Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1torts Damages Reviewer PDF
1torts Damages Reviewer PDF
Civil Code of the Philippines.
Only the relevant conceptual discussions in the cases assigned in the Conceptual Framework
section of the course outline were directly quoted in this reviewer. This is so since the
efforts to make a reviewer only commenced when the class started discussing the
Negligence section of the course outline. In any case, most of the cases assigned were
discussed in subsequent sections of the course. As such, for review of those cases, you
may refer to said sections.
As for the italicized cases in the course outline, direct quotations were made. Most of them
were also discussed in other parts of the outline anyway, so proceed accordingly.
Under res ipsa loquitur, the pertinent discussions in the cases were copied under the
corresponding headings. The reviewer entries made for the cases are placed after the
quotations from the cases.
The Prosser & Keeton citations are abbreviated and only appears in the conceptual
framework section of the reviewer. An attempt to fill in the citations in the syllabus. It
failed. Besides, the application of the principles enunciated therein in this jurisdiction is
questionable, as they were developed from and for common law jurisdiction.
The "Spouses" in all case titles were deleted. This has nothing to do with the Committee's
view of marriage, except, of course, Robert's. He plays with girls. You know that. Beware!
There are a lot of entries without the Notes field. This means that a lot of people did not fill
them up online.
The provisions always come first in each section. Remember, code is king. Next are
conceptual discussions in italicized cases. Finally, the cases, also known as your reviewer
entries, are laid out.
This reviewer was formatted in an iPad 2. And yes, it was not easy.
Good luck!
CONCEPT OF TORT
2. A failure on the person's part to conform to the
standard required: a breach of duty.
In Common Law
Etymology
3. A reasonably close causal connection between the
conduct and the resulting injury.
4. Actual loss or damage resulting to the interests of
The word is derived from the Latin "tortus" or another. [Prosser & Keeton]
"twisted." [Prosser & Keeton]
Thus, the elements of an actionable conduct are: 1) duty,
"Tort" is found in the French language, and was at one 2) breach, 3) injury, and 4) proximate causation. [Garcia v.
time in common use in English as a general synonym for Salvador, 2007]
"wrong." [Ibid.]
Definition
To successfully prosecute an action anchored on torts,
three elements must be present, viz: (1) duty (2) breach (3)
injury and proximate causation. [Ocean Builders v. Cubacub,
Broadly speaking, a tort is a civil wrong, other than
breach of contract, for which the court will provide a
2011]
remedy in the form of an action for damages. [Ibid.]
The Purpose of Tort Law
There remains a body of law which is directed toward the
In Philippine Law
Existence
compensation of individuals, rather than the public, for
losses which they have suffered within the scope of the
legally recognized interest generally, rather than one
Article 1902, OCC. Any person who by an act or omission interest only, where the law considers that compensation is
causes damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be required. This is the law of torts.
liable for the damage so done.
The law of torts, then, is concerned with the allocation of
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage losses arising out of human activities; and since these cover
to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay a wide scope, so does this branch of the law. xxx The
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no purpose of the law of torts is to adjust these losses, and to
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is afford compensation for injuries sustained by one person as
called quasi-delict xxx.
the result of the conduct of another. [Prosser & Keeton]
CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT
Scope
Definition
Historical Background
Essentially, "tort" consists in the violation of a right given The individuality of cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual
or the omission of a duty imposed by law. Simply stated, looms clears and unmistakable. This legal institution is of
tort is a breach of a legal duty. [Naguiat v. NLRC, 1997]
ancient lineage, one of its early ancestors being the Lex
A tort is a wrong, a tortious act which has been defined as Aquilia in the Roman Law. In fact, in Spanish legal
the commission or omission of an act by one, without right, terminology, this responsibility is often referred to as culpa
whereby another receives some injury, directly or indirectly, aquiliana. The Partidas also contributed to the genealogy of
in person, property, or reputation. There are cases in which the present fault or negligence under the Civil Code xxx.
it has been stated that civil liability in tort is determined by The distinctive nature of cuasi-delitos survives in the Civil
the conduct and not by the mental state of the tortfeasor, Code. According to Article 1089, one of the five sources of
and there are circumstances under which the motive of the obligations is this legal institution of cuasi-delito or culpa
defendant has been rendered immaterial. The reason extra-contractual xxx. Then Article 1093 provides that this
sometimes given for the rule is that otherwise, the mental kind of obligation shall be governed by Chapter II of Title
attitude of the alleged wrongdoer, and not the act itself, XVI of Book IV, meaning Articles 1902-1910. This portion of
would determine whether the act was wrongful. Presence the Civil Code is exclusively devoted to the legal institution
of good motive, or rather, the absence of an evil motive,
does not render lawful an act which is otherwise an
invasion of another's legal right; that is, liability in tort is
of culpa aquiliana. [Barredo v. Garcia, 1942]
Nature
not precluded by the fact that defendant acted without evil Article 1089, OCC. Obligations arise from law, from
intent. [Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune, 2007]
Elements
contracts and quasi-contracts, and from acts and omissions
which are unlawful or in which any kind of fault or
negligence intervenes.
The traditional formula for the elements necessary to Article 1157. Obligations arise from:
such a cause of action may be stated briefly as follows:
(1) Law;
1 of 50
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
(2) Contracts;
after the Garcia doctrine, no longer uses the term, "not
(3) Quasi-contracts;
punishable by law," thereby making it clear that the concept
(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and
of culpa aquiliana includes acts which are criminal in
(5) Quasi-delicts.
Governing Provisions
character or in violation of the penal law, whether
voluntary or negligent. [Elcano v. Hill, 1977]
Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligence,"
Article 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts
be governed by the provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or
this Book, and by special laws.
Definition
negligent. [Ibid.; Andamo v. IAC, 1990]
Article 2176 xxx is limited to negligent acts or omissions
and excludes the notion of willfulness or intent. Quasi-delict,
Article 1902, OCC. Any person who by an act or omission known in Spanish legal treatises as culpa aquiliana, is a civil
causes damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be law concept while torts is an Anglo-American or common
liable for the damage so done.
law concept. Torts is much broader than culpa aquiliana
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage because it includes not only negligence, but intentional
to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay criminal acts as well such as assault and battery, false
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no imprisonment and deceit. In the general scheme of the
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is Philippine legal system envisioned by the Commission
called quasi-delict xxx.
responsible for drafting the New Civil Code, intentional and
malicious acts, with certain exceptions, are to be governed
Scope
by the Revised Penal Code while negligent acts or omissions
are to be covered by Article 2176 of the Civil Code. [Baksh v.
Intentional acts
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage
to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
CA, 1993]
Damage to property
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no The concept of quasi-delict, as enunciated in Article 2176
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is of the Civil Code, is so broad that it includes not only injuries
called quasi-delict xxx.
Elements
and not intentional voluntary acts - deeper reflection would Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage
reveal that the thrust of the pronouncements therein is not to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
so limited, but that in fact it actually extends to fault or for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
culpa. This can be seen in the reference made therein to the pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
Sentence of the Supreme Court of Spain of February 14,
1919, supra, which involved a case of fraud or estafa, not a
negligent act. Indeed, Article 1093 of the Civil Code of Spain,
called quasi-delict xxx.
2 of 50
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
assault and battery, false imprisonment, and deceit. [Coca- responsibility for fault or negligence under Articles 1902 to
Cola Bottlers v. CA, 1993]
1910 of the Civil Code. [Ibid.]
[T]he Revised Penal Code in Article 365 punishes not only
TORT, QUASI-DELICT, AND DELICT
Distinctions
reckless but also simple negligence. If we were to hold that
Articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only to fault or
negligence not punished by law, according to the literal
A tort is not the same thing as a crime, although the two import of Article 1093 of the Civil Code, the legal institution
sometimes have many features in common. The distinction of culpa aquiliana would have very little scope and
between them lies in the interests affected and the remedy application in actual life. Death or injury to persons and
afforded by law. A crime is an offense against the public at damage to property through any degree of negligence –
large, for which the state, as the representative of the public, even the slightest – would have to be indemnified only
will bring proceedings in the form of a criminal through the principle of civil liability arising from a crime.
prosecution. [Prosser & Keeton]
In such a state of affairs, what sphere would remain for
The civil action for a tort, on the other hand, is cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana? [Ibid.]
commenced and maintained by the injured person, and its [B]ecause of the broad sweep of the provisions of both the
primary purpose is to compensate for the damage suffered, Penal Code and the Civil Code on this subject, which has
at the expense of the wrongdoer. [Ibid.]
given rise to the overlapping or concurrence of spheres
Authorities support the proposition that a quasi-delict or already discussed, and for lack of understanding of the
"culpa aquiliana" is a separate legal institution under the Civil character and efficacy of the action for culpa aquiliana,
Code, with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that there has grown up a common practice to seek damages
is entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime. only by virtue of the civil responsibility arising from a
[Barredo v. Garcia, 1942]
crime, forgetting that there is another remedy, which is by
Some of the differences xxx are:
invoking Articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. [Ibid.]
(1) That crimes affect the public interest, while cuasi- Briefly stated, We here hold, in reiteration of Garcia, that
delitos are only of private concern.
culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which
(2) That, consequently, the Penal Code punishes or corrects may be punishable by law. [Andamo v. IAC, 1990]
the criminal act, while the Civil Code, by means of Stated otherwise, victims of negligence or their heirs have
indemnification, merely repairs the damage.
a choice between an action to enforce the civil liability
(3) That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because arising from culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised
the former are punished only if there is a penal law clearly Penal Code, and an action for quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana)
covering them, while the latter, cuasi-delitos, include all acts under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code. If, as here, the
in which "any kind of fault or negligence intervenes." action chosen is for quasi-delict, the plaintiff may hold the
However, it should be noted that not all violations of the employer liable for the negligent act of its employee, subject
penal law produce civil responsibility, such as begging in to the employer's defense of exercise of the diligence of a
contravention of ordinances, violation of the game laws, good father of the family. On the other hand, if the action
infraction of the rules of traffic when nobody is hurt. [Ibid.]
chosen is for culpa criminal, the plaintiff can hold the
[T]o find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of employer subsidiarily liable only upon proof of prior
guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil
case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the
conviction of its employee. [LG Foods v. Philadelfa, 2006]
liability effective, and that is, to sue the driver and exhaust
his (the latter's) property first, would be tantamount to
compelling the plaintiff to follow a devious and
Distinctions
Source
cumbersome method of obtaining relief. True, there is "such Every legal obligation must of necessity be extra-
a remedy under our laws, but there is also a more contractual or contractual. Extra-contractual obligation has
expeditious way, which is based on the primary and direct its source in the breach or omission of those mutual duties
responsibility of the defendant under Article 1903 of the which civilized society imposes upon its members, or
Civil Code. [Ibid.]
Intersections
which arise from these relations, other than contractual, of
certain members of society to others, generally embraced in
the concept of status. The legal rights of each member of
Specifically they show that there is a distinction between society constitute the measure of the corresponding legal
civil liability arising from criminal negligence (governed by duties, mainly negative in character, which the existence of
the Penal Code) and responsibility for fault or negligence those rights imposes upon all other members of society. The
under Articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code, and that the breach of these general duties whether due to willful intent
same negligent act may produce either a civil liability or to mere inattention, if productive of injury, gives rise to
arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or a separate an obligation to indemnify the injured party. The
3 of 50
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
fundamental distinction between obligations of this (2) that that presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de
character and those which arise from contract, rests upon jure, and consequently, may be rebutted. It follows
the fact that in cases of non-contractual obligation it is the necessarily that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of
wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which creates the court that in selection and supervision he has exercised
the vinculum juris, whereas in contractual relations the the care and diligence of a good father of a family, the
vinculum exists independently of the breach of the presumption is overcome and he is relieved from
voluntary duty assumed by the parties when entering into liability." [Cangco v. Manila Railroad, 1918]
the contractual relation. [Cangco v. Manila Railroad, 1918]
Burden of proof
On the other hand, the liability of masters and employers
for the negligent acts or omissions of their servants or
agents, when such acts or omissions cause damages which
When the source of the obligation upon which plaintiff's amount to the breach of a contract, is not based upon a
cause of action depends is a negligent act or omission, the mere presumption of the master's negligence in their
burden of proof rests upon plaintiff to prove the negligence selection or control, and proof of exercise of the utmost
– if he does not his action fails. But when the facts averred diligence and care in this regard does not relieve the master
show a contractual undertaking by defendant for the
benefit of plaintiff, and it is alleged that plaintiff has failed
or refused to perform the contract, it is not necessary for
of his liability for the breach of his contract. [Ibid.]
Intersections
plaintiff to specify in his pleadings whether the breach of Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage
the contract is due to wilful fault or to negligence on the to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
part of the defendant, or of his servants or agents. Proof of for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
the contract and of its nonperformance is sufficient prima pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
facie to warrant a recovery. [Ibid.]
"As a general rule, it is logical that in case of extra-
contractual culpa, a suing creditor should assume the burden
called quasi-delict xxx.
negligence or fault on the part of the defendant. [Ibid.]
regulate the relation thus created. [Calalas v. CA, 2000]
4 of 50
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
itself, the fact that the parties are contractually bound is no A negligent act is an inadvertent act; it may be merely
bar to the application of quasi-delict provisions to the case. carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence and may
[Far East Bank v. CA, 1995]
be one which creates a situation involving an unreasonable
A perusal of Article 2176 shows that obligations arising risk to another because of the expectable action of the other,
from quasi-delicts or tort, also known as extra-contractual a third person, an animal, or a force of nature. A negligent
obligations, arise only between parties not otherwise bound act is one from which an ordinary prudent person in the
by contract, whether express or implied. However, this actor's position, in the same or similar circumstances,
impression has not prevented this Court from determining would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others as
the existence of a tort even when there obtains a contract. to cause him not to do the act or to do it in a more careful
xxx Air France is authority for the view that liability from
tort may exist even if there is a contract, for the act that
breaks the contract may be also a tort. [PSBA v. CA, 1992]
manner. [Corinthian Gardens v. Tanjangco, 2008]
parties. [Consolidated Bank v. CA, 2003]
person is guilty of negligence. The law, in effect, adopts the
standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary
this case since Brunty was not a passenger.
CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE
In Common Law
PNR v. CA, 2007 — Amores was driving when he came to
a railroad crossing. He stopped before crossing then
Negligence is a matter of risk – that is to say, of proceeded. But just as he was at the intersection, a PNR
recognizable danger of injury. It has been defined as train turned up and collided with his car, killing him. There
"conduct which involves an unreasonably great risk of was neither a signal nor a crossing bar at the intersection to
causing damage," or, more fully, conduct "which falls below warn motorists and aside from the railroad track, the only
the standard established by law for the protection of others visible warning sign was a dilapidated "stop, look, and
against unreasonable risk of harm." "Negligence is conduct listen" sign. No whistle blow was heard from the train
and not a state of mind." [Prosser & Keeton]
before the collision. The SC held PNR liable, and that
Amores did everything, with absolute care and caution, to
In Philippine Law
Definition
avoid the collission.
Doctrine: Negligence has been defined as ‘the failure to
observe for the protection of the interests of another person
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
in the omission of that diligence which is required by the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person
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
suffers injury.
also applicable to a quasi-delict.
1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
5 of 50
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is naturally and probably result in injury, or utter disregard of
to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of consequences.
a good father of a family shall be required.
Notes: Mere riding or stealing a ride on a hauling truck is
not negligence, ordinarily, because transportation by truck
The diligence with which the law requires the individual
at all times to govern his conduct varies with the nature of
the situation in which he is placed and the importance of
is not dangerous per se.
care. [Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, 1998]
DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE
Doctrine: Gross negligence is the want or absence of or
failure to exercise slight care or diligence or the entire
absence of care.
A different, and older, approach has recognized distinct Notes: That she failed to consider the time difference was
"degrees" of negligence itself, which is to say degrees of probably a big lie, since the estimated time of arrival is
legal fault, corresponding to required "degrees" of care. xxx
It recognizes three "degrees" of negligence: slight neglige-
clearly shown in the ticket.
which is failure to use even slight care. [Prosser & Keeton]
constitutes gross negligence.
6 of 50
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
and took away cash and jewelry from the pawnshop vault. of evidence. Thus, it appears that the court sympathized
Jorge demanded the return of the jewelry. The pawnshop with Albayda, who was serving the government and was
failed. The SC held Sicam liable for failing to employ
sufficient safeguards for the pawned goods. It held that
robbery, if negligence concurred, is not a fortuitous event.
left by his wife, supposedly because of his injuries.
conduct.
Children
action of the other, a third person, an animal, or a force of Taylor v. Manila Railroad, 1910 — David Taylor, 15 years
nature. A negligent act is one from which an ordinary old, and Manuel, 12, obtained fulminating caps from the
prudent person in the actor's position, in the same or compound of Manila Railroad. They experimented on them.
similar circumstances, would foresee such an appreciable The experiment ended with a bang, literally. The explosion
risk of harm to others as to cause him not to do the act or to caused injury to the right eye of Taylor. His father sued for
do it in a more careful manner.
damages. The defense of Manila Railroad is the entry to
Notes: The test cited in the case was the Picart test.
Special Circumstances
their compound was without its invitation. The SC held
that the absence of invitation cannot relieve Manila Railroad
from liability. However, it held that the proximate cause of
Heirs of Completo v. Albayda, 2010 — Albayda, Master the injury was Taylor's negligence.
Sergeant in the Philippine Air Force, was at an intersection Doctrine: The personal circumstances of the child may be
riding his bike when he was hit by a taxi driven by considered in determining the existence of negligence on
Completo. Albayda suffered injuries, including breaking his his part.
knee. The SC found Completo negligent, since he was over- Notes: The age-bracket regime, where certain age groups
speeding when he reached the intersection. Also, the bike are treated as incapable of negligent conduct, was not
already had the right of way at the time of the incident.
applied here. Also, the standard applied differs from that
Doctrine: The bicycle occupies a legal position that is at
least equal to that of other vehicles lawfully on the highway,
and it is fortified by the fact that usually more will be
objective standard of conduct generally applied to adults.
7 of 50
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
Doctrine: A conclusive presumption runs in favor of with oil from a leak from the tubing, which was improperly
children below 9 years old that they are incapable of fitted to the oil tank. The SC held Philippine Motor
contributory negligence.
negligent for failing to use the skill that would have been
Notes: The 9-year mark was adopted from the Sangco's exhibited by one ordinarily expert in repairing gasoline
discussion on the matter, citing the same age mark for engines on boats. Ordinarily, a backfire would not be
determining discernment in criminal law. This analogy, followed by a disaster.
however, is erroneous since discernment, in criminal law, is Doctrine: When a person hold himself out as being
used to determine the existence of criminal intent, which is competent to do things requiring professional skill, he will
wildly different from negligence.
be liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and
skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which
Ylarde v. Aquino, 1988 — Ylarde, a 10-year old student,
and other fellow students were asked by Aquino, their
teacher, to help him in burying large blocks of stones.
he attempts to do.
Pharmacists
Aquino left them for a while and told them not to touch US v. Pineda, 1918 — Santos bought medicine in Santiago
anything. After Aquino left, they played and Ylarde jumped Pineda’s pharmacy for his sick horses. He was given the
into the hole while one of them jumped on the stone, wrong medicine. His horses died. The SC held him
causing it to slide into the hole. Ylarde was not able to get criminally liable under The Pharmacy Law.
out of the hole in time and died. The SC ruled that Aquino Doctrine: The profession of pharmacy is one demanding
was negligent in leaving his pupils in the dangerous site, care and skill. The responsibility of the druggist to use care
and that it was natural for said pupils to play. It disregarded has been variously qualified as "ordinary care," "care of a
the claim that Ylarde was imprudent.
specially high degree," "the highest degree of care known to
Doctrine: The degree of care required to be exercised must practical men." In other words, the care required must be
vary with the capacity of the person endangered to care for commensurate with the danger involved, and the skill
himself. A minor should not be held to the same degree of employed must correspond with the superior knowledge of
care as an adult, but his conduct should be judged the business which the law demands. Caveat emptor does
according to the average conduct of persons of his age and not apply because the pharmacist and the customer are not
experience. The standard of conduct to which a child must in equal footing in this kind of transaction.
conform for his own protection is that degree of care Notes: Even when the mistake is not fatal, the pharmacist
ordinarily exercised by children of the same age, capacity, will still be held liable if the rule laid down applied. Also,
discretion, knowledge and experience under the same or
similar circumstances.
Notes: The choice of standard of diligence for children
caveat emptor may apply in cases of well-known medicine.
also depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.
given a prescription by his doctor friend for his eye. He
bought them from Mercury Drug but he was given drops
Experts
In general
for the ears. When he applied the drops to his eyes, he felt
searing pain. Only then did he discover that he was given
the wrong medicine. Mercury Drug invoked the principle of
Those who undertake any work calling for special skills caveat emptor. The SC held Mercury Drug and its employee
are required not only to exercise reasonable care in what liable for failing to exercise the highest degree of diligence
they do but also possess a standard minimum of special expected of them.
knowledge and ability.
Doctrine: The profession of pharmacy demands care and
Every man who offers his services to another, and is skill, and druggists must exercise care of a specially high
employed, assumes to exercise in the employment such degree, the highest degree of care known to practical men.
skills he possesses, with a reasonable degree of diligence. In In other words, druggists must exercise the highest
all these employments where peculiar skill is requisite, if practicable degree of prudence and vigilance, and the most
one offers his services he is understood as holding himself exact and reliable safeguards consistent with the
out to the public as possessing the degree of skill commonly reasonable conduct of the business, so that human life may
possessed by others in the same employment, and if his not constantly be exposed to the danger flowing from the
pretensions are unfounded he commits a species of fraud
on every man who employs him in reliance on his public
substitution of deadly poisons for harmless medicines.
profession. [Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, 1998]
8 of 50
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
was charged with reckless imprudence resulting to injured in body or in health, constitutes actionable
homicide. The SC absolved Dr. Cruz. While the facts point malpractice. As to this aspect of medical malpractice, the
to the existence of reckless imprudence, it was not shown determination of the reasonable level of care and the breach
that such imprudence caused the death of Lydia. Moral and thereof, expert testimony is essential.
exemplary damages were, however, awarded.
Notes: The elements enumerated is the same as that for a
Doctrine: By accepting a case, a doctor in effect represents tort. It, therefore, shares the same problem as that of tort,
that, having the needed training and skill possessed by that is, lack of statutory basis. The requirement of expert
physicians and surgeons practicing in the same field, he
will employ such training, care and skill in the treatment of
his patients. He therefore has a duty to use at least the same
testimony is understandable in this case.
support the conclusion as to causation.
of his knowledge, and exert his best judgment.
Cayao-Lasam v. Ramolete, 2008 — Dr. Cayao-Lasam
Establishing and Defending
conducted a dilatation and curettage procedure (raspa) on Claims of Negligence
Ramolete. Almost a month after, she went back to the
hospital. A dead fetus was found in her womb. She
underwent operations, which rendered her incapable of
bering a child. The SC absolved Dr. Cayao-Lasam, since
PROVING NEGLIGENCE
In General
there was no expert testimony presented to the effect that Section 1, Rule 131, Rules of Court. Burden of proof. – Burden
she breached her professional duties, and Ramolete herself of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the
failed to attend the follow-up check-ups after the operation, facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by
which could have avoided the injury.
Doctrine: There are four elements involved in medical
negligence cases: duty, breach, injury and proximate
the amount of evidence required by law.
9 of 50
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
the vehicle, could have, by the use of due diligence, belief that in the absence of negligence it would not have
prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a occurred and that thing which caused injury is shown to
driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless have been under management and control of alleged
driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within wrongdoer. Under the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur” the
the next preceding two months.
happening of an injury permits an inference of negligence
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions where plaintiff produces substantial evidence that injury
of Article 2180 are applicable.
was caused by an agency or instrumentality under
Article 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is exclusive control and management of defendant, and that
presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of
negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any things would not happen if reasonable care had been used.
traffic regulation.
or business.
Common carriers
circumstances accompanying an injury may be such as to
raise a presumption, or at least permit an inference of
negligence on the part of the defendant, or some other
Article 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, person who is charged with negligence. [DM Consunji v.
destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same
is due to any of the following causes only:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural
CA, 2007, citing American Jurisprudence]
diligence as required in Article 1733.
of 50
10
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
Nature. The doctrine is not a rule of substantive law but Such element of control must be shown to be within the
merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience. dominion of the defendant. In order to have the benefit of
[Layugan v. IAC, 1988; Batiquin v. CA, 1996]
the rule, a plaintiff, in addition to proving injury or damage,
However, much has been said that res ipsa loquitur is not a must show a situation where it is applicable, and must
rule of substantive law and, as such, does not create or establish that the essential elements of the doctrine were
constitute an independent or separate ground of liability. present in a particular incident. [Ramos v. CA, 1999]
Instead, it is considered as merely evidentiary or in the From the foregoing statements of the rule, the requisites
nature of a procedural rule. It is regarded as a mode of for the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are: (1)
proof, or a mere procedural convenience. [Ramos v. CA, the occurrence of an injury; (2) the thing which caused the
1999; Professional Services v. Agana, 2007]
doctrine has been established. [DM Consunji v. CA, 2001]
evidence, as in this case. [Layugan v. IAC, 1988]
when, under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is In medical negligence cases. Medical malpractice cases do
absent and not readily available. [Layugan v. IAC, 1988; not escape the application of this doctrine. Thus, res ipsa
Batiquin v. CA, 1996]
loquitur has been applied when the circumstances attendant
Still, before resort to the doctrine may be allowed, the upon the harm are themselves of such a character as to
following requisites must be satisfactorily shown: 1. The justify an inference of negligence as the cause of that harm.
accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the [Ramos v. CA, 1999]
absence of someone’s negligence; 2. It is caused by an Although generally, expert medical testimony is relied
instrumentality within the exclusive control of the upon in malpractice suits to prove that a physician has done
defendant or defendants; and 3. The possibility of a negligent act or that he has deviated from the standard
contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff medical procedure, when the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is
responsible is eliminated. [Ramos v. CA, 1999; Tan v. JAM availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical
Transit, 2009; Cantre v. Go, 2007; College Assurance v. Belfranlt testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself
Development, 2007]
provides the proof of negligence. The reason is that the
In the above requisites, the fundamental element is the general rule on the necessity of expert testimony applies
“control of instrumentality” which caused the damage. only to such matters clearly within the domain of medical
of 50
11
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
science, and not to matters that are within the common contributory negligence. The presumption of negligence
knowledge of mankind which may be testified to by anyone arose, and remained unrebutted.
familiar with the facts. Ordinarily, only physicians and Doctrine: The injury incurred by petitioner Erlinda does
surgeons of skill and experience are competent to testify as not normally happen absent any negligence in the
to whether a patient has been treated or operated upon with administration of anesthesia and in the use of an
a reasonable degree of skill and care. However, testimony as endotracheal tube. The instruments used in the
to the statements and acts of physicians and surgeons, administration of anesthesia, including the endotracheal
external appearances, and manifest conditions which are tube, were all under the exclusive control of Dr. Gutierrez
observable by any one may be given by non-expert and Dr. Hosaka. Thus the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor can
witnesses. Hence, in cases where the res ipsa loquitur is be applied in this case. Res ipsa could apply in medical
applicable, the court is permitted to find a physician cases. In cases where it applies, expert testimony can be
negligent upon proper proof of injury to the patient, dispensed with.
without the aid of expert testimony, where the court from Notes: Expert testimony may be dispensed with when res
its fund of common knowledge can determine the proper ipsa loquitur applies. There were proof of negligence in this
standard of care. xxx When the doctrine is appropriate, all
that the patient must do is prove a nexus between the
particular act or omission complained of and the injury
case. Nonetheless, the doctrine was still applied.
obtain redress for injury suffered by him. [Ibid.]
since it is usually used to establish negligence.
of 50
12
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
Batiquin v. CA, 1996 — Dr. Batiquin performed a Doctrine: When the doctrine applies, it may dispense with
caesarian operation on Villegas. Afterwards, she was found the expert testimony to sustain an allegation of negligence.
to be feverish. When the patient submitted herself to The inference of negligence is not dispelled by mere denial.
another surgery, she was found to have an ovarian cyst and Notes: The case illustrates clearly the element of control in
a piece of rubber material, which looked like a piece of a the requisites for the application of the doctrine. Also, only
rubber glove, embedded in her uterus. The elements of res College Assurance has the knowledge of, or at least it had
ipsa loquitur were held to be present here. The entire
operation was under the exclusive control of Dr. Batiquin.
the best opportunity to ascertain, the cause of the fire.
that the accident arose from want of ordinary care.
injury, he cannot recover damages. xxx
hysterectomy operation at Medical City, Natividad Agana Bernardo v. Legaspi, 1914 — There was a collision
found out that two pieces of sponges were left inside her, between 2 automobiles. One sued for damages. The other
which has caused her pain for a long time. Dr. Ampil, who counterclaimed. Th SC held that both were negligent in
closed the incision, invoking res ipsa loquitur, blamed Dr. handling their automobiles, in such a character and extent
Fuentes, who conducted the operation itself. The SC as to prevent either from recovering.
absolved Dr. Fuentes, since he ceased to have control of the Doctrine: Where the plaintiff in a negligence action, by his
thing which caused the injury, when Dr. Ampil took over. own carelessness contributes to the principal occurrence,
On the contrary, Dr. Ampil was the lead surgeon, liable that is, to the accident, as one of the determining causes
under the "captain of the ship" rule.
Doctrine: The most instrumental in the requisites [see
Requisites above] for the doctrine to apply is the control and
thereof, he cannot recover.
management of the thing which caused the injury.
common sense and necessity.
of 50
13
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
between such prior or remote cause and the injury a aware of the defects in the rail, his disobedience, which
distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the placed him in danger, contributed to some degree to the
injury, even though such injury would not have happened injury "as a proximate, although not as its primary cause."
but for such condition or occasion.
He is thus entitled only to half the amount of damages.
Notes: In relation to the discussion on experts, Magno Doctrine: Where the claimant contributes to the principal
cannot be considered as such since his job was not for pay.
recover.
almost equated it to proximate cause.
defense in civil cases, is not applicable in criminal cases.
of 50
14
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
Notes: Causal link between negligence and injury is human will. The incident was either caused by the
included in the definition of contributory negligence. Also, negligence of the driver, or mechanical defects.
the negligence of the driver was external to the liability of Doctrine: The requisites of a caso fortuito are mentioned in
PNR to Brunty. As such, it does not mitigate such liability.
Lasam v. Smith [see Three-step analysis above]. When the
cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence was not
Fortuitous event
independent of the human will, that is, negligence of the
defendant concurred, the defense does not apply.
Definition
Notes: In case mechanical defects caused the injury, the
carrier is liable if such defects can be discovered by
Defense and exceptions
exercising the degree of care required. It may, however,
recover from the manufacturer. Also, while blowing-out of a
Elements
newly bought tire may constitute fortuitous event, it was
not so in this case since there were indications of concurrent
Three-step analysis
Article 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the
law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or
negligence on the part of the driver.
were inevitable.
applied by the court anyway.
of 50
15
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
Doctrine: Article 1905 names the possessor or user of the if he is not negligent in doing so. It does not apply in an
animal as the person liable for "any damages it may cause," action based on Articles 19 and 21, since even if the risk of
since he has the custody and is in a position to prevent it injury is assumed, the obligation to treat others fairly under
from causing damage.
said provisions still exists.
Notes: The caretaker voluntarily and knowingly assumed Notes: Compare with Pantaleon v. American Express as to
the inherent risk when he agreed to be employed as such.
Articles 19 and 21.
in the morning, Nana Belen ventured into the waist-deep Pantaleon v. American Express, 2010 — While on a
flood to look after the merchandise that might have been European tour, Pantaleon and his family attempted to
damaged in her store. While wading through the flood, she purchase diamond pieces at Coster Diamond House using
suddenly screamed and quickly sank. On that spot, an their American Express. This they did 10 minutes before
electric wire was seen dangling from a post, moving in a their tour group had to leave for Amsterdam. The
snake-like fashion. In the complaint, the electric company purchases were approved by American Express only after
raised the defense of volenti non fit injuria. The SC held that 45 minutes. The trip to Amsterdam had to be cancelled. The
it is inapplicable, since Nana Belen was impelled to brave tour group became annoyed and irritated with them. Upon
the subsiding typhoon to see to it that her goods were not his complaint, the SC ruled that Pantaleon knew that the
flooded. At that time, she was at a place where she had a group will be irritated with him, when he decided to push
right to be, to protect her source of livelihood.
through with the purchases. It was a natural and
Doctrine: A person is excused from the force of the rule foreseeable consequence of his action. Thus, the doctrine of
when (1) an emergency is found to exist or if the life or volenti non fit injuria was wholly applicable.
property of another is in peril, or (2) when he seeks to Doctrine: The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria refers to
rescue his endangered property.
Prescription
to an implied assumption of risk.
Article 1146. The following actions must be instituted
Doctrine: The contention that taking an "extension seat" within four years:
amounted to an implied assumption of risk is akin to (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
arguing that the injuries to the many victims of the
tragedies in our seas should not be compensated merely
because those passengers assumed a greater risk of
(2) Upon a quasi-delict.
drowning by boarding an overloaded ferry.
of 50
16
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
DIFFERENT CATEGORIES
Proximate Cause
the negligence of Pilipinas Bank's bookkeeper.
Doctrine: Proximate cause is any cause which, in natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
Bataclan v. Medina, 1957 — One of the front tires of a intervening cause, produces the result complained of and
passenger bus bursted. It zigzagged, fell into a canal, and without which would not have occurred and from which it
turned turtle. While the driver and the passengers were ought to have been foreseen or reasonably anticipated by a
getting out of the bus, people living in the area arrived, person of ordinary care that the injury complained of or
with torches, to help. The torches, however, ignited the gas, some similar injury, would result therefrom as a natural and
which was leaking from the bus, killing the passengers, probable cause.
who were stuck in the bus. The SC held that the bus Notes: The definition of proximate cause is different from
company liable for the death of the passengers.
that in Bataclan v. Medina in that, in this case, the element of
Doctrine: Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which
foreseeability was added.
Concurrent Cause
the result would not have occurred. More comprehensively, Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent
it is that acting first and producing the injury, either and each is an efficient cause without which the injury
immediately or by setting other events in motion, all would not have happened, the injury may be attributed to
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each all or any of the causes and recovery may be had against
having a close causal connection with its immediate any or all of the responsible persons although under the
predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of them
effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the was more culpable, and that the duty owed by them to the
cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the injured person was not the same. No actor's negligence
person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary ceases to be a proximate cause merely because it does not
prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to exceed the negligence of other actors. Each wrongdoer is
expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his
some person might probably result therefrom.
CA, 1998]
blood sugar, Mercury Drug's saleslady gave Baking a potent Remote Cause
sleeping tablet. He took it for 3 consecutive days, he fell Gabeto v. Araneta, 1921 — Ilano and Gayetano was on
asleep while driving. He figured in a vehicular accident. board Pagnaya’s carromata, Agaton Araneta laid hands on
The SC held that the proximate cause of the accident was the reins to stop the horse, claiming that he called the
the negligence of the saleslady, since it would not have carromata first. Pagnaya pulled the reins from Araneta. In
happened if the correct medicine was given.
the process, the bridle on the horse’s mouth loosened.
Doctrine: Proximate cause is any cause that produces Pagnaya had to pull over the horse near the curb to fix it.
injury in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by The horse became disturbed, moved forward, bumping a
any efficient intervening cause, such that the result would telephone box, which crashed. Frightened, the horse ran at
not have occurred otherwise. It is determined from the facts full speed. Ilano was able to get out of the carromata, but
of each case, upon a combined consideration of logic, Gayetano was was left inside. He sustained injuries which
common sense, policy, and precedent.
led to his death. The SC held that the stopping of the rig by
Notes: There is a possibility that there was contributory Araneta was not the proximate cause, since an appreciable
negligence, since a considerable amount of time has lapsed amount of time lapsed until the horse ran. It was too remote
since the sale of the medicine. In any case, proximate cause from the accident to be considered as such proximate cause.
is usually confused with the standard of care. Proximate Doctrine: The chronology of the events may be considered
causation should emphasize the connection between to determine the proximate cause. A cause too remote from
negligence and the injury. The case, however, only focused
on the degree of care required.
the accident cannot be considered a proximate cause.
Intervening
Pilipinas Bank v. CA, 1994 — To cover the checks he Phoenix Construction v. IAC, 1987 — From a cocktail
issued, Florencio Reyes asked PCIB to withdraw from his party where he had a shot or two of liquor, Dionisio drove
account there and deposit it to his account at Pilipinas Bank. his car home. His headlights then suddenly failed. When
In the deposit slip, the account number was wrong, but the they went back on, a truck, owned by Phoenix Construction
depositor's name was Florencio Reyes. The bookkeeper of was parked askew, such that it blocked oncoming traffic.
Pilipinas Bank did not notice the surname, so the deposit Dionisio swerved but it was too late. He suffered injuries
of 50
17
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
and nervous breakdown. The SC held that, while Dionisio result of other active forces which have gone before. The
was guilty of contributory negligence, one which was not defendant who spills gasoline about the premises creates a
an efficient intervening cause, the immediate and proximate "condition;" but the act may be culpable because of the
cause was the truck driver's negligence in parking.
danger of fire. When a spark ignites the gasoline, the
Doctrine: If the intervening cause is one which in ordinary condition has done quite as much to bring about the fire as
human experience, is reasonably to be anticipated, or one the spark; and since that is the very risk which the
which the defendant has reason to anticipate under the defendant has created, the defendant will not escape
particular circumstances, the defendant may be negligent, responsibility. Even the lapse of a considerable time during
among other reasons, because of failure to guard against it; which the "condition" remains static will not necessarily
or the defendant may be negligent only for that reason.
affect liability; one who digs a trench in the highway may
Notes: In other words, if the purported intervening cause still be liable to another who falls into it a month afterward.
is a foreseeable risk or is closely related to the original risk, "Cause" and "condition" still find occasional mention in the
then there is no efficient intervening cause.
decisions; but the distinction is now almost entirely
discredited. So far as it has any validity at all, it must refer
TESTS IN DETERMINING PROXIMATE CAUSE
to the type of case where the forces set in operation by the
defendant have come to rest in a position of apparent safety,
But for/sine qua non
and some new force intervenes. But even in such cases, it is
not the distinction between "cause" and "condition" which is
Substantial factor
important, but the nature of the risk and the character of the
intervening cause. [Phoenix Construction v. IAC, 1987, citing
Mixed considerations
There is no exact mathematical formula to determine
Prosser & Keeton]
Definition
omission and the damage or injury. That link must not be The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both
remote or far-fetched; otherwise, no liability will attach. The parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is
damage or injury must be a natural and probable result of appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is
the act or omission. [Dy Teban v. Ching, 2008]
Sufficient link
impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused
the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid
the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss.
Dy Teban v. Ching, 2008 — A prime mover suffered a tire Stated differently, the antecedent negligence of the plaintiff
blowout at around midnight, causing it to be parked askew, does not preclude him from recovering damages caused by
occupying a substantial portion of the highway. It did not the supervening negligence of the defendant, who had the
have any early warning device. At dawn, while it was dark, last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the
a passenger bus collided with a van in an attempt to swerve exercise of due diligence. [Consolidated Bank v. CA, 2003]
to avoid the parked prime mover. The SC found that the This doctrine, in essence, states that where both parties
skewed parking of the prime mover was the proximate are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably
cause of the accident. Its driver was negligent in failing to later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible
prevent or minimize the risk to oncoming motorists.
to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed
Doctrine: Plaintiff must, however, establish a sufficient to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity
link between the act or omission and the damage or injury. to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is
That link must not be remote or far-fetched; otherwise, no chargeable with the consequences thereof. xxx [T]he rule
liability will attach. The damage or injury must be a natural would also mean that an antecedent negligence of a person
and probable result of the act or omission.
of 50
18
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
is chargeable with the consequences, without reference to utilized as a general rule in a civil law jurisdiction. It held
the prior negligence of the other party. [Picart v. Smith, 1918]
Application
that the determination of proximate cause is not merely an
exercise of chronology.
Doctrine: The last clear chance doctrine of the common
Picart v. Smith, 1918 — An automobile hit a horseman, law was imported into our jurisdiction by Picart vs. Smith
who was on the wrong side of the road. The horseman but it is a matter for debate whether, or to what extent, it
thought he did not have time to get to the other side. The has found its way into the Civil Code. The historical function
car passed by too close that the horse turned its body of that doctrine in the common law was to mitigate the
across, with its head toward the railing. Its limb was harshness of the common law doctrine of contributory
broken, and its rider was thrown off and injured. The SC negligence as an absolute bar to recovery of damages by a
found the automobile driver negligent, since a prudent man plaintiff who was also negligent, even if relatively minor
should have foreseen the risk in his course and that he had compared to the wrongful act or omission of the defendant.
the last fair chance to avoid the harm.
Accordingly, it is difficult to see what role, if any, the
Doctrine: The person who has the last fair chance to avoid common law last clear chance doctrine has to play in a
the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with jurisdiction where contributory negligence is not an
the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence
of the other party.
absolute bar to recovery under Article 2179.
where proximate cause cannot be determined at all.
existence of the peril.
party where he had a shot or two of liquor, Dionisio drove Engada v. CA, 2003 — A pick-up, driven by Engada,
his car home. His headlights then suddenly failed. When encroached upon the lane of a Tamaraw jeep, headed
they went back on, a truck, owned by Phoenix Construction towards a head-on collision with it. When Tamaraw jeep
was parked askew, such that it blocked oncoming traffic. swerved to the left to avoid the pick-up, it also returned to
Dionisio swerved but it was too late. He suffered injuries its lane. The vehicles collided. In the criminal complaint
and nervous breakdown. One of the defense of Phoenix against criminal case for simple imprudence resulting in
Construction is that Dionisio had the last clear chance to physical injuries and damage to property, Engada invoked
avoid the injury. The SC held that the doctrine does not the doctrine of last clear chance. The SC held that there was
apply, since there is no general concept of last clear chance no clear chance to speak of, since the pick-up was fast
that may be extracted from its common law matrix and approaching. It applied the emergency rule instead.
of 50
19
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
Doctrine: The doctrine states that a person who has the last fair chance, could have avoided the impending harm by
last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, the exercise of due diligence.
notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent, is Notes: The negligence of Romeo constituted in his not
considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of checking the bank statements issued to him regularly by the
the accident. The chance must be clear, such that there is
time and opportunity to ponder the situation.
bank, which led to the increase of his injury.
proximate cause has already been established.
the loss but failed to do so is chargeable with the loss.
of 50
20
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
PERSONS EXERCISING PARENTAL AUTHORITY
Notes: The discussion of the court seems to focus on the
Article 2180. xxx The father and, in case of his death or negligence of the parents themselves, not on the negligence
incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages of their son, for which they are vicariously liable. As such, it
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
is Article 2176, not Article 2180, which should apply.
Parents
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized
activities whether inside or outside the premises of the
Guardians
Others
school, entity or institution.
Article 219, Family Code. Those given the authority and
responsibility under the preceding Article shall be princip-
Libi v. IAC, 1992 — Wendell and Julie Ann were ally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or
sweethearts. When they broke up and Wendell wanted to omissions of the unemancipated minor. The parents,
reconcile, Julie Ann refused. Wendell resorted to threats. judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute
They were found dead, each with a single gunshot from the parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily
same gun. Julie Ann's parents believed that Wendell killed liable.
their daughter. When a case based on Article 2180 was filed The respective liabilities of those referred to in the
against Wendell's parents, the SC found that they were preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they
gravely remiss in their duties, in the safekeeping of the gun exercised the proper diligence required under the particular
and in being unaware of the affairs of their son, who turned circumstances.
out to be a narcotics agent. Whether Wendell committed a All other cases not covered by this and the preceding
quasi-delict or crime, the parents are still liable.
articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil
Doctrine: The diligence of a good father of a family
required by law in a parent and child relationship consists,
to a large extent, of the instruction and supervision of the
Code on quasi-delicts.
of 50
21
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
remarked that Palisoc was acting like a foreman. An St. Mary's Academy v. Carpitanos, 2002 — During an
exchange of blows ensued, until Palisoc stumbled on an enrollment drive, a student, 15, drove the jeep carrying the
engine block, causing him to fall with his face downward. students. The steering wheel was detached. The jeep turned
He became pale and fainted. He died. The SC held the turtle. A student died. In the case for damages based on the
school officers solidarily liable with Daffon.
Family Code provisions, the SC found that, since there was
Doctrine: The rationale for the liability of the school is no proof that the proximate cause of the accident was the
that, so long as the student remains in the custody of the negligence of the school, it cannot be held liable.
school hears and teachers, they stand, to a certain extent, as Doctrine: If the person under custody is a minor, those
to the student, in loco parentis and are called upon to exercising special parental authority are principally and
exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of said solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or
child. The requirement is not that the student lived and omissions of the minor while under their custody. However,
boarded with his teacher or school officials, but that he there must be a finding that the act or omission considered
remains in their custody, that protective and supervisory as negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused. It
custody which the school and its heads exercise over must have a causal connection to the accident.
students, again including recess time.
When Applicable
Doctrine: Article 2180 applies to all schools, academic as Article 2180. xxx The owners and managers of an
well as non-academic. Where the school is academic rather establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for
than technical or vocational in nature, responsibility for the damages caused by their employees in the service of the
tort committed by the student will attach to the teacher in branches in which the latter are employed or on the
charge of such student, following the first part of the occasion of their functions.
provision. This responsibility applies as long as it can be Employers shall be liable for the damages cause by their
shown that the student is in the school premises in employees and household helpers acting within the scope
pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in the exercise of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a engaged in any business or industry. xxx
legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of the school Article 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his
authorities over the student continues.
dependents or employees may recover from the latter what
Notes: Unlike the parent who will be liable only for his
minor child, the teacher is answerable for torts of his
students regardless of the student’s age. Also, the case treats
he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim.
the custody broadly, but it is settled when it starts or ends.
of 50
22
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
the employer as in ours, it is indispensable that the on resolving whether the employee was acting within the
employee was acting in his employer’s business or within
the scope of his assigned task. [Castilex v. Vasquez, 1999]
scope of his assigned tasks.
an employment relationship was applied in this case.
working student.
his assigned tasks at the time of the incident. These include
the fact that the area was a "lively place," and a woman
Filamer v. IAC, 1992 — On reconsideration, the SC held
that there was an employment relationship between
Funtecha and the school, and that, since driving the jeep to
shouting "daddy, daddy," when Abad was only 29.
of 50
23
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
responsibility to the public to see to it that the managerial proof to the contrary. Under the common law doctrine of
or other employees to whom it entrusts virtually unlimited respondeat superior, the employer is automatically consider-
use of a company issued car are able to use the company
issue capably and responsibly.
ed negligent upon finding of negligence of the employee.
Rebuttal of Presumption
found out that two pieces of sponges were left inside her, Lampesa v. De Vera, 2008 — De Vera boarded a jeepney
which has caused her pain for a long time. The SC held Dr. to Baguio. It allowed a truck, then driven by Copsiyat and
Ampil, the surgeon who closed the incision, liable, ruling owned by Lampesa, to pass. However, when the jeepney
that leaving foreign substances in the wound after the moved forward, the truck moved backwards, hitting the
incision has been closed in at the very least prima facie jeep. De Vera lost a finger. The SC held that, upon
negligence. It is inconsistent with due care, raising an determination that the negligence of Copsiyat was the
inference of negligence. Some authorities even consider it proximate cause of the accident, Lampesa, as the employer,
negligence per se. Professional Services, owner of Medical was presumed negligent. It found that the presumption was
City, was held solidarily liable as an employer of Dr. Ampil. not rebutted. That Copsiyat showed his driver's license
The SC also cited the principle of apparent authority or when he applied for the job is inadequate. An employer is
agency by estoppel and doctrine of corporate negligence to bound to do more. He must also show that he exercised
sustain the hospital's liability.
diligence in supervising his employees.
Doctrine: The nature of the relationship between the Doctrine: Once negligence on the part of the employee is
hospital and the physicians, whether consultants only or established, a presumption instantly arises that the
otherwise, is immaterial. For the purposes of apportioning employer was negligent in the selection and/or supervision
responsibility in cases of medical negligence, an employer- of said employee. To rebut this presumption, the employer
employee relationship exists between them.
must present adequate and convincing proof that he
Notes: The case surveyed the US rules, stating that, at exercised care and diligence in the selection and
first, hospitals were exempt from the application of
respondeat superior, since physicians were considered as
independent contractors. However, due to the increase in
supervision of his employees.
Philippine jurisdiction.
relationship exists between hospitals and their consultants.
STATE
wrong. Under Article 2180, a separate negligence is Article 2180. xxx The State is responsible in like manner
presumed on the part of the employer, hence, there is only a when it acts through a special agent; but not when the
presumption of negligence, which may be disputed by damage has been caused by the official to whom the task
of 50
24
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Fontanilla. The SC held that held that NIA, an agency with
Article 2176 shall be applicable. xxx
La Union v. Firme]
fact, regularity in its performance of duties is presumed.
proper responsibility.
of 50
25
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
Chapman v. Underwood, 1914 — Chapman was standing liable, since the supervision and maintenance of manhole
beside a car he hailed when a car, with Underwood, as the was the duty of the city engineer. It held that the exemption
owner, on board and driven by his chauffeur, coming from of the city from liability of the city in its charter is not
the opposite direction, turned a bit to the opposite lane to applicable, since Article 2189 governs liability arising from
avoid the oncoming traffic. The car hit Chapman. The SC defective streets, public buildings, and other public works.
absolved Underwood since it did not appear that, from the Doctrine: Under Article 2189, it is not necessary for the
time the car took the wrong side of the road to the defective road or street to belong to the province, city, or
commission of the injury, sufficient time intervened to give municipality for liability to attach. It only requires that
Underwood an opportunity to correct the act of his driver.
either control or supervision is exercised over the defective
Doctrine: An owner who sits in his automobile and road or street.
permits his driver to continue in a violation of the law by Notes: Article 2189 was not treated as a quasi-delict in this
the performance of negligent acts, after he has had a case, but more like strict liability, such that liability attaches
reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct that when the requisites provided concur, and proximate
the driver cease therefrom, becomes himself responsible for
such acts. On the other hand, if the driver, by a sudden act
of negligence, and without the owner having a reasonable
causation is not an issue.
owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver's act his own.
employed for many years without traffic violations, the car PROPRIETORS OF BUILDINGS
was running at a reasonable speed, and the time element Article 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is
was such that there was no reasonable opportunity for Yu responsible for the damages resulting from its total or
Khe Thai to assess the risks involved and warn the driver.
partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary
Doctrine: Under Article 2184, if the causative factor was repairs.
the driver's negligence, the owner of the vehicle who was Article 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for dam-
present is likewise held liable if he could have prevented ages caused:
the mishap by the exercise of due diligence. The basis for (1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been
the liability is the relationship of pater familias.
taken care of with due diligence, and the inflammation of
Notes: The test of whether there was negligence is explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe
subjective, since car owners precisely obtain the services of and adequate place;
drivers because they are not as proficient in the activity. (2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons
Also, different standards apply across the board, depending or property;
on the circumstances of the owner and the case.
under their control or supervision.
of 50
26
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
ENGINEER/ARCHITECT OF COLLAPSED BUILDING
which the accident took place. Risks to which all persons
Article 1723. The engineer of architect who drew up the similarly situated are equally exposed and not traceable in
plans and specifications for a building is liable for damages some special degree to the particular employment are
if within fifteen years from the completion of the structure,
the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those
plans and specifications, or due to the defects in the ground.
excluded.
the collapse of the building.
MANUFACTURERS/PRODUCERS
Article 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building Article 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs,
or a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for
things thrown of falling from the same.
of 50
27
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
b) the result of hazards which may reasonably be expect- expired but THT still occupied the properties. When THT
ed of it;
was dissolved and So Pek Giok already dead, his grandson,
c) the time when it was provided.
So Ping Bun, continued to occupy them. This even when
A service is not considered defective because of the use or another company TEC, already leased the properties from
introduction of new techniques. The supplier of the services DCCSI. So Ping Bun was allowed to continue his
shall not be held liable when it is proven:
occupation for some time. When TEC demanded that he
a) that there is no defect in the service rendered;
vacate the properties, he immediately contracted with
b) that the consumer or third party is solely at fault.
DCCSI for lease of the properties. When TEC sued to nullify
Article 106. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation. The So Ping Bun's contracts and for damages, the SC absolved
stipulation in a contract of a clause preventing, exonerating So Ping Bun since no deliberate wrongful motives of malice
or reducing the obligation to indemnify for damages were imputed on him.
effected, as provided for in this and in preceding Articles, is Doctrine: The elements of tort interference are: (1)
hereby prohibited, if there is more than one person existence of a valid contract, (2) knowledge on the part of
responsible for the cause of the damage, they shall be jointly the third person of the existence of contract, and (3)
liable for the redress established in the pertinent provisions interference of the third person is without legal justification
of this Act. However, if the damage is caused by a or excuse. Where there was no malice in the interference of
component or part incorporated in the product or service, a contract, and the impulse behind one’s conduct lies in a
its manufacturer, builder or importer and the person who proper business interest rather than in wrongful motives, a
incorporated the component or part are jointly liable.
party cannot be a malicious interferer. Where the alleged
Section 5, RA 9803. Liability for Damages from Donated Food. interferer is financially interested, and such interest
A person, whether natural or juridical, shall not be subject motivates his conduct, it cannot be said that he is an
to civil or criminal liability arising from the nature, age, officious or malicious intermeddler.
packaging, or condition of apparently wholesome food that Notes: The case had the wrong interpretation of Gilchrist v.
a person donates in good faith for charitable purposes. This Cuddy. Also, the extent of the interest of the interferer is
shall not apply, however, to an injury or death of an
ultimate beneficiary of the donated food that results from
an act or omission of a person constituting gross negligence
irrelevant in determining whether it was malicious or not.
or intentional misconduct.
contracting party.
discussed, since the case was about the counterclaim.
of 50
28
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
him out of the picture. He sued them all for conspiring in (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and
violating his exclusive distributorship in bad faith and counsel, to be informed of the nature and the cause of the
wanton disregard of his rights. The SC held that the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to
existence of the contract and knowledge by the alleged meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
interferers was not disputed. As to the legal justification, it process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;
found that while the motive was to reduce the price of the (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness
transaction, the bounds of permissible financial interest was against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt or
transgressed, since Go already incurred expenses in closing from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to
the deal, and the lawyers still demanded their cut from him, make such confession, except when the person confessing
despite going behind his back in procuring another deal.
becomes a State witness;
Doctrine: The elements of tort interference are: (1) (18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual
existence of a valid contract, (2) knowledge on the part of punishments, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in
the third person of the existence of a contract, and (3) accordance with a statute which has not been judicially
interference of the third person is without legal justification. declared unconstitutional; and
As to the third element, to sustain a case for tortuous (19) Freedom of access to the courts.
interference, the defendant must have acted with malice or In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or
must have been driven by purely impure reasons to injure not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal
the plaintiff.
offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an
Notes: Without So Ping Bun v. CA and Lagon v. CA, this entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and
would have been a case for tortious interference. The SC for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed
had to rely in Article 19, to uphold its ruling that there was independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be
tortious interference. All of this when Article 1314 does not instituted) and may be proved by preponderance of
in itself require malice.
evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary
VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
of 50
29
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
orchestrated an illegal search for which they are liable, lead to a deluge of suits, for if one man might have an
under Article 32.
Doctrine: The basis of the action is Article 32 of the Civil
Code. It may be invoked against a private individual who
action, all men might have the like.
entitled to the rights against illegal search.
is a violation of the constitutional right of the plaintiff.
of 50
30
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
interview made with the victim.
case makes defamation of larger groups difficult.
of 50
31
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
Doctrine: The term "physical injuries" under Article 33 for damages against Shell Philippines. The SC awarded
includes bodily injuries causing death. It is not the crime of damages based on Article 19, as implemented by Article 21.
physical injuries defined in the Revised Penal Code. It Doctrine: It may be said that Article 19 only contains
includes not only physical injuries but also consummated, declarations of principles. While such statement may be is
frustrated, and attempted homicide. Prior conviction is essentially correct, it is implemented by Article 21. With this
unnecessary, since the civil action can proceed rule, the legislator vouchsafed adequate legal remedy for
independently of the criminal action.
NEGLECT OF DUTY
untold numbers of moral wrong, impossible for human
foresight to provide for specifically in statutes.
Notes: Based on this case, an action based solely on Article
Article 34. When a member of a city or municipal police
force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any
person in case of danger to life or property, such peace
19 cannot prosper, since it is not self-executory.
shall suffice to support such action.
criminal proceedings.
These standards are the following: to act with justice, to
give everyone his due, and to observe honesty and good
faith. However, while it lays down a rule of conduct, it does
not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action
Human Relations Torts
for damages under either Articles 20 or 21 would be proper.
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
of 50
32
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
Doctrine: The elements of an abuse of right under Article Notes: If the elements stated in Albenson v. CA were
19 are: (1) there is a legal right or duty, (2) which is
exercised in bad faith, (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing
or injuring another. Article 19 and 21 requires that the act be
applied here, the action would have not prospered.
another motivation, the requisite is no longer present.
responsible.
of 50
33
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
ILLEGAL ACTS
the origin of the check to one Eugenio S. Baltao. Thus,
Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or Albenson demanded from him, but he denied. A complaint
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the for violation of BP 22 was filed but was dismissed. It was
latter for the damage.
either willfully or negligently. [Albenson v. CA, 1993]
violated some legal provision.
damage.
should be compensated by damages.
of 50
34
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
Santos maintained intimate secual relations with Tanjanco strollers delivered. He claimed that the goods were
for a whole year, with repeated acts of intercourse. This is defective. Que instituted a BP 22 case against him. It was
incompatible with the idea of seduction.
only at this time when Que sent back the strollers. The case
Doctrine: The essential feature is seduction, that in law is was dismissed by the city fiscal. Nicolas then filed for
more than mere sexual intercourse, or a breach of a promise damages arising from malicious prosecution. The SC ruled
of marriage. It connotes essentially the idea of deceit, that Que acted with probable cause, considering that the
enticement, superior power or abuse of confidence on the checks were dishonored and were not funded despite
part of the seducer to which the woman has yielded.
demand, and that the strollers were not returned
Notes: The decision seems to imply that the length of time immediately. As such, Que had reason to believe that
that the relationship has persisted is the factor considered in Nicolas intended to deceive him from the start.
determining whether there was seduction or not.
manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
Notes: The award of damages was made just because
Alfonso was married at the time.
that is by improper or sinister motive.
of 50
35
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
damages against Junsay for malicious prosecution. The SC violation of some legal provision, or an act which though
held that there was probable cause in filing the criminal not constituting a transgression of positive law, nevertheless
complaint against her, as she admitted her participation.
That her admission was later declared inadmissible does
not detract from that fact. Also, there was no proof that the
violates certain rudimentary rights of the party aggrieved.
administrative proceedings.
due and observe honesty and good faith (Article 19).
of 50
36
B2015 Review Operations TORT & QUASI-DELICT Torts & Damages
that may be taken.
UNFAIR COMPETITION
Article 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial
or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force,
intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust,
oppressive or high-handed method shall give rise to a right
of action by the person who thereby suffers damage.
of 50
37
B2015 Review Operations DAMAGES Torts & Damages
LAW ON DAMAGES
is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury; and Article 2195. The provisions of this Title shall be
damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for respectively applicable to all obligations mentioned in
the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without Article 1157.
injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not Article 2198. The principles of the general law on
the result of a violation of a legal duty. These situations are damages are hereby adopted insofar as they are not
often called damnum absque injuria. [Custodio v. CA, 1996]
In order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the
injuries of which he complains, he must establish that such
inconsistent with this Code.
TYPES OF DAMAGES
injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant Article 2197. Damages may be:
owed to the plaintiff, a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff (1) Actual or compensatory;
and legal responsibility by the person causing it. The (2) Moral;
underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the (3) Nominal;
premise that an individual was injured in contemplation of (4) Temperate or moderate;
law. Thus, there must first be the breach of some duty and (5) Liquidated; or
the imposition of liability for that breach before damages
may be awarded; it is not sufficient to state that there
(6) Exemplary or corrective.
some pain and suffering. [Ibid.]
WHEN ALLOWED
Actual or Compensatory Damages
Article 2195. The provisions of this Title shall be
respectively applicable to all obligations mentioned in
Article 1157.
DEFINITION/PURPOSE
Article 2196. The rules under this Title are without Articles 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation,
prejudice to special provisions on damages formulated one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such
elsewhere in this Code. Compensation for workmen and pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such
other employees in case of death, injury or illness is compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory
regulated by special laws. Rules governing damages laid
down in other laws shall be observe insofar as they are not
in conflict with this Code.
damages.
inconsistent with this Code.
were lost. Also, when the tenants were drunk, they bang the
doors and windows of the Santoses. In any case, upon the
application of the Mabasas, they were granted easement
Pleading and Proof of Actual Damage
of 50
38
B2015 Review Operations DAMAGES Torts & Damages
through which water entered. When Barreto sued, of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen
Oceaneering counterclaimed for the value of the cargo. The or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.
SC only awarded a part, proven by vouchers and receipts.
Article 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated
Doctrine: Under Article 2199, there must be pleading and may be respectively increased or lessened according to the
proof of actual damages suffered for the same to be
recovered. In addition to the fact that the amount of loss
must be capable of proof, it must also be actually proven
aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
bases of the award.
when it bumped a cement flower pot on the side of the
road, went off the road, turned turtle, and fell into a ditch.
LOSS COVERED
In General
Among the passengers injured was Gatchalian, who filed
for damages based on breach of contract. She claimed that
the accident left her with a conspicuous white scar on her
Article 2200. Indemnification for damages shall forehead, causing her mental suffering and diminishing her
comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but also facial beauty, thereby depriving her of employment
that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain.
pertained to him (lucro cesante).
obligation.
proof that it constituted a smaller percentage.
Article 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendants Death by Crime or Quasi-Delict
shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and Article 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by
probable consequences of the act or omission complained a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least Three thousand
of 50
39
B2015 Review Operations DAMAGES Torts & Damages
pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. These awards are mandatory without need
circumstances. In addition:
of allegation and evidence other than the death of the
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the
earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall
be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in
victim owing to the fact of the commission of the crime.
deceased.
commission of the crime.
documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is
employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the
People v. Apacible, 2010 — Arman killed Arnold, while
the latter was sleeping, with his 8-month old child at his
side. He was convicted of murder, with the penalty of
minimum wage under current labor laws.
In Rape Cases
reclusion perpetua. A civil indemnity of P50,000 was People v. Astrologo, 2007 — Astrologo raped her
awarded. On appeal, it was increased to P75,000. The SC daughter. He was convicted as such for simple rape,
reduced it to P50,000.
sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and ordered to pay P75,000
Doctrine: The award of P75,000 as civil indemnity lies (civil indemnity) and P75,000 (moral damages). The SC
only in cases where the proper imposable penalty is death.
reduced both to P50,000, since the crime was simple rape. It
Notes: While reclusion perpetua was imposed in People v. awarded P25,000 as exemplary damages, to deter fathers
Buban, the proper imposable penalty is death, had it not from sexually abusing their own daughters.
been for the prohibition for its imposition. In this case, the Doctrine: Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature
penalty was reclusion perpetua all the way. As such, it may be of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the
inferred that even if reclusion perpetua was imposed, when finding of the fact of rape. The case law also requires
the proper imposable penalty is death, the indemnity is automatic award of moral damages to a rape victim without
P75,000. If not, then P50,000.
need of proof because from the nature of the crime, it can be
assumed that she has suffered moral injuries entitling her to
Crisostomo v. People, 2010 — A cashier was shot to death
by armed men, when they robbed money from a gasoline
station. Three armed arrived at a gasoline station in on
such award, separate and distinct from civil indemnity.
ATTORNEY'S FEES
board a motorcycle in San Miguel, Bulacan. Two went to the Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees
cashier. One of the armed men was convicted of robbery and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot
with homicide, with a penalty of reclusion perpetua, a civil be recovered, except:
indemnity of P75,000. The civil indemnity was reduced by (1) When exemplary damages may be awarded;
the SC to P50,000 but added P50,000 as moral damages.
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled
Doctrine: In robbery with homicide, civil indemnity and the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur
moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 each is granted expenses to protect his interest;
automatically in the absence of any qualifying aggravating
of 50
40
B2015 Review Operations DAMAGES Torts & Damages
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the property. The Brioneses were ordered to pay, among others,
plaintiff;
attorney's fees. The SC held that attorney's fees cannot be
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceed- awarded, since they were not specifically prayed for. It held
ing against the plaintiff;
that a general prayer for other reliefs is insufficient.
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad Doctrine: Attorney's fees and expenses of litigation are
faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just recoverable only in the concept of actual damages, not as
and demandable claim;
moral damages nor judicial costs, and must be specifically
(6) In actions for legal support;
prayed for. They are not to be awarded every time a party
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorney's fees
helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
under Article 2208 demands factual, legal, and equitable
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensa- justification; its basis cannot be left to speculation or
tion and employer's liability laws;
conjecture. Where granted, the court must explicitly state in
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability aris- the body of the decision, and not only in the dispositive
ing from crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and
portion thereof, the legal reason for the award.
must be reasonable.
attorney's fees by execution.
attorney's fees to be awarded.
Notes: The decision required bad faith for Article 2208(4)
to apply. Whether the same bad faith is required in other
Briones v. Macabagdal, 2010 — The Brioneses, after
obtaining the necessary building permit and the approval of
Vergon, from which they bought their lot, constructed their
items in the provision is not settled.
INTEREST
house. It turned out that the lot they built on was that Article 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a
bought by the Macabagdals, who then sued to recover the sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the
of 50
41
B2015 Review Operations DAMAGES Torts & Damages
indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of
contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon,
and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is
six per cent per annum.
credit. [Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA, 1994]
demand can be established with reasonable certainty.
of 50
42
B2015 Review Operations DAMAGES Torts & Damages
Doctrine: Under Article 2209, the appropriate measure for In the case of moral damages, recovery is more an
damages in case of delay in discharging an obligation exception rather than the rule. Moral damages are not
consisting of the payment of a sum of money is the punitive in nature but are designed to compensate and
payment of penalty interest at the rate agreed upon in the alleviate the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
contract of the parties. In the absence of a stipulation of a serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
particular rate of penalty interest, payment of additional moral shock, social humiliation, and similar harm unjustly
interest at a rate equal to the regular monetary interest caused to a person. In order that an award of moral
becomes due and payable. Finally, if no regular interest had damages can be aptly justified, the claimant must be able to
been agreed upon by the contracting parties, then the satisfactorily prove that he has suffered such damages and
damages payable will consist of payment of legal interest that the injury causing it has sprung from any of the cases
which is 6%, or in the case of loans or forbearances of listed in Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. Then, too,
money, 12% per annum. It is only when the parties to a the damages must be shown to be the proximate result of a
contract have failed to fix the rate of interest or when such wrongful act or omission. [BF Metal v. Lomotan, 2008]
amount is unwarranted that the Court will apply the 12% Moral damages are not punitive in nature but are
interest per annum on a loan or forbearance of money.
DUTY TO MINIMIZE
designed to compensate and alleviate in some way the
physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
Article 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must social humiliation, and similar injury unjustly caused to a
exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to person. Although incapable of pecuniary computation,
minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in moral damages, nevertheless, must somehow be
question.
MITIGATION OF DAMAGES
proportional to and in approximation of the suffering
inflicted. [Expertravel v. CA, 1999]
Article 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence Kierulf v. CA, 1997 — A Pantranco bus bumped an Isuzu
of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may pickup, leaving the pick-up driver and its passenger,
recover.
Kierulf, injured. In the suit for damages, the Kierulf spouses
Article 2215. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi- asked for moral damages on the ground of loss of conjugal
delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the damages under fellowship and impairment of sexual life, due to the
circumstances other than the case referred to in the disfigurement of Kierulf. The SC, however, found that
preceding article, as in the following instances:
Kierulf's husband did not testify as to the claimed effect on
(1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of their marital consortium. As such, moral damages cannot be
the contract;
awarded. Also, the social and financial standing of Kierulf
(2) That the plaintiff derived some benefit as a result of cannot be considered since prior to the accident, she was
the contract;
not subjected to any contemptuous conduct, despite
(3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, knowledge of her standing on the part of the offender. For
that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel;
her physical sufferings, mental anguish, fright, serious
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any event;
anxiety and wounded feelings, however, award of moral
(5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant has damages, in the amount of P400,000, is proper.
done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury.
Doctrine: Moral damages are awarded to enable the
injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements
PURPOSE
Notes: The decision implies that moral damages may be
recovered for loss of marital consortium, provided that
proof is presented. As to what sort of proof must be
Moral damages are in the category of an award designed
to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and
not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. The award is not
presented is questionable.
of 50
43
B2015 Review Operations DAMAGES Torts & Damages
Doctrine: The purpose of moral damages is indemnity or Doctrine: Proof of mental anguish or emotional distress is
reparation, to enable the injured party to obtain the means,
diversions, or amusements that will serve to alleviate the
moral suffering he has undergone by reason of the tragic
required for recovery of moral damages.
is based on Article 2219.
about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the
victim’s family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow,
WHEN RECOVERABLE
act or omission.
Specific Cases
Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries
In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict, (a) when an act or
omission causes physical injuries, or (b) where the
Article 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the defendant is guilty of intentional tort, moral damages may
following and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
aptly be recovered. [BF Metal v. Lomotan]
Rape
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
People v. Lizano, 2007 — The victim, 11, was raped by
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
her uncle on 3 occasions. He was convicted for one count. A
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
civil indemnity and moral damages, P50,000 each, was
(6) Illegal search;
awarded.
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
Doctrine: Civil indemnity is automatically imposed,
(8) Malicious prosecution;
without need of proof other than the fact of commission of
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
the rape. The same is true with moral damages, since it is
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, assumed that a rape victim had suffered moral injuries
29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or
abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover
entitling her to such award.
Malicious prosecution
moral damages.
Expertravel v. CA, 1999 — Expertravel sued Lo for
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brother and payment of plane tickets and damages. It turned out,
sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this however, that Lo already paid. Moral damages were
article, in the order named.
awarded to Lo for P30,000. The SC deleted the award,
Article 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal stating that institution of a clearly unfounded civil suit may
ground for awarding moral damages if the court should justify award of attorney's fees, but has almost invariably
find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly been held not to be a ground for an award of moral
due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where damages. This is so as not to impose a penalty on the right
the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
of 50
44
B2015 Review Operations DAMAGES Torts & Damages
Industrial Insurance v. Bondad, 2000 — A DM Transit bus work. In her complaint for monetary benefits and damages,
bumped the rear of a packed passenger jeepney. The the SC awarded moral and exemplary damages of P30,000.
passengers were injured. The bus then swerved to the left Doctrine: Moral damages are recoverable where the
and collided with a car, driven by Grace Morales, who also dismissal was attended by bad faith or fraud or constituted
sustained injuries. The vehicles were damaged. Morales and an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner
Industrial Insurance filed a complaint between the bus contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.
driver and the jeepney driver. The SC held that the case Notes: The decision did not specify which acts were
against the jeepney driver was filed recklessly and without attended with bad faith or fraud, so as to merit award of
basis. Industrial Insurance acted in wanton disregard of
obvious facts. It was in bad faith, compelling the jeepney
driver to litigate. Moral damages are in order.
moral damages.
Juridical Persons
Doctrine: In any case, to sustain such award, it must be ABS-CBN v. CA, 1999. — ABS-CBN, claiming that it had a
shown that (1) the claimant suffered injury, and (2) such perfected contract for the airing rights of certain movies,
injury sprung from any of the cases listed in Articles 2219 filed for specific performance, and obtained an injunction
and 2220. Bad faith or ill motive is necessary. Allegation of for their showing by RBS. The SC ruled that there was no
mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, social perfected contract. The claim of RBS for moral damages,
humiliation, and the like as a result of the acts of the other however, cannot be granted, on the ground that it is a
party is not enough. Also, the right to litigate must not be juridical person.
penalized, but it must be exercised in good faith.
Doctrine: Moral damages cannot be granted to a
Notes: The requisite of bad faith was added to Article corporation because, being an artificial person and having
2219(8), on malicious prosecution.
for moral damages to be recovered.
act of breach of contract itself is constitutive of tort resulting FACTORS CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING AMOUNT
in physical injuries. By special rule in Article 1764, in The established guideline in awarding moral damages
relation to Article 2206, of the Civil Code, moral damages takes into consideration several factors, some of which are
may also be awarded in case the death of a passenger the social and financial standing of the injured parties and
results from a breach of carriage. [Expertravel v. CA, 1999]
of 50
45
B2015 Review Operations DAMAGES Torts & Damages
Lopez v. Pan American, 1966 — Due to the wrongful recognition of a right violated and invaded. They are
cancellation of the reservations by an employee of Pan recoverable where some injury has been done but the
American, Lopez, then senator, and his family were amount was not proven. Its assessment is left to the
constrained to take tourist accommodations in their flight to
San Francisco. The SC, in awarding moral damages,
considered the position of Lopez as senator and former
discretion of the court according to the circumstances.
problematic.
WHEN AWARDED
Commercial and drunk at that time. Valenzuela's leg had to Article 2222. The court may award nominal damages in
be amputated. In the suit to recover damages, the SC, every obligation arising from any source of enumerated in
considering the nature of the damage and the Article 1157, or in every case where any property right has
consequences, such that she would have to undergo
adjustment of her prosthetics, replacement, rehabilitation
and therapy, awarded P1M as moral damages.
been invaded.
nonetheless be commensurate to the suffering inflicted.
replacement. In the suit for breach of contract, the SC held
that, since the action was based on contractual breach, fraud
or bad faith must be present. It then held that there was
none in the case. Nonetheless, it awarded nominal damages
Nominal Damages
(P10,000), on the ground that making a lame excuse that the
NATURE AND PURPOSE
cake was delayed, when there was none shows the
insensitivity, inadvertence, or inattention to a customer's
anxiety and need of the hour.
Article 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order Doctrine: Nominal damages are recoverable where a legal
that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or right is technically violated and must be vindicated against
invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any
recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the kind or where there has been a breach of contract and no
plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
or can be shown.
to pay a lot she bought on installment. When she demanded Guanio v. Makati Shangri-la, 2011 — Spouses Guanio
that the same be registered to her, she found out that it was booked at the Shangri-la Hotel for their wedding reception.
mortgaged to PNB. The SC, finding that Millan did not However, at the reception, the catering director and the
present evidence of actual damage to her, awarded nominal sales manager did not show up, the service of dinner was
damages in the amount of P10,000, since the delay of Robes- delayed, certain items in the published menu were
Francisco Realty, amounting to non-performance of the unavailable, the waiters were rude, among other
obligation, is apparent.
disappointments. When they sued for breach of contract,
Doctrine: Nominal damages are not intended for the SC held that it was the Guanios who breached the
indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication or contract since they did not inform Shangri-la of the change
of 50
46
B2015 Review Operations DAMAGES Torts & Damages
in expected number of guests. In any case, Shangri-la could pecuniary loss incurred and proved, up to the time of trial;
have done better. Nominal damages (P50,000) were thus and one which would meet pecuniary loss certain to be
awarded, under considerations of equity.
suffered but which could not, from the nature of the case, be
Doctrine: Nominal damages may be awarded for the made with certainty. In other words, temperate damages
discomfiture the claimants were subjected to. Every person can and should be awarded on top of actual or
is entitled to respect of his dignity, personality, privacy and compensatory damages in instances where the injury is
peace of mind.
chronic and continuing. And because of the unique nature
Notes: The case was not clear as to the basis of the award, of such cases, no incompatibility arises when both actual
whether it was equity, or Article 26. In any case, the amount and temperate damages are provided for. The reason is that
of nominal damages depends on the circumstances.
indemnify for the injury caused.
EFFECT OF AWARD
jurisprudence applying Article 2224 is clear that temperate
damages may be awarded even in instances where
pecuniary loss could theoretically have been proved with
Article 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages shall
preclude further contest upon the right involved and all
accessory questions, as between the parties to the suit, or
certainty. [Republic v. Tuvera, 2007]
their respective heirs and assigns.
rear by a cargo truck, causing it to move faster, hitting a
truck parked on the shoulder of the highway. His legs were
WHEN RECOVERABLE
loss of earning capacity, since the income was not proven.
Doctrine: Temperate damages are included within the
context of compensatory damages, where, from the nature
Article 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be
more than nominal but less than compensatory damages,
may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary
loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the
offered, although the court is convinced that there is loss.
er the circumstances.
of 50
47
B2015 Review Operations DAMAGES Torts & Damages
Doctrine: Absent competent proof on the actual damages that, while penal clauses are valid, the rate imposed here is
suffered, a party still has the option of claiming temperate unconscionable. It was reduced to 12% per annum.
damages, where, from the nature of the case, definite proof Doctrine: Courts are empowered to reduce such stipulated
of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is damages if the same are iniquitous or unconscionable,
convinced that there is pecuniary loss.
pursuant to Article 1229, as echoed in Article 2227.
Notes: Regardless of how stipulated damages are called,
FACTORS IN DETERMINING AMOUNT
Serrano v. People, 2010 — Galang was stabbed by
Giovanni in a rumble. Giovanni was convicted of frustrated
they are still liquidated damages.
DETERMINING AMOUNT
homicide, and ordered to pay P15,000 (medical expenses). Article 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an
The SC convicted of attempted homicide. As to the civil indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they
liability, the SC awarded P25,000 as temperate damages.
are iniquitous or unconscionable.
Doctrine: If the actual damages, proven by receipts during Article 2228. When the breach of the contract committed
the trial, amount to less than P25,000.00, the victim shall be by the defendant is not the one contemplated by the parties
entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00, in agreeing upon the liquidated damages, the law shall
in lieu of actual damages. The award of temperate damages
is based on Article 2224, which states that temperate or
moderate damages may be recovered when the court finds
determine the measure of damages, and not the stipulation.
cannot be proven with certainty.
thereof.
immutable phrase, never again. [Republic v. Tuvera, 2007]
In General
stipulated. The SC held that the 25% interest was excessive Article 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are
and, thus, void. It was reduced to 12%. The SC also held imposed, by way of example or correction for the public
of 50
48
B2015 Review Operations DAMAGES Torts & Damages
good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or was committed with one or more aggravating circums-
compensatory damages.
tances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines
Article 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as
a matter of right; the court will decide whether or not they
should b e adjudicated.
and shall be paid to the offended party.
are renounced in advance shall be null and void.
v. Tuvera, 2007]
Article 2232.
In Crimes
of simple rape. Also, the attempted rape was reduced to
acts of lasciviousness. Failure to allege does not affect the
civil liability. Pursuant to Article 2230, exemplary damages
Article 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a of P30,000 for rape and P10,000 for acts of lasciviousness
part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime must be imposed.
of 50
49
B2015 Review Operations DAMAGES Torts & Damages
accused, not his civil liability.
In Quasi-Delicts
Article 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be
granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.
of 50
50