You are on page 1of 14




[Employers] Pedro Velasco is seeking redress for unceasing sound emanating

from a Meralco sub-station built near his house.
Crewlink sought to be discharged from civil liability following the
suicide of its crew, Jacinto Teringtering. The general rule is that everyone is bound to bear the habitual or
customary inconveniences that result from the proximity of
The ruled clarified that in order to avail of death benefits, the others, and so long as this level is not surpassed, he may not
death of the employee should occur during the effectivity of the complain against them. But if the prejudice exceeds the
employment contract. The death of a seaman during the term of inconveniences that such proximity habitually brings, the
employment makes the employer liable to his heirs for death neighbor who causes such disturbance is held responsible for the
compensation benefits. This rule, however, is not absolute. The resulting damage, being guilty of causing nuisance.
employer may be exempt from liability if it can successfully prove
that the seaman's death was caused by an injury directly The impartial and objective evidence points to the sound emitted
attributable to his deliberate or willful act. by the appellee's substation transformers being of much higher
level than the ambient sound of the locality. Contrary to the
In the instant case, Crewlink was able to substantially prove that finding of the trial court, the noise continuously emitted, day and
Jacinto's death was attributable to his deliberate act of killing night, constitutes an actionable nuisance for which the appellant
himself by jumping into the sea. is entitled to relief, by requiring the appellee company to adopt
the necessary measures to deaden or reduce the sound at the
VESTIL v IAC plaintiff's house, by replacing the interlink wire fence with a
partition made of sound absorbent material, since the relocation
[Animals] of the substation is manifestly impracticable and would be
prejudicial to the customers of the Electric Company who are
Claim for damages are being pursued by the parents of the being serviced from the substation.
three year old Theness against Purita Vestil, possessor of the
dog and the house where the said little girl was bitten. NOTE: Public nuisance need not require judicial proceeding to be
abated. It may be abated by the use of state police power. On the
Article 2183 reads as follows: other hand, private nuisance may be abated personally by the
individual affected without the need for judicial intervention only
The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the
when no destruction shall result therefrom.
same is responsible for the damage which it may cause,
although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall
cease only in case the damages should come from force
majeure from the fault of the person who has suffered
The case is about a class suit seeking damages for injuries
Thus, in Afialda v. Hisole, a person hired as caretaker of a
allegedly sustained from exposure to DBCP, a chemical used to
carabao gored him to death and his heirs thereupon sued the
kill nematodes (worms), while working on farms in 23 foreign
owner of the animal for damages. The complaint was
countries including banana plantations in the Philippines.
dismissed on the ground that it was the caretaker's duty to
prevent the carabao from causing injury to any one, including The specific tort asserted against defendant foreign companies
himself. in the present complaint is product liability tort. When the
averments in the present complaint are examined in terms of
According to Manresa the obligation imposed by Article 2183
the particular categories of tort recognized in the Philippine
of the Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on the
Civil Code, it becomes stark clear that such averments describe
presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the
and identify the category of specific tort known as product
animal causing the damage. It is based on natural equity and
liability tort. This is necessarily so, because it is the product
on the principle of social interest that he who possesses
manufactured by defendant foreign companies, which is
animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the
damage which such animal may cause.



asserted to be the proximate cause of the damages sustained Landicho and Tecson secretly negotiated with Robinson for the
by the plaintiff workers, and the liability of the defendant purchase of a second vessel, Landicho and Tecson continued to
foreign companies, is premised on being the manufacturer of demand and receive from Cordero their commission or cut from
the pesticides. Corderos earned commission from the sale of the first SEACAT 25.

NOTE: No specific provision in Civil Code pertaining to product The rule is that the defendant found guilty of interference with
[and service] liability tort. Article 2176 is broad enough to contractual relations cannot be held liable for more than the
suffice as legal basis though. It must also be noted that product amount for which the party who was inducted to break the
liability torts are strict liability torts and not negligence torts. contract can be held liable.

NOTE: No case for contractual interference when a buyer (3rd

person) who procures directly from the manufacturer is unaware
BUSINESS TORTS of the existence of a distributorship contract between the latter
and its distributor. On the other hand, an action for breach of
contract is the proper remedy by the exclusive distributor against
[Contractual interference; Art. 1314, CC] the manufacturer.

The case pertains to the disregard of Allan Go, et al of an earlier THE DEFENDANTS
shipbuilding contract with Mortimer Cordero, to directly execute
a similar deal with the latters supplier, Tony Robinson. Cordero CAEDO v YU KHE THAI
and Robinson have an existing exclusive distributorship
agreement. [Respondeat superior v Bonus pater familias]

While it is true that a third person cannot possibly be sued for Plaintiff Caedo was on his way from his home to the airport,
breach of contract because only parties can breach contractual while defendant Yu Khe Thai, the owner of the Cadillac was
provisions, a contracting party may sue a third person not for with his driver Bernardo going to Wack Wack for his regular
breach but for inducing another to commit such breach. round of golf. However, a vehicular accident happened
between them which caused plaintiff Caedo and the members
Article 1314 of the Civil Code provides: Any third person who of his family were injured.
induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for damages
to the other contracting party. There was no doubt that the collision was directly traceable to
Bernardos negligence when he instead of slowing down or
The elements of tort interference are: (1) existence of a valid stopping altogether behind the carretela until the lane was
contract; (2) knowledge on the part of the third person of the clear, veered to the left in order to pass.
existence of a contract; and (3) interference of the third person is
without legal justification. The main issue in this case is whether or not Yu Khe Thai, as
owner of the Cadillac, is solidarily liable with the driver
The act of Go, Landicho and Tecson in inducing Robinson and Bernardo.
AFFA to enter into another contract directly with ACG Express
Liner to obtain a lower price for the second vessel resulted in SC No.
AFFAs breach of its contractual obligation to pay in full the
Art 2184 provides that in case of a vehicle mishap, the owner,
commission due to Cordero and unceremonious termination of
who was present during the mishap, is solidarily liable with his
Corderos appointment as exclusive distributor. Following our
driver, if the former could have prevented such mishap by the
pronouncement in Gilchrist v. Cuddy (supra), such act may not be
exercise of due diligence.
deemed malicious if impelled by a proper business interest rather
than in wrongful motives. The attendant circumstances, however, The basis of the masters liability is bonus pater familias. The
demonstrated that respondents transgressed the bounds of theory is that ultimately the negligence of the servant, if
permissible financial interest to benefit themselves at the expense known to the master and susceptible of timely correction by
of Cordero. Respondents furtively went directly to Robinson after him, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order
Cordero had worked hard to close the deal for them to purchase to prevent injury or damage.
from AFFA two (2) SEACAT 25, closely monitored the progress of
building the first vessel sold, attended to their concerns and spent
no measly sum for the trip to Australia with Go, Landicho and Gos
family members. But what is appalling is the fact that even as Go,



In this case, the car was not running in an unreasonable speed to the action since parental authority was shifted to the
as to require the car owner to be in any special state of alert. adopting parents from the moment of the petition for
The road was wide and open, and devoid of traffic that early adoption was filed.
morning. He had reason to rely on the skill and experience of
his driver. He became aware of the presence of the carretela SC No, parental authority was still with the natural parents at
when his car was only 12m behind it, but then his failure to see the time the incident occurred, and thus are indispensable
it earlier did not constitute negligence, for he was not himself parties to the suit for damages against Adelberto.
at the wheel. The time element was such that there was no
Art 2180 imposes civil liability upon the father and, in case of
reasonable opportunity for Yu Khe Thai to assess the risks
his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may
involved and warn the driver accordingly.
be caused by a minor child who lives with them.

CUADRA v MONFORT The principle of parental liability is designated as vicarious

liability, or the doctrine of imputed negligence, where a
[Parents] person is not only liable for torts committed by himself, but
also for torts committed by others with whom he has a certain
Cuadra and Monfort were classmates in Grade 6 and was assigned
relationship and for whom he is responsible.
by the teacher to weed the grass in the school premises together.
Monfort jokingly said that she found an earthworm and, to Thus, the parental liability is made a natural or logical
frightened Cuadra, tossed the plastic headband at her. The object consequence of the duties and responsibilities of parents,
hit her eye. Cuadra rubbed the injured part and treated it with which includes the instructing, controlling, and disciplining of
powder. The eye became swollen. Cuadra was brought to a doctor the child.
and underwent surgical operations twice; however, she
completely lost the sight of her right eye. In the instant case, the shooting incident occurred when
parental authority was still lodge with the natural parents of
SC parents of Monfort not liable Adelberto. The decree of adoption which was issued after the
incident cannot be given retroactive effect to the time of the
The basis of the liability imposed by Art 2176 is the fault or
filing of the petition for adoption so as to impose liability upon
negligence accompanying the act or omission, there being no
the adopting parents when, at that time, they had no actual or
willfulness or intent to cause damage thereby. When the act or
physical custody over the adopted child.
omission is that of one person for whom another is responsible,
the latter then becomes himself liable (vicarious liability) under
Art 2180. The parents of Monfort could not have prevented the LIBI v IAC
damage by the observance of due care, or was in any way remiss
in the exercise of their parental authority in failing to foresee such
damage since their child was at school during the incident, under Sweethearts Julie Gotiong and Wendell Libi (both minor) died,
the care and supervision of the teacher. As far as the act which each from a single gunshot would with the same firearm, a Smith
caused the injury was concerned, it was an innocent prank not and Wesson revolver licensed in the name of petitioner Cresencio
unusual among children at play and which no parent, however Libi (father). Petitioners defense is that they exercised due
careful, would have any special reason to anticipate, much less diligence of a good father of a family, hence, they should not be
guard against. civilly liable for the crime committed by their son.

TAMARGO v CA SC liable

[Parents] The diligence of a good father of a family required by law in a

parent and child relationship consists of the instruction and
10-year old Adelberto Bundoc shot Jennifer Tamargo with an supervision of the child.
air rifle causing injuries which resulted in her death. A civil case
for damages was filed against the natural parents of Adelberto In this case, petitioners were gravely remiss in their duties as
with whom he was living at the time of the incident. The parents in not diligently supervising the activities of their son,
natural parents of Adelberto however averred that it should be despite his minority and immaturity, so much so that it was only
the adopting parents who should be the indispensable parties at the time of Wendells death that they allegedly discovered that
he was a CANU (Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit) agent and that
Cresencios gun was missing from the safety deposit box.




[Schools] [Schools]

Alfredo Amadora was shot to death by his classmate Pablito A stabbing incident by outsiders caused the death of Carlitos
Daffon while inside the auditorium of their school. Parents of Bautista on the premises of the PSBA.
Amadora filed a case for damages against the school, its rector,
The court in this case focused on the contractual relation of the
the HS principal, the dean of boys, and the physics teacher.
school and its students.
They contend that their son was in school to finish his physics
experiment, hence, he was then under the custody of the When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment,
respondents. there establishes a contract between them, resulting in bilateral
obligations. For the part of the school, it is required to provide the
SC school not liable
student with not only the education, but as well as, a peaceful and
Even if he was there to merely submit his physics report, or to secure atmosphere.
finish his physics experiment, or even the mere savoring of the
company of his friends in the premises of the school, as long as SALUDAGA v FEU
he was there for a legitimate purpose, he is considered under
the custody of the school authorities.
Petitioner was a 2nd year law student when he was shot by one
The rules are:
of the security guards on duty at the school premises.
1. If school is academic institution the teacher in Petitioner sued for damages based on the breach of contract
charge of such student shall be held liable; (safe learning environment).
2. If it is a technical or vocational (arts and trades) the
SC liable
head of the school.
There was failure on the part of the school to exercise due
Reason: the old schools of arts and trades were engaged in the
diligence, when it failed to ensured that the guards assigned in
training of artisans apprenticed to their master who personally
the campus met the necessary qualifications.
and directly instructed them on the technique and secrets of
their craft. The head of the school of arts and trades was such
a master and so was personally involved in the task of teaching ST. JOSEPHS COLLEGE v MIRANDA
his students, who usually even boarded with him and so came
under his constant control, supervision and influence.
Failed science experiment case.
The head of the academic school was not as involved with his
students and exercised only administrative duties over the
Petitioner school was held liable in this case in the negligence and
teachers who were the persons directly dealing with the
failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family when
it did not install safety measures to protect the students who
conduct experiments in class, it did not even provide them with
The rector, the HS principal, and the dean of boys were also
protective gears and devices, and the science teacher was not
not held liable because none of them was the teacher-in-
inside the classroom the whole time her class conducted the
charge. They exercise only general authority over the student
experiment. However, the award of damages were mitigated due
to Jaysons contributory negligence when he looked into the
It was not disclosed who was the teacher-in-charge of the heated test tube before the compound had cooled off.
offending student was. The mere fact that Alfredo had gone to
school that day in connection with his physics report did not
necessarily make the physics teacher, the teacher-in-charge.



FILAMER v CA Boquiren is not an independent contractor and is liable with

Caltex for the damage caused to appellants. It was shown that
[Employers] Boquiren was virtually an employee of Caltex since the former can
only sell Caltex products; the maintenance and agreement was
For Labor Code purposes, working students are not subject to the approval of Caltex; Caltex can at any time cancel
considered employees. But they are in cases of torts. the agreement in case Boquiren ceased to sell Caltex products;
and that an employee of company supervised the operator and
Filamer was held liable due to its failure to supervise its conducted periodic inspection of the companys gasoline and
employee to prevent the real driver from lending the service station.
company vehicle, as in this case to Funtecha a working
student. In absence of evidence that petitioner had
exercised due diligence of a good father of a family in the
supervision of its employees, the law imposes upon it the [Employers]
vicarious liability (primary and solidary) for acts or omissions
of its employees. The negligence of the employee gives rise to the
presumption of negligence on the part of the employer.
VALENZUELA v CA Thus, before the presumption of the employers negligence
in the selection and supervision of its employees can arise,
[Employers] -supra the negligence of the employee must first be established.


[Employers] [Employers]

Daddy, Daddy case. The employee need not be impleaded if the cause of action is
based on Art 103 of the RPC.
An employer who loans his motor vehicle to an employee
for the latters personal use outside of regular working PHIL. RABBIT v PHIL-AM FORWARDERS
hours is generally not liable for the employees negligent
operation of the vehicle during the period of permissive use, [Employers]
even where the employer contemplates that a regularly
assign motor vehicle will be used by the employee for The term manager contemplated under Art 2180 is that in
personal as well as business purposes and there is some the sense of an employer, and not a manager who may
incidental benefit to the employer. himself be regarded as an employee.

It is undisputed that Abad did some overtime work at the SPS. JAYME v APOSTOL
petitioners office. Thereafter, he went to a restaurant,
which was located in a lively place were drinking was [Employers]
open, prostitutes, pimps, and drug addicts littered the place,
to have snacks and had a chat with friends, and it was when The question posed in this case is whether the municipal mayor
he was leaving the restaurant that the incident occurred. be held solidarily liable for the negligent acts of the driver
Thus, he was engaged in affairs of his own and was carrying assigned to him, which resulted in the death of a minor
out a personal purpose not in line with his duties, and where pedestrian?
it was already way beyond his working hours (about 2 in the
No immunity from suit. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to
run after the registered owner.



While gasoline was being hosed from a tank truck into the
underground storage, a fire spread to and burned several
neighboring houses.




[Innkeepers and Hotelkeepers] [Rent-a-car business]

Petitioner hotel is liable for the murder of its hotel guest A two-car collision occurred involving the car owned by
(Norwegian national) by strangers inside his room, where it FILCAR, who was engaged in services of rent-a-car.
failed to provide adequate security measures and stressing
on the fact that petitioner hotel is a five-star hotel that must Art 2180(5) is not applicable to rent-a-car because no
exercise reasonable care for the safety and comfort of its viniculum juris between the lessee of the car and FILCAR as
guests, with the same grade and quality of the employer and employee.
accommodation it offers.
Art 2184, where the owner is inside the vehicle, is also not
applicable absence of master-driver relationship.
Note: if rules on rent-a-car are not applicable, use registered
[Innkeepers and Hotelkeepers] owner rule.

Respondent boy scouts (owner of the lot) cannot be held liable in ANONUEVO v CA
this case since it had no contractual relationship with the owner
of the vehicle, considering the arrangement was under the table [Art 2185, CC]
between the owner of the vehicle and the security guards. The lot
was not meant to be a parking lot. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed
that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent
DEL CARMEN v BACOY if at the time of the mishap he was violating any traffic
[Registered owner rule]
Art 2185 is limited only to motor vehicles does not include
The registered owner is directly and primarily responsible bicycles (as in this case).
for the injuries or death of third persons cause by the
operator of such vehicle. No liability can be imputed when A motorized vehicle operates by reason of a motor engine unlike a
there is unauthorized use, or when the subject vehicle was non-motorized vehicle, which runs as a result of direct exertion by
stolen. man or beast of burden of direct physical force. A motorized
vehicle, unimpeded by the limitation in physical exertion is
In this case, the contention that the jeep was stolen is capable of greater speeds and acceleration than non-motorized
without merit since the carnapping case filed against Allan vehicles. At the same time, motorized vehicles are more capable
and his companions were dismissed. And under the in inflicting greater injury or damage in the event of an accident or
circumstances, Oscar, the owner, deemed to have given collision.
Allan the implied permission to use the vehicle. Therefore,
he is liable. MERRITT v GOVT OF THE PH

Art 1903(5) provides that the state is liable in this sense
[Registered owner rule]
when it acts through a special agent, but not when the
The registered owner of a motor vehicle is solidarily liable for the damage should have been caused by the official to whom
injuries and damages caused by the negligence of the driver, in property it pertained to do the act performed, in which case
spite the fact that the vehicle may have already been the subject the provisions of the preceding article shall be applicable.
of an unregistered Deed of Sale in favor of another person. The
In this case, the driver of the ambulance of the General
sale must be registered in order to affect third persons, especially
Hospital is not a special agent of the state.
the victims of accidents involving the said motor vehicle.




[State] [Justifying and exempting circumstances]

Fell into a manhole case. Anita Tan is seeking indemnity for the destruction of her
house brought about by the abandonment of a delivery truck
Whether the case is governed by the charter of Manila where the
that caught fire.
city is not liable for damages or injuries on general negligence, or,
by art 2189 where cities shall be liable for damages in case of The rule is that "extinction of the penal action does not carry
death or injuries suffered by reason of the defective condition of with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds
roads, streets, etc under their control and supervision. from the declaration in a final judgment that the fact from
which the civil might arise did not exist" (Rule 107, section 1-
SC Art 2189 (general law w/ specific provision prevailed over
d, Rules of Court). Here it is true that Julito Sto. Domingo and
specific law w/ a general provision). The street was also proven to
Igmidio Rico were acquitted, the court holding that they were
be under the control and supervision of the City of Manila.
not responsible for the fire that destroyed the house of the
plaintiff,which as a rule will not necessarily extinguish their
civil liability,but the court went further by stating that the
evidence throws no light on the cause of fire and that it was
an unfortunate accident for which the accused cannot be
A state is not liable for damages if it is acting within its held responsible.
governmental function. XPN: GOCCs acting in a proprietary
On the other hand, where the damage caused to the plaintiff
function, like GSIS in this case.
was brought about mainly because of the desire of driver
Julito Sto. Domingo to avoid greater evil or harm, which
MALAYAN INSURANCE v CA would have been the case had he not brought the tank-truck
trailer to the middle of the street, for then the fire would
[Liability of insurer]
have caused the explosion of the gasoline deposit of the
The liability of an insurer is not direct, but based from its contract company which would have resulted in a conflagration of
with the insured. Upon payment of the loss, the insurer is entitled much greater proportion and consequences to the houses
to be subrogated to any right of action which the insured may nearby or surrounding it. It cannot be denied that this
have against the third person whose negligence or wrongful act company is one of those for whose benefit a greater harm
caused the loss. has been prevented, and as such it comes within the purview
of said penal provision. The acquittal of the accused cannot,
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM DELICT therefore, be deemed a bar to a civil action against this
company because its civil liability is completely divorced from
OZOA v MADULA the criminal liability of the accused. The rule regarding
reservation of the right to file a separate civil action does not
Writ of execution for the enforcement of the subsidiary civil apply to it.
liability of Virgilio Ozoa as employer is being sought by the widow
of Arcadio Lagas who was killed in a vehicular accident by the
employee of the former.
[Effect of acquittal]
The employer is subsidiarily answerable for the adjudicated civil
liability ex delito of his employee in the event of the latter's
Mayor Roy Padilla, et al were acquitted in a criminal case for the
insolvency; and the judgment in the criminal action pronouncing
crime of grave coercion. However, they were still made liable for
the employee to be also civilly liable is conclusive on the employer
not only as to the actuality of that liability but also as to its
amount. The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the liability of the accused
for damages only when it includes a declaration that the facts
NOTE: Execution against the employer is not automatic. For
from which the civil might arise did not exist. Thus, the civil
respondeat superior to apply, the following are required: (1) that
liability is not extinguished by acquittal where the acquittal is
it must be verified if the person concerned is indeed an employee
based on reasonable doubt (PNB v. Catipon, 98 Phil. 286) as only
[of the employer]; and (2) ascertained whether the accident
preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases.
occurred in the exercise of his official function as employee.



Meanwhile, while civil damages may be awarded in the criminal TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION
case despite acquittal, this rule does not preclude the filing of a
separate civil action. A separate civil action may be warranted CASUPANAN v LAROYA
where additional facts have to be established or more evidence
must be adduced or where the criminal case has been fully The case deals with a vehicular incident between Laroya and
terminated and a separate complaint would be just as efficacious Casupanan (who was driving a vehicle owned by Capitulo).
or even more expedient than a timely remand to the trial court
where the criminal action was decided for further hearings on the The issue herein is whether or not an accused in a pending
civil aspects of the case. criminal case for reckless imprudence can validly file,
simultaneously and independently, a separate civil action for
BUNAG JR v CA quasi-delict against the private complainant in the criminal
[Effect of acquittal]
Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, what is deemed
Zenaida Cirilo was raped by Conrado Bunag. He promised to instituted with the criminal action is only the action to recover
marry in order to escape liability. He, however, left anyway. civil liability arising from the crime or ex-delicto. All the other
civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
Generally, the basis of civil liability from crime is the Code are no longer deemed instituted, and may be filed
fundamental postulate of our law that every person separately and prosecuted independently even without any
criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. In other reservation in the criminal action. The failure to make a
words, criminal liability will give rise to civil liability ex delicto reservation in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right
only if the same felonious act or omission results in damage to file a separate and independent civil action based on these
or injury to another and is the direct and proximate cause articles of the Civil Code. The prescriptive period on the civil
thereof. Hence, extinction of the penal action does not carry actions based on these articles of the Civil Code continues to
with it the extinction of civil liability unless the extinction run even with the filing of the criminal action. Verily, the civil
proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact actions based on these articles of the Civil Code are separate,
from which the civil might arise did not exist. distinct and independent of the civil action deemed instituted
in the criminal action.
Note: As earlier pointed out by Angeles, there is no need to
[Effect of death] call it independent [civil action] because the mere fact that it
is not included in crime means that it is separate and
Rogelio Bayotas was convicted of rape. Pending appeal of his independent from delict.
conviction, the same died.

The SC ruled that death of the accused pending appeal of his ABERCA v VER
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil
[Art 32 CC / searches and seizures]
liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in
this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgment The military allegedly conducted illegal searches and seizures in
terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly premises of people who they suspected as communists-terrorists.
arising from and based solely on the offense committed."
This case poses the question whether or not the suspension of the
NOTE: Civil liability merely follows criminal liability. However, privilege of the writ of habeas corpus bars a civil action for
death does not extinguish civil liability arising from quasi-delict. damages for illegal searches conducted by military personnel and
other violations of rights and liberties guaranteed under the

It may be that the respondents, as members of the Armed Forces

of the Philippines, were merely responding to their duty, as they
claim, "to prevent or suppress lawless violence, insurrection,
rebellion and subversion" in accordance with Proclamation No.
2054 of President Marcos, despite the lifting of martial law on
January 27, 1981, and in pursuance of such objective, to launch
pre- emptive strikes against alleged communist terrorist



underground houses. But this cannot be construed as a blanket any fan fare or publicity. There was also no showing as well that
license or a roving commission untramelled by any constitutional Manuel caused the publication of such letter nor he had the
restraint, to disregard or transgress upon the rights and liberties capacity to.
of the individual citizen enshrined in and protected by the
Constitution. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the BORJAL v CA
land to which all officials, high or low, civilian or military, owe
obedience and allegiance at all times. [Art 33 CC / defamation]

Simply stated, the SC ruled that just because the writ of habeas Series of blind items referring to an organizer of a
corpus was suspended, it does not follow that they can just arrest conference has been the subject of Philippine Star
anybody they want. publications. Wenceslao filed a libel case claiming that he was
the one being referred to in the said offensive and
MHP GARMENTS v CA derogatory publications.

[Art 32 CC / searches and seizures] The question in the case is whether or not Borjal and Soliven
may be held liable for damages based on libel.
The case involves the seizure of alleged fake Boy Scout
uniforms and paraphernalia by constabulary officers. In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim
be identifiable although it is not necessary that he be
It answers the question whether or not MHP Garments and named. It is also not sufficient that the offended party
De Guzman may be held liable despite being private persons recognized himself as the person attacked or defamed, but it
who did not conduct the purported unauthorized search and must be shown that at least a third person could identify
seizure themselves. him as the object of the libelous publication. Regrettably,
these requisites have not been complied with in the case at
Private persons who instigate an illegal warrantless search bar.
and seizure may be held liable for damages. Moreover,
private persons who initiate an illegal warrantless search In the end, nobody could have identified Wenceslao had he
and seizure, accompany the raiding team and stand during not identified himself.
the operation, apparently assenting thereto, are liable for
damages to the extent as the public officers themselves.
In conclusion, it is not just public officials and employees but
[Art 33 CC / defamation]
also private individuals as well those who have not directly
participated in an act violative of Art. 32, NCC may also be Following the termination of Argos and Pineda from IFFI, the duo
held liable. filed criminal complaints for libel against Costa, the companys
managing director, in relation to the announcement of the latter
MANUEL v CRUZ-PANO declaring the former as persona non grata.

[Art 33 CC / defamation] Whether or not Argos and Pineda may sue their employerIFFI
based on subsidiary liability in an independent civil action under
The cases pertains to a news article published by the Bulletin Art. 33 during the pendency of the criminal libel cases v. Costa,
Today stemming from a letter wrote by Atty. Esteban Manuel the companys managing director.
addressed to the Chairman of the Anti-Smuggling Action Center
(ASAC) complaining about the conduct of the raid and demanded Article 33 of the Civil Code provides specifically that in cases of
the persons responsible therefore be investigated. defamation, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and
distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured
The issue at hand is whether or not the letter sent by Manuel is party. Such civil action proceeds independently of the criminal
actionable. prosecution and requires only a preponderance of evidence. In
Joaquin vs. Aniceto, 12 SCRA 308 (1964), we held that Article 33
The SC noted that subject letter was considered a privileged
contemplates an action against the employee in his primary civil
communication, which was a fair and true report, stated without
liability. It does not apply to an action against the employer to
any comments written by a duly authorized person and provided
enforce its subsidiary civil liability, because such liability arises
to a person who had a duty to receive such letter. Furthermore,
only after conviction of the employee in the criminal case or
the letter was sent privately, directly to the addressee without
when the employee is adjudged guilty of the wrongful act in a



criminal action and found to have committed the offense in the reason for the publication. There was no truth to the allegation.
discharge of his duties. Any action brought against the employer Malice is presumed.
based on its subsidiary liability before the conviction of its
employee is premature. HEIRS OF SIMON v CHAN

Note: In civil actions arising from delict, respondeat superior is [Art 33 CC / fraud]
applied wherein the master is held liable for the acts of the
servants. It requires that the employee must first be adjudged This involves a BP 22 case where the respondent Chan
guilty so it may result to the subsidiary liability of the employer. commenced a civil action for the collection of the amount
representing the bouncing check issued by the late Eduardo
MVRS PUBLICATION v ISLAMIC DAWAH COUNCIL OF THE Simon to him eleven (11) years after a criminal case has been
PH filed for the same cause of action.

[Art 33 CC / defamation] The issue in the case is whether or not Chans civil action to
recover the amount of the unfunded check was an
The Islamic DaWah Council of the Philippines, local independent civil action.
federation of Muslims, along with several other Muslim
individuals filed a case for damages against MVRS, et al for its There is no independent civil action to recover the civil
libelous statements insulting and damaging to the former. liability arising from the issuance of an unfunded check
prohibited and punished under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22
The issue in question is whether or not the religion of Islam (BP 22). This is clear from Sec. 1 (b), Rule 111 of the Rules of
would be considered sufficient to fall under a fairly Court, effective December 1, 2000, which relevantly provides:
identifiable group. The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No
Declarations made about a large class of people cannot be reservation to file such civil action separately shall be
interpreted to advert to an identified or identifiable allowed.
individual. Absent circumstances specifically pointing or
alluding to a particular member of a class, no member of such
class has a right of action without at all impairing the equally
demanding right of free speech and expression, as well as of DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
the press, under the Bill of Rights.
In the present case, there was no fairly identifiable person
who was allegedly injured by the Bulgar article. Since the Right of way case
persons allegedly defamed could not be identifiable, private
respondents have no individual causes of action; hence, they This case focused on the timeline of events, where there was no
cannot sue for a class allegedly disparaged. Private legal obligation prior to the decision of this Court granting an
respondents must have a cause of action in common with the easement of right of way to respondents. Hence, prior to said
class to which they belong to in order for the case to prosper. decision, petitioners had an absolute right over their property and
their act of fencing and enclosing the same was an act which they
may lawfully perform in the exercise of said right. And whatever
injury or damage they may have sustained is damnum absque
[Art 33 CC / defamation]
The case pertains to the published tabloid news of a person
shooting wayward animals entering his lot.
1. Not all damages can be compensated because there
must be an injury;
The issue to be dealt with is whether or nor the news report falls
2. The violation of a right must be accompanied with
under privileged communication and therefore protected by the
malice or bad faith.
Constitutional provision on freedom speech.

It does not fall under privileged communication. It was neither a

fair and true report nor a communication that was confidentially
sent to the publisher. In fact, it appears that there is no rhyme or



DIAZ v DAVAO LIGHT AND POWER CO. Damages cannot be based on mere estimate. It must be given by
a neutral third party. And that third party must be able to give
Electricity theft case judicial affidavit or testify to court. The claimant must be able to
prove the actual amount with reasonable degree of certainty
Diaz owner of a hotel building failed to pay its electric premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence
consumption which prompted Davao Light to disconnect the obtainable.
meter. A portion of the ground floor of the building of the
hotel was leased to NFA, and a separate meter was installed MERCURY DRUG v HUANG
to monitor NFAs electric consumption. When NFA vacated
the hotel, Diaz requested Davao Light to install a new Court awarded loss of earning capacity taking into
electrical connection for the building in his name. However, consideration that the child was an achiever in his academics,
Davao Light refused, and reminded Diaz to pay his unpaid and would have led a fruitful life which were all lost due to
electric account. Meanwhile, the ground floor portion of the the accident causing him to be paralyzed for life.
hotel building was leased to Mendiola. Because he needed
more electricity, Mendiola applied to Davao Light to have the Formula:
meter change from a one-phase meter to a three-phase
2/3 (80 age of death) x (actual savings); or
meter connection. Davao Light then removed its single phase
meter which rendered almost half of the building without
2/3 (80 age of death [or age at the time of the accident]) x
power. Diaz, then, bought his own meter, and unilaterally
(annual salary actual expenses [or 50% of AS])
replaced the meter, which restored the electricity in the
building. Diaz now claims for damages due to the alleged
arbitrary and illegal removal of the meter in violation of Art
19, CC. School service accident

SC not entitled In an action for damages, the maximum amount you can receive is
what you prayed for.
Not entitled to damages based on abuse of right since Diaz
has not shown that the acts of Davao Light were done with Loss of earning capacity based on minimum wage was granted by
the intent of prejudicing or injuring him. In fact, he himself the court despite Aaron being a high school student.
alleged in his complaint that he unilaterally installed the
meter he bought after his was removed by Davao Light.
Although Diaz may have suffered damages as a result of the
Credit rate of interest is 6%
complaints, however, there can be damage without injury in
those instances in which loss or harm was not the result of a
violation of a legal duty. Whatever damages Diaz may have PEOPLE v AMINOLA
suffered would have to be borne by him alone since it was his
Civil indemnity is given without proof other than the fact of death
acts which led to the filing of the complaints against him.
as a result of a crime and proof of the accuseds responsibility for
Note: it. Jurisprudence sets the civil indemnity to P50,000, but if
accompanied by qualified aggravating circumstances P75,000.
Injury illegal invasion of a legal right;

Damage loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury;

Damages compensation awarded for the damage suffered.
An action for breach of contract with damages was filed
MARIKINA AUTO LINE TRANSPORT CORP. v PEOPLE against PVE for the failure of the latter to record on video the
petitioners wedding celebration due to the gross negligence
Swerving of a bus which struck the terrace of a commercial of its crew and the lack of supervision on the part of the
apartment. general manager of the PVE.



As a general rule, moral damages cannot be recovered in an and mental sufferings. Mere allegations do not suffice; they must
action for breach of contract because such an action is not be substantiated by clear and convincing proof.
among those expressly mentioned in Art 2219. However, the
article allows moral damages to be recovered in analogous

Thus, where the breach was wanton, reckless, malicious or in

bad faith, and oppressive or abusive, moral damages can be
recovered. GR No. 154670, Jan. 30, 2012

BUENAVENTURA v BUENAVENTURA Spouses Roy & Susan Tan, Class D members of Fontana
Leisure Park, were allegedly denied of their confirmed
No award of moral damages can be recovered in case of petition reservation arbitrarily and unreasonably.
for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological
incapacity. A claim for moral damages is inconsistent with the The question to be settled is whether or not the Spouses Tan
concept of psychological incapacity, where result of such acts is an entitled to the award of nominal damages.
because of an innate inability. While a claim for moral damages is
based on the willful act with malice by a party. The absence of any confirmation number issued to
respondents does not also discount the possibility that the
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION ACADEMY v AMA COMPUTER reservation was mistakenly confirmed by Fontanas
COLLEGE INC employee, Murphy Magtoto, despite being fully-booked. At
most, we perceive a mix-up in the reservation process of
In order to be entitled to moral damages (because of the petitioners. This demonstrates a mere negligence on the part
besmirch reputation) you must have a good reputation. of Fontana, but not willful intention to deprive respondents
of their membership benefits. It does not constitute default
ABS CBN v CA that would call for rescission of the sale of the club
membership. For the negligence of Fontana as regards the
No award for moral damages in this case because a corporation, respondents reservation, the Spouses Tan are at least
being an artificial person, has no feelings, no emotions, no senses, entitled to nominal damages of P5,000.00 as nominal
and it cannot therefore, experience physical suffering and mental damages in recognition of their confirmed reservation for the
anguish. free use of a villa on which was inexcusably cancelled.


MEDICINE Ponciano Almeda asked Avelino Cario to execute the Deed of
Sale over the subject properties despite not fully delivering the
Moral damages was awarded in this case based on Art purchase price. Later, the latter refused to pay despite repeated
2219(7), where moral damages can be recovered in cases of demands [and even despite re-sale of the property to a 3rd
libel slander, or any other form of defamation. Under this person].
article, it did not qualify whether the plaintiff is a natural or
juridical person. Therefore, a juridical person can validly The Court ruled that nominal damages may be awarded to a
complain for libel or any other form of defamation and claim plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the
for moral damages. defendant, for the purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right,
and not for indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
Its award is thus not for the purpose of indemnification for a loss
but for the recognition and vindication of a right. Indeed, nominal
damages are damages in name only and not in fact. When granted
Moral damages cannot be awarded in the absence of proof of
by the courts, they are not treated as an equivalent of a wrong
physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
inflicted but simply a recognition of the existence of a technical
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
injury. A violation of the plaintiffs right, even if only technical, is
humiliation, or similar injury. It must be solidly anchored on a
sufficient to support an award of nominal damages. Conversely,
definite showing that the claimant actually experienced emotional
so long as there is a showing of a violation of the right of the
plaintiff, an award of nominal damages is proper.



AGABON v NLRC Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the
nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be
Virgilio and Jenny Agabon were dismissed by Riviera Home Undoubtedly, De Guzman suffered pecuniary loss brought
Improvements, Inc. for abandonment of work. about by the collapse of the perimeter fence by reason of the
Contractors negligence and failure to comply with the
Where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the instant case,
specifications. As she failed to prove the exact amount of
the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the
damage with certainty as required by law, the CA was correct
dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the
in awarding temperate damages, in lieu of actual damages.
employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of
his statutory rights in the form of nominal damages. NOTE: In this case, proof may have been provided to entitle
De Guzman for actual damages. However, the same was not
TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGES able to produce the necessary proof in order that it may be
awarded actual damages. As a result thereof, the Court made
its own estimate which resulted to temperate damages.
The case pertains to the unjustified dishonor of two (2) checks
issued by Leopoldo Araneta. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

The Court ruled that financial credit of a businessman is a prized RADIOWEALTH FINANCE CO v DEL ROSARIO
and valuable asset, it being a significant part of the foundation of
Spouses Del Rosario failed to pay their obligations to Radiowealth.
his business. Any adverse reflection thereon constitutes some
The related promissory note contained provisions relating to
material loss to him.
charges in case of default.
"It can hardly be possible that a customer's check can be
The Court held that where the Promissory Note provides for a late
wrongfully refused payment without some impeachment of his
payment of 2.5% monthly, attorneys fees equivalent to 25% of
credit, which must in fact be an actual injury, though he cannot,
the amount due in case a legal action is instituted and 10% of the
from the nature of the case, furnish independent, distinct proof
same amount as liquidated damages, said liquidated damages
should no longer be imposed for being unconscionable. Such
There are cases where from the nature of the case, definite proof damages should also be deemed included in the 2.5 percent
of pecuniary loss cannot be offered, although the court is monthly penalty.
convinced that there has been such loss. The judge should be
empowered to calculate moderate damages in such cases, rather CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORP v ASEA BROWN BOVERI INC.
than that the plaintiff should suffer, without redress from the
Continental Cement incurred production losses due to the
defendant's wrongful act.
failure of Asea Brown to repair the broken equipment of the
NOTE: The smear in a persons reputation cannot be estimated in former, constituting breach of their contract.
pecuniary terms. As a result, in recognition of the real and
Continental Cement was adjudged by the Court as entitled to
tangible damage, temperate damages must be awarded.
penalties in the amount of P987.25 per day from the time of
delay, August 30, 1990, up to the time the Kiln Drive Motor
was finally returned to petitioner.
Emerita De Guzman argued his right for damages on account
Under Article 1226 of the Civil Code, the penalty clause takes
of a perimeter fence, constructed by A. M. Tumolva
the place of indemnity for damages and the payment of
Engineering Works, which partly collapsed due to a typhoon.
interests in case of non-compliance with the obligation,
De Guzman is indeed entitled to temperate damages as unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. In this case, since
provided under Article 2224 of the Civil Code for the loss she there is no stipulation to the contrary, the penalty in the
suffered. When pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount of P987.25 per day of delay covers all other damages
amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with (i.e. production loss, labor cost, and rental of the crane)
certainty, temperate damages may be recovered. adduced, claimed by petitioner.
although the court is convinced that the aggrieved party
NOTE: Liquidated damages are can be denominated in the
suffered some pecuniary loss.
form of penalties. Moreover, they can only be found in



EXEMPLARY DAMAGES to the payment for the legal services of a counsel. Rather,
attorneys fees herein referred to represent a form of damage
CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v VASQUEZ paid to the winning party as indemnity for the cost of litigation.

The airline seats of spouses Daniel and Maria Luisa Vasquez were
involuntarily upgraded for their flight back to Manila.

The deletion of the award for exemplary damages by the Court of

Appeals is correct. It is a requisite in the grant of exemplary
damages that the act of the offender must be accompanied by
bad faith or done in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner.
Such requisite is absent in this case. Moreover, to be entitled
thereto the claimant must first establish his right to moral,
temperate, or compensatory damages. Since the Vazquezes are
not entitled to any of these damages, the award for exemplary
damages has no legal basis.


Bright Maritime Corporation, a recruitment agency,

prevented Ricardo Fantonial from the leaving and complying
with his contract of overseas employment.

Due to their negligent act, the Court held BMC liable to

respondent for exemplary damages, which are imposed by
way of example or correction for the public good in view of
petitioners act of preventing respondent from being
deployed on the ground that he was not yet declared fit to
work on the date of his departure, despite evidence to the
contrary. Such act, if tolerated, would prejudice the
employment opportunities of our seafarers who are qualified
to be deployed, but prevented to do so by a manning agency
for unjustified reasons. Exemplary damages are imposed not
to enrich one party or impoverish another, but to serve as a
deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially
deleterious actions.




The case deals with the deletion of the CA of the award of

attorneys fees to a union by the Labor Arbiter and upheld by the

Article 111 of the Labor Code, as amended, contemplates the

extraordinary concept of attorneys fees and that Article 111 is an
exception to the declared policy of strict construction in the
award of attorneys fees (10% cap).

NOTE: The restrictions in the Labor Code as to the percentage of

attorneys fees will not in any way affect the amount that can be
given in its extraordinary concept. This amount does not pertain