TORTS

AND DAMAGES CASE DOCTRINES

II. COVERAGE AND CLASSIFICATION

1. INTENTIONAL TORTS

Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties,
act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

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

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

Article 1822. Where, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course
of the business of the partnership or with the authority of his co-partners, loss or injury is caused
to any person, not being a partner in the partnership, or any penalty is incurred, the partnership is
liable therefor to the same extent as the partner so acting or omitting to act. (n)

Article 1823. The partnership is bound to make good the loss:

(1) Where one partner acting within the scope of his apparent authority receives money or
property of a third person and misapplies it; and

(2) Where the partnership in the course of its business receives money or property of a third
person and the money or property so received is misapplied by any partner while it is in the
custody of the partnership. (n)

Article 1824. All partners are liable solidarily with the partnership for everything chargeable to the
partnership under articles 1822 and 1823. (n)

Article 1911. Even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal is solidarily liable
with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act as though he had full powers. (n)

Article 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for
damages to the other contracting party. (n)

#01 PATROCINIA RAVINA AND WILFREDO RAVINA, Petitioners, vs. MARY ANN P. VILLA
ABRILLE, for herself and in behalf of INGRID D'LYN P. VILLA ABRILLE, INGREMARK D'WIGHT
VILLA ABRILLE, INGRESOLL DIELS VILLA ABRILLE AND INGRELYN DYAN VILLA ABRILLE,
Respondents. G.R. No. 160708, October 16, 2009

Firmly established in our civil law is the doctrine that: "Every person must, in the exercise of his
rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith." When a right is exercised in a manner that does not conform with such
norms and results in damages to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrong
Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines
Page 1 of 16

doer must be held responsible. Similarly, any person who willfully 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
damages caused. It is patent in this case that petitioners alleged acts fall short of these established
civil law standards.

#02 CONRADO BUNAG, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, First Division, and
ZENAIDA B. CIRILO, respondents. G.R. No. 101749, July 10, 1992

It is true that in this jurisdiction, we adhere to the time-honored rule that an action for breach of
promise to marry has no standing in the civil law, apart from the right to recover money or property
advanced by the plaintiff upon the faith of such promise. Generally, therefore, a breach of promise to
marry per se is not actionable, except where the plaintiff has actually incurred expenses for the
wedding and the necessary incidents thereof.

However, the award of moral damages is allowed in cases specified in or analogous to those provided
in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. Correlatively, under Article 21 of said Code, in relation to paragraph
10 of said Article 2219, 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 moral damages.
Article 21 was adopted to remedy the countless gaps in the statutes which leave so many victims of
moral wrongs helpless even though they have actually suffered material and moral injury, and is
intended to vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold number of moral wrongs which is
impossible for human foresight to specifically provide for in the statutes.

Under the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, the acts of petitioner in forcibly abducting
private respondent and having carnal knowledge with her against her will, and thereafter promising
to marry her in order to escape criminal liability, only to thereafter renege on such promise after
cohabiting with her for twenty-one days, irremissibly constitute acts contrary to morals and good
customs. These are grossly insensate and reprehensible transgressions which indisputably warrant
and abundantly justify the award of moral and exemplary damages, pursuant to Article 21 in relation
to paragraphs 3 and 10, Article 2219, and Article 2229 and 2234 of Civil Code.

#03 ALFREDO M. VELAYO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ASSIGNEE OF THE INSOLVENT COMMERCIAL AM

LINES, INC. (CALI), PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, vs. SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS, LTD., DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE, ALFONSO SYCIP, YEK HUA TRADING
CORPORATION, PAUL SYCIP AND MABASA & CO., INTERVENORS. G.R. No. L-7817, October 31,
1956

The Code Commission commenting on this article (19 vis--vis 21), says the following:

Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines

Page 2 of 16

Thus at one stroke, the legislator, if the forgoing rule is approved (as it was approved), would
vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold numbers of moral wrongs which is impossible for
human foresight to provide for specifically in the statutes.

But, it may be asked would this proposed article obliterate the boundary line between morality
and law? The answer is that, in the last analysis, every good law draws its breath of life from morals,
from those principles which are written with words of fire in the conscience of man. If this premises is
admitted, then the proposed rule is a prudent earnest of justice in the face of the impossibility of
enumerating, one by one, all wrongs which cause damages. When it is reflected that while codes of
law and statutes have changed from age to age, the conscience of man has remained fixed to its
ancient moorings, one can not but feel that it is safe and salutary to transmute, as far as may be, moral
norms into legal rules, thus imparting to every legal system that enduring quality which ought to be
one of its superlative attributes.

Furthermore, there is no belief of more baneful consequence upon the social order than that a person
may with impunity cause damage to his fellow-men so long as he does not break any law of the State,
though he may be defying the most sacred postulates of morality. What is more, the victim loses faith
in the ability of the government to afford him protection or relief.

#04 ERNESTO RAMAS UYPITCHING and RAMAS UYPITCHING SONS, INC., petitioners,
vs. ERNESTO QUIAMCO, respondent. G.R. No. 146322, December 6, 2006

Article 19, also known as the "principle of abuse of right," prescribes that a person should not use his
right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise he opens himself to liability. It seeks to
preclude the use of, or the tendency to use, a legal right (or duty) as a means to unjust ends.

There is an abuse of right when it is exercised solely to prejudice or injure another. The exercise of a
right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established and must not be excessive
or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to harm another. Otherwise, liability for damages to the
injured party will attach.

2. NEGLIGENCE

Article 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. (1104a)

Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines

Page 3 of 16

Article 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. (1902a)

Article 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. (1903a)

Article 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible
for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall
cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person
who has suffered damage. (1905)

Article 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former,
who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is
disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or
violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months.

If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of article 2180 are applicable. (n)

Article 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the
death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as

Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines

Page 4 of 16

firearms and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his
occupation or business. (n)

Article 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. (n)

Family Code

Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution
engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child
while under their supervision, instruction or custody.

Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the
premises of the school, entity or institution. (349a)

Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be
principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated
minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over
said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.

The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is
proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances.

All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions
of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. (n)

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. (2180(2)a and (4)a )

#01 PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC. and ARMANDO U. CARBONEL, petitioners, vs. THE
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and LEONARDO DIONISIO, respondents. G.R. No. L-65295,
March 10, 1987

We hold that private respondent Dionisio's negligence was "only contributory," that the "immediate
and proximate cause" of the injury remained the truck driver's "lack of due care" and that
consequently respondent Dionisio may recover damages though such damages are subject to
mitigation by the courts (Article 2179, Civil Code of the Philippines).

Petitioner Carbonel's proven negligence creates a presumption of negligence on the part of his
employer Phoenix in supervising its employees properly and adequately. The respondent appellate
court in effect found, correctly in our opinion, that Phoenix was not able to overcome this
presumption of negligence. The circumstance that Phoenix had allowed its truck driver to bring the

Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines

Page 5 of 16

dump truck to his home whenever there was work to be done early the following morning, when
coupled with the failure to show any effort on the part of Phoenix to supervise the manner in which
the dump truck is parked when away from company premises, is an affirmative showing of culpa in
vigilando on the part of Phoenix.

#02 AIR FRANCE, petitioner, vs. RAFAEL CARRASCOSO and the HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents. G.R. No. L-21438, September 28, 1966

The responsibility of an employer for the tortious act of its employees need not be essayed. It is well
settled in law. For the willful malevolent act of petitioner's manager, petitioner, his employer, must
answer.

The contract of air carriage generates a relation attended with a public duty. Neglect or malfeasance
of the carriers employees, naturally, could give ground for an action for damages. Passengers do not
contract merely for transportation. They have a right to be treated by the carrier's employees with
kindness, respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are entitled to be protected against personal
misconduct, injurious language, indignities and abuses from such employees. So it is, that any rule or
discourteous conduct on the part of employees towards a passenger gives the latter an action for
damages against the carrier.

Petitioner's contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty. The stress of Carrascoso's
action as we have said, is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a violation of public duty by the
petitioner air carrier a case of quasi-delict. Damages are proper.

#03.1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and NATIVIDAD
and ENRIQUE AGANA, Respondents. G.R. No. 126297, February 2, 2010

In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent physicians-consultants allowed
to practice in its premises. There is, however, an exception to this principle. The hospital may be
liable if the physician is the "ostensible" agent of the hospital.

Where an employment relationship exists, the hospital may be held vicariously liable under Article
2176 in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code or the principle of respondeat superior. Even when no
employment relationship exists but it is shown that the hospital holds out to the patient that the
doctor is its agent, the hospital may still be vicariously liable under Article 2176 in relation to Article
1431 and Article 1869 of the Civil Code or the principle of apparent authority. Moreover, regardless of
its relationship with the doctor, the hospital may be held directly liable to the patient for its own
negligence or failure to follow established standard of conduct to which it should conform as a
corporation.

Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines
Page 6 of 16

#03.2 MARITER MENDOZA, Petitioner, vs. ADRIANO CASUMPANG, JENNIFER ADRIANE and JOHN
ANDRE, all surnamed CASUMPANG, Respondents. G.R. No. 197987, March 19, 2012

A surgical operation is the responsibility of the surgeon performing it. He must personally ascertain
that the counts of instruments and materials used before the surgery and prior to sewing the patient
up have been correctly done. To provide an example to the medical profession and to stress the need
for constant vigilance in attending to a patients health, the award of exemplary damages in this case
is in order.

#04 LOADMASTERS CUSTOMS SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, vs. GLODEL BROKERAGE

CORPORATION and R&B INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondents. G.R. No. 179446, January 10,
2011

Loadmasters and Glodel, being both common carriers, are mandated from the nature of their business
and for reasons of public policy, to observe the extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods
transported by them according to all the circumstances of such case, as required by Article 1733 of
the Civil Code. In case of loss of the goods, the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to
have acted negligently. This presumption of fault or negligence, however, may be rebutted by proof
that the common carrier has observed extraordinary diligence over the goods.

Premises considered, the Court is of the view that both Loadmasters and Glodel are jointly and
severally liable to R & B Insurance for the loss of the subject cargo. Under Article 2194 of the New
Civil Code, "the responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary."

A liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which breaches the contract. In
the present case, Phoenix and McGee are not suing for damages for injuries arising from the
breach of the contract of service but from the alleged negligent manner by which Mindanao
Terminal handled the cargoes belonging to Del Monte Produce. Despite the absence of contractual
relationship between Del Monte Produce and Mindanao Terminal, the allegation of negligence on the
part of the defendant should be sufficient to establish a cause of action arising from quasi-delict.

Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or injury to another, there instantly arises a
presumption juris tantum that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris families in the
selection (culpa in eligiendo) or supervision (culpa in vigilando) of its employees. To avoid liability
for a quasi-delict committed by its employee, an employer must overcome the presumption by
presenting convincing proof that he exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of his employee. In this regard, Loadmasters failed.

Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines
Page 7 of 16

#05 ALFREDO P. PACIS and CLEOPATRA D. PACIS, Petitioners, vs. JEROME JOVANNE MORALES,
Respondent. G.R. No. 169467, February 25, 2010

Unlike the subsidiary liability of the employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, the
liability of the employer, or any person for that matter, under Article 2176 of the Civil Code is primary
and direct, based on a persons own negligence.

Clearly, respondent did not exercise the degree of care and diligence required of a good father of a
family, much less the degree of care required of someone dealing with dangerous weapons, as would
exempt him from liability in this case.

#06 FILIPINAS SYNTHETIC FIBER CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. WILFREDO DE LOS SANTOS,
BENITO JOSE DE LOS SANTOS, MARIA ELENA DE LOS SANTOS and CARMINA VDA. DE LOS
SANTOS, Respondents. G.R. No. 152033, March 16, 2011

In the selection of prospective employees, employers are required to examine them as to their
qualifications, experience and service records. In the supervision of employees, the employer must
formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation and impose disciplinary
measures for the breach thereof. To fend off vicarious liability, employers must submit concrete
proof, including documentary evidence, that they complied with everything that was incumbent on
them.

In order that the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees may be
deemed sufficient and plausible, it is not enough to emptily invoke the existence of said company
guidelines and policies on hiring and supervision. As the negligence of the employee gives rise to the
presumption of negligence on the part of the employer, the latter has the burden of proving that it has
been diligent not only in the selection of employees but also in the actual supervision of their work.
The mere allegation of the existence of hiring procedures and supervisory policies, without anything
more, is decidedly not sufficient to overcome such presumption.

#07 DR. RUBI LI, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES REYNALDO and LINA SOLIMAN, as parents/heirs of
deceased Angelica Soliman, Respondents. G.R. No. 165279, June 7, 2011

The type of lawsuit which has been called medical malpractice or, more appropriately, medical
negligence, is that type of claim which a victim has available to him or her to redress a wrong
committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm. In order to successfully pursue
such a claim, a patient must prove that a health care provider, in most cases a physician, either failed
to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he or she
did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that that failure or
action caused injury to the patient.

Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines

Page 8 of 16

Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with
his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patients consent, commits an
assault, for which he is liable in damages.

There are four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a malpractice action based upon the
doctrine of informed consent: "(1) the physician had a duty to disclose material risks; (2) he failed to
disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks; (3) as a direct and proximate result of the failure to
disclose, the patient consented to treatment she otherwise would not have consented to; and (4)
plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment." The gravamen in an informed consent case requires
the plaintiff to "point to significant undisclosed information relating to the treatment which would
have altered her decision to undergo it.

#08 EQUITABLE PCI BANK, Petitioner, vs. ARCELITO B. TAN, Respondent. G.R. No. 165339, August
23, 2010

Evidently, the bank's negligence was the result of lack of due care required of its managers and
employees in handling the accounts of its clients. Petitioner was negligent in the selection and
supervision of its employees. In Citibank, N.A. v. Cabamongan, the Court ruled:

Banks handle daily transactions involving millions of pesos. By the very nature of their works the
degree of responsibility, care and trustworthiness expected of their employees and officials is far
greater than those of ordinary clerks and employees. Banks are expected to exercise the highest
degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.

#09 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES CHEAH CHEE CHONG and OFELIA
CAMACHO CHEAH, Respondents. G.R. No. 170865, April 25, 2012

It bears stressing that "the diligence required of banks is more than that of a Roman pater familias or
a good father of a family. The highest degree of diligence is expected." PNB miserably failed to do its
duty of exercising extraordinary diligence and reasonable business prudence. The disregard of its
own banking policy amounts to gross negligence, which the law defines as "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."

In any case, the complaint against the spouses Cheah could not be dismissed. As PNBs client, Ofelia
was the one who dealt with PNB and negotiated the check such that its value was credited in her and
her husbands account. Being the ones in privity with PNB, the spouses Cheah are therefore the
persons who should return to PNB the money released to them.

All told, the Court concurs with the findings of the CA that PNB and the spouses Cheah are equally
Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines
Page 9 of 16

negligent and should therefore equally suffer the loss. The two must both bear the consequences of
their mistakes.

#10 MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION and ROLANDO J. DEL ROSARIO, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES
RICHARD HUANG and CARMEN HUANG, and STEPHEN HUANG, respondents. G.R. No. 172122,
June 22, 2007

Employers liability under Art. 2180 is direct or immediate and also joint and solidary with the
employee. It is not conditioned on a prior recourse against the negligent employee, or a prior showing
of insolvency of such employee. To be relieved, petitioner should show that it exercised diligence of a
good father of a family both in the selection of the employee and supervision of the performance of
the latters duties.

Mercury Drug failed to exercised due diligence on the supervision and discipline over its employees.
In fact, on the day of the accident, Del Rosario was driving without a license. He testified that he
reported the incident on his prior apprehension to his superior, but nothing was done about it. He
was not suspended or reprimanded and no disciplinary action was taken against him.

#11 PAULITA "EDITH" SERRA, Petitioner, vs. NELFA T. MUMAR, Respondent. G.R. No. 193861,
March 14, 2012

Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are liable for the damages caused by their employees
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or
injury to another, there instantly arises a presumption that the employer failed to exercise the due
diligence of a good father of the family in the selection or supervision of its employees. The liability
of the employer is direct or immediate. It is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the
negligent employee and a prior showing of insolvency of such employee.

Moreover, under Article 2184 of the Civil Code, if the causative factor was the drivers negligence, the
owner of the vehicle who was present is likewise held liable if he could have prevented the mishap by
the exercise of due diligence.

#12 FILCAR TRANSPORT SERVICES, Petitioner, vs. JOSE A. ESPINAS, Respondent. G.R. No.
174156, June 20, 2012

Under Article 2176, in relation with Article 2180, of the Civil Code, an action predicated on an
employees act or omission may be instituted against the employer who is held liable for the negligent
act or omission committed by his employee.

Whether the driver of the motor vehicle, Floresca, is an employee of Filcar is irrelevant in arriving at
Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines
Page 10 of 16

the conclusion that Filcar is primarily and directly liable for the damages sustained by Espinas. While
Republic Act No. 4136 or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code does not contain any provision on
the liability of registered owners in case of motor vehicle mishaps, Article 2176, in relation with
Article 2180, of the Civil Code imposes an obligation upon Filcar, as registered owner, to answer for
the damages caused to Espinas car. This interpretation is consistent with the strong public policy of
maintaining road safety, thereby reinforcing the aim of the State to promote the responsible
operation of motor vehicles by its citizens.

This does not mean, however, that Filcar is left without any recourse against the actual employer of
the driver and the driver himself. Under the civil law principle of unjust enrichment, the registered
owner of the motor vehicle has a right to be indemnified by the actual employer of the driver of the
amount that he may be required to pay as damages for the injury caused to another.

3. STRICT LIABILITY TORT

Article 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible
for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall
cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person
who has suffered damage. (1905)

Article 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof, is responsible for
damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same. (1910)

#01 PURITA MIRANDA VESTIL and AGUSTIN VESTIL, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, DAVID UY and TERESITA UY, respondents. G.R. No. 74431 November 6,
1989

Article 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the
damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in
case the damages should come from force majeure from the fault of the person who has suffered
damage.

Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds the possessor liable even if the animal should "escape or be lost"
and so be removed from his control. And it does not matter either that, as the petitioners also
contend, the dog was tame and was merely provoked by the child into biting her. The law does not
speak only of vicious animals but covers even tame ones as long as they cause injury. As for the
alleged provocation, the petitioners forget that Theness was only three years old at the time she was
attacked and can hardly be faulted for whatever she might have done to the animal.

According to Manresa the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code is not based on the
negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal causing the
damage. It is based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses

Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines

Page 11 of 16

animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such animal may cause.

#02 JOSE DINGCONG, recurrente-apelante, vs. HALIM KANAAN, NASRI KANAAN, y MICHAEL
KANAAN, dedicados al comercio bajo la razon social de "American Bazar," recurridos-apelados.
G.R. No. L-47033, April 25, 1941

As Jose Dingcong is a joint tenant and manager of the hotel, with full possession of the top floor, he
must then answer for damages caused by things that were thrown or fell from it (Article 1910 Civil
Code). Francisco Echevarria, a guest of the hotel, was the one who directly by his neglect, left open the
tap, let the water pipe pull back on the ground and seep into the lower floors, dripping onto the
articles and goods of the plaintiffs and is thus liable. Dingcong Jose, on the other hand, did not practice
the diligence of a good father to prevent this damage, because he knew the pipes were broken and
did not repair the pipes, Echavarria could use the tap if he was provided some container to catch the
drip by Jose.

#03 MARGARITA AFIALDA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. BASILIO HISOLE and FRANCISCO HISOLE,
defendants-appellees. G.R. No. L-2075, November 29, 1949

The owner of an animal is answerable only for damages caused to a stranger, and that for damage
caused to the caretaker of the animal the owner would be liable only if he had been negligent or at
fault under article 1902 of the same code.

In the present case, the animal was in custody and under the control of the caretaker, who was paid
for his work as such. Obviously, it was the caretaker's business to try to prevent the animal from
causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by the animal under those
circumstances, was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for
which he must take the consequences.

4. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS

Article 1711. Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to pay compensation for the
death of or injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or other employees, even though the
event may have been purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause, if the death or
personal injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. The employer is also liable for
compensation if the employee contracts any illness or disease caused by such employment or as
the result of the nature of the employment. If the mishap was due to the employee's own notorious
negligence, or voluntary act, or drunkenness, the employer shall not be liable for compensation.
When the employee's lack of due care contributed to his death or injury, the compensation shall
be equitably reduced.

Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines

Page 12 of 16

Article 1712. If the death or injury is due to the negligence of a fellow worker, the latter and the
employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation. If a fellow worker's intentional or malicious act
is the only cause of the death or injury, the employer shall not be answerable, unless it should be
shown that the latter did not exercise due diligence in the selection or supervision of the plaintiff's
fellow worker.

5. NUISANCE

Article 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or
anything else which:

(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or

(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or

(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or

(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of
water; or

(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.

Article 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a community or
neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance,
danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal. A private nuisance is one that is not included
in the foregoing definition.

Article 696. Every successive owner or possessor of property who fails or refuses to abate a
nuisance in that property started by a former owner or possessor is liable therefor in the same
manner as the one who created it.

Article 697. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person injured to
recover damages for its past existence.

Article 698. Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance, whether public or private.

Article 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:

(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or

(2) A civil action; or

(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.

Article 700. The district health officer shall take care that one or all of the remedies against a
public nuisance are availed of.
Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines
Page 13 of 16

Article 701. If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance of a public nuisance, such
action shall be commenced by the city or municipal mayor.

Article 702. The district health officer shall determine whether or not abatement, without judicial
proceedings, is the best remedy against a public nuisance.

Article 703. A private person may file an action on account of a public nuisance, if it is specially
injurious to himself.

Article 704. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to him by
removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without committing
a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But it is necessary:

(1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to abate the
nuisance;

(2) That such demand has been rejected;

(3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and executed with the assistance
of the local police; and

(4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand pesos.

Article 705. The remedies against a private nuisance are:

(1) A civil action; or

(2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.

Article 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by removing, or if necessary,
by destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance, without committing a breach of the peace
or doing unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensable that the procedure for extrajudicial
abatement of a public nuisance by a private person be followed.

Article 707. A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable
for damages:

(1) If he causes unnecessary injury; or

(2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance.

IV. PARTIES IN TORTS CASES

Article 40. Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be considered born for all
purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the
following article. (29a)
Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines
Page 14 of 16

Article 41. For civil purposes, the foetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely
delivered from the mother's womb. However, if the foetus had an intra-uterine life of less than
seven months, it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after its complete delivery
from the maternal womb. (30a)

Article 1822. Where, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course
of the business of the partnership or with the authority of his co-partners, loss or injury is caused
to any person, not being a partner in the partnership, or any penalty is incurred, the partnership is
liable therefor to the same extent as the partner so acting or omitting to act. (n)

Article 1823. The partnership is bound to make good the loss:

(1) Where one partner acting within the scope of his apparent authority receives money or
property of a third person and misapplies it; and

(2) Where the partnership in the course of its business receives money or property of a third
person and the money or property so received is misapplied by any partner while it is in the
custody of the partnership. (n)

Article 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or
injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision. (n)

Article 1911. Even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal is solidarily liable
with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act as though he had full powers. (n)

#01 ANTONIO GELUZ, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and OSCAR LAZO,
respondents. G.R. No. L-16439, July 20, 1961

Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death pertains primarily to
the one injured, it is easy to see that if no action for such damages could be instituted on behalf of the
unborn child on account of the injuries it received, no such right of action could derivatively accrue to
its parents or heirs. In fact, even if a cause of action did accrue on behalf of the unborn child, the same
was extinguished by its pre-natal death, since no transmission to anyone can take place from on that
lacked juridical personality (or juridical capacity as distinguished from capacity to act). It is no
answer to invoke the provisional personality of a conceived child (conceptus pro nato habetur) under
Article 40 of the Civil Code, because that same article expressly limits such provisional personality by
imposing the condition that the child should be subsequently born alive: "provided it be born later
with the condition specified in the following article". In the present case, there is no dispute that the
child was dead when separated from its mother's womb.

This is not to say that the parents are not entitled to collect any damages at all. But such damages
must be those inflicted directly upon them, as distinguished from the injury or violation of the rights
of the deceased, his right to life and physical integrity. But the immorality or illegality of the act does
not justify an award of damage that, under the circumstances on record, have no factual or legal basis.
Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines
Page 15 of 16



That in all things, God may be

glorified!

Prepared By:

Paul Vincent T. Cunanan

Torts and Damages: Case Doctrines

Page 16 of 16