You are on page 1of 3

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.

Employee Employer
Prove due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees

RES IPSA LIQUITOR


-the presence of facts or circumstances sorrounding the injury clearly indicate negligence on the part of
the defendant

DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA


-although there was physical damage there was no legal injury. (no fault in view of fortuitous event)

LAST CLEAR CHANCE


doctrine of discovered peril
doctrine of supervening negligence
the humanitarian doctrine

even if the injured party was originally at fault still if the person who finally caused the accident had the
last clear opportunity to avid striking him, he who could have prevented the injury is still liable if he did not
take advantage of such opportunity or chance,

"not an absolute insurere of the safety of its customers or visitors"

"whose neligence was the legal or proximate cause of the injury"

Culpa Aquilina - independent source of obligation

Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and
distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot
recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.

In relation to Article 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for
damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured
party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require
only a preponderance of evidence.

Article 33 makes no mention of negligence, Art 2177 refers to negligence or culpa aquiline and
makes the suit an independent civil action.

The civil case of cupla aquiliana can proceed independently of the pending criminal case,
because cupla aquiliana is an independent source of obligations.

In relation to Rule 111, Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a) When a criminal
action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged
shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil
action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
action.

Abellana vs Maraue et al. L-27760 May 29, 1974


A civil case may still be brought despite the appeal in the criminal case:

With appeal, the original judgment of conviction was vacated. A trial that has not even began, therefore, a
reservation can still be made and a civil action can still be allowed.

The Supreme Court, in Rule 111 may not amend or restrict a substantive right granted by the Civil Code.

It would be unfair, under the circumstances if the victims would not be allowed to recover any civil liability,
considering the damage done to them.

No res judicata: the responsibility of an employer in culpa aquiliana (the civil case) is different from his
liability in culpa criminal (the subsidiary civil liability in the criminal case)
Art. 2178. The provisions of Article 117 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict.

Article 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation
is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the
circumstances. (1103)

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)

Article 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by
stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall
be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen,
were inevitable. (1105a)

His act was clearly a departure from the standard of conduct required of a prudent man

Article 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his
injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages,
but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. (n)

If the sole cause is the plaintiffs own fault, there can be no recovery.

Plaintiff proximate cause of the accident, no recovery

If the proximate cause was still the negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff can still recover damages,
But the amount of damages will be mitigated due to his contributory negligence.
If he contributes to the aggravation of the injury, damages in his favor will be reduced.

The defense of contributory negligence does not apply in crimes committed thru reckless imprudence.
One cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence.

PROXIMATE CAUSE
that adequate and efficient cause
which in the natural order of events,
and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case,
would naturally produce the event.

(respondent) proximate cause + (plaintiff) contributory negligence = mitigated, reduce the amount of
recoverable damages

Foreseeable intervening forces are within the scope of the original risk, and hence of the defendants
agreed negligence.

The risk created by the defendant may include the intervention of the foreseeable negligence of others.

ex. Defendant who blocks the sidewalk and forces the plaintiff to walk in a street where the plaintiff will be
exposed to the risks of heavy traffic becomes liable when the plaintiff is run down by a car, even though
the car is negligently driven.

One who parks an automobile on the highway without lights at nigh is not relieved of responsibility when
another negligently drives into it.
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 (employer) 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 (not
strangers) 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)

Negligence in supervision, negligence is presumed but may be rebutted by proof of diligence.

diligence in selection - no culpa in eligiendo


diligence in supervision - no culpa in vigilando

Rule of bonus pater familias (good father of a family)

The imposition of primary liability on an employer in the case of a quasi-delict is proper in the absence of
an allegation that a crime had been committed in which latter case, the liability of the employer would only
be subsidiary.

In quasi-delict, both employer and employee are solidarily liable, unless employer is able to prove due
diligence in the selection and supervision of employees.

The emergency rule


one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the
best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to
adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the
emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.

Recovery for damages as result of a Quasi-delict, civil code not labor code that is the applicable law.

Vinculum Juris Definition: Latin: a legal bound. e.i employee - employer

Filcar being engaged in a rent-a-car business was only the owner of the car leased to DahlJensen. As
such, there was no vinculum juris between the employer and employee.

Teachers and Heads of Establishments, liable, so along as they remain in their custody, at attendance in
school and includes recess-time.