filed for moral and exemplary damages for malicious prosecution. hit Andes. However. There was more than wanton refusal to pay a plainly valid and just contractual debt.000 because of his act in abusing the confidence of a customer belonging to the weaker sex. 1 aggravating: drove truck without a license.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 No exemplary damages shall be awarded if there are no aggravating circumstances. had to undergo trauma and travail to redeem with their own and borrowed funds from the pawnshops some of the jewelries in order to return them to their owners. resulting from respondents' malevolent acts that show her to be clearly entitled to moral damages. Exemplary 200 each. B bought jewelries amounting to P222k and 94K. May be recovered where physical injuries ended in death. Ribaya & Carbonell v Bautista (1980) – Ribaya was engaged in buying and selling jewelry.The wantonness and malevolence through which respondents defrauded petitioners. Andes died. B started to visit various pawnshops in Manila and found that the jewelries were pawned. there can be no question that the entitlement to moral damages having been established. asked the latter for the conversion of their share tenancy relationship to one of leasehold. He was arrested. B paid through checks but all was dishonoured since B’s account was closed. She was informed by her agent that Bautista was interest in buying jewelries with big diamonds. plea of guilt. exemplary damages may be awarded. The award of moral and exemplary damages in an aggregate amount may not be the usual way of awarding said damages. 2229. And exemplary damages may be awarded even though not so expressly pleaded in the complaint nor proved. The private prosecutors that helped in the prosecution of the case being deemed to have rendered service for a fellow member of the bar more in the spirit of professional fraternity. the Tribunal believes that the sum of P50. Peo v Medroso Jr (1975) – Medroso driven by M while in a barrio. Attorney’s fees – from 10k to 5k. Exemplary . The conversion was granted. R found B but was given a run around at maturity dates of checks. Tan Kapoe v Masa (1985) – Masa. Neither does the 9|thil lozada offender seem or appear to be of much financial consequence because he was only the overseer or manager of a mango store. deceitfully incurring and then evading settlement of their just liability certainly justifies the award of exemplary damages by way of example and correction for the public good and also to serve as a deterrent to the commission of similar misdeeds by others.000 should be sufficient as moral damages. Domingding v Aranas v Ng (1958) – From the record we also understand that the offended party is an exporter of mangoes who. which bespeaks of a perverse nature dangerous to the community. R cannot find B. With all the above circumstances in mind. Exemplary damages 4k. Moral damages & Exemplary damages – 25% of principal sum Moral damages – Petitioner Niceta suffered "extremely" and that for three months she could not sleep was a clear demonstration of her physical suffering. Tan’s tenant for 10 years.

driver was sued by Martinez for damages because of physical injuries sustained while riding the taxicab of Gonzales. However. their determination depending upon the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant. The law does not contemplate a vicarious liability on his part: the breach is his as party to the contract. he must first show that he is entitled to moral. for the public good. Munsayac v de Lara (1968) – Plaintiff was a passenger in a jeep owned and operated by defendant. as in the instant case. and in criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff. which was approved. He was dismissed. It is not enough to say that an example should be made. in view of the provisions of Articles 2219 and 2220 of the New Civil Code. For the causative negligence in such cases is personal to the employees actually in charge of the vehicles. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. and (2) where it is proved that the carrier was guilty of fraud or bad faith. Ca deleted moral and exemplary damages and reduced attorney’s fees. Moral damages are not recoverable in damages actions. G’s taxi bumped with another taxi. to compensatory damages. 200. 3. especially in accident cases where public carriers are involved. and it is they who should be made to pay this kind of damages by way of example or correction. as a carrier. still continued to work but his salary was withheld by Ybanez. oppressive or malevolent manner . predicated on a breach of the contract of transportation. The exceptions according to the Fores case: (1) where the mishap results in the death of a passenger. He was subsequently acquitted by CA. temperate. in effect making him a co-participant. temperate liquidated or compensatory damages. Octot believing it was illegal. even if death does not result. They are an antidote so that the poison of wickedness may not run through the body politic. reckless. They may be imposed by way of example or correction only in addition. Otherwise there would be practically no difference between their liability for exemplary damages and their liability for compensatory damages. and the award would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanton. unless by the demonstrated tolerance or approval of the owners they themselves can be held at fault and their fault is of the character described in Article 2232 of the Civil Code. for wanton acts must be suppressed. Plaintiff-appellant not being entitled to moral damages. Martinez lost consciousness because of such accident and was required to be hospitalized. Defendant drove at excessive speed and did not take due care even though the road is under repair and that his passengers requested him to go slowly. The claim for exemplary damages must presuppose the existence of the circumstances enumerated in Articles 2231 and 2232 of the Civil Code. This being the case. in addition to the moral. Octot was convicted of libel in RTC.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 Attorney’s fees 3k. to bring plaintiffappellant safely to her destination. or corrective measures employed. liquidated or compensatory damages. Exemplary damages are not generally recoverable in a special civil action for mandamus unless the defendant patently acted with vindictiveness or wantonness and not in the exercise of honest judgment. Octot v Ybanez (1982) – Octot was a security guard in GSIS. liquidated or compensatory damages. temperate. Attorney’s fees. fraudulent. Martinez v Gonzales (1962) – Gonzales. The claimant must first establish his right to moral. Imbong requested for his reinstatement. and cannot be recovered as a matter of right. it must be shown that he had previously authorized or knowingly ratified it thereafter. no moral damages are awardable. 2. which needs no proof of their negligence since the suit is predicated on breach of contract and due diligence on their part does not constitute a defense. The government ordered all department heads to dismiss EEs that are undesirable especially those who are facing charges. Such damages are required by public policy. NO exemplary. Attorney's fees are also recoverable when exemplary damages are awarded. Octot delayed in acting on such. she is not also entitled to exemplary damages. The wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith. 10 | t h i l l o z a d a NO moral -Plaintiff-appellant designated the incident as accident and predicated her cause of action on the failure of the defendant to perform her obligation. and so if he is to be held liable at all for exemplary damages by reason of the wrongful act of his agent. among others. Conditions when exemplary damages may be awarded: 1. For one to recover exemplary damages. owner and Fornal.

Mirasol v de la Cruz (1978) – Mirasol sued Mendoza for forcible entry. which collided with a bus. the award is a conclusion without a premise. 2217). in this jurisdiction. appellee's indifference to the previous abortions of his wife. the same was extinguished by its pre-natal death. Sought 10k exemplary damages but trial court did not awarded the same. Since they are awarded not by way of compensation." Hence. they can only be awarded against one who has participated in the offense Geluz v CA (1961) – Lazo. The husband of Estefania. if the circumstances should warrant them (Art. but it must be understood to mean those where the cause or causes of action are so untenable as to amount to gross and evident bad faith. since no transmission to anyone can take place from on that lacked juridical 11 | t h i l l o z a d a personality (or juridical capacity as distinguished from capacity to act). went to school where Sarmago also works as a teacher. He gave equal shares to his daughters. i. the board made a resolution donating to his minor heirs P’s life insurance proceeds in terms of stocks. support or services from an unborn child. Moreover. new 3m 3 Civil Code).. but as a punishment to the offender and as a warning to others. exemplary damages may only be imposed when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances (Article 2230. Pirovano became the president of the company. One daughter of Esteban protested since it will make the voting rights twice as to her sisters. Art 2230: criminal offenses exemplary damages as a part of a civil liability may be imposed when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstance. no aggravating circumstance. the exercise of judicial discretion in the award of attorney's fees under Art. 2208 (4) allows attorney's fees in cases of clearly unfounded civil actions. But it was presumed that the 1 st abortion which happened before they got married and the 2nd abortion (time that she was employed in Comelec) were done to his wife with his knowledge. “attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. Art. 2230). He was responsible for the massive expansion of the company. Exemplary damages. Rotea v Halili (1960) – Bacson was driving a bus owned by Halili. But Mendoza claims there is a prior existence of a tenancy contract and the case was purely for harassment. Such punitive damages cannot be applied to his master or employer except only to the extent of his participation or ratification of the act because they are penal in character. . as the general rule remains that attorney's fees are not recoverable in the absence of a stipulation thereto. the reason being that it is not sound policy to self a premium on the right to litigate. sued Geluz for the 3rd abortion done by his wife alleging that he did not consent on such. if no action for such damages could be instituted on behalf of the unborn child on account of the injuries it received. Proof must be presented to the court as to the facts and circumstances constituting the alleged bad faith.. husband of Villanueva. Exemplary damages are imposed primarily upon the wrongdoer as a deterrent in the commission of similar acts in the future. on account of distress and anguish attendant to its loss. Rotea. 2208 (11) of the New Civil Code demands a factual. and the disappointment of their parental expectations (Civ. The board nullified the donation and instead claims that the . its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture.e. major stockholder of respondent. Code Art." Pirovano v de la Rama S/S (1954) – Estefania was one of the daugthers of Esteban de la Rama. Art. Matura was convicted of oral defamation and slight physical injuries. and here the crime being only qualified by negligence is not accompanied by an aggravating circumstance and no evidence of participation of wrongful act of EE. No damages in case at bar. When he died. M accused her as the paramour of her husband and started insulting her about the immorality & physically assaulted in front of Sarmago’s co-teachers and students. Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death pertains primarily to the one injured.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 Matura v Laya (1979) – Matura was a public school teacher. In case at bar. no such right of action could derivatively accrue to its parents or heirs. Because the parents can not expect either help. Without such justification. In fact. passenger of Halili was injured. clearly indicates that he was unconcerned with the frustration of his parental hopes and affections.. they would normally be limited to moral damages for the illegal arrest of the normal development of the spes hominis that was the foetus. 2208: it is clearly intended to retain the award of attorney's fees as the exception in our law. legal or equitable justification. even if a cause of action did accrue on behalf of the unborn child.

The cotton is shipped by US Lines.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 proceeds will be considered as their debt and will pay 5% interest per annum. arrastre operator gained custody of such. Atty’s fees increased by 250 to 1k. Paler violated the contract of mortgage. Upon arrival. 4 of the article that will apply. On the other hand. But only the holiday was granted to the union amounting to P175. 2 are therefore non-litigation. which should not be so. Art 19 relate to Art 2208 (5). otherwise. other than judicial costs. Trader’s Royal v CA (1997) – TRB EEs Union secured the services of Atty Cruz. and executed as promissory note and chattel mortgage. The expenses mentioned in the second situation in said par. The article in question starts out with the general rule. 2. Atty Cruz sought 10% of award as attorney’s lien. thereby putting a premium on the right to litigate. It is well settled that a claim for attorney’s fees may be asserted either in the very action in which the services of a lawyer had been rendered or in a separate action. United General Industries v Paler (1982) – Paler bought a tv in instalment basis. In its ORDINARY CONCEPT. Attorney’s fees: 1. In its EXTRAORDINARY CONCEPT. automatically plaintiff must pay attorney's fees. The union claims for holiday. which was granted by NLRC. Art 2208(2).794. it knew before filing the complaint against U.S." Now a party sued in court is compelled under pain of default to become a party defendant either necessarily or unnecessarily. Imperial found that 4 were short landed or short delivered. There might have been such bad faith on petitioner's part if. Atty’s fee reduced from 20% to 10% of the amount as damages. Union protested alleging that attorney’s fees should have been incorporated in main case not after final judgment of SC. mid-year and year-end bonuses against TRB. and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client. Lines that MPS would admit liability. plaintiff sued for estafa. unless they have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof. Paler wilfully refused to pay debt which he clearly ought to have paid. Estefania filed for the recovery of proceeds.422. the so-called ordinary and extraordinary.42.32. However. especially after its earlier decision had been reviewed and partially affirmed. The basis of this is any of the cases provided by law where such award can be made. Rizal Surety & Ins v CA (1967) – Imperial. Civil Code. consignee of 6 bales of cotton remnants. Manila Port Service (MPS). There are two commonly accepted concepts of attorney’s fees. such as those authorized in Article 2208. better stated. procured insurance. Rizal subrogated the rights of Imperial. When the labor arbiter ordered the payment of attorney’s fees. an attorney’s fee is an indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party in a litigation.cause of action must be so untenable as to amount to gross and evident bad faith. Otherwise. he did not in any way modify the judgment of the Supreme Court. It asked reimbursement from US Lines and MPS as alternative defendants. because the term "unnecessarily" connotes the idea that the cause of action against such party was clearly unfounded in the first place. Art 2208(2) not applicable. he cannot recover the attorney's fees and litigation expenses incurred even if he should win. upon the premise that such expenses were unnecessary. TRB paid the amount to its employees. an attorney’s fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. cannot be recovered . The decision can no longer be altered. Rizal forced to pay P1. The basis of this compensation is the fact of his employment by and his agreement with the client. "In the absence of stipulation. the law deems the award of costs as 12 | t h i l l o z a d a sufficient reimbursement. US Lines claims for attorney’s fees claiming the suit was unfounded. Atty’s fees of 300 to US Lines was reversed. . . For those expenses then. . everytime a defendant wins. since it is not the fact of winning alone that entitles recovery of such items but rather the attendance of special circumstances the enumerated exceptions in Article 2208 in addition. if a party is unnecessarily made a defendant it will not be par. If necessarily. and agreed a monthly retainer of 3k. Even though or. there would have been no justification for the distinction. The litigation expenses recoverable therein are those incurred in suing third persons. 2 of the article but par. “Clearly unfounded” . He even imposed a burden on this Court by filing an unnecessary and frivolous appeal.

A sued for recovery of land alleging that the title of respondents is void being procured thru fraudulent misrepresentations and machinations. Otherwise. While a claim for attorney’s fees may be filed before the judgment is rendered. but demonstration. Neither should attorney’s fees be awarded. One such case is where the defendant is guilty of "gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy plaintiff's plainly valid. as person subsidiarily liable.000.00 by way of attorney's fees in favor of private respondents. Attorney’s fees warranted. a petition for attorney’s fees may be filed before the judgment in favor of the client is satisfied or the proceeds thereof delivered to the client. if it is stated only in the dispositive portion of the decision. Bad faith is evident on the part of Chaves because of issuing a check with no funds. New Civil Code is not a matter of feelings. The accepted rule is that the reason for the award of attorney’s fees must be stated in the text of the trial court’s decision. its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture.553 in a civil case. daughter of Bantoto. the 13 | t h i l l o z a d a award is a conclusion without a premise. invoice stipulates that in case of suit. Attorney's fees are recoverable not as a matter of right. just and demandable claims. Attorney’s fees cannot be determined until after the main litigation has been decided and the subject of the recovery is at the disposition of the court. otherwise. cannot incur greater civil liability than his convicted employee.Respondents was ordered to pay Abrogar P2. Article 2208. C issued a check but was dishonoured. Antonio v Santos – Antonio applied for the registration of the 2 land previously owned by his father. No Attorney’s fees. Because of its failure to pay. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co v Chavez (1966) – Firestone sued Ines Chavez for the price of automobile tires sold and delivered amounting to P6. the determination to be made by the courts will be premature. The exercise of judicial discretion in the award of attorney's fees under Article 2208 (ii) of the New Civil Code demands a factual. Bantoto v Bobis (1966) – Vallejo owner of jeep.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 With respect to the first situation. It was granted and declared owner but he found out that the lot is already registered to the respondents. the same must be disallowed.553. C agrees to pay 25% as attorney’s fees and liquidated damages. The reason for the award of attorney's fees must be stated in the text of the court's decision. moral and exemplary damages. legal. and the master. No such damages were imposed on the driver. Art 2208. otherwise. Without such justification. The issue over attorney’s fees only arises when something has been recovered from which the fee is to be paid. Respondent claims in peaceful possession of the property and Antonio never possessed it. driven by Bobis struck 3 year old girl. Bobis pleaded guilty to homicide thru reckless imprudence. Abrogar v IAC (1988) .241. RTC ruled that sale was null and void for lack of notice and awarded attorney’s fees of 2k. the remedy for recovering attorney’s fees as an incident of the main action may be availed of only when something is due to the client.75 plus interest and attorney’s fees. if it is stated only in the dispositive portion of the decision. and equitable justification. one of the respondent. (Art 2064) . the same must be disallowed on appeal. the determination as to the propriety of the fees or as to the amount thereof will have to be held in abeyance until the main case from which the lawyer’s claim for attorney’s fees may arise has become final. An award of moral damages is not warranted since the record is bereft of any proof that Antonio acted maliciously or in bad faith in filing the action. There is neither an allegation nor evidence to support the award of P2. The young girl died because of serious injuries. Bantoto filed a motion to declared also the owner solidary responsible for damages – civil indemnity. Article 19 related to Art 1170. its 2 land worth 75k was levied and was sold at public auction but without consent of Soccoro Desear. It is the import of Article 2208 that the award of attorney's fees is an exception and that the decision must contain an express finding of fact to bring the case within the exception and justify the grant of attorney's fees. Of course. "Just and equitable" under paragraph 11. It was sold for only P2. Exemplary damages improper. any more than a guarantor can be held responsible more than the principal debtor.

Cerezo v Tuazon (2004) – The tricycle was in its proper lane (Tuazon).97 as indemnity. That "actual" damages and "consequential damages" are dealt with in the Civil Code of the Philippines under the same Chapter. The employer can not be said to have been deprive of his day in court. While Country Bus Lines bus collided with a tricycle. owned by Barredo collided with the Chevrolet car of Martinez. In the criminal action. he had reserved the right to seek indemnity in a separate civil action The law authorizing the commencement of a civil action based upon a liability arising from a crime. unless those who support the contrary rule should also hold that an absolution in a civil case will operate to automatically set aside the verdict against the defendant in a criminal case. Art 2208(9). The secondary nature of the latter's obligation necessarily connotes that his properties may not be levied upon. Whether the liability sought to be enforced therein arises from a crime. A finding of guilt in a criminal case in which proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary. The employer becomes ipso facto subsidiary liable upon his driver's conviction and upon proof of the latter's insolvency. Driver cannot pay because if he could. Whether a judgment of conviction sentencing the defendant to pay an indemnity is conclusive in an action against his employer for enforcement of the latter's subsidiary liability under articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code? The judgment of conviction. thereof that the two (2) terms are thus used therein as equivalent to one another. Thus. as urged by appellant? Delict – Art 102-103 RPC Quasi-delict 14 | t h i l l o z a d a EE primarily liable while ER secondarily liable. E sued S and MD Transit for damages. or from a quasi-delict. Judgment of conviction in the criminal case against an EE is. Digman plead guilty. in the same way that acquittal wipes out not only the employee's primary civil liability but also his employer's subsidiary liability for such criminal negligence. the EE's solvency is merely a matter of defense which may be availed of by the ER. but. or if he had money or leviable property worth that much. as long and so long as the ER can point out properties of the EE which may be levied upon in satisfaction of said judgment. insofar as the law and this case is concerned. MD Transit v CA (1968) – Epstein. should bind the person subsidiary liable. Many died. plaintiff. He was unable to pay so M sued B for subsidiary liability under Art 102-103 RPC. he must be operating his own jeep. They sued each other for damages to property thru reckless imprudent. Reservation unnecessary if based on quasi delict Defense: due diligence of selection and supervision of ER. 2177 CC.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 Attorney’s fees of 3k disallowed only 1k. necessarily implies that the rendition of a judgment of conviction in the latter need not be alleged in the civil complaint. driven by Digman. E suffered fractures bones. in the absence of any collusion between the defendant and the offended party. also. Session 17 – Art 559. 1505. even before the institution of the criminal action. He was ordered to pay Martines for P605. Art 2220 CC . 426 scra 167. S was found guilty of serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence but no pronouncement of his civil liability since E reserved right to file a separate civil action for damages. not only admissible in evidence in the civil case against the ER. Not a defense – diligence of ER."indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered" otherwise known as "damnum emergens. However. conclusive upon his subsidiary liability arising from the EE's criminal liability. Prayer in the pleading ER “solidarily” liable with EE. Cerezo spouse was sued for damages as owner of Country . should be nullified in a subsequent civil action requiring only preponderance of evidence to support a judgment. in pursuance of a writ of execution of the judgment declaring the existence of both liabilities. was hit by a bus of MD transit driven by Sembrano. 427 scra 456 Martinez v Barredo (1948) – A taxi. because the situation before us is not one wherein the employer is sued for a primary liability under article 1903 of the Civil Code." pursuant to the same decision the distinction therein made appears to be inconsequential. Cases 311-327." and alluded to in said decision as "actual damages" "but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain" or "lucrum cessans" or "compensatory damages. Art 100-113 RPC. as contended by the plaintiff.

arises only after conviction of the employee in the criminal case. Civil action may be tried and prosecuted. If the present action proceeds from a delict. The old woman died after 8 days. Baza Marketing Corp v Bolinao Security (1982) – Baza Marketing leased a part of the building of Chamber of Commerce. and inexpensive determination" of their rival claims.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 Bus Lines with the driver. Either of the parties is indispensable. An action based on a quasi-delict may proceed independently from the criminal action. the law presumes that the employer has himself committed an act of negligence in not preventing or avoiding the damage. Pajarito v Senerix (1978) – Felipe Aizon owns a bus driven by Joselito Aizon. as proven that he is insolvent. F conspired with Secreto. The enforcement of the employer's subsidiary civil liability may be conveniently litigated within the same proceeding because the execution of the judgment is a logical and integral part of the case itself. is not applicable to the subsidiary civil liability provided in Art 20 RPC. Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code may only arise if the employee commits the crime of which he was found guilty in line or in pursuance of the discharge of his assigned duties. The choice of remedy. The writ of execution was unsatisfied. QUASI-DELICT: ER liability: primary and direct. each debtor is liable for the entire obligation. so a subsidiary writ was filed. It was created not to hinder and delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice." In proceedings to apply justice. 1. however. amount of the subsidiary civil liability can in no case exceed that of the principal civil liability. T was paralayzed. wherein Basa is one of the tenants. Not necessary to reserve the filing of separate civil action since liability is primary and direct for her own civil negligence. The subsidiary civil liability of the employer. A writ of execution was unsatisfied. affects the procedural and jurisdictional issues of the action. When an employee causes damage. The institution of the criminal action carries with it the institution of the civil action arising therefrom. exemption from civil liability in Art 1903 CC for all who have acted with the diligence of a good father of a family. Motorman seized the hand gear and applied the brakes but it was too late. then trial court’s jurisdiction over EE is necessary. The car even after applying the brakes travelled for about 20m. Is the EE an indispensable party in recover of damages against ER against a quasi-delict committed by EE? The same negligent act may produce civil liability arising from a delict under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. with all the ancillary processes provided by law. 2) EE committed the offense in the discharge of his duties. it is the duty of the courts "to assist the parties in obtaining just. F was convicted with robbery. Fajarillo was designated as guard in the premises of CC. and 2. as in this case. whether to sue for a delict or a quasi-delict. They were held guilty of homicide by simple negligence. is subsidiarily liable for the civil liability imposed on one of its security guards. They saw an old woman but the student did not slacken speed and struck the old woman. Arambulo v Manila Electric (1930) – A motorman with his student was operating a streetcar with a speed of 35-40 kph. CC signed a contract of security with the respondent. An aggrieved party may choose between the two remedies. and 3) he is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability. DELICT. Art 100 RPC. and the other is not even a necessary party because complete relief is available from either. so a subsidiary motion for execution was filed against Felipe. Whether Bolinao w/c furnished guards for CC Building. The bus turned turtle and passengers (one is Pajarito) died. or may give rise to an action for a quasi-delict under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Joselito was convicted and ordered to indemnify the mother for 12k. F opposed the claims alleging that he is not the ER of Joselito and if he is insolvent. speedy. One day. he must suffer subsidiary imprisonment. except when there is a separate civil action or reservation of the latter on the part of the complainant. P’s mother sued for double homicide thru reckless 15 | t h i l l o z a d a imprudence. The aggrieved party must initiate a criminal action where the EE’s delict and corresponding primary liability are established. An employer will be held responsible for any .440. Where there is a solidary obligation on the part of debtors." Art 103 in relation to Art 102 of RPC for an ER to be subsidiarily liable for EE’s civil liability in criminal action: 1) ER is engaged in any kind of industry. 16-year-old outsider to steal office equipments from Basa worth P5. Its proper aim is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of the contending parties. Art 1092 CC relate to Art 20 RPC.

The institution or the waiver of the right to file a separate civil action arising from the crime charged does not extinguish the right to bring such action. He bumped the car of Connel Bros Company and fell into the canal. this fact should be viewed in the light of their subsidiary liability. The only limitation is that the offended party cannot recover more than once for the same act or omission.000. Conviction of EE binds ER subsidiarily. It is not correct to say that the employer's subsidiary liability will be imposed even when the act is not done in pursuance of the duties of the employee. the act of stealing not being included in an employee's assigned tasks: nor would an employer ever include among the duties of his employee the commission of a crime. Aduna was convicted with damage to property & serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence. where Boomer and Nichol were passengers and sustained injuries. only preponderance of the evidence is required. ER Regoles.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 misdeed that his employee could have done while performing his assigned tasks. whereas in a purely civil action to recover the same damages under Arts. Every civil obligation arising from a crime or misdemeanor is to be governed by the provisions of the penal code. then. Jamelo sued for damages.00 damage judgment against him alone. While they may assist their employees to the extent of supplying the latters lawyers. Civil actions in Art 32-34 and Art 2176 CC. ERs are not parties to the criminal cases instituted against their employees. A motion of subsidiary liability to the owner was filed. distinct and independent" of any criminal prosecution based on the same act. since they are not deemed included therein. S is not subsidiarily liable. Art 1902-1903 CC. Such civil judgment is enforceable solely and exclusively against the only defendant. shall remain "separate. The remedy provided by the penal code for the recovery of damages by the party damaged is more burdensome and difficult. 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code. then . because to establish the guilt of the offender guilty of negligence. Jamelo v Serfino (1972) – Regoles was driving a truck of Serfino with his co-EE Jamelo collided with a parked track. however. The writ of execution was unsatisfied. the former cannot act independently on their own behalf. they have an interest therein. So. 2. The statutory limitation that the crime of the employee must have been committed "in the discharge of his duties" is clearly intended to exclude crimes not related to the performance of the duties assigned to him by his employer. the court in that case held that the offended party seeking damages has the right to choose between a criminal action and a civil suit. The subsidiary liability of petitioner is incidental to and dependent on the pecuniary civil liability of the accused-employee. What is deemed instituted in every criminal prosecution is the civil liability arising from the crime or delict per se (civil liability ex delicto). 16 | t h i l l o z a d a “A subsidiary civil liability incident to and dependent upon his driver's criminal negligence which is a proper issue to be tried and decided only in a criminal action. particularly in the amount or extent of proof to establish his rights to damages. S was adjuded liable for 8k. Jamelo died. Phil Rabbit Bus Lines v People (2004) – Roman was convicted of reckless imprudence. Here are some direct consequences of such revision and omission: 1. proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. Art 102. S claims that there being no judgment in a criminal case filed against the driver Regoles. but can only defend the accused." There can be no automatic subsidiary liability of defendant-ER under Article 103 RPC where his employee has not been previously criminally convicted. Criminal conviction of EE is a condition sine qua non under RPC. due to his insolvency. Clemente v Foreign Mission Sisters (CA)– Connel Bros v Aduna (1952) – Aduna was a driver of Ex-Meralco EEs Transportation Company. Ex-Meralco presented evidence of their exercise of due diligence of good family in selecting and supervising its EEs. 3. The right to bring the foregoing actions based on the Civil Code need not be reserved in the criminal prosecution. A separate civil action for damages was filed against Aduna. contracts or quasicontracts. but not those liabilities arising from quasi-delicts. Liability of Ex-Meralco only subsidiary. as in the present case. 103 RPC. Although in substance and in effect. Since the civil liability of the latter has become final and enforceable by reason of his flight. The plaintiff in case at bar filed an independent civil action for damages solely against the erring driver Antonio Regoles based on his criminal negligence resulting in the death of plaintiff's son and secured the P8. inasmuch as all acts or omissions causing damage to another as a result of one's fault or negligence are punishable by law. which she could not collect.

Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 the formers subsidiary civil liability has also become immediately enforceable. was stabbed to death by co-EE. unless the offended party or the heirs of the person murdered expressly renounce such reparation or indemnification. A was found guilty of serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence. Bil-liingan with a bolo and wounded her head and also inflicted wounds to 5 other women including her mother. is still reasonably and justly liable with his property for the consequences of his acts. the employer cannot be subsidiarily liable. The instant case is an exception to the rule in article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Such is the case of a lunatic or insane person who. The resolution of these issues need not be done in a separate civil action.269. Conviction is a condition sine qua non for the ER’s subsidiary liability. Is the ER who already paid WC to heirs of an EE. They should be construed together. between an action to enforce the civil liability arising from crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and an action for quasi-delict under Articles 2176-2194 of the Civil Code.” Tingguian custom. Their remedies were alternative and could not be claimed simultaneously. L was unable to pay. In view of the textile corporation's payment of workmen's compensation. 1k. Without the conviction of the employee. with due notice to the employer. even though they be performed unwittingly. Having opted for workmen's compensation. working in the weaving department in Universal Textile. De los Santos v Tan Khey (CA) – Steinmetz v Valdez – p 249 US v Baggay (1911) – Many people was gathered in Baggay’s house for a song service “buni. Even when they hold the accused exempt from criminal liability. without provocation suddenly attacked a woman. The injured employee who sustains a compensable personal injury has the option: 1. Heirs of G received from the company P5. May an EE’s primary civil liability for crime and his ER’s subsidiary liability therefor be proved in a separate civil action even while the criminal case against EE is still pending? See Pajarito v Senerix for the 3 requisites for an ER to be held subsidiarily liable. In a hearing set for that precise purpose. to claim workmen's compensation or 2. but 17 | t h i l l o z a d a there may be civil liability because of acts ordinarily punishable. He was declared exempt from criminal liability because of insanity but was obligated to indemnify heirs of murdered woman. J reserved the right to file a separate civil action for damages. who was killed by his co-EE. in spite of his irresponsibility on account of the deplorable condition of his deranged mind. J sued for damages against the driver and owner pending criminal case. they are bound by that election of remedy and are estopped to claim other remedies. . to sue for damages the person responsible for the personal injury. But the determination must be based on the evidence that the offended party and the employer may fully and freely present. Sections 5 and 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Law and articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code are statutes in pari materia.36 as workmen’s compensation (WC). the civil indemnity adjudged against him in the criminal case. because every person liable criminally for a crime or misdemeanor is also liable for reparation of damage and for indemnification of the harm done. To allow employers to dispute the civil liability fixed in a criminal case would enable them to amend. was extinguished. is still liable to pay to the same heirs the subsidiary civil liability under Art 103 of RPC. its obligation to pay. as part of the proceedings for the execution of the judgment. in a subsidiary capacity (or in default of the killer). for the reason that his fellows ought not to suffer for the disastrous results of his harmful acts more than is necessary. although the law has declared their perpetrators exempt from criminal liability. Baggay. Joaquin v Ancieto (1964) – Pilar Joaquin. L was convicted for homicide and sentenced to pay 6k. must fix the civil liability of the persons charged with watching over and caring for him (guardians) or the liability of the demented person himself with his property for reparation of the damage and indemnification for the harm done. on the sidewalk. In cases of negligence. Lebantino while L was performing his duties. Art 33 RPC only applies to an action against EE on his primary civil liability. Any action brought against him before such is premature. nullify or defeat a final judgment rendered by a competent court. in spite of his unfortunate condition. was hit by Aniceto while driving the taxi of Rodelas. Teleria v Garcia (CA) – p 250 Generoso v Univesal Textile Mills (1980) – Marcelo Generoso. the injured party or his heirs has the choice. Civil liability accompanies criminal liability.

Rule 111. The only exception is when the thing has been acquired by a third person in a manner which bars its recovery. Dunton Paper Co disappeared and was seized from Ramirez which he allegedly bought from Barach Motor. In case at bar. driven by Bobis struck 3 year old girl. Bantoto v Bobis (1966) – Vallejo owner of jeep. Ramirez v Yatco (1963) – The Oldsmobile car by Bulkley. Parents sued owner of taxi. 18 | t h i l l o z a d a Exemplary damages improper. The decision in criminal case is binding and conclusive upon the defendant not only with regard to its civil liability but also with regard to its amount because the liability of an ER cannot be separated but follows that of his EE. M admitted to be R’s ER but denied other allegations. Said article provides that the restitution of the thing itself shall be made by the court whenever possible. Barredo as ER for damages. No such damages were imposed on the driver. And by analogy to a regular guarantor (who is the prototype of persons subsidiarily responsible). it is his concern. he cannot later be heard to complain. the employer is subrogated ipso jure to the right of the heirs to claim civil liability from the author of the homicide. after deduction of the expenses of the ER and the costs of the proceedings. Cases 328-348 Barredo v Garcia and Almario (1942) – Garcia. That is why the law says that his liability is subsidiary. 16 year old died while riding a carretela when it collided with a taxi driven by Fontanilla. Session 18 – Art 29-35. even though it b e found in the possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means. that he was not given his day in court. there is no claim that petitioner falls within the exception. nullify or defeat a final judgment rendered by a competent court. Article 1060). In allowing the case to be submitted for decision. it is the latter who is in a better position to determine the resources and solvency of the servant or employee. the employer. RR of Crim Pro. insolvency of servant not mentioned. moral and exemplary damages. The young girl died because of serious injuries. Malate was ordered to pay the indemnity. 2177. This rule is logical. owner of Studebaker car and Ramos. parents of victim filed a right to reserved a separate civil action.318. is entitled to recover it from the convicted killer of the employee. Instead of being liable for the indemnity. (Art 2064) In Art 103. an ER is not a party to the criminal case instituted against his EE.40. Miranda v Malate Garage (1956) – A collision occurred between Miranda. Any excess in the recovery would be paid by the ER to the “injured EE or any other person entitled thereto. Reyes was sued for qualified theft. In allowing the case to be submitted for decision w/o giving said defendant an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff regarding his claim for damages because such claim was never admitted as in fact denied when its answer it stated that it did not have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth thereof. the master may not demand prior exhaustion of the servant's (principal obligor's) properties if he can not "point out to the creditor available property of the debtor within Philippine territory. Civil Code. Such insolvency is required only when the liability of the master is being made effective by execution levy. cannot incur greater civil liability than his convicted employee. as person subsidiarily liable. saving only to the latter the action he may have against the proper person who may be held liable to him. F convicted in criminal case.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 Having paid workmen's compensation. if brought to court for the enforcement of his subsidiary liability. R plead guilty and was sentenced to pay P2. any more than a guarantor can be held responsible more than the principal debtor. Bobis was insolvent. F is negligent for the mishap because he was driving on the wrong side of the road at high speed. as subrogee. The subsidiary character of the employer's responsibility merely imports that the latter's property is not be seized without first exhausting that of the servant. and the master. If because of his indifference or inaction the EE is convicted and damages are awarded against him. but not for the rendition of judgment against the master. Bantoto filed a motion to declared also the owner solidary responsible for damages – civil indemnity. driver of Malate Garage. While strictly speaking. to see to it that his interest be protected in the criminal case by taking virtual participation in the defense of his EE. as well as of his EE. Sec 1-5. Bobis pleaded guilty to homicide thru reckless imprudence. daughter of Bantoto. B . ISSUE: Art 105 RPC. To allow to dispute the civil liability fixed in the criminal case would be to amend. sufficient to cover the amount of the debt" (Cf. for as between the offended party (as creditor) and the culprit's master or employer.

include all acts in which "any king of fault or negligence intervenes. The civil case was suspended pending judgment of criminal case previously filed. RATIONALE: to facilitate remedy for civil wrongs. Art 2180: to protect society. 20 passenger injured. whatever each nature. That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts. while in a civil case. that it is subsidiary to the principal action. and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict or crime. reparations. 2 helpers & driver of truck was injured. which is different and independent from civil liability arising out of criminal negligence under RPC. In the bus. The same negligent act causing damages may produce civil liability arising from a crime under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. the injured party no longer desires to seek another relief. Upon this principle and on the wording and spirit article 1903 of the Civil Code. owner of truck filed a suit for damages in truck. 2 jurisdictions had taken cognizance of the same act in its different aspects. while the latter. That. like the penalty itself. Before third persons the employer and employee become as one personality by the merging of the person of the employee in that of him who employs and utilizes him. 8 died. or create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. the primary and direct responsibility of employers may be safely anchored. proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required. while cuasi-delitos are only of private concern. preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. but this coincidence of effects 19 | t h i l l o z a d a does not eliminate the peculiar nature of civil actions to ask for indemnity. a culpa surrounded with aggravating aspects which give rise to penal measures that are more or less severe. That crimes affect the public interest. salaries of EEs during incapacity. The action against the principal is accessory in the sense that it implies the existence of a prejudicial act committed by the employee. Some of the differences between crimes under the Penal Code and the culpa aquiliana or cuasi-delito under the Civil Code are: 1. because the former are punished only if there is a penal law clearly covering them. the Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act. The title upon which the action for reparation is based cannot be confused with the civil responsibilities born of a crime. because there exists in the latter. they are ordinarily entrusted to the office of the prosecuting attorney. and that is.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 claims that his liability is only subsidiary under RPC. Chan v Yatco (1958) – Phil Rabbit’s bus collided with parked truck. or indemnifications which. . by means of indemnification. while the Civil Code. To hold that there is only one way to make defendant's liability effective. he cannot be liable because F was not included as defendant. such as begging in contravention of ordinances. 2. The civil action for damages could be based on quasi-delict. A quasi-delict or "culpa aquiliana " is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own. would be tantamount to compelling the plaintiff to follow a devious and cumbersome method of obtaining relief. because the procedure indicated by the defendant is wasteful and productive of delay. and it is clear that if by this means the losses and damages are repaired. infraction of the rules of traffic when nobody is hurt. the action for responsibility (of the employer) is in itself a principal action. cuasi-delitos. for this reason. consequently. violation of the game laws. merely repairs the damage. without including the author of the act. affect public order. The action can be brought directly against the person responsible (for another). It is the masters or employers who principally reap the profits resulting from the services of these servants and employees. The injury caused by a felony or misdemeanor upon civil rights requires restitutions. to sue the driver and exhaust his (the latter's) property first. but it is not subsidiary in the sense that it cannot be instituted till after the judgment against the author of the act or at least. 3. cargo and consequential losses." However. It is an independent judicial institution separate from civil liability arising from crime. The cargo of truck was also damaged (sacks of clean rice and tiqui-tiqui) Petitioner. To find the accused guilty in a criminal case. It is but right that they should guarantee the latter's careful conduct for the personnel and patrimonial safety of others. Art 365 RPC punishes not only reckless but also simple negligence. it should be noted that not all violations of the penal law produce civil responsibility.

e. Safeguard claims due diligence in selection and supervision and the act of P was only on self-defense. 20 | t h i l l o z a d a consequently.g. unless expressly waived or reserved for a separate application by the offended party. T instantly died. Article 2177 of the Civil Code. . The nature of a cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting the cause of action. i. The child was dragged by 40m. Ace Haulers Corp v CA (2000) – Truck. owner Ace Hauler. Ace and De la Cruz filed a motion to dismiss while criminal case is pending invoking that filing of independent civil action arising from quasi-delict is no longer allowed and civil aspect is already included with criminal case. The action for enforcement of civil liability based on culpa criminal section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court deems simultaneously instituted with the criminal action. The truck ran over the motorcycle and Abiva died. Padua v Robles (1975) – Taxi driven by Punzalan. Safeguard Sec Inc v Tangco (2006) – Tangco went to a Ecology Bank to renew her time deposit. not arising from an act or omission complained of as a felony. In negligence cases the offended party (or his heirs) has the option between an action for enforcement of civil liability based on culpa criminal under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and an action for recovery of damages based on culpa aquiliana under article 2177 of the Civil Code. owned by Robles hit a 10-year old son of petitioners. it has not been shown that Abiva’s wife has recovered on the award in the criminal case. He was convicted. Rule 111 of CrimPro An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender. A criminal case was filed against De la Cruz and Parma while pending civil case. precludes recovery of damages twice for the same negligent act or omission. and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. The purpose of an action or suit and the law to govern it is to be determined not by the claim of the party filing the action.e. such as those a. Does the crim case include civil liability? Civil liability coexists with criminal responsibility. assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. RTC: ER solidarily liable. independent civil liabilities. 2. Jeep driver Parma. 1. he was also convicted but civil liability already assessed in civil case.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 Such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter. Either of these liabilities may be enforced against the offender subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission or under both causes. P suddenly shot T in her abdomen with his service shotgun. in crim case. Pajarillo. She was also a licensed to carry firearms. and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. Civil Case. A motorcycle. Allowance of the application of subsidiary liability involves no violation of the proscription against double recovery of damages for the same negligent act or omission. where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code... Her husband filed a criminal case of homicide and reserved right to file a separate civil action in the said criminal case. culpa contractual or obligations arising from law under Article 31 of the Civil Code. Sec 1. A civil case was filed for damages against Pajarillo and its ER Safeguard for failing to observe due diligence. Paduas sued for damages and fiscal also charged Punzalan with homicide thru reckless imprudence. or b. Paduas was unable to collect from Punzalan so Padua filed a motion to enforce subsidiary liability against Robles. intentional torts under Articles 32 and 34. Article 2177 of the Civil Code forbids actual double recovery of damages for the same negligent act or omission. She deposited it to the security guard. Abiva driving was dragged by jeep towards the truck. driver De la Cruz. to recover damages on both scores. however. It is important to determine the nature of respondents' cause of action. Punzalan was ordered to pay. whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. civil liability ex delicto. A separate civil action for damages lies against the offender in a criminal act. ER. she can unquestionably recover from petitioner in the civil case. owner Rivera. under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. CA: subsidiary only. provided that the offended party is not allowed. if he is actually charged also criminally. In case at bar. RTC ordered to pay damages since P did not report the incident to head office or police the T was roaming around the area prior to the shooting.

a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act. if he is actually charged also criminally. . because of its failure to carry safely the late Richard Parker to his place of destination. is that arising from delict.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 made in his argument or brief. The institution of a criminal action cannot have the effect of interrupting the civil action based on quasi-delict. But although the employer is solidarity liable with the employee for damages. 21 | t h i l l o z a d a The civil case is based on alleged culpa contractual incurred by respondent Philippine Air Lines. and not the civil action based on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. In the case at bar. and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. The failure to reserve the right to institute a separate civil action in the criminal case would not necessarily constitute a bar to the institution of the civil action against respondent. except that a plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or commission of the defendant. where it refers to "fault or negligence. the injured party or his heirs has the choice between an action to enforce the civil liability arising from crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and an action for quasi-delict under Article 2176-2194 of the Civil Code. whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. for the cause of action in one is different from that in the other. And the separate civil action for quasi-delict may proceed independently and regardless of the result of the criminal case. in reiteration of Garcia. its allegations and prayer for relief. But this situation does not here obtain. that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law. but rather by the complaint itself. the civil case is directly interowner with the criminal case in the sense that the main issue involved in both cases is the determination of the failure of deceased passenger to reach safely to his destination or the determination of the cause of his death.[20] (Emphasis supplied) Parker v Panlilio and PAL (1952) – Parker was a passenger in a PAL plane which exploded in mid-air. In other words." covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character. "x x x Article 2176. Rule 111. RTC correct in suspending civil case. Consequently. he may hold the employer solidarily liable for the negligent act of his employee. Bit in this case. We here hold. whereas the criminal case involves the civil liability of the accused. refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. Rule 107 contemplates a case where the offended party desires to press his right to demand indemnity from the accused in the criminal case or in a separate action. Briefly stated. the action filed by appellant was an action for damages based on quasi-delict. whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. The fact that appellants reserved their right in the criminal case to file an independent civil action did not preclude them from choosing to file a civil action for quasi-delict. (e) of Section 3. the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. If a party chooses the latter. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss since a criminal case for damage to property thru reckless imprudence pending between same parties for same cause. assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. Inc. the employer may demand reimbursement from his employee (driver) for whatever amount the employer will have to pay the offended party to satisfy the latter's claim. These are two independent actions based on distinct causes of action. P sued for damages of P100k against PAL for not bringing him safely to Manila. who bear no relation whatsoever with said entity. which should be suspended after the institution of the criminal action. The case was suspended upon pendency of crim case. provided that the offended party is not allowed. L sued for damages against Ping and Mendoza due to reckless negligence of driver. whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as 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. to recover damages on both scores. driven by Mendoza rammed in a residential house and store of Lanuzo. Lanuza v Ping (1980) – Freight truck owned by Ping. and are complete strangers to it. The civil action referred to in Sections 3(a) and (b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. subject to the employer's defense of exercise of the diligence of a good father of the family. In cases of negligence. It was completey razed to ground." (Emphasis supplied) The source of the obligation sought to be enforced in the civil case is a quasi-delict not an act or omission punishable by law.

He was ordered P6k as damages. Manio. 16 years old. they were not inflicted with malice. The extinction of civil liability referred to in Sec 3(e). A filed against the corporation’s officer and directors a criminal case under Art 324 RPC and civil case for damages.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 Virata v Ochoa (1978) – Virata collided with jeep owned by Ochoa.” CA’s declaration that the mishap was “pure accident” are relevant and material evidence. assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. The civil case was also dismissed because of the acquittal. refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Art 100 of RPC. (if the tortfeasor is actually charged also criminally). Res judicata is not applicable where there is no identity of parties and civil liability for tort is different from liability for negligence under RPC. RTC acquitted B in crim case on the ground of mere accident. thereby causing inundation and damage to an adjacent land. CA acquitted because it was only a PURE ACCIDENT. and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two. will not bar a separate civil action for quasi-delict provided that the injured party has not intervened actually or actively in the prosecution of said criminal action. would be punishable as a felony. The injuries suffered by herein petitioners were alleged to be the result of criminal negligence. Sec 1. Hence. sideswept Guevarra. driven by Borilla. which has built through its agents. water conductors and contrivances within its land. Sec 2 Rule 111. Manio v Gaddi (1972) – Balanza. whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. and c. the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. (assertion of such between act of building waterpaths and damage sustained) Article 2176. The heirs of V reserved a right to institute separate civil action. can be held civilly liable for damages under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts such that the resulting civil case can proceed independently of the criminal case. Civil case was also dismissed. The failure to make. “The essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that. While Yap and Marcia filed for damages against Victory and Paje because of negligence and reckless imprudence. widow sued B and ER for damages. A criminal case was filed against B. Right to file a separate civil suit in culpa acquiliana in spite of lack of express reservation. whenever it refers to "fault or negligence". in the criminal case. provided that the offended party is not allowed. waterpaths. an acquittal based on the finding that the facts upon which civil liability did not exist. They filed a civil case for damages based on quasi-delict against O and B. However. . Issue: Whether a corporation. to recover damages on both scores. b. RTC dismissed civil case pending criminal case. Rule 111. What is prohibited by Article 2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is to recover twice for the same negligent act. A crim action of homicide and serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence was filed. NOT even guilty of CIVIL NEGLIGENCE. fault or negligence of the defendant. Consequently. All the elements of a quasi-delict under Art 2176-2177 are present. He pleaded 22 | t h i l l o z a d a guilty with homicide thru reckless imprudence. if intentionally done. 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 happended or has not been committed by the accused. in charge of a rig which he drove recklessly. no independent civil action for damages may be instituted in connection therewith. damages suffered by the plaintiff. Reckless imprudence or criminal negligence is not one of the three crimes mentioned in Article 33 of the Civil Code. Marcia v CA (1983) – Victory Liner bus was driven by Paje when is collided with a jeep driven by Clemente Marcia (with 2 passengers Edgar Marcia and Yap). whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted. Andamo v IAC (1990) – Andamo owns an adjacent land to the Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette Inc. G died. In negligence cases the aggrieved parties may choose between an action under the Revised Penal Code or of quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. to wit: a. CFI dismissed since P6k as damages is crim case barred civil action sought by Manio. the reservation reuired in Rule 111. bars the filing of an independent civil action if it is based on the crime. covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character. or some other person for whose acts he must respond. a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act.

F was convicted of slight physical injuries. Under Article 33 of the Civil Code. Plaintiff's (offended party) civil action for recovery of civil liability and damages from defendant (accused) would have been implicitly instituted with the criminal action. in the case filed by the car owner was acquitted in the criminal case for negligence filed by the car owner against the jeepney owner. Neither has the offended party instituted the civil action prior to the criminal action. in the event of an acquittal where the court has declared that the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist. Failure to make a reservation in the criminal action for negligence of the right to file an independent civil action does not amend the substantive provision of Art 31 CC on quasi-delict. in which case the extinction of the criminal liability would carry with it the extinction of the civil liability. Fandialan inflicted physical injuries against Escueta. nevertheless since it was instituted before the prosecution presented evidence in the criminal action. Although the separate civil action filed in this case was without previous reservation in the criminal case. Yakult Phils v CA (1990) – Camaso. nor reserved the right to institute it separately. truck bumped it at the back. The civil case filed based on Art 100 of RPC was dismissed for lack of interest. There is no identity of cause of action between the civil case in question and the criminal case against the truck driver for damage to jeep. The purpose of this rule requiring reservation is to prevent the offended party from recovering damages twice for the same act or omission. unless. so that in the disposition of the criminal action no damages was awarded. he could prosecute his civil action for damages from the physical injuries separately and independently of the criminal action and would require only a preponderance of evidence to support his action. Art 2176-2177 CC creates a civil liability distinct from the civil action arising from the offense of negligence under RPC. owner and driver of jeep. Such separate and independent civil action under the cited codal article proceeds to trial and final judgment irrespective of the result of the criminal action. The civil case was refilled after 16 years. 1952. Escutea v Fandialan (1974) – July 2. While between Mendoza and Salazar. Jeep was then swerved to the Benz and Salazar in the jeep was thrown. In this case. However. the civil action in this case was filed in court before the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution in the criminal action of which the judge presiding on the criminal case was duly informed. S was acquitted. but plaintiff expressly reserved his right to institute the civil action separately. 1968. No reservation need be made in criminal case. In the civil case. Benz owned and driven by Mendoza sued Salazar. The owner of a car which was bumped by a jeep after the latter was bumped from behind by a truck may still file an civil action for damages against the truck driver and the jeepney driver. and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime. defendants are solidarily liable. then the actual filing of the civil action is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of an express reservation that should be made by the offended party before the prosecution presents its evidence. E reserved right to file a separate civil action. its provisions which are procedural may apply retrospectively to the present case. A criminal case against driver was filed while father of victim filed a civil case against Yakult and driver.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 Quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own. . Rule 111 of Crim Pro that a separate civil action may not be filed unless a reservation is expressly made. July 5. of course. Therefore. Jeep tried to overtake truck but was stopped at intersection but while still in a stop position. and the judge handling the criminal case was informed thereof. Yakult claimst that the civil case has no jurisdiction since under Sec 1. the offended party has not waived the civil action. Montoya was convicted of damage to property thru reckless imprudence + fire and actual damages. the acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case. 23 | t h i l l o z a d a Mendoza v Arrieta (1979) – 3 way accident. Salazar in turn sued driver Montoya of gravel truck. 5-year old boy was sideswiped by a motorcycle of Yakult while driven by Salvao. F claims action is not barred by prescription since only 4 years can a quasi-delict be filed under Art 1146(1). Although the incident in question and the actions arising therefrom were instituted before the promulgation of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. The aforecited revised rule requiring such previous reservation also covers quasi-delict as defined under Article 2176 of the Civil Code arising from the same act or omission of the accused. even without such reservation.

PNB sued to recover value of goods. is subsidiarily liable. misapplied and converted the merchandise covered by trust receipt which prejudiced PNB. cannot hold driver guilty of negligence. according to the plain and explicit command of Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. driver was convicted and ordered to pay 6k as indemnity. Civil case was dismissed. Whether the previous dismissal of an action based on culpa aquiliana precludes the application of the plain and explicit command of Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code? The enforcement does not concern “the identity of reliefs prayed for. but crim case. R claims that S was supposed to sell properties to R evidenced by 2 deeds of sale. namely. and in the death of her daughter. he is liable ex contractu for its breach. if it be shown that the commission thereof was in the discharge of the duties of such employee. He was also sentence to pay in crim case that pay offended party 4k.” No civil liability was adjudged in the criminal case since plaintiff expressly reserved the right of filing a separate civil action. Tactaquin v Palileo (Sept 1967) – Tactaqun filed to recover damages for the death of her daughter when she was hit by Palileo while it was driving recklessly. The declaration in the decision of acquittal to the effect that “if any responsibility was incurred by the accused – that is civil in nature and not criminal” amounts to a reservation of the civil action in favour of offended party. Civil case filed but was dismissed stating that the claim on both case is founded on same deed of sale and acquittal in crim case produced the effect of exemption of her estate from any civil liability. RTC found that S did not sell any land to R and the deeds of sale were executed in order to enable R to convince the residents of the barrio that decedent could freely dispose of his properties. R filed crim case for estafa. PNB v Catipon (1956) – Catipon was charged by estafa for having misappropriated. S sold the same to Ballesteros and registered the deed of sale. "the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant" (Emphasis supplied). Jocson v Glorioso (1968) – 2 actions was filed for death of 3-year old boy who was run over by a jeep. the action to enforce the judgment would prescribe only after ten years. The writ of execution was unsatisfied. In the case at bar. for such negligence is punished by law. with the judgment being enforceable by mere motion within the first five years. final in character. because bank did not reserve in crim case the right to separately enforce the civil liability against him? The acquittal is predicated on the conclusion “that the guilt of the defendant has not been satisfactorily established. Owner claims barred by prior judgment in civil case. To deprive them now of this remedy. he had no standing in the criminal action as an offended party and the verdict of conviction excluded any civil liability. Albornoz v Albornoz (1956) – Racela filed 2 claims against estate of Soriano. Hence. C was acquitted. it does not finally determine nor expressly declare that the fact from which the civil action might arise did not exist. under Art 29 CC. would be to deprive them altogether of the 24 | t h i l l o z a d a indemnity to which they are entitled by law and by a court decision. his reckless manner of driving which resulted in serious physical injuries to appellant. The acquittal being equivalent to reasonable doubt. For this same act or omission appellant cannot recover twice. P filed a motion to dismiss being barred by final judgment in criminal case convicting him of homicide and serious physical injuries for the same accident. the employer. (1) civil case – against owner and driver for culpa acquilina. C ordered to pay. As in other-civil actions where judgment has obtained. after the conviction of defendant's employee. Such must be deemed legally ineffective. S was acquitted. However. What clearly emerges then is the controlling force of the principle that once there is a conviction for a felony. (2) criminal action for homicide thru reckless imprudence. it is crystal clear that any civil liability contracted by appellee whether based on quasi-delict or otherwise arose from exactly the same act or omission. The reservation was made after appelee had already pleaded guilty.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 Prescriptive period of 4 years under Art 1146(1) applies not Art 1144(3) which provides 10 years for actions based “upon a judgment. Does the acquittal in crim case bar the institution of present civil action. . does not preclude a suit to enforce the civil liability for the same act or omission. An action to enforce against owner was filed. They were therefor simulated sales." On the same principle then.” The negligent act committed by defendant's employee is not a quasi crime. which injustice it is our duty to prevent. the previous dismissal of the action based on culpa aquiliana could not be a bar to the enforcement of the subsidiary liability required by Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The appellant executed the trust receipt.

1 civil case also dismissed because of such but 1 was not. Can Manliclic still be held liable for the collision and be found negligent notwithstanding the declaration of the CA that there was an absence of negligence on his part? From the foregoing declaration of the Court of Appeals. Rule 107. PNB filed 2 civil cases and also a crim case for violation of anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Sto Domingo. helper Rico. be deemed a bar to a civil action against this 25 | t h i l l o z a d a company because its civil liability is completely divorced from the criminal liability of the accused.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 The judgment of acquittal amount to a judicial declaration that the basis of claimant’s action. took the truck in the middle of the road. PRBLI claims due diligence. In civil cases – evidence only requires a preponderance. The act of driver is to avoid greater evil or harm. The acquittal of the accused cannot. Purpose of law in allowing a civil case related to criminal case to be filed separately and to proceed independently even during pendency of the latter case. Crim case was dismissed. Criminal case was filed against Manlilic. CA acquitted Manliclic. therefore. this declaration fits well into the exception of the rule which exempts the accused from civil liability. Tan then sued Standard and rural including SD and R a civil case for damages. or sales of said parcels of land to the claimant did not exists. The motion to dismiss must be denied for the reason that acquittal in criminal case will not be an obstacle for the civil case to prosper unless in the criminal case the Courts makes a finding that even civilly the accused would not be held liable – there is no such finding. driven by Mendoza collided with PRBLI bus driven by Manliclic. section 1(d) means that the acquittal of the accused from the criminal charge will not necessarily extinguish the civil liability unless the court declares in the judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. The principle of res judicata cannot apply to them for the simple reason that they were not included as co-accused in the criminal case. Calanuan filed for damages against PRBLI and Manliclic. “(d) Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil.” It is unnecessary to consider the claim of the claimant-appellant that he had submitted sufficient evidence to sustain defendant's liability. Sto Domingo and Rico was charged with arson thru reckless imprudence. recommended the granting of loans in violation of the bank rules – fraud and negligence w/c resulted in losses by bank. Calaunan sustained injuries. the driver. and abandoned it. Tan’s house was also destroyed. the criminal case is prosecuted by the prosecuting officer alone without intervention from a private counsel representing the interest of the offended party. Tan v Standard Oil Co (1952) – Standard delivered to Rural Transit gallons of gasoline contained in a gasoline tank-truck trailer. This benefit can only be claimed by the accused if a subsequent action is later taken against them under the Revised Penal Code. And this action can only be maintained if proper reservation is made and there is no express declaration that the basis of the civil action has not existed. His action is barred under Sec 2(d). Salta v de Veyra (1982) – Salta. unlike other offenses not mentioned. but on the ground that he is not the author of the act . it appears that petitioner Manliclic was acquitted not on reasonable doubt. This must be so because the offenses specified in Article 33 are of such a nature. manager of PNB Malolos. The cause of its moving in the opposite side of street caused buildings on that to be burned ad destroyed. While the gasoline was being discharged to underground tank. but acquitted because the fire was due to an unfortunate accident. The wisdom of the provision of Article 33 of the New Civil Code is to be found in the fact that when the civil action is reserved to be filed separately. The rule regarding reservation of the right to file a separate civil action does not apply to it. Where the court states that the evidence throws no light on the causes of fire and that it was an unfortunate accident for which the accused cannot be held responsible. It cannot be denied that this company is one of those for whose benefit a greater harm has been prevented. Not having been included in the criminal case they cannot enjoy the benefit resulting from the acquittal of the accused. unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist. Rule 107. The front right side of the Philippine Rabbit Bus hit the rear left side of the jeep causing the latter to move to the shoulder on the right and then fall on a ditch with water resulting to further extensive damage. unlike beyond reasonable doubt which is the requisite in criminal case. and as such it comes within the purview of said penal provision. it caught fire. Manliclic and Phil Rabbit v Calaunan (2007) – Jeep owned by Calaunan. that they may be made the subject of a separate civil action because of the distinct separability of their respective juridical cause or basis of action.

As regards civil liability arising from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. He appealed in CA. S was convicted with Reckless Imprudence resulting to multiple homicide and multiple physical injuries but reserved to file a separate civil action. So it is in civil cases under Sec 4 of Rule 40. Rule 111. when the injured party actually exercises the right to maintain a private suit against the offender by instituting a civil action prior to the filing of the criminal case. The afore-quoted section applies only to a civil action arising from crime or ex delicto and not to a civil action arising from quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. The grant of power to this Court. In this second instance. said acquittal closes the door to civil liability based on the crime or ex delicto. and 3. refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. It also alleges that cannot be held subsidiary liable since S was not ordered to pay damages in criminal case. the civil liability arising from the offense is impliedly instituted with the criminal action. may be instituted on grounds other than the delict complained of. The rule in this jurisdiction is that upon appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction by the municipal court. same will not be extinguished by an acquittal. However. when the offended party reserves his right to have the civil damages determined in a separate action in order to take full control and direction of the prosecution of his cause. whether it be on ground of reasonable doubt or that accused was not the author of the act or omission complained of (or that there is declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist). Santos v Pizarro (2005) – Viron Transit driven by Sibayan collided woth Lite Ace Van. The extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. In spite of said ruling. subject to three notable exceptions: 1. if an accused is acquitted based on reasonable doubt on his guilt. 2. . They filed a motion to dismiss since respondents did not reserved their right to file a separate case. Filed for damages against S. He was ordered to pay victims. When a criminal action is instituted. a civil action. An acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case based on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana. Such civil liability may consist of restitution. And the civil case was only filed when crim case was already on appeal. if the case us appealed to the CFI where the trial de novo is required by the Rules. A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own. if any. when the injured party expressly waives the right to recover damages from the accused. The offended party in a criminal case has the remedy of pursuing an independnent civil action. The right to initiate a civil action apart from the criminal case is substantive. increase or modification of substantive right. In other words. does not extend to any diminution. Rondaris. civil liability based thereon or ex delicto is not possible. 6k. his civil liability arising from the crime may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. Because FA while driving atruck hit a pedicab with its 3 passengers sustaining injuries. petitioner Manliclic can still be held liable for the mishap. and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime. Sec 1. 3 died including 2-month old baby and 5 were injured. reparation of the damage caused and indemnification of consequential damages. Abellana v Marave (1974) – Felix Abellana (FA) was convicted by TC of physical injrueis thru reckless imprudence. The responsibility arising from fault or negligence in a quasi-delict is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. Viron filed a motion to dismiss alleging that action based on quasi-delict prescribed after 4 years from accrual of cause of action. 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. Rule 111 [now Section 2 (b) of Rule 111]. See Safeguard Security case. Then respondents filed a separate civil action against FA and 26 | t h i l l o z a d a Clemente Abellana as ER of FA. Our Revised Penal Code provides that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. if an accused is acquitted on the basis that he was not the author of the act or omission complained of (or that there is declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist). the appealed decision is vacated and the appealed case shall be tried in all respects anew in the CFI as if it has been originally instituted in that court. In this case. (e) of Section 3. In the van. Viron Transit and its President.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 complained of which is based on Section 2(b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. although he has not made any reservation therefor in the city court where the action was begun. there being no crime or delict to speak of.

Article 20 pertains to damages arising from a violation of law which does not obtain herein as Ms. i. This does not offend the policy that the reservation or institution of a separate civil action waives the other civil actions. since the stale action for damages based on quasi delict should be considered waived. a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be responsible. This is so because the prescription of the action ex quasi delicto does not operate as a bar to an action to enforce the civil liability arising from crime especially as the latter action had been expressly reserved. general manager. Once there is a conviction for a felony. in the performance of his duties. WON Lim.” The rationale of this article is to set certain standards which must be observed: 1. Cases 53. Lim was perfectly within her right to ask Mr. 69 (380 scra 467). Reyes to leave. to act with justice and give everyone his due. Art 21 refers to acts contra bonus mores and has the following elements: 1) an act which is legal.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 At the time of the filing of the complaint for damages in this case. The rationale behind this rule is the avoidance of multiple suits between the same litigants arising out of the same act or omission of the offender.. and 3) it is done with intent to injure 4) must be INTENTIONAL A complaint based on Art 19 and 21 CC must necessarily fail if it has nothing to recommend it but innuendos and conjectures. However. an action for damages is proper under Articles 20 or 21 of the Civil Code. not only in the exercise of one’s rights 2. observe honesty and good faith. to leave the party where he was not invited by the celebrant and thereby become liable under Art 19 and 21 CC. Reading on Product Liability. good custom. act with justice. The cause of action was “predicated upon mere rudeness or lack of consideration of one person. 27 | t h i l l o z a d a Art 19 – Principle of Abuse of Rights. Nonetheless. the cause of action ex quasi delicto had already prescribed. Bad judgment which. final in character. A person who did not abuse her right in asking a person in leave a party to which he was not invited cannot bemade to pay for damages under Art 19 and 21 CC. not only his duty as a physician but also of Art 19 CC which requires a person. Session 19 – Art 19-35. the employer becomes subsidiarily liable if the commission of the crime was in the discharge of the duties of the employees. petitioners can pursue the remaining avenue opened for them by their reservation. should be exempted from the strict application of the rules in order to promote their fundamental objective of securing substantial justice. but also in the performance of one’s duties. Velayo v Shell Co (1956) – Shell was one of the principal creditors of CALI.” Ramos v CA (2002) – A surgeon’s irresponsible conduct of arriving very late for a scheduled operation is violative. public order. which calls not only protection of human dignity but respect of such dignity. Its elements are: 1) There is a legal right or duty. b. the surviving cause of action ex delicto. 3) sole intent: prejudicing or injuring another. Dismissal of the action based on culpa aquiliana is not a bar to the enforcement of the subsidiary liability of the employer. when “a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another. 4) must be INTENTIONAL When Article 19 is violated. 349-368 Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v Reyes (2005) – party gatecrasher in the birthday party of the President of Nikko Hotel in its penthouse. acted abusively in asking Reyes. there is no more occasion for petitioners to file multiple suits against private respondents as the only recourse available to them is to pursue damages ex delicto. This is so because Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code operates with controlling force to obviate the possibility of the aggrieved party being deprived of indemnity even after the rendition of a final judgment convicting the employee. or public policy. Taking advantage of its knowledge that voluntary . This interpretation is also consistent with the bar against double recovery for obvious reasons. give everyone his due and c. however. 2) exercised in bad faith. a. Such procedural misstep. cannot amount to bad faith. if done with good intentions. 2187. 2) but which is contrary to morals.e.

exposing him to further ignominy and greater mental torture. and this is just as true of a corporation as of a natural person. He was mechanical engr. Certainly. A clear violation of Article 21 CC. Its sister corporation immediately filed an action in California and the court attached the plane in California. Tapnio lost P2. there was no significant increase in his meter reading. and P&G executive and occupied positions in the government and business community. Art 21. A creditor’s transfer of credit to another without knowledge of other creditors of insolvent enable the transferor to collect almost if not the entire amount of credit. so she leased to Tuazon at P2. even if it does not constitute a violation of a statute law. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. His wife paid P77 for the merchandise bought. Apparently. Art 19. therefore. The false accusation charged against the private respondent after detaining and interrogating him by the uniformed guards and the mode and manner in which he was subjected.85. PNB’s Board of Directors required to raise it to P3. So. or. but the latter certainly cannot escape its responsibility of observing. Article 2220: Moral damages. The aforecited provisions on human relations were intended to expand the concept of torts in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically provide in the statutes. A principal or master is liable for every tort which he expressly directs or authorizes. Grand Union Supermarket v Espino (1979) – Espino with his family were shopping in a supermarket in Makati and he forgot to pay a merchandise that he placed in his pocket shirt with its good part showing. for the protection of the interest of private respondents. It was worth 3. T was not able to harvest enough to cover her sugar quota allocation. Petitioner then filed a complaint for qualified theft and disconnected its gas service without prior notice. threatening to call the police and in the presence and hearing of many people at the Supermarket which brought and caused him humiliation and embarrassment. from the directors as the governing body. Moral 5k. generally. He secured it with a mortgage on standing crop including her sugar quota allocation. Moral: 15k. attorney’s fees 3k. and much less from a foreign corporation to the detriment of the Government and local business. Article 2219 (10) of the Code. such misconduct or omission of petitioner formed part of a malevolent scheme to harass and humiliate respondent. T however said that he was no longer interested. Petitioner's act in disconnecting respondent Ongsip's gas service without prior notice constitutes breach of contract amounting to an independent tort.50 per picul subject to the approval of PNB as a requirement in their mortgage contract. whenever a tortious act is committed by an 28 | t h i l l o z a d a officer or agent under express direction or authority from the stockholders or members acting as a body. PNB’s approval may be required. it knew that the agricultural year was about to expire. sufficiently rendered the petitioners liable for damages under Articles 19 and 21 in relation to Article 2219 of the Civil Code. Non-payment of gas bill for 3 months cannot be used to justify disconnection without prior notice.800 because of PNB’s unreasonable price requirement.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 insolvency proceedings will be instituted by CALI if the creditors would not agree on the manner of its distributing its assets among the creditors. Petitioner is consequently liable for the damages caused on private respondents. that degree of care. She failed to pay the loan and PNB sued her. PNB v CA (1978) – Tapnio was granted a crop loan of 2k from PNB. but it cannot be countenance such attitude. The prematurity of the action is indicative of an intent to cause additional mental and moral suffering to private respondent. imposing upon him a fine. shouting at him." Manila Gas Corp v CA (1980) – Ongsip applied for installation of gas service connection for his residence. However. A moral wrong or injury. it transferred its credit to a sister corporation in US. Velayo became the assignee of CALI and filed an action against CALI of the transferring of credit. Exemplary 5 + attorney’s fees. A corporation is liable. Art 26. The guard called his attention and took the product and publicly announced that he was a shoplifter. should be compensated by damages. Additional gas was installed for his 46-door apartment in the same compound. A corporation is civilly liable in the same manner as natural persons for torts. that by its disapproval of the lease private respondents would be unable to utilize the sugar quota in question. . precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand in approving or disapproving the lease of said sugar quota.

But as a consequence of its willful act directed against Dr. enticement. Cruz for Cruz to haul and transport any packages and bulk products of Petrophil. but such right should not be exercised arbitrarily. 24 years of age. Cruz. Lolita’s parents prohibited him to go to their house. Damnun absque injuria does not apply when there is an abuse of a person’s right. Pe v Pe (1962) – Plaintiffs are parents. unjustly or excessively and results in damage to another. However. But they still had contact and Lolita disappeared. Board of directors has a right to approve or disapprove an application for proprietary membership. superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman has yielded. Tanjanco v CA (1966) – Tanjanco courted Araceli Santos. Defendant continued his love affairs with Lolita until she disappeared from the parental home. therefore. brothers and sisters of Lolita Pe. E filed an application for proprietary membership. But E purchased share of Dr. 1 disagreed. shall indemnify the latter for the damage done. though legal by itself. Verily. When the right is exercised arbitrarily. though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such. T professed his undying glove and affection for S which S reciprocated. Cruz alleging that it was unjustified and P only acted such as a retaliation for sympathizing with its striking Petrophil EEs. CCCI president offered to sell a share for 3. good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code. A complaint was filed by Dr. Art 19 correlated with Art 21: The law. 29 | t h i l l o z a d a The exercise of a right. there is no requirement that the act must be directed at a specific person. contrary to law. but through a clever strategy. Is T liable for moral damages under Art 21. It was indorsed by 2 members. CCCI. SC: such rule was not printed on the application form. CCCI issued Proprietary Ownership Certificate to E. S resigned her job as secretary in IBM Phils but T was unable to support herself and her baby. Butalid for 3M. Defendant. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another. may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. that in law is more than mere sexual intercourse. T refused to marry S. or a breach of a promise of marriage. Article 20 of the Civil Code: every person who.5M (5M as regular price). CCCI claims that to approve proprietary seat all members of the Board must agree. so S consented and acceded to T’s pleas for carnal knowledge. a legal wrong is committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. The essential feature is seduction. an unmarried woman. They fell in love and had sexual relations. Cebu Country Club Inc v Elizagaque (2008) – Cebu Country Club Inc (CCCI) is a domestic corp operates as a non-profit and nonstock private membership club. respondent-drivers lost their jobs and. To constitute seduction there must in all cases be some sufficient promise or inducement and the woman must yield because of the . it connotes essentially the idea of deceit. that in their exercise. both of adult age. SMC was a special proprietary member of CCCI. E filed a complaint for damages against CCCI. The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he is a married man. They regularly had sex for a year. a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. CCCI’s disapproval is characterized by bad faith.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 Petrophil Corp v CA (2001) – Petrophil contracted with Dr. but it suffices that a person suffers damage as a consequence of a wrongful act of another in order that indemnity could be demanded from the wrongdoer. must nonetheless be in accordance with the proper norm. Petitioner might not have deliberately intended to injure the respondent-drivers. Defendant was sued. he has committed an injury to Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals. in this case. P terminated the contract. All tank truck drivers of Dr. E’s application was denied. A right. CCCI did not reply thrice for his motion for reconsideration. Under Article 20. recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights. Cruz filed a complaint for damages against Petrophil officers. willfully or negligently causes damage to another. a married man and frequently visited Lolita to teach her to pray the rosary. He was a collateral relative and considered a member of a family. Voluntariness and mutual passion is incompatible with idea of deceit. They conceived a child and to avoid embarrassment. P can terminate the contract anytime and if there is breach or inadequate performance. no other conclusion can be drawn from this chain of events than that defendant not only deliberately. the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. Indeed. It was intended to silence her. succeeded in winning the affection and love of Lolita to the extent of having illicit relations with her. consequently suffered loss of income. T’s promised to marry S.

act or omission constituting fault or negligence on the part of respondent 2. then the respondents violated article 1701 of the Civil Code which prohibits acts of oppression by either capital or labor against the other. direct causal relation between damage and the act or omission 4. After a year. Complainant "surrendered herself" to petitioner because. VP of resp. Lim & taha v Ponce de Leon & Maddela (1975) – Taha sold a boat to Alberto. PLRB moved to suspend the civil action while criminal action on the driver is still pending. Tayag’s heirs sued PLRB for his death. Q sued damages for constructive dismissal. namely: 1. But the next day. H promised to marry her. 1954. Not morally liable for seduction. The crim case was dismissed based on reasonable grounds. If she consents merely from carnal lust and the intercourse from mutual desire. which makes a person liable for damages if he wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. there is no seduction. he sent a telegram but their marriage will push through. The "right" of the respondents to dismiss Quisaba should not be confused with the manner in which the right was exercised and the effects flowing therefrom. SC was pregnant. Civil action was instituted but PLRC opposed claiming heirs has no cause of action since driver was acquitted in criminal action. good customs or public policy. the sanction for which. not on the act or omission charged as a felony in a criminal case. H married Romanita Perez. The action for breach of promises to marry has no standing in the civil law. upon the faith of such promise. 10. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparation and publicity. If the dismissal was done anti-socially or oppressively. Upon its seizure it was exposed to elements that made it worthless and beyond repair. and article 21. On Sept 2. is quite different. Hermosisima v CA (1960) – Soledad Cagigas was a teacher while Hermosisima was 10 years younger. Art 31. This refers to civil action based. jr v Alcantara (1980) – Tayag Sr was riding a bicycle when he was bumped and hit by Phil Rabbit Bus driven by Villa. As stated. was instructed to buy logs for company plant. . but one based on an obligation arising from other sources. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 aforesaid. Domingo v Maliwat – Quisaba v Sta Ines-Melale Veneer & Plywood Inc (1974) – Q served respondent for 18 years. mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. like quasi-delict. Hyde warned Q that failure to do the instruction will be a ground for dismissal. Their son was born but after 7 days. is provided in article 2219.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 promise or other inducement. as the complaint alleges. Velez left a note for Wassmer stating that they should postpone their marriage because her mother opposed to it. by way of moral damages. Q refused alleging it was inconsistent with his work as internal auditor. apart from the right to recover money or property advanced . The bost was impounded. no. she "wanted to bind" "by having a fruit of their engagement even before they had the benefit of clergy. W sued for damages. damage caused by said act or omission 3. Are respondents civilly liable for damages to petitioners suffered by them from the seizure? . 30 | t h i l l o z a d a Art 21. Velez was not heard of again. "overwhelmed by her love" for him." Wassmer v Velez (1964) – Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer decided to get married and set their wedding on Sept 4. Castro v Meralco () – Toledo v Saulog Transit Corp – Equitable Banking Corp v Rural Insurance Surety Co – Heirs of Pedro v Tayag. A sued T for forcibly taking his boat. The fiscal (Ponce) filed a case for robbery with force and intimidation against Taha. Hyde. All the essential averments for a quasi-delictual action are present. They were lovers and introduced themselves as engaged even though no promise of marriage was tackled between them. . Surely this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized. no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.

Section 2 notwithstanding. The term “physical injuries” in Art 33 is not in the PI in RPC. A person whose constitutional rights have been violated or impaired is entitled to actual (3k) and moral (1k. the object of the Article is to put an end to official abuse by the plea of good faith. on their part. Carandang v Santiago and Valenton (1955) – V was found guilty for frustrated homicide against C.illegality of seizure) damages from the public officers or EE responsible therefor + exemplary damages. it has no application when the damages sought are for the death of the person. The first is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code. The failure. separate civil action is allowed. Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that its driver was acquitted in the criminal case on reasonable doubt and that B intervened in prosecution in criminal case. Under Article 33 of the Civil Code there is no requirement that as a condition to the filing of a separate civil action for damages a reservation to file said civil action be first made in the criminal case and such reservation is not necessary. C filed for damages. under Articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. If the intent has been to establish a civil action for the bodily harm received by the complainant similar to the civil action for assault and battery. Precisely. This provision evidently refers to a civil action based. It is not necessary therefore that there should be malice or bad faith. The court ruled that a claim to recover for death resulting from personal injury is as certainly "founded on injury to the person. and it being entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. regardless of the liabilities of its driver who was charged in the criminal case. He filed for damages for the death of his son. there was no chance for the aggrieved party to present evidence in support of her claim for damages and to enter a reservation in the record to file a separate civil action.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 No law grants fiscal power to issue search warrants. but to one based on an obligation arising from other sources. such as law or contract. Appellant's action concerned the civil liability (culpa contractual) of appellee as a common carrier. on the part of the appellants. the provision of Rule 111. and regardless of the result of the latter. as the Code Commission states. or attempted homicide. to institute a separate action against the latter based on its contractual liability. not on the act or omission charged as a felony in a criminal case. and not by those of the Revised Penal Code. Bernaldes v Bohol Land Transportation (1963) – Plaintiff’s son was a passenger of a bus of defendant that fell off a precipe. The civil case was suspended upon motion of V. C claims that Art 33 stated that in cases of defamation. M pleaded guilty and was fined with P50." Reyes v Sempio Dy (1986) – Cristina Malicsi was charged with intriguing against honor by Reyes. the same may be instituted and prosecuted independently of. It should be understood to mean bodily injury. As a matter of fact. The very nature of Article 32 is that the wrong may be civil or criminal. Upon the other hand it is clear that a civil action based on contractual liability of a common carrier is distinct from the criminal action instituted against the carrier or its employee based on the latter's criminal negligence. Article 31 CC. fraud and physical injuries. or frustrated homicide. much less to order without warrant the seizure of a personal property even if it was the corpus delicti of the crime. Because the accused had pleaded guilty upon arraignment and was immediately sentenced. nor did she make reservation to file a separate civil action for damages. or even death. R was not able to present evidence to prove damages. As notice is required where the cause of action is founded on injury to the person. R filed a new civil case for damages. not the crime of physical injuries. because the terms used with the latter are general terms. the civil action should lie whether the offense committed is that of physical injuries. to reserve their right to recover civil indemnity against the carrier can not in any way be deemed as a waiver. or on culpa aquiliana. Attorney’s fees (750 for violation of consti rights). While crim case was pending. 31 | t h i l l o z a d a mere appearance of a private prosecutor in the criminal case against the herein private respondents did not necessarily constitute such intervention on the part of the aggrieved party as could only import an intention on her part to press her claim for damages in said criminal case and a waiver of her right to file a separate civil action for damages. Public officials in the past have abused their powers on the pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the performance of their duties. To make such a requisite would defeat the main purpose of Article 32 which is the effective protection of individual rights. such reservation is already implied in the law which declares such action to be . Because of the plea of guilt.

32 | t h i l l o z a d a . not to persons secondarily liable. it has been held that the duty of the offended party to make such reservation applies only to defendant in the criminal action. Moreover.Torts and Damages – Session 15-19 independent and separate from the criminal action.