I.

Concept of Torts

Art. 20
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Cases on Quasi-delict
Fausto Barredo v. Severino Garcia(1942)
Summary:
head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxicab driven by Pedro
Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis. The carretela was overturned and its
passenger Faustino Garcia (16 years old boy) suffered injuries from which he died two days
later. Fontanilla 's negligence was the cause of the mishap and was convicted and sentenced to an
indeterminate sentence of 1 year and 1 day to 2 years of prision correccional. Fausto Barredo as
the sole proprietor of the Malate Taxicab and employer of Fontanilla was negligent in employing
Fontanilla who has several Automobile Law and speeding violations so an action was brought
against him. CFI: awarded damages for P2,000 plus legal interest. CA: reduced the damages to
P1,000 w/ legal interest. SC: CA affirmed
Laws: ART. 1089, ART. 1092, ART. 1093, ART. 1094 of the Civil Code, ART. 101,
ART. 102, ART. 103, ART. 365 of RPC
Doctrines:
quasi-delict or "culpa aquiliana" is a separate legal institution under the
Civil Code with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent
from delict or crime
Upon this principle and on the wording and spirit article 1903 of the
Civil Code, the primary and direct responsibility of employers may be safely anchored.
Pedro Elcano, et al., v. Reginal Hill et al. (1977)
Summary: Reginald Hill, a minor, married but living with his father, Atty. Marvin
Hill with whom he was living and getting subsistence killed Agapito Elcano
Laws:ART. 2177,Article 397,article 1093,Article 2180 of the Civil Code (read
below under Special Rules)
Doctrines:
acquittal of Reginal Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his
liability for quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him
the marriage of a minor child does not relieve the parents of the duty to
see to it that the child, while still a minor, does not give answerable for the borrowings of money
and alienation or encumbering of real property which cannot be done by their minor married child
without their consent
Porfirio P. Cinco, v. Hon. Mateo Canonoy et al.(1979)
Summary: Cinco filed a complaint against jeepney driven by Romeo Hilot and
operated by Valeriana Pepito and Carlos Pepito for a vehicular accident. Pre-trial in the civil
case: moved to suspend the civil action pending the final determination of the criminal suit. City
Court: ordered the suspension of the civil case. CFI by certiorari: dismissed
Laws: Rule 111, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, Art. 31 and Article 2176 of the
Civil Code
the separate and independent civil action for a quasi-delict is also clearly
recognized in:
section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court
Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from
the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the
criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code is so broad that it includes not only injuries to
persons but also damage to property (in this case vehicular accident)

word "damage" is used in two concepts: the "harm" done and "reparation" for
the harm done
Gashem Shookat Baksh v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.(1993)
Summary: Gashem Shookat Baksh , a medical student courted and proposed to
marry 22 years old, single Filipina of good moral character and reputation who accepted his love
on the condition that they would get married after the end of the school semester. He visited
her parents in Pangasinan for approval for marriage and forced her to live with him when she was
still a virgin requiring her to resign from her job then he started to maltreat and threatened to kill
her resulting into injuries. She bore a child but he gave her medicine to abort it. Her father, a
tricycle driver, already looked for sponsors for the wedding, started preparing for the reception by
looking for pigs and chickens, and even already invited many relatives and friends to the
forthcoming wedding. CFI, CA, SC: against Gashem.
Laws: Art. 21, Art. 23 and Art. 2176 of the Civil Code
Doctrines:
Quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) is a civil law concept while torts is an AngloAmerican or common law concept.
Torts is much broader than culpa aquiliana because it includes not only
negligence, but international criminal acts as well such as assault and battery, false imprisonment
and deceit.
intentional and malicious acts, with certain exceptions, are to be governed
by the Revised Penal Code while negligent acts or omissions are to be covered by Article 2176 of
the Civil Code
Article 21 fills that vacuum and has greatly broadened the scope of the
law on civil wrongs; it has become much more supple and adaptable than the Anglo-American law
on torts (such as in this case where breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong
and there is no crime, as the girl is above nineteen years of age)

Art. 21
Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate
the latter for the damage.

A.
1.

Maria Benita A. Dulay, et al., v. The Court of Appeals, et al.(1995)

Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligence," covers not only acts "not
punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character; whether intentional and voluntary or
negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action against the offender in a criminal act, whether or
not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is
not allowed, if he is actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and
would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards
made in the two cases vary
Extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers
exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil
liability for the same act considered as 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
It is enough that the complaint alleged that Benigno Torzuela shot Napoleon
Dulay resulting in the latter's death; that the shooting occurred while Torzuela was on duty; and
that either SUPERGUARD and/or SAFEGUARD was Torzuela's employer and responsible for his
acts.
Bernabe Castillo et al v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al (1989)
Since the civil action is predicated upon Juanito Rosario's alleged negligence
(that caused the car accident) does not exist, it follows that his acquittal in the criminal action,
which is already final, carried with it the extinction of civil responsibility arising therefrom
Elements of Torts or Quasi-Delict (ADF-NO)
Act or Omission

2.
3.
4.
B.
1.
2.
3.

Damage or injury is caused to another

Fault of negligence is present
There is NO pre-existing contractual relations bet. the parties
What must be proved (NDC)
Negligence in quasi-delict (see negligence below)
Damage or injury
Causal connection bet. Negligence and Damage
Must be proximate cause of the injury sustained by the plaintiff to enable the plaintiff to
recover
Concept of Proximate Cause - adequate and efficient cause which in the natural order of
events and under particular circumstances surrounding the case, would naturally produce the
event
If plaintiff's negligence is only contributory:
He is considered partly responsible only, may still recover from the
defendant but must be reduced by the courts in proportion to his own negligence
Cases on Elements of Quasi-Delict
German Garcia et al., v. The Hon. Mariano M. Florido et al. (1973)
petitioners never intervened in the criminal action instituted by the Chief of
Police against respondent Pedro Tumala, much less has the said criminal action been terminated
either by conviction or acquittal of said accused
by the institution of the present civil action for damages (for quasi-delict in the
collision), petitioners have in effect abandoned their right to press recovery for damages in the
criminal case (violation of traffic rules), and have opted instead to recover them in the present
civil case
Natividad V. Andamo, et al., v. Intermediate Appellate Court et al. (1990)
While the property involved in the cited case belonged to the public domain and
the property subject of the instant case is privately owned, the fact remains that petitioners'
complaint sufficiently alleges that petitioners have sustained and will continue to sustain damage
due to the waterpaths and contrivances built by respondent corporation
It must be stressed that the use of one's property is not without limitations.
Article 431 of the Civil Code provides that "the owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such
a manner as to injure the rights of a third person." SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS.
Moreover, adjoining landowners have mutual and reciprocal duties which require that each must
use his own land in a reasonable manner so as not to infringe upon the rights and interests of
others. Although we recognize the right of an owner to build structures on his land, such
structures must be so constructed and maintained using all reasonable care so that they cannot
be dangerous to adjoining landowners and can withstand the usual and expected forces of nature.
If the structures cause injury or damage to an adjoining landowner or a third person, the latter
can claim indemnification for the injury or damage suffered.
Taylor v. Manila Electric Company and Light Company (1910)
in order to establish his right to a recovery, must establish by competent
evidence:

Damages to the plaintiff

Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or some

person for whose acts it must respond, was guilty.

The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the
damage.
he was sui juris in the sense that his age and his experience qualified him to
understand and appreciate the necessity for the exercise of that degree of caution which would
have avoided the injury which resulted from his own deliberate act
Negligence is not presumed, but must be proven by him who alleges it.
while we hold that the entry upon the property without express invitation or
permission would not have relieved Manila Electric from responsibility for injuries incurred,

without other fault on his part, if such injury were attributable to his negligence, the negligence in
leaving the caps exposed on its premises was not the proximate cause of the injury received
cutting open the detonating cap and putting match to its contents was the
proximate cause of the explosion and of the resultant injuries inflicted
Heirs of Pedro Tayag v. Hon. Fernando S. Alcantara, et al. (1980)
Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act
or commission complained of as a felony. such civil action may proceed independently of the
criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
All the essential averments for a quasi delictual action are present, namely: (1)
an act or omission constituting fault or negligence on the part of private respondent; (2) damage
caused by the said act or commission; (3) direct causal relation between the damage and the act
or commission; and (4) no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties
NOTE: basis of separate civil action is the elements of quasi-delict and not the
judgment of criminal action

Negligence
GR: In action for quasi-delict, plaintiff must prove the negligence of the
defendant
EX:
1. In cases where negligence is presumed or imputed by law (only
rebuttable/presumption juris tantum
2. Principle of res ipso loquitor (the thing speaks for itself)

grounded on the difficulty of proving thru competent evidence, public

policy considerations
Test of Negligence
1. Did the defendant in doing thealleged negligent act use thereasonable
care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in
the same situation? If not then he is guilty of negligence
2. Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as
a result of the course pursued? If so, it was the duty of the
actorto take precautions to guard against harm
Kinds of Negligence (ACC)
1.
Culpa Contractual (contractual negligence)
Arts. 1170
Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of
fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the
tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
Art. 1171
Art. 1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations.
Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void.
Art. 1172
Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every
kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by
the courts, according to the circumstances.
Art. 1173
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of
that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the
place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and
2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.

If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in
the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall
be required.
Art. 1174
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is
otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those
events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were
inevitable.
2.
Culpa Aquiliana (quasi-delict)
Art. 2176
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault
or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this
Chapter.
Art. 2177
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence
under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the
same act or omission of the defendant
Art. 2178
Art. 2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a
quasi-delict
3.
Culpa Criminal (criminal negligence)
Art. 365
Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence. Any person who, by reckless
imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would
constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period; if it would
have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted
a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be
imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act
which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of
arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have
constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
period shall be imposed.
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted
in damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a
fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three

times such value, but which shall in no case be less than twenty-five pesos.
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon
any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some
wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.In the
imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion,
without regard to the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those
provided in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which case the court
shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be
imposed in the period which they may deem proper to apply.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile
Law, to death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall
be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or
falling to do an act from which material damage results by reason of
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of failing
to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation,
degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding
persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases
in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the
danger clearly manifest.
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be
imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured
parties such help as may be in this hand to give.
Comparison
Vinculum Juris
Culpa Contractual
Culpa Aquiliana
Culpa Criminal
(contractual negligence) (quasi-delict)
(criminal negligence)
Act/omission committed
Negligent act/omission
by means of dolo
Contract
(culpa, imprudence)
(deliberate, malicious,
in bad faith)
Only involves private
Affect the public
concern
interest
Governed by
Civil Code provisions on Art. 2176 of the Civil Code Art. 365 of the Revised
Obligations and
Penal Code
Contracts, particularly

Arts. 1170 to 1174 of

the Civil Code
The Civil Code by means of The Revised Penal Code
indemnification merely
punishes or corrects
repairs the damage
criminal act
Includes all acts in which
Punished only if there is
any kind of fault or
a penal law clearly
negligence intervenes
covering them
However, it should be noted that not all violations of
the penal law produce civil responsibility, such as
begging in contravention of ordinances, violation of
the game laws, infraction of the rules of traffic
when nobody is hurt.
Proof Needed
Proof beyond
reasonable doubt

Preponderance of evidence
Defense available
Exercise of extraordinary
diligence (in contracts
of carriage), Force
Majeure
In breach of contract
committed through the
negligence of employee,
the employer CANNOT
erase his primary and
direct liability by
invoking exercise of
diligence of a good
father of a family in the
selection and supervision
of the employee
Pre-existing contract
There is pre-existing
contract
Burden of Proof
Contractual party. Prove
the ff.:
1. Existence of a
contract
2. Breach

Difference in Civil
Liability
Liability of Employer
Reservation

Exercise of diligence of
good father of a family in
the selection and
supervision of employees

In quasi-delict the
presumptive responsibility
for the negligence of his
servants can be rebutted
by proof of the exercise of
due care in their selection
and supervision

No pre-existing contract
Victim prove the ff.: (NDC)
1. Negligence
Prosecution. Accused is
2. Damage
presumed innocent until
3. Causal connection
the contrary is proved
bet. Negligence and
damage done

Quasi-delict

Delict

Solidary
impliedly instituted w/

Subsidiary
impliedly instituted

criminal action, but under

2000 Crimpro Rules it is
independent and separate
GR: NOT a bar to recover
Effect of judgment of
EX: when judgment
acquittal in a criminal
pronounces that the
NOT a bar to recover
case involving the same negligence from which
act/omission
damage arise is nonexistent
Requirement

B. Cases on Negligence

Amado Picart v. Frank Smith (1918)

Did the defendant in doing thealleged negligent act use thereasonable

care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation?
If not then he is guilty of negligence

The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference

to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him.

The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in

a given situation must of course be always determined in the light of human experience and in
view of the facts involved in the particular case

Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a result
of the course actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of the actor to take precautions to guard
against that harm

Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the

tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to
warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against its consequences

It will be noted that the negligent acts of the two parties were not
contemporaneous, since the negligence of the defendant succeeded the negligence of the plaintiff
(wrong side of the road) by an appreciable interval.

Under these circumstances the law is that the person who has the last fair
chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences,
without reference to the prior negligence of the other party.

Mr. and Mrs. Amador C. Ong v. Metropolitan Water District (1958)

Since the present action is one for damages founded on culpable negligence, the
principle to be observed is that the person claiming damages has the burden of proving that the
damage is caused by the fault or negligence of the person from whom the damage is claimed, or
of one of his employees

The last clear chance doctrine can never apply where the party charged is
required to act instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all
means at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered; at least in cases in which any
previous negligence of the party charged cannot be said to have contributed to the injury

Before closing, we wish to quote the following observation of the trial court,
which we find supported by the evidence: "There is (also) a strong suggestion coming from the
expert evidence presented by both parties that Dominador Ong might have dived where the water
was only 5.5 feet deep, and in so doing he might have hit or bumped his forehead against the
bottom of the pool, as a consequence of which he was stunned, and which to his drowning. As a
boy scout he must have received instructions in swimming. He knew, or have known that it was
dangerous for him to dive in that part of the pool."

Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Court of Appeals (1988)

Article 1173 of the Civil Code, "(t)he fault or negligence of the obligor consists in
the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds
with the circumstances of the person, of the time and of the place."

II.

Contributory negligence under Article 2179 of the Civil Code contemplates a

negligent act or omission on the part of the plaintiff, which although not the proximate cause of
his injury, contributed to his own damage, the proximate cause of the plaintiffs own injury being
the defendant's lack of due care - none in the case
Cases on Pater familias
Preciolita V. Corliss v. The Manila Railroad Co. (1969)
Negligence
The failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another
person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstance
justly demand whereby such other person suffers injury.
want of the care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or
comparative, not an absolute term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties
and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require.
Where the danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary, and
the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care under the circumstances.
it was incumbent upon him to avoid a possible accident and this consisted
simply in stopping his vehicle before the crossing and allowing the train to move on. A prudent
man under similar circumstances would have acted in this manner
Special Rules

Special Rules:Laws
Civil Code
Art. 1173
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of
that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the
place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and
2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in
the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be
required
Art. 2180
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for
one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are
responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their
company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated
persons who are under their authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise
responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their

functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent;
but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task
done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall
be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable
for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as
they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father
of a family to prevent damage.
Art. 2182.
Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or
guardian, the minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own
property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be
appointed.
Art. 2185
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person
driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he
was violating any traffic regulation.
Art. 2187
Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles
and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious
or harmful substances used, although no contractual relation exists between
them and the consumers.
Family Code
Art. 221
Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be
civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of
their unemancipated children living in their company and under their
parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law.
Revised Penal Code
Art. 12
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - The following
are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid
interval.

When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law
defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of
the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall
not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same
court.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted
with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of article 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in
conformity with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall
commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with
his surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall be committed to the care
of some institution or person mentioned in said article 80.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an
injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an
equal or greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented
by some lawful insuperable cause.
Art. 100
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. - Every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
Good Father of a Family (pater familias) (Art. 1173 in relation to Art. 2180)

Standard of conduct used in the Philippines

a man of ordinary intelligence and prudence or an ordinary reasonable prudent man deemed
to have knowledge of the facts that a man should be expected to know based on ordinary human
experience

Case:

Julian del Rosario v. Manila Electric Co (1932) (liability as owner)

presumption of negligence on the part of the Manila Electric Company from the
breakage of this wire has not been overcome, and it is in our opinion responsible for the accident

contributory negligence would not be wholly fatal to the right of action in this
case, not having been the determining cause of the accident
1. Children

GR: The action of the child will not necessarily be judged according to the standard of an adult

EX: if the minor is mature enough to understand and appreciate the nature and consequence
of his actions, he will be considered negligent if he fails to exercise due care and precaution in the
commission of such acts

NOTE:

No arbitrary age

Absence of negligence does not necessarily mean absence of liability

Liability without fault: a child under 9 years can still be subsidiarily liable with his
property (Art. 100, RPC)

Absence of negligence of the child may not excuse the parents from their
vicarious liability under Art.2180 NCC or Art. 221 FC

Taylor v. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co.(1910) (liability as owner)(see also Taylor
above)

2.

3.

4.

NOTE: failure of employer to exercise diligence of a good father

of a family is also a negligence but it was not the proximate cause
child who is 9 or below is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence.
On the other hand, if the child is above 9 years but below 15, there is a disputable
presumption of absence of negligence
Jarco Marketing v. CA (1999)
accident
pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches
to the defendant
a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening
an event happening without any human agency, or if happening wholly or
partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected
by the person to whom it happens
occurs when the person concerned is exercising ordinary care, which is
not caused by fault of any person and which could not have been prevented by any means
suggested by common prudence
negligence
omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of
something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do
the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person,
that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby
such other person suffers injury
Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory; one cannot exist with the
other
Anent the negligence imputed to Zhieneth, we apply the conclusive presumption
that favors children below 9 years old in that they are incapable of contributory negligence. In
our jurisdiction, a person under nine years of age is conclusively presumed to have acted without
discernment, and is, on that account, exempt from criminal liability. The same presumption and a
like exemption from criminal liability obtains in a case of a person over nine and under fifteen
years of age, unless it is shown that he has acted with discernment.
Initially, Zhieneth held on to Criselda's waist, and only momentarily released the
child's hand from her clutch when she signed her credit card slip. At this precise moment, it was
reasonable and usual for her to let go of her child.
Further, at the time Zhieneth was pinned down by the counter, she was just a
foot away from her mother; and the gift-wrapping counter was just 4 meters away - time and
distance were both significant.
Physical Disability
GR:Mere weakness of a person will not be an excuse in negligence cases.
EX: If defect amounts to a real disability the standard of conduct is that of a reasonable
person under that disability
Schools, Administrator, Teacher (see Ateneo reviewer)
Federico Ylarde v. Edgardo Aquino (1988) (liability as teachers or heads of
establishments of arts and trades )
GR: teachers shall be liable for the acts of their students
EX: where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof
who shall be answerable
negligent act of Aquino in leaving his pupils in such a dangerous site has a direct
causal connection to the death of the child Ylarde
it was but natural for the children to play around
the child Ylarde would not have died were it not for the unsafe situation
created by Aquino
Experts and Professionals

5.

They should exhibit the care and skill of one who is ordinarily skilled in the particular field that
he is in.
When a person holds himself out as being competent to do things requiring professional skill,
he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled
in the particular work which he attempts to do.
An expert will not be judged based on what a non-expert can foresee.
The rule regarding experts is applicable NOT only to professionals who have undergone formal
education
Culion Ice, Fish and Electric co v. Phil Motors Corp. (1930)
In this connection it must be remembered that when a person holds himself out
as being competent to do things requiring professional skill, he will be held liable for negligence if
he fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he
attempts to do
Quest did not use the skill that would have been exhibited by one
ordinarily expert in repairing gasoline engines on boats = negligence.
The test of liability is not whether the injury was accidental in a sense, but
whether Quest was free from blame
US v. Pineda (1918)
bought potassium chlorate, which when analyzed was found to be barium
chlorate
As a pharmacist, he is made responsible for the quality of all drugs and poisons
which he sells
it should not be forgotten that the case we consider are civil in nature, the
question of negligence or ignorance is irrelevant
Instead of caveat emptor, it should be caveat venditor.
Nature of activity
There are activities which by nature impose duties to exercise a higher degree of diligence.
Examples:
Banks - by the very nature of their work, are expected to exercise the highest degree of
diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.
Common carriers - required to exercise extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over
their passengers and transported goods.(Article 1733 Civil Code)
BPI v. CA, 216 SCRA 51
Summary: An impostor faking to be Eligia G. Fernando was able to preterminate
her money placement without surrendering the promissory note in BPI and opened a new account
and encashed the wtihdrawals through checks payable in cash in CBC without suspicion of the
huge amoutn of withdrawals when the account just opened (BPI 60% CBC 40%)
Doctrines:
BPI as drawee bank and CBC as representing/collecting bank were both
negligent resulting in the encashment of the forged checks
Being closest to the vent of loss, therefore, CBC's negligence must be held
to be proximate cause of the loss
while we do not apply the last clear chance doctrine as controlling in this
case, still the CBC employees had ample opportunity to avoid the harm which befell both CBC and
BPI. They let the opportunity slip by when the ordinary prudence expected of bank employees
would have sufficed to seize it
While it is true that petitioner BPI's negligence may have been the
proximate cause of the loss, CBC's negligence contributed equally to the success of the impostor
in encashing the proceeds of the forged checks
Article 2179 of the Civil Code to the effect that while CBC may recover its
losses, such losses are subject to mitigation by the court
Both banks were negligent in the selection and supervision of their
employees resulting in the encashment of the forged checks by an impostor.
Fernando v. CA (1992)

Summary: losing bidders Bertulano with four other companions namely Joselito
Garcia, William Liagoso, Alberto Fernando and Jose Fajardo, Jr. were found dead inside the septic
tank and was filing for damages against the City of Davao but since they open the septic tank
they were presumes to have caused the proximate cause through their own negligence especially
in Mr. Bertulano line of service

Doctrines:

Distinction must be made between the accident and the injury

Where he contributes to the principal occurrence, as one of its

determining factors, he can not recover

Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes only to

his own injury, he may recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the event should
pay for such injury, less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own imprudence
6. Intoxication

GR: Mere intoxication isnot negligence, nor does the mere fact of intoxication establish want of
ordinary care. But it may be one of the circumstances to be considered to provenegligence.

EX: (Art. 2185 of the Civil Code)

it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of
the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation

Wright v. Manila Electric (1914)

Summary: Wright being intoxicated riding on his horse crossed the elevated
tracks of Manila Electric so he fell and got injured. Though intoxicated he was not held negligent
because there was no proof that if he was sober he would not have fallen

Doctrines:

Mere intoxication is not in itself negligence. It is but a circumstance to be

considered with the other evidence tending to prove negligence.

GR: immaterial whether a man is drunk or sober if no want of ordinary

care or prudence can be imputed to him, and no greater degree of care is required than by a
sober one.

Dissenting Opinion by Carson: if the case is to be decided on the findings of fact

by the trial judge, these findings sufficiently establish the negligence of Wright
7. Insanity

The insanity of a person does not excuse him or his guardian from liability based on quasidelict (Criminal excused, civil NOT)

Bases for holding an insane person liable for his tort:

a. Where one of two innocent persons must suffer a loss, it should be borne by
the one who occasioned it

b. To induce those interested in the estate of the insane person to restrain and
control him

c. The fear that an insanity would lead to false claims of insanity and avoid
liability

US v. Baggay (1911)

Summary: During a Buni, Baggay killed Bil-liingan and the five other women
including his mother and he was exempted from criminal liability due to mental abrasion but
subjected to civil liability by indemnifying the heirs of Bil-liingan

Doctrine:

Article 18 of the RPC says:

The exemption from criminal liability declared in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, and 10 of article 8 does not include
exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced, subject to the following:
(1) In cases 1, 2, and 3, the persons who are civilly liable for acts committed by a lunatic or imbecile,
or a person under 9 years of age, or over this age and under 15, who has not acted with the exercise
of judgment, are those who have them under their authority, legal guardianship or power, unless
they prove that there was no blame or negligence on their part.

UNLESS: the offended party or the heirs of the person murdered

expressly renounce such reparation or indemnification

Calculation of risk
Interests are to be balanced only in the sense that the 1. purposes of the actor,2.
thenature of his act and the 3. harm that may result from action or inaction are elements to be
considered (PNH)

Valenzuela v. CA (1996)

Summary: Li was speeding so he hit Valenzuela while her car was park by the
sidewalk to get her flat tire fixed and she had her leg amputated. Li and Alexander Commercial
where Li is an assistant manager and using a company car are held jointly and solidarily liable

Doctrines:

If Li was running at only about 55 kph then despite the wet and slippery
road, he could have avoided hitting the Valenzuela by the mere expedient or applying his brakes
at the proper time and distance

Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party,

contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which
he is required to conform for his own protection

emergency rule

GR: an individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of

danger and is required to act without much time to consider the best means that may be adopted
to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better solution

EX: the emergency was brought by his own negligence

Not the principle of respondeat superior, which holds the master liable for
acts of the servant (must be in the course of business), but that of pater familias, in which the
liability ultimately falls upon the employer, for his failure to exercise the diligence of a good father
of the family in the selection and supervision of his employees

Ordinarily, evidence demonstrating that the employer has exercised

diligent supervision of its employee during the performance of the latters assigned tasks would
be enough to relieve him of the liability imposed by Article 2180 in relation to Article 2176 of the
Civil Code.

situation is of a different character, involving a practice utilized by

large companies with either their employees of managerial rank or their representatives.
III. Degrees of Negligence

Civil Code
Article 2231
Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the
defendant acted with gross negligence.
Gross Negligence

want of even slight care and diligence

Cases

Marinduque v. Workmens (1956)

Summary: Mamador together with other laborers rode the company truck driven
by another employee Procopio Macunat against the company prohibition and while trying to
overtake another truck, it hit a coconut tree where Mamador died and the others were injured.
Mamador was still entitled cmpnesation because violation of the prohibtion was not gross
(notorious) negligence since the prohibition had nothing to do with personal safety of the riders
and thus he didn't know it could've caused him harm

Doctrines:

notorious negligence = gross negligence

conscious indifference to consequences

pursuing a course of conduct which would naturally and probably

result in injury

utter disregard of consequences

IV.

Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals(1999)

Summary: Jose Bernardo held the jeepney bars and was electrocuted to death.
BENECO was held liable forgross negligence in violating the Philippine Electrical Code for leaving
an open wire for 7 years and not meeting the min. vertical clearance of 14 feet
Doctrines:
Gross negligence
negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or
omitting to act in a situation where there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be
affected
Proof of Negligence

GR: Burden of Proof

quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence

Rules of Court
Section 1, Rule 131
Section 1. Burden of proof. Burden of proof is the duty of a party to
present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
EX:
2) Res Ipsa Loquitur (Latin for "the thing speaks for itself") - see requisites below

It is a rule of evidence peculiar to the law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie
negligence may be established in the absence of direct proof, and furnishes a substitute for
specific proof of negligence.
NOTE: only applicable in absence of direct proof
Cases:
Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc., et al. v. Sps. Gaudencio and Primitiva Sarangaya
(2005)
Summary: A company car under Pascual exploded in the first door leased by the
Spouses Gaundencio and Primitiva Sarangaya and burned all their belongings. Pascual was liable
under res ipsa loquitur for failing to maintain the car while Perla was lacked the diligence in the
supervision and selection of its employee for not giving any guideliness on how the tasks are to
be performed, maintaining the car and reporting an inventory of its properties.
Doctrines:
Res ipsa loquitur
Latin phrase which literally means the thing or the transaction
speaks for itself.
It relates to the fact of an injury that sets out an inference to the
cause thereof or establishes the plaintiffs prima facie case
The doctrine rests on inference and not on presumption
facts of the occurrence warrant the supposition of negligence and
they furnish circumstantial evidence of negligence when direct evidence is lacking
based on the theory that the defendant either knows the cause of
the accident or has the best opportunity of ascertaining it and the plaintiff, having no knowledge
thereof, is compelled to allege negligence in general terms
plaintiff relies on proof of the happening of the accident alone to
establish negligence

provides a means by which a plaintiff can pin liability on a

defendant who, if innocent, should be able to explain the care he exercised to prevent the
incident complained of

defendants responsibility to show that there was no

negligence on his part

Requisites of Res Ipsa Loquitur (AE-NOT

1) the accident is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless

someone is negligent

Ordinary refers to the usual course of events

Flames spewing out of a car engine, when it is

switched on, is obviously not a normal event. Neither does an explosion usually occur when a car
engine is revved.

Pascual, as the caretaker of the car, failed to submit

any proof that he had it periodically checked - negligence

2) the cause of the injury was under the exclusive control of the
person in charge and

3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary
action or contribution on the part of the person injured.

When there is caso fortuito:

(a) the cause of

the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was independent of the human will

human agency must be entirely excluded as the proximate

cause or contributory cause of the injury or loss -Not because car not maintained

(b) it was impossible to foresee the event which constituted the

caso fortuito or, if it could be foreseen, it was impossible to avoid - NOT under the control of
pascual

(c) the occurrence must be such as to render it impossible to

perform an obligation in anormal manner - Spouses had no access nor obligation for the
maintenance

(d) the person tasked to perform the obligation must not have
participated in any course of conduct that aggravated the accident
Marcelo Macalinao, et al., v. Eddie Medecielo Ong (2005)

Summary: While delivering, the Genetrons Isuzu Elf truck driven by Ong bumped the front
portion of a private jeepney. Both vehicles incurred severe damages while the passengers
sustained physical injuries as a consequence of the collision. Macalinao was paralyzed and
immobilized from the neck down then died. He filed against Ong and Sebastian before he died
and soon was substituted by his parents. RTC: Ong negligent and Sebastian failed to exercise the
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Ong thus ordering them
jointly liable to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages as well as civil indemnity for
Macalinaos death. CA: reversed for lack of evidence

Doctrines:

Res ipsa loquitur

recognizes that parties may establish prima facie negligence without direct proof,
thus, it allows the principle to substitute for specific proof of negligence

permits the plaintiff to present along with proof of the accident, enough of the
attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine, create an inference or presumption of negligence
and thereby place on the defendant the burden of proving that there was no negligence on his
part

based on the theory that defendant in charge of the instrumentality which causes
the injury either knows the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of ascertaining it
while the plaintiff has no such knowledge, and is therefore compelled to allege negligence in
general terms and rely upon the proof of the happening of the accident in order to establish
negligence

can be invoked only when under the circumstances, direct evidence is absent
and not readily available
grounded upon the fact that the chief evidence of the true cause, whether
culpable or innocent, is practically accessible to the defendant but inaccessible to the injured
person
requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur:
(1) The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someones
negligence; - No two motor vehicles traversing opposite lanes will collide as a matter of course
unless someone is negligent

(2) It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants
- Driving the Isuzu truck gave Ong exclusive management and control over it
(3) The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is
eliminated
(4) defendant fails to offer any explanation tending to show that
the injury was caused by his or her want of due care (Based on
American Jurisprudence) - defendant fails to offer any
explanation tending to show that the injury was caused by his
or her want of due care

Macalinao could no longer testify as to the cause of the accident since he is dead.
Petitioners, while substituting their son as plaintiff, have no actual knowledge about the event
since they were not present at the crucial moment

evidence as to the true cause of the accident is, for all intents and purposes,
accessible to respondents but not to petitioners

two truck helpers who survived, both employees of Sebastian, and Ong,
who is not only Sebastians previous employee but his co-respondent in this case as well
Joaquinita P. Capili v. Sps. Dominador and Rosalita Cardana (2006)

Summary: Jasmin Cardaa was walking along the San Roque Elementary School when a branch
of a caimito trees fell on her, causing her instantaneous death. Her parents Dominador and
Rosalita Cardaa filed a case for damages against the school principal Joaquinita Capili knowing
that the tree was dead and rotting did not dispose of it RTC: dismissed for failing to show
negligence on the part of Capili CA: reversed. Awarded P50,000 as indemnity for the death of
Jasmin and P15,010 as reimbursement of her burial expenses, moral damages P50,000 and
attorney's fees and litigation P10,000 SC: CA affirmed but deleting the moral damages bec. of
absent of ill-motive
Doctrines:
negligent act
inadvertent(unintentional) act
may be merely carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence and may be one
which creates a situation involving an unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable
action of the other, a third person, an animal, or a force of nature
an ordinary prudent person in the actor's position, in the same or similar
circumstances, would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others as to cause him not to
do the act or to do it in a more careful manner
Jasmin, died as a result of the dead and rotting tree within the school's premises shows
that the tree was indeed an obvious danger to anyone passing by and calls for application of the
principle of res ipsa loquitur

Professional Services, Inc. v. Natividad and Enrique Agana (2007)

Summary: Dr. Ampil assisted by Dr. Fuentes performed hysterectomy operation on Natividad
where 2 gauzes were left badly affecting her vaginal vault which formed a recto-vaginal
fistula forcign her stool to excrete through the vagina. The first gauze was extracted by hand by
Dr. Ampil while the second required another operation. RTC: PSI solidarily liable with Dr. Ampil and
Dr. Fuentes for damages for negligence and malpractice CA: absolved Dr. Fuentes upon the same
advise from the PRC Board of Medicine for failure to show that he placed the guages or concealed
the fact from Natividad SC: Affirmed CA
Laws: Art. 2176 Art. 2180 and Art. 1869 of the Civil Code
Doctrines:

element 3 "control and management of the thing which caused the injury" to
be wanting
Dr. Fuentes performed the surgery and thereafter reported and showed
his work to Dr. Ampil who allowed Dr. Fuentes to leave the operating room
Under the "Captain of the Ship" rule, the operating surgeon is the
person in complete charge of the surgery room and all personnel connected with the
operation

res ipsa loquitur

not a rule of substantive law, hence, does not per se create or constitute an
independent or separate ground of liability, being a mere evidentiary rule

mere invocation and application of the doctrine does not dispense with the
requirement of proof of negligence
V. Causation

1) Definition of Proximate Cause

That cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbrokenby any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury, without which the result wouldnot have occurred
Cases:
Salud Villanueva Vda. De batacan, et al., v. Mariano Media, G.R. No. L-10126, October 22, 1957
Filomeno Urbano v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72964, January 7, 1988
"A prior and remote cause cannot be made the be of an action if such remote cause did nothing more
than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there
intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and
efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would not have happened but for such condition
or occasion. If no danger existed in the condition except because of the independent cause, such
condition was not the proximate cause. And if an independent negligent act or defective condition
sets into operation the instances which result in injury because of the prior defective condition, such
subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause.
Phoenix Construction, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987
Quezon City Government, et al., v. Fulgencio Dacara, G.R. No. 150304, June 15, 2005

2) Distinguished from other kinds

a) Remote
That cause which some independent force merely took advantage of to accomplish something
not the natural effect thereof
Cases:
Filomeno Urbano v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72964, January 7, 1988

b) Concurrent
the actor is liable even if the active and substantially simultaneous operation of the effects of a
third persons innocent,tortious or criminal actis also a substantial factor in bringing about the
harm so long as the actors negligent conduct actively and continuously operate to bring about
harm to another. (Africa v. Caltex)

Where several causes producing the injury are concurrent and each is an efficient cause
without which the injury would not have happened, the injury may be attributed to allow any of
the causes and recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons

Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omissions of two or more

persons,although acting independently, are in combination the direct and proximate cause of a
single injury to a third person, and it is impossible to determine what proportion each contributed
to the injury, either of them is responsible for the whole injury, even though his act alone might
not have caused the entire injury; they become joint tort-feasors and are solidarily liable for the
resulting damage under Article 2194 of the Civil Code
Cases:
Prospero Sabido and Aser Lagunda v. Macabuhay Custodio, G.R. No. L-21512, August 31, 1966

Agripino Custodia a passenger of LTB bus, who was hanging on the left side as truck was full
of passengers was sideswiped by the track driven by Aser Lagunda

3) Last Clear Chance

The negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the
defendant where it appears that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and prudence,
might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiffs
negligence
Cases:
Anuran v. Buno (1966)

New Civil Code requires "utmost diligence" from the carriers (Art. 1755) who are "presumed to
have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they have observed
extraordinary diligence" (Art. 1756)

principle about the "last clear chance" would call for application in a suit between the owners
and drivers of the two colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger demands
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. For it would be inequitable to
exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver
was likewise guilty of negligence
Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Maricar Baesa (1989)

Generally, the last clear change doctrine is invoked for the purpose of making a defendant
liable to a plaintiff who was guilty of prior or antecedent negligence, although it may also be
raised as a defense to defeat claim for damages

For the last clear chance doctrine to apply, it is necessary to show that the person who
allegedly has the last opportunity to avert the accident was aware of the existence of the peril, or
should, with exercise of due care, have been aware of it

When he saw at a distance that the approaching bus was encroaching on his lane, he
did not immediately swerve the jeepney to the dirt shoulder on his right since he must have
assumed that the bus driver will return the bus to its own lane upon seeing the jeepney
approaching form the opposite direction

last clear chance doctrine can never apply where the party charged is required to act
instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after
the peril is or should have been discovered

Bustamante v. CA (1991)

the doctrine of last clear chance means that even though a person's own acts may have placed
him in a position of peril, and an injury results, the injured person is entitled to recovery

since the case at bar is not a suit between the owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but
a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the
colliding vehicles the court erred in absolving the owner and driver of the cargo truck from liability
Philippine Bank of Commerce v. CA (1997)

last clear chance/supervening negligence/discovered peril

where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later
in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence
should be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof

antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages

for the supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against liability sought by another, if the
latter, who had the last fair chance, could have avoided the impending harm by the exercise of
due diligence.

Here, assuming that RMC was negligent in entrusting cash to a dishonest

employee, yet it cannot be denied that PBC bank, thru its teller, had the last clear opportunity to
avert the injury incurred by its client, simply by faithfully observing their self-imposed validation
procedure

it cannot be denied that, indeed, private respondent was likewise negligent in not
checking its monthly statements of account. Had it done so, the company would have been
alerted to the series of frauds being committed against RMC by its secretary. The damage would
definitely not have ballooned to such an amount if only RMC, particularly Romeo Lipana, had
exercised even a little vigilance in their financial affairs. This omission by RMC amounts to
contributory negligence which shall mitigate the damages that may be awarded to the private
respondent

60-40 ratio. only the balance of 60% needs to be paid by the PBC
Canlas v. CA (2000)

Summary: Osmundo Canlas agreed to sell the lands to Maosca for P850K, P500K payable
within 1 week, and the balance serves as his investment in the
business. Maosca mortgage to Atty. Manuel Magno the parcels of lands for P100K with the help
of impostors who misrepresented themselves as the Spouses Canlas. Maosca was granted a loan
by the Asian Savings Bank (ASB) for P500K with the parcels of land as security and with the help
of the same impostors. The loan was left unpaid resulting in a extrajudicially foreclosure on the
lots. RTC: restrained the sheriff from issuing a Certificate of Sheriffs Sale and annulled
the mortgage. CA: reversed holding Canlas estopped for coming to the bank with Maosca and
letting himself be introduced as Leonardo Rey SC: reversed CA but since there was negligence by
Canlas no attorney's fees.
Doctrines:

doctrine of last clear chance (same definition as above)

Antecedent Negligence: Osmundo Canlas was negligent in giving Vicente Maosca the
opportunity to perpetrate the fraud, by entrusting him the owner's copy of the
transfer certificates of title of subject parcels of land

Supervening Negligence: Failing to perform the simple expedient of faithfully complying

with the requirements for banks to ascertain the identity of the persons transacting with them ASB bears the loss
Engada v. CA (2003)

Summary: The speeding Isuzu puck-up truck driven by Rogelio Engada came from the
opposing direction and swerved to its left encroaching upon the lane of the Tamaraw driven by

Iran and owned by Seyan. In attempt to avoid the pick-up, Seyan shouted at Iran to swerve to the
left but the Engada also swerved to its right hitting the Tamaraw at its right front passenger
side causing its head and chassis to separate from its body. Seyan was suffered injuries
incurring P130,000 in medical expenses and the loss of the Tamaraw of P80,000. MTC, CA, SC:
favored Seyan
Doctrines:
Engada's negligence was the proximate cause of the collision
in abandoning his lane, he did not see to it first that the opposite lane was free
of oncoming traffic and was available for a safe passage
after seeing the Tamaraw jeepney ahead, he did not slow down
emergency rule
An individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of danger and is required
to act without much time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending
danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what subsequently and upon reflection
may appear to be a better solution, unless the emergency was brought by his own negligence Iran cannot be faulted
at a distance of 30 meters from it and driving the Isuzu pick-up at a fast speed as it
approached the Tamaraw, denied Iran time and opportunity to ponder the situation at all. There
was no clear chance to speak of.