You are on page 1of 4

Torts 1.

Plaintiff is in position of danger and unable to

the commission of an act which causes a private wrong escape
against another person 2. Defendant knew that the plaintiff was in position of
a source of obligation mentioned under Art. 1157 NCC danger
3. Defendant had last clear chance to avoid the
Elements of torts: accident but failed
Right or duty- must have a legal right or duty been done on
one party against the other party. Elements:
Act or omission 1. Both parties are negligent
Damage 2. Plaintiff is unable to escape danger and unable to
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, 3. The defendant knows that the plaintiff was in such
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage danger
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing 4. Opportunity on defendant for last clear chance to
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict avoid it
and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. 5. Defendant did not avail of the opportunity

Essential elements of torts (Art. 2176) Res ipsa loquitur

1. An act or omission 1. The thing speaks for itself
2. Causing damage to another 2. Presumption of negligence on defendant
3. Through fault or negligence 3. Occurs when a thing causing is under the management of
4. There being no pre-existing contractual relation between defendant and such injury occurs due to non-observance of
the two parties care
5. And there be a rational connection to the act or omission 4. Applicability
and the damage caused 1. Injury does not ordinarily occur unless there was
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the 2. Thing is under exclusive control of defendant
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil 3. Injury not voluntary caused by the party injured
liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the 5. Elements
plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or 1. Thing or instrumentality causing damage or injury
omission of the defendant. (n) 2. Which must be under management of the defendant
3. Accident does not ordinarily happen under the
Art. 2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also ordinary care of defendant
applicable to a quasi-delict.
4. Person injured has no participation or contribution
Contracts Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate
It may be the cause of action for quasi-delict and basis of and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages.
damages on torts when there is gross negligence or bad faith But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due
Contract of carriage care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall
contract wherein the driver/carrier undertakes to carry the mitigate the damages to be awarded.
passenger to the agreed destination
There can be quasi-delict if there is bad faith on one of the Defenses available to defendant
parties outside the contractual relation 1. Assumption or risk
Applies to contractual relations wherein the plaintiff:
Civil Case Criminal Case a) assumes or b) agrees to accept the risk of known
Quasi-delicts Quasi-contract Delict (Cupla danger arising from negligence or reckless conduct of
(Culpa Aquiliana) (Culpa contractual) Criminal) the defendant
Negligence Direct, substantive Incidental to Direct,
and independent performance of substantive and
Does not apply:
contract independent o Where one person created a danger and another
Pre-existing None There is a pre- None person assumes the risk but does not get injured by
contractual existing contractual it, even though he got injured trying to withdraw
relation relation from it
Proof Preponderance of Preponderance of Proof beyond
o Those covered by Workmens Compensation Act
required evidence Evidence reasonable
(Quantum doubt
of 2. Contributory negligence
evidence) Conduct on plaintiffs part which falls below the standard to
Defense of Available Not available but Not available which he should conform for his own protection and which is
due may mitigate
diligence damages
a legally contributing cause, coopeataing with te negligence
of the defendant in bringing about the plaintiffs harm
Last clear chance Conduct on plaintiffs part on which he fails to perform up to
both parties are negligent but one has the chance to avoid it, the standards (under Art. 2179)
thus he can be charged and be held liable for damages. If contributory negligence was the proximate cause of the
plaintiffs harm, then there should be no recovery for
damages (see proximate cause).
If the proximate cause was still the negligence of the Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by
defendant, then the plaintiff can recover damages but it is their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of
still mitigated due to plaintiffs contributory negligence their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in
A plaintiff who partly responsible for his injury should bear any business or industry.
the consequences of his negligence. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts
through a special agent; but not when the damage has been
Children below 9 years old are conclusively presumed
caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in
incapable of contributory negligence which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
Volenti non fit injuria trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and
One knowing and comprehending such a change, voluntary students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
exposure himself to such change. He is deemed to have The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease
assumed the risk and cannot recover damages when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
Substantial factor test
If the actors conduct is a substantial factor in bringing in Vicarious liabilities (Art. 2180)
harm to another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor Exception to general rule that is one is responsible for his
should have foreseen the extent of harm if the manner in own acts
which it had occurred does not prevent him from being liable Responsible for those under his control or responsibility
1. Father (mother in case of fathers death or
Proximate cause incapacity) for the acts of their minor children in
To hold the defendant liable, there must be a direct relation their company.
of cause and effect between the fault and damage. Responsibility is alternative
That cause, in its natural and continuous sequence, unbroken 2. Guardians for the acts of minors and those
by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and incapacitated under their company (parents can be
without which the result would have not occurred. liable as guardians)
o But for or sine qua non rule 3. Owners and managers of establishments for the acts
o Foreseeability test caused by their employees in their service
o Cause and condition test Owner/manager is presumed negligent
o Natural and probable causes test Requisites
Employee was chosen by
Defendant negligent -> Plaintiff can recover employer personally or through
damages another
Plaintiff negligent -> Proximate cause -> Cant recover damages Services rendered are in
Plaintiff negligent => Not proximate cause -> Can recover damages accordance to orders given by
but still mitigated by employer
plaintiffs negligence
Illicit acts done by employee
was on occasion or by reason of
Doctrine of Limited Liability functions given by employers
Applies to contract of carriage 4. Employers for the acts of their employees and
The liability of shipowner is limited to interest household helpers acting within the scope of their
No vessel, no liability if there is no negligence=> Total assigned tasks.
extinction (under Art. 587, 590 and 837 Book III of the Code Under Art. 103 RPC, employer is subsidiarily liable
of Commerce 5. The state when acting through an agent, except
Common Carrier is liable that goods be carried safely when caused by the official to whom the task
pertains, in such case Art. 2176 applies
In cases of negligence, injured parties can choose either: 6. Teachers and heads of establishments of arts and
Action enforcing civil liability under Art. 100 RPC trades for the acts of their students and apprentices
Action for quasi-delict under Art. 2176 to 2194 NCC, in as long as they are in their custody.
which case the employer can be held solidarily liable for Sexual Harassment Law (R.A. 7877)
the acts of his employee. o The acts or sexual harassment committed
must be proved
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable o The same acts must be committed in the
not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of
place of employment, training, education
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
o The employer or head of office,
children who live in their company. educational institution is informed of such
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors acts by the offended party.
or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live Acts that constitute
in their company. o Submission to such conduct is made a
The owners and managers of an establishment or term or condition for employment
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their o Submission or rejection to such conduct is
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are made a basis for employment decisions
employed or on the occasion of their functions. affecting the individual
o Such conduct has the purpose or effect of 7. Art. 2189- Liability of Municipal Corporations for damages
creating a hostile or interfering with the caused by defective Public Works under their control or
work environment supervision
Note: Exercise of due diligence of good father of the family can Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for
be used as defense. damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by
reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public
Respondeat Superior- conclusive presumption that negligence of buildings, and other public works under their control or
employee is negligence of employer supervision.

Other Provisions for Quasi-delicts 8. Art. 2190- Liability of proprietor of building or structure for
1. Art. 2181 damages caused by fall or collapse of the same if due to lack
Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his of necessary repairs
dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible
paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it
should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.
2. Art. 2182 Building or structure needs necessary repairs
Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no Propreitor failed to do such
parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be There is partial or total collapse due to failure to do
answerable with his own property in an action against him where necessary repairs
a guardian ad litem shall be appointed.
9. Art. 2191- Other liability of Proprietors for damages
3. Art. 2183- Liability of Possessors or Users of Animals Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages
Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use caused:
of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause, (1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care
although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease of with due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive
only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate
the fault of the person who has suffered damage. place;
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or
4. Art. 2184, 2185 and 2186- Liability of Owners of Motor property;
Vehicles (2184 is different from drivers subsidiary liability) (3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable not caused by force majeure;
with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, (4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of
by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable to the
disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been place.
found guilty or reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at
least twice within the next preceding two months. 10. Art. 2192- Damages referred to under 2190 and 2191 are as a
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of result of construction defect mentioned in 1723, where third
Article 2180 are applicable. (n) person may proceed against the architect or engineer or
contractor under period prescribed under 1723
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles
that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the should be the result of any defect in the construction mentioned
time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. (n) in Article 1723, the third person suffering damages may proceed
only against the engineer or architect or contractor in accordance
Art. 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file with the with said article, within the period therein fixed.
proper government office a bond executed by a government-
controlled corporation or office, to answer for damages to third 11. Art. 2193- Liability of head of family living in a building for
persons. The amount of the bond and other terms shall be fixed damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same.
by the competent public official. (n) Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part
thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or
5. Art. 2187- Liability of Manufacturers and Processors falling from the same.
Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks,
toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or 12. Art. 2194- Responsibility of 2 or more persons for quasi-
injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used, delict is solidary.
although no contractual relation exists between them and the Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are
consumers liable for quasi-delict is solidary.

6. Art. 2188- Liability of Private Individuals regarding 13. Art. 218 FC

Dangerous Weapons, Firearms and Poisons Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the
Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the individual, entity or institution engaged in child are shall have
part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child
possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms while under their supervision, instruction or custody.
and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized
indispensable in his occupation or business. activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school,
If Private individual- prove damage only entity or institution
If Indispensible- prove damage + negligence