UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

PAGE 323
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
Principles of Torts
ABUSE OF RIGHT
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his
rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty
and good faith.
Generally, the exercise of any right must be in
accordance with the purpose for which it was
established. It must not be excessive or unduly
harsh; there must be no intention to injure another.
There is abuse of right when:
(a) The right is exercised for the only purpose of
prejudicing or injuring another
(b) The objective of the act is illegitimate
(c) There is an absence of good faith
ELEMENTS:
(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.
Velayo vs. Shell (1959): The standards in NCC 19 are
implemented by NCC 21.
Globe vs. CA (1989): When a right is exercised in a
manner which does not conform with the norms in
NCC 19, and results in damage to another, a legal
wrong is thereby committed.
University of the East vs. Jader (2000): The conscious
indifference of a person to the rights or welfare of the
others who may be affected by his act or omission
can support a claim for damages.
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes (2005): Article
19, known to contain what is commonly referred to as
the principle of abuse of rights, is not a panacea for
all human hurts and social grievances. The object of
this article is to set certain standards which must be
observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights but
also in the performance of one’s duties.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall
indemnify the latter for the same.
PAGE 324
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The provision is intended to provide a remedy in
cases where the law declares an act illegal but fails
to provide for a relief to the party injured. (Jarencio)
NCC 20 does not distinguish, and the act may be
done wilfully or negligently.
REQUISITES
(1) The act must be wilful or negligent;
(2) It must be contrary to law;
(3) Damages must be suffered by the injured party.
ACTS CONTRARY TO MORALS
Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury
to another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage.
This article is designed to fill in the “countless gaps”
in the statutes which would otherwise leave victims
of moral wrongs helpless.
ELEMENTS:
(1) Legal action;
(2) Contrary to morals, public policy, good customs;
(3) Intent to injure.
EXAMPLES:
BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY, SEDUCTION AND SEXUAL
ASSAULT
Wassmer vs. Velez (1964): Mere breach of promise to
marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set
a wedding and go through all the above-described
preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when
the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite
different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary
to good customs xxx.
Baksh vs. CA (1993): Where a man's promise to marry
is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of
his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill
that promise thereafter becomes the proximate
cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual
congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of
marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle
scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her
to accept him and to obtain her consent to the
sexual act, could justify the award of damages
pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise to
marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it
and the willful injury to her honor and reputation. It
is essential, however, that such injury should have
been committed in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
Tanjanco v. CA (1966): However, when for one whole
year, the plaintiff, a woman of legal age, maintained
sexual relations with the defendant, with repeated
acts of intercourse, there is here voluntariness. No
case under Article 21 is made.
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
Malicious prosecution is the institution of any action
or proceeding, either civil or criminal, maliciously and
without probable cause.
ELEMENTS:
(1) The fact of the prosecution and that the
defendant was himself the prosecutor, and that
the action was finally terminated with an
acquittal
(2) The prosecutor acted without probable cause
(3) The prosecutor was impelled by legal malice.
Que vs. IAC (1989): To constitute malicious
prosecution, there must be proof that the
prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex
and humiliate a person and that it was initiated
deliberately by the defendant knowing that his
charges were false and groundless. Concededly, the
mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for
prosecution does not make one liable for malicious
prosecution.
PUBLIC HUMILIATION
Grand Union vs. Espino: It is against morals, good
customs and public policy to humiliate, embarrass
and degrade the dignity of a person. Everyone must
respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of
mind of his neighbors and other persons (Article 26,
Civil Code).
UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL
The right of an employer to dismiss an employee is
not to be confused with the manner in which this
right is to be exercised.
When the manner in which the company exercised its
right to dismiss was abusive, oppressive and
malicious, it is liable for damages.
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Art. 22. Every person who through an act of
performance by another, or any other means,
acquires or comes into possession of something at
the expense of the latter without just or legal
ground, shall return the same to him.
Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage
to another’s property was not due to the fault or
PAGE 325
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable
for indemnity if through the act or event he was
benefited.
Art. 2142. Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral
acts give rise to the juridical relation of quasi-
contract to the end that no one shall be unjustly
enriched or benefited at the expense of another.
Art. 2143. The provisions for quasi contracts in this
Chapter do not exclude other quasi-contracts which
may come within the purview of the preceding
article.
One person should not be permitted to unjustly
enrich himself at the expense of another, but should
be required to make restitution of, or for property or
benefits received, retained, or appropriated where it
is just and equitable that such restitution be made,
and where much action involves no violation or
frustration of law or opposition to public policy,
either directly or indirectly.
While neither Art. 22 nor Art. 23 expressly provides
for the effects of unjust enrichment, the Chapter on
Quasi-Contracts (Articles 2159-2163), which
complements or supplements and should be so
considered in appropriate cases, does.
Enrichment at the expense of another is not per se
forbidden. It is such enrichment without just or legal
cause that is contemplated here.
Just and legal cause is always presumed, and the
plaintiff has the burden of proving its absence.
The restitution must cover the loss suffered by the
plaintiff but it can never exceed the amount of unjust
enrichment of the defendant if it is less than the loss
of the plaintiff.
Requisites:
(1) That the defendant has been enriched;
(2) That the plaintiff has suffered a loss;
(3) That the enrichment of the defendant is without
just or legal ground; and
(4) That the plaintiff has no other action based on
contract, crime or quasi-delict
LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT
Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage
to another’s party was not due to the fault or
negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable
for indemnity if through the act or event he was
benefited.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
BASIS OF LIABILITY
Equity. An involuntary act, because of its character,
cannot generally create an obligation; but when by
such act its author has been enriched, it is only just
that he should indemnify for the damages caused to
the extent of this enrichment.
SCOPE OF LIABILITY
The indemnity does not include unrealized profits of
the injured party, because the defendant’s
enrichment is the limit of his liability.
Classification of Torts
ACCORDING TO MANNER OF COMMISSION
(1) Negligent Tort – consists in the failure to act
according to the standard of diligence required
under the attendant circumstances. It is a
voluntary act or omission which results in injury to
others, without intending to cause the same.
(2) Intentional Tort – perpetrated by one who intends
to do that which the law has declared to be
wrong. It is conduct where the actor desires to
cause the consequences of the act, or that he
believes that the consequences are substantially
certain to result therefrom.
Note: Article 2176 where it refers to “fault or
negligence” covers not only acts “not punishable by
law” but also acts criminal in character, whether
intentional and voluntary or negligent. (Elcano vs Hill
(1977))
(3) Strict Liability – one is liable independent of fault
or negligence. It only requires proof of a certain
set of facts. Liability here is based on the breach
of an absolute duty to make something safe. It
most often applies to ultra-hazardous activities or
in product liability cases. It is also known as
“absolute liability” or liability without fault.”
Strict liability is imposed by articles 1314, 1711, 1712,
1723, 2183, 2187, 2189, 2190, 2191, 2192, 2193.
ACCORDING TO SCOPE
GENERAL
Tort liability is based on any of the three categories:
intentional, negligent, strict liability
SPECIFIC
Includes trespass, assault, battery, negligence,
products liability, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress
PAGE 326
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The Tortfeasor
Worcester vs. Ocampo (1958): Tortfeasor refers to all
persons who command, instigate, promote,
encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or
abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it
after it is done, if done for their benefit.
THE DIRECT TORTFEASOR
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage
to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged
to pay for the damage done.
The tortfeasor may be a natural or juridical person.
PERSONS MADE LIABLE FOR OTHERS
Art. 2180 (1). The obligation imposed by Article 2176
is demandable not only for one’s own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
one is responsible.
PRINCIPLE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY; DEFINITION
A person who has not committed the act or omission
which caused damage or injury to another may
nevertheless be held civilly liable to the latter either
directly or subsidiarily under certain circumstances.
This is also known as the “doctrine of imputed
negligence.”
Art. 2180, par. 8. The responsibility treated of in this
article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence
of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
General Rule: proper defense is the exercise of the
diligence of a good father of a family (bonus
paterfamilias)
Exception: common carriers, and all others subject to
extraordinary diligence.
BASIS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY
The basis of vicarious liability is NOT respondeat
superior; rather, it is the principle of pater familias.
Respondeat Under American jurisprudence, it
superior means that the negligence of the
servant is conclusively the negligence
of the master.
Bonus pater Under the principle of pater familias,
familias the basis of the “master’s” liability is
the negligence in the supervision of his
subordinates. The “master” will be
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
freed from liability if he can prove that
he had observed all the diligence of a
good father of the family to prevent the
damage.
LIABILITY OF THE ACTUAL TORTFEASOR
The author of the act is not exempted from personal
liability. He may be sued alone or with the person
responsible for him.
2 REQUISITES ACCORDING TO CHIRONI
(1) The duty of supervision
(2) The possibility of making such supervision
effective
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE ON PERSONS INDIRECTLY
RESPONSIBLE
Liability arises by virtue of a presumption juris
tantum of negligence on the part of the persons made
responsible under the article, derived from their failure
to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of the
subordinates to prevent them from causing damage.
The non-performance of certain duties of precaution
and prudence imposed upon the persons who
become responsible by civil bond uniting the actor to
them.
Tamargo v. CA (1992): The basis of this vicarious,
although primary, liability is, as in Article 2176, fault
or negligence, which is presumed from that which
accompanied the causative act or omission. The
presumption is merely prima facie and may therefore
be rebutted.
NATURE OF LIABILITY
The liability of the vicarious obligor is PRIMARY and
DIRECT (solidarily liable with the tortfesor), not
subsidiary. His responsibility is not conditioned upon
the insolvency of or prior recourse against the
negligent tortfeasor.
PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE (ART. 2180)
WHO ARE LIABLE FOR MINORS?
(a) Parents (the father, and in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother)
(b) Adopters
(c) Court-appointed guardians
(d) Substitute Parental Authorities
(1) Grandparents
(2) Oldest qualified sibling over 21 years old
(3) Child’s actual custodian, provided he is
qualified and over 21 years old.
(e) Special Parental Authorities
PAGE 327
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(1) School
(2) Administrators
(3) Teachers
(4) Individual, entity, or institution engaged in
child care
PARENTS AND ADOPTERS
BASIS OF LIABILITY
It is based on the presumption of failure on their part
to properly exercise their parental authority for the
good education of their children and exert adequate
vigilance over them.
It is imposed only when children are living with the
parents.
If there is just cause for separation, the responsibility
ceases.
Note: The responsibility of the father and mother is
not simultaneous but alternate.
WHEN RESPONSIBILITY CEASES
When parent is not in the position to exercise
authority and supervision over the child
MEANING OF “MINORITY”
Par. 2 and 3 of Art. 2180 speak of minors. Minors
here refer to those who are below 21 years of age,
NOT below 18 years. The law reducing the majority
age from 21 to 18 years old did not amend these
pars.
Art. 236, par. 3 of the FC, as amended by RA 6809,
provides:
“Nothing in this Code shall be construed to
derogate from the duty or responsibility of
parents and guardians for children and wards
below 21 years of age mentioned in the second
and third paragraphs of 2180 of the Civil Code.”
ADOPTED CHILDREN
Judicially adopted children are considered legitimate
children of their adopting parents. Thus, adopters
are civilly liable for their tortious/ criminal acts if the
children live with them and are below 21 years of
age.
ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
Responsibility is with the mother whom the law vests
parental authority.
REASON FOR VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Exconde vs. Capuno (1957): The civil liability which the law
imposes upon the father and, in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

caused by the minor children who live with them, is PARENTAL AUTHORITY OVER FOUNDLINGS, ABANDONED,
obvious. This is a necessary consequence of the NEGLECTED OR ABUSED AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED
parental authority they exercise over them which CHILDREN
imposes upon the parents the 'duty of supporting In case of foundlings, abandoned, neglected or
them, keeping them in their company, educating abused children and other children similarly
them in proportion to their means', while, on the situated, parental authority shall be entrusted in
other hand, gives them the 'right to correct and summary judicial proceedings to heads of children's
punish them in moderation.' homes, orphanages and similar institutions duly
accredited by the proper government agency. (FC
Tamargo vs. CA (1992): The basis of parental Art. 217)
authority for the torts of a minor child is the
GUARDIANS
relationship existing between the parents and the
LIABILITY OF GUARDIANS
minor child living with them and over whom, the law
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the
presumes, the parents exercise supervision and
minors or incapacitated persons who are under their
control. To hold that parental authority had been
authority and live in their company. [Art. 2180, par. 3]
retroactively lodged in the adoptive parents so as to
(a) The liability of guardians with respect to their
burden them with the liability for a tortious act that
wards is governed by the same rule as in the
they could not have foreseen and prevented would
liability of parents with respect to their children
be unfair.
below 21 years and who live with them
(b) “Incompetent” includes
Parental liability is, in other words, anchored upon
(1) those suffering the penalty of civil interdiction,
parental authority coupled with presumed parental
or
dereliction in the discharge of the duties
(2) prodigals,
accompanying such authority. The parental
(3) deaf and dumb who are unable to read and
dereliction is, of course, only presumed and the
write
presumption can be overturned under Article 2180 of
(4) unsound mind, even though they have lucid
the Civil Code by proof that the parents had
intervals
exercised all the diligence of a good father of a
(5) being of sound mind, but by reason of age,
family to prevent the damage
disease, weak mind, and other similar causes,
cannot take care of themselves or manage
(NOTE: Art 2180, par 2 of the Civil Code which holds
their property [Rule 92, ROC]
the father liable for damages has been modified by
the Family Code and PD 603. Art. 211 of the FC
Liability of minor or insane tortfeasor without a parent
declares joint parental authority of the mother and
or guardian
father over common children. The parent(s)
He shall be answerable with his own property in an
exercising parental authority are liable for the torts
action against him where a guardian ad litem shall
of their children.
be appointed. [Art. 2182]

Libi vs. IAC (1992): The parent's liability under 2180 SCHOOL, TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS
should be primary and not subsidiary. If it were Teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
subsidiary, the parents cannot invoke due diligence trades shall be liable for damages caused by their
as a defense. Such interpretation reconciles 2180 pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they
with 2194 which calls for solidary liability of joint remain in their custody. [Art. 2180, par. 7]
tortfeasors.
Requisite for
REQUISITES FOR LIABILITY TO ATTACH Who are liable For whose Acts Liability to
(1) The child is below 21 years old Attach
(2) The child is under the parental authority of the Teacher-in- Pupils and Pupils and
parents charge (the students students
The child is living in the company of the parents one remain in
designated to teacher’s
exercise custody
supervision regardless of
over students) the age
Head of Apprentices Custody
establishment regardless of

PAGE 328
 UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Requisite for conducted. Recess by its nature does not include

Who are liable For whose Acts Liability to dismissal.
Attach
of arts and the age Mere fact of being enrolled or being in the premises
trades of a school without more does not constitute
School  If the tortfeasor is a Must be “attending school” or being in the “protective and
(generally not student of the below 18 supervisory custody” of the school, as concemplated
held liable) school (Art 218 FC) by law.
 If the tortfeasor is a
teacher/ employee Ylarde vs. Aquino (1988): The principal of the school
of the school, it is cannot be held liable for the reason that the school
liable as employer he leads is an academic school and not a school of
under 2180 (5) of arts and trades.
CC (St. Francis vs.
CA) OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF
 If the tortfeasor is a ESTABLISHMENTS AND ENTERPRISES
stranger, it is liable The owners and managers of an establishment or
for breach of enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
contract. (PSBA vs. caused by their employees in the service of the
CA) branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions. (Art. 2180, par. 4)
Parental Authority of Special Parental Authorities
may only be exercised while under their supervision, For whose Requisites for
instruction, or custody. This attaches to all Who are liable
acts liability to attach
authorized activities, whether inside or outside the Owners and Their The damage was
school, entity, or institution. managers of an employees caused in the
establishment service of the
Palisoc v. Brillantes: “Custody” means the protective or enterprise branches in which
and supervisory custody that the school, its head and the employees are
teachers exercise over the pupils, for as long as they employed
are in attendance in school, which includes recess -OR-
time. The damage was
caused on the
There is nothing in the law that requires that for such occasion of their
liability to attach, the pupil or student who commits functions
the tortious act must live and board in the school, as
erroneously held by the lower court, and in the dicta Philippine Rabbit vs. Philam Forwarders (1975):
in Mercado (as well as in Exconde) on which it relied, “Owners and managers of an establishment or
must now be deemed to have been set aside by this enterprise” does not include a manager of a
decision. corporation. (Spanish term “directores” connotes
“employer.” But manager of a corporation is not an
Amadora v. CA: As long as it is shown that the employer, but rather merely an employee of the
student is in the school premises pursuant to a owner.)
legitimate student objective, in the exercise of a
legitimate right, or the enjoyment of a legitimate EMPLOYERS (in general)
student privilege, the responsibility of the school Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by
authorities over the student continues. their employees and household helpers acting within
the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the
former are not engaged in any business or industry.
Salvosa v. IAC (1988): A student not “at attendance in (Art 2180, par. 5)
the school” cannot be in “recess” thereat. A “recess,”
as the concept is embraced in the phrase “at MEANING OF EMPLOYER:
attendance in the school,” contemplates a situation Art. 97 (b) (Labor Code). "Employer" includes any
of temporary adjournment of school activities where person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of
the student still remains within call of his mentor an employer in relation to an employee and shall
and is not permitted to leave the school premises, or include the government and all its branches,
the area within which the school activity is

PAGE 329
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
subdivisions and instrumentalities, all government-
owned or controlled corporations and institutions, as
well as non-profit private institutions, or
organizations.
Professional Services vs. CA and Agana (2010): This
Court still employs the "control test" to determine
the existence of an employer-employee relationship
between hospital and doctor. Under the "control
test", an employment relationship exists between a
physician and a hospital if the hospital controls both
the means and the details of the process by which
the physician is to accomplish his task.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
General Rule: Master not generally liable for the fault
or negligence of an independent contractor
performing some work for him
Exception: One who hires an independent contractor,
but controls the latter’s work is also responsible for
the independent contractor’s negligence.
The existence of the employer-employee relationship
must first be established before an employer may be
made vicariously liable under Art. 2180, CC.
REQUISITES:
(1) Employee chosen by employer or through
another
(2) Services rendered in accordance with orders
which employer has authority to give
(3) Illicit act of employee was on the occasion or by
reason of the functions entrusted to him
(4) Presumption of negligence
To make the employer liable, it must be established
that the injurious or tortious act was committed at
the time that the employee was performing his
functions.
Filamer vs. IAC (1992): “Within the scope of their
assigned task” in Art. 2180 includes any act done by
an employee in furtherance of the interests, or for the
account of the employer at the time of the infliction
of the injury or damage.
De Leon Brokerage vs. CA (1962): Employer need not
be riding in the vehicle to become liable for a driver’s
negligence. Article 2184 mandating that the owner is
only held solidarily liable if he is riding in the vehicle
at the time of the mishap, only applies to those
owners of vehicles, who do not come within the
ambit of Article 2180 (as owners of an establishment
or enterprise.)
PAGE 330
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Basis of liability
Employer’s negligence in
(1) The selection of their employees (culpa in
eligiendo)
(2) The supervision over their employees (culpa in
vigilando)
Cuison vs. Norton & Harrison (1930): Basis for civil
liability of employers is pater familias.
Presumption of Negligence
The presentation of proof of the negligence of its
employee gives rise to the presumption that the
defendant employer did not exercise the diligence of
a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of its employees.
Ramos vs. C.O.L. Realty Corp. (2009): For the
employer to avoid the solidary liability for a tort
committed by his employee, an employer must rebut
the presumption by presenting adequate and
convincing proof that in the selection and supervision
of his employee, he or she exercised the care and
diligence of a good father of a family. Employers
must submit concrete proof, including documentary
evidence, that they complied with everything that
was incumbent on them.
Necessity of presumption of negligence
It is difficult for any person injured to prove the
employer’s negligence as they would be proving
negative facts.
EMPLOYER NEED NOT BE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OR
INDUSTRY
Castilex Industrial Corp. vs. Vasquez (1999): The
phrase "even though the former are not engaged in
any business or industry" found in the fifth
paragraph should be interpreted to mean that it is
not necessary for the employer to be engaged in any
business or industry to be liable for the negligence of
his employee who is acting within the scope of his
assigned task.
A distinction must be made between the two
provisions to determine what is applicable. Both
provisions apply to employers: the fourth paragraph,
to owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise; and the fifth paragraph, to employers in
general, whether or not engaged in any business or
industry. The fourth paragraph covers negligent acts
of employees committed either in the service of the
branches or on the occasion of their functions, while
the fifth paragraph encompasses negligent acts of
employees acting within the scope of their assigned
task. The latter is an expansion of the former in both
employer coverage and acts included. Negligent acts
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

of employees, whether or not the employer is
engaged in a business or industry, are covered so
long as they were acting within the scope of their
assigned task, even though committed neither in the
service of the branches nor on the occasion of their
functions. For, admittedly, employees oftentimes
wear different hats. They perform functions which
are beyond their office, title or designation but which,
nevertheless, are still within the call of duty.
Under the fifth paragraph of Article 2180, whether or
not engaged in any business or industry, an
employer is liable for the torts committed by
employees within the scope of his assigned tasks.
But it is necessary to establish the employer-
employee relationship; once this is done, the plaintiff
must show, to hold the employer liable, that the
employee was acting within the scope of his
assigned task when the tort complained of was
committed. It is only then that the employer may find
it necessary to interpose the defense of due diligence
in the selection and supervision of the employee.
th th
Distinction between 4 and 5 paragraph of 2180
4th paragraph 5th paragraph
Liable persons Owners and Employers in
managers of an general,
establishment or an whether or not
enterprise engaged in
business or
industry
Covered acts Negligent acts of Negligent acts
employees of employees
committed either in acting within
the service of the the scope of
branches or on the their assigned
occasion of their task
functions
DEFENSE OF DILIGENCE IN SELECTION AND SUPERVISION
Metro Manila Transit vs. CA (1993): Due diligence in
the SUPERVISION of employees includes the
formulation of suitable rules and regulations for the
guidance of employees and the issuance of proper
instructions intended for the protection of the public
and persons with whom the employer has relations
through his or her employees and the imposition of
necessary disciplinary measures upon employees in
case of breach or as may be warranted to ensure
performance of acts as indispensable to the business
of and beneficial to their employee.
Due diligence in the SELECTION of employees
require that the employer carefully examined the
applicant for employment as to his qualifications, his
experience and record of service.
Metro Manila Transit vs. CA (1998): The responsibility
of employers for the negligence of their employees in
the performance of their duties is primary, that is, the
injured party may recover from the employers
directly, regardless of the solvency of their
employees. The rationale for the rule on vicarious
liability of the employer for the torts of the
employees is that this is a required cost of doing
business. They are placed upon the employer
because, having engaged in the enterprise, which
will on the basis of all past experience involve harm
to others through the tort of employees, and sought
to profit by it, it is just that he, rather than the
innocent plaintiff, should bear them; and because he
is better able to absorb them, through prices, rates
or liability or insurance, and so to shift them to
society, to the community at large.
Nature of Employer’s Liability
The employer is PRIMARILY and SOLIDARILY liable
for the tortious act of the employee. The employer
may recover from the employee, the amount it will
have to pay the offended party’s claim.
Such recovery, however, is NOT for the entire
amount. To allow such would be as if to say that the
employer was not negligent.
Philtranco vs. CA (1997): The liability of the registered
owner and driver is solidary, primary and direct.
Criminal Negligence
Fernando v. Franco: The vicarious liability of the
employer for criminal negligence of his employee is
governed by RPC 103. Conviction of the employee
conclusively binds the employer. Defense of due
diligence in the selection and supervision of the
employee is NOT available. The employer cannot
appeal the conviction.
Soliman v. Tuazon (1992): Liability for illegal or
harmful acts committed by security guards attaches
to the employer agency, not to the clients or
customers of such agency.
Registered Owner Rule
(1) The registered owner of the vehicle is primarily
responsible to the public for whatever damage or
injury the vehicle may have caused, even if he had
already sold the same to someone else. The
policy is the easy identification of the owner who
can be held responsible so as not to

PAGE 331
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
inconvenience or prejudice the third party injured.
(Cadiente v. Macas, 2008)
(2) This rule applies even if the vehicle is leased to
third persons.
Remedy of the registered owner
His liability is subject to his right of recourse against
the transferee or buyer.
THE STATE
The State may not be sued without its consent. (Sec
3, Art XVI, 1987 Constitution)
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts
through a special agent; but not when the damage
has been caused by the official to whom the task
done properly pertains, in which case what is
provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. (Art
2180, par. 6)
Merritt vs. Government of the Philippine Islands (1960):
A special agent is one who receives a definite and
fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise of
the duties of his office if he is a special official.
This concept does not apply to any executive agent
who is an employee of the active administration and
who on his own responsibility performs the functions
which are inherent in and naturally pertain to his
office.
The responsibility of the state is limited to that which
it contracts through a special agent, duly
empowered by a definite order or commission to
perform some act or charged with some definite
purpose which gives rise to the claim.
General Rule: The State cannot be sued.
Exceptions:
(1) There is express legislative consent
(2) The State filed the case (because here, it is
deemed to have waived its immunity.)
INSTANCES WHERE THE STATE GIVES ITS CONSENT TO BE
SUED
(1) Art. 2180 (6) is an example of an express
legislative consent. Here, the State assumes a
limited liability for the acts of its special agents.
(2) Art. 2189 provides for state liability for damages
caused by defective condition of public works.
(3) Local Government Code provides for the liability
of local government units for wrongful exercise of
its proprietary (as opposed to its governmental)
functions. The latter is the same as that of a
PAGE 332
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
private corporation or individual. (Mendoza vs. De
Leon, 1916)
The State agencies or subdivisions, in the pursuance
of proprietary functions, are akin to any other private
corporation. They may be sued for:
(1) Torts committed by them (Art. 2176) or
(2) Torts committed by their employees (art 2180).
As long as it is performing proprietary functions, it
can be held liable for the acts of its employees, both
regular and special.
Notes:
(a) As a governmental entity: Liable only for acts of
its special agents
(b) As a corporate entity: May be held liable just as
any other employer for the acts of its employees
(c) Special Agent: One duly empowered by a definite
order or commission to perform some act or one
charged with some definite purpose which give
rise to the claim; if he is a government employee
or official, he must be acting under a definite and
fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise
of the duties of his office
JOINT TORTFEASORS
The responsibility of two or more persons who are
liable for quasi-delict is solidary. (Art. 2194)
DEFINITION OF “JOINT TORTFEASORS”
Filipinas Broadcasting Network vs. AMEC-BCCM
(2005): They are all persons who command,
instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance,
cooperate in, aid or abet in the commission of a tort,
or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their
benefit.
APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISION
The provision applies when there are 2 or more
persons who have participated in the commission of
a single quasi-delict.
The injury must be indivisible.
NATURE OF LIABILITY
Solidary – The person injured may sue all of them, or
any number less than all, and they are all together
solidarily liable for the whole damage.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
Acts of Omission and its
Modalities
Human conduct can be described alternatively as
acts or omission. In relation to the existence of a
legal duty, conduct may be described in terms of
action or inaction, or “misfeasance” or
“nonfeasance.”
Manresa; “liability for personal acts or omission is
founded on that indisputable principle of justice
recognized by all legislators that when a person by
his act or omission causes damage or prejudice to
another, a juridical relation is created by virtue of
which the injured person acquires a right to be
indemnified and the person causing the damage is
charged with the corresponding duty of repairing the
damage. The reason for this is found in the obvious
truth that man should subordinate his acts to the
precepts of prudence and if he fails to observe them
and cause damage to another, he must repair the
damage.”
Proximate Cause
CONCEPT OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
In order that civil liability for negligence may arise,
there must be a direct causal connection between
the damage suffered by the plaintiff and the act or
omission of the defendant. In other words, the act or
omission of the defendant must be the proximate
cause of the loss or damage of the plaintiff.
DEFINITION
Bataclan v. Medina:
PROXIMATE CAUSE: that cause, which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without
which the result would not have occurred.
PROXIMATE LEGAL CAUSE: that acting first and
producing the injury, either immediately or by setting
other events in motion, all constituting a natural and
continuous chain of events, each having a close
causal connection with its immediate predecessor,
the final event in the chain immediately effecting the
injury as a natural and probable result of the cause
which first acted, under such circumstances that the
person responsible for the first event should, as an
ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his
act or default that an injury to some person might
probably result therefrom
PAGE 333
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Quezon City vs. Dacara (2005): Proximate cause is
determined from the facts of each case, upon a
combined consideration of logic, common sense,
policy or precedent.
DIFFERENTIATED FROM:
REMOTE CAUSE
Manila Electric v. Remonquillo: A prior and remote
cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such
remote cause did nothing more than furnish the
condition or give rise to the occasion by which the
injury was made possible, if there intervened
between such prior or remote cause and the injury a
distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of
the injury, even though such injury would not have
happened but for such condition or occasion.
Concurrent Cause – Several causes producing the
injury, and each is an efficient cause without which
the injury would not have happened. The injury is
attributed to any or all the causes, and recovery may
be had against any or all of those responsible.
Far Eastern Shipping v. CA: Where the concurrent or
successive negligent acts or omissions of two or
more persons, although acting independently, are in
combination the direct and proximate cause of a
single injury to a third person, it is impossible to
determine in what proportion each contributed to
the injury and either of them is responsible for the
whole injury. Where their concurring negligence
resulted in injury or damage to a third party, they
become joint tortfeasors and are solidarily liable for
the resulting damage.
INTERVENING CAUSE
Phoenix Construction v. IAC: If the intervening cause
is one which in ordinary human experience is
reasonably to be anticipated, or one which the
defendant has reason to anticipate under the
particular circumstances. The defendant may be
negligent, among other reasons, because of failure
to guard against it.
There is an intervening cause combining with the
defendant’s conduct to produce the result, and the
defendant’s negligence consists in failure to protect
the plaintiff against that very risk.
Foreseeable intervening forces are within the scope
of the original risk, and hence of the defendant’s
negligence.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
Teague vs. Fernandez (1973): The test is not in the
number of intervening causes, but in their character
and in the natural and probable connection between
the wrong done and the injurious consequence.
TESTS TO DETERMINE PROXIMATE CAUSE
CAUSE IN FACT: The first step is to determine whether
the defendant’s conduct, in point of fact, was a factor
in causing plaintiff’s damage.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CAUSE; “BUT FOR” RULE: whether
such negligent conduct is a cause without which the
injury would not have taken place (sine qua non rule)
or is the efficient cause which set in motion the chain
of circumstances leading to the injury. (Bataclan v.
Medina)
SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST: If the actor’s conduct is a
substantial factor in bringing about harm to another,
the fact that the actor neither foresees nor should
have foreseen the harm or the manner in which it
occurred, does not prevent him from being liable.
(Philippine Rabit v. IAC)
FORESEEABILITY TEST: Anticipation of consequence is a
necessary element in determining not only whether a
particular act or omission was negligent, but also
whether the injury complained of was proximately
caused by such act or omission.
NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE TEST: A natural
consequence of an act is the consequence which
ordinarily follows it. A probable consequence is one
that is more likely to follow than fail to follow its
supposed cause but it need not be one which
necessarily follows such cause.
ORDINARY AND NATURAL OR DIRECT CONSEQUENCE TEST:
If negligence is a cause in fact of the injury, the
liability of the wrongdoer extends to all the injurious
consequences.
HINDSIGHT TEST: A party guilty of negligence or
omission of duty is responsible for all the
consequences which a prudent and experienced
party, fully acquainted with all the circumstances
which in fact exist, whether they could have been
ascertained by reasonable diligence, or not, would
have thought at the time of the negligent act as
reasonably possible to follow, if they had been
suggested to his mind.
ORBIT OF THE RISK TEST: If the foreseeable risk to
plaintiff created a duty which the defendant
breached, liability is imposed for any resulting injury
within the orbit or scope of such injury. It is not the
PAGE 334
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
unusual nature of the act resulting in injury to
plaintiff that is the test of foreseeability, but whether
the result of the act is within the ambit of the
hazards covered by the duty imposed upon the
defendant.
CAUSE V. CONDITION
Many courts have sought to distinguish between the
active “cause” of the harm and the existing
“conditions” upon which that cause operated. If the
defendant has created only a passive, static
condition which made the damage possible, he is
said not to be liable.
Phoenix Construction vs. IAC (1987): The distinction
between cause and condition has already been
almost entirely discredited. Prosser and Keeton: So
far as the fact of causation is concerned, in the sense
of necessary antecedents which could have played
an important part in producing the result, it is quite
impossible to distinguish between active forces and
passive situations, particularly since the latter are the
result of other active forces which have gone before.
(NOTE: active force is the cause while the passive
situation is the condition)
It is not the distinction which is important but the
nature of the risk and the character of the
intervening cause.
LEGAL CAUSE
NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES
A natural consequence of an act is the consequence
which ordinarily follows it. A probable consequence
is one that is more likely to follow than fail to follow
its supposed cause but it need not be one which
necessarily follows such cause.
FORESEEABILITY
Anticipation of consequence is a necessary element
in determining not only whether a particular act or
omission was negligent, but also whether the injury
complained of was proximately caused by such act or
omission.
Jarencio: Where the particular harm sustained was
reasonably foreseeable at the time of the
defendant’s misconduct, his act or omission is the
legal cause thereof.
Foreseeability is the fundamental basis of the law of
negligence. To be negligent, the defendant must
have acted or failed to act in such a way that an
ordinary reasonable man would have realized that
certain interests of certain persons were reasonably
subjected to a general but definite class of risks.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
Also known as: "doctrine of discovered peril” or
“doctrine of supervening negligence” or
“humanitarian doctrine”
The negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a
recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it
appears that the defendant by exercising reasonable
care and prudence, might have avoided injurious
consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the
plaintiff’s (own) negligence. (Sangco, Torts and
Damages.)
Consolidated Bank v. CA: The doctrine of last clear
chance states that where both parties are negligent
but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than
that of the other, or where it is 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. The antecedent negligence of the plaintiff does
not preclude him from recovering damages caused
by the supervening negligence of the defendant, who
had the last fair chance to prevent the impending
harm by the exercise of due diligence.
Picart v. Smith: If both parties are found to be
negligent; but, their negligence are not
contemporaneous, the person who has the last fair
chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do
so is chargeable with the consequences, without
reference to the prior negligence of the other party.
ELEMENTS:
(1) Plaintiff’s own negligence puts himself in a
dangerous situation;
(2) Defendant saw or discovered, by exercising
reasonable care, the perilous position of plaintiff;
(3) In due time to avoid injuring him
(4) Despite notice and imminent peril, defendant
failed to employ care to avoid injury; and
(5) Injury of plaintiff resulted.
COVERS SUCCESSIVE ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE
Primary negligence of the defendant  contributory
negligence of the plaintiff  subsequent negligence
of the defendant in failing to avoid the injury to the
plaintiff
INAPPLICABLE TO JOINT TORTFEASORS
However, the doctrine cannot be extended into the
field of joint tortfeasors as a test of whether only one
of them should be held liable to the injured person
by reason of his discovery of the latter’s peril, and it
cannot be invoked as between defendants
concurrently negligent.
PAGE 335
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Note:
(a) If plaintiff is the proximate cause: NO RECOVERY
can be made.
(b) If plaintiff is NOT the proximate cause: Recovery
can be made but such will be mitigated.
(c) If negligence of parties is equal in degree, then
each bears his own loss.)
Pantranco vs. Baesa (1989): Last clear chance applies
only if the person who allegedly had the last
opportunity to avert the accident was aware of the
existence of peril or should, with exercise of due care,
have been aware of it.
Ong vs. Metropolitan (1958): Last clear chance does
not apply where the party charged is required to act
instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided
by the application of all means at hand after the peril
is or should have been discovered.
Bustamante vs. CA (1991): The doctrine of last clear
chance, as enunciated in Anuran v. Buno, applies in a
suit between the owners and drivers of colliding
vehicles. It does not arise where a passenger
demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
contractual obligations. It will be inequitable to
exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its
owners on the ground that the other driver was
likewise guilty of negligence.
Phoenix vs. IAC (1987): Doctrine of last clear chance
does not seem to have a role to play in a jurisdiction
where the common law concept of contributory
negligence as an absolute bar to recovery by the
plaintiff, has itself been rejected, as it has been in
2179 of CC.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Valenzuela v. CA: Conduct on the part of the injured
party, which contributed as a legal cause to the harm
he has suffered, which falls below the standard to
which he is required to conform for his own
protection.
MH Rakes v. Atlantic: Contributory negligence – does
not defeat an action if it can be shown that the
defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care
and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the
injured party's negligence. Petitioner’s negligence
contributed only to his own injury and not to the
principal occurrence — it was merely an element to
the damage caused upon him.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
WHEN IS IT A BAR TO RECOVERY?
Only when the proximate cause is on the part of the
plaintiff. Where the plaintiff contributes to the
principal occurrence, as one of its determining
factors, he cannot recover. Where, in conjunction
with the occurrence, he contributes only to his own
injury, he may recover the amount that the
defendant responsible for the event should pay for
such injury, less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent
for his own imprudence.
Legal Injury
Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right.
Legal Right – A legal claim enforced by sanctions
Legal Duty – That which the law requires to be done
to a determinate person
ELEMENTS:
(1) Legal right in favor of a person
(2) Correlative legal duty on the part of another
(3) Wrong in the form of an act or omission or
violation of said legal right and duty with
consequent injury or damage
Custodio vs. CA (1996): To warrant recovery of
damages, there must be both a right of action for a
legal wrong inflicted by the defendant, and damage
resulting to the plaintiff therefrom.
The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is
the premise that an individual was injured in
contemplation of law. The law affords no remedy for
damages resulting from an act which does not
amount to a legal injury or wrong. The act must not
only be hurtful, but wrongful (damnum et injuria).
Amonoy vs. Gutierrez (2001): The exercise of a right
ends when the right disappears, and it disappears
when it is abused, especially to the prejudice of
others. The mask of a right without the spirit of
justice which gives it life, is repugnant to the modern
concept of social law. It cannot be said that a person
exercises a right when he unnecessarily prejudices
another xxx. Over and above the specific precepts of
positive law are the supreme norms of justice; and he
who violates them violates the law. For this reason it
is not permissible to abuse our rights to prejudice
others.
PAGE 336
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
CLASSES OF INJURY
INJURY TO PERSONS
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his
rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty
and good faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully
or negligently causes damage to another shall
indemnify the latter for the same.
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury
to another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage.
INJURY TO PROPERTY
Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage
to another’s property was not due to the fault or
negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable
for indemnity if through the act or event he was
benefited.
INJURY TO RELATIONS
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons. The following and
similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for
damages, prevention and other relief;
(1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from
his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his
religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of
birth, physical defect, or other personal
condition.
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical
injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate
and distinct from the criminal action, may be
brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution,
and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
Intentional Torts
CONCEPT
Under Article 2176, a person is also held liable for
intentional and malicious acts. The liability is
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
founded on the indisputable principle of justice
recognized by all legislations that when a person, by
his act or omission, causes damage or prejudice to
another, a juridical relation is created by virtue of
which the injured person acquires a right to be
indemnified and the person causing the damage is
charged with the corresponding duty of repairing the
damage.
PNB v. CA, 1978: (NCC 21-36) serve as catch all
provisions or dragnet clauses. They cover any
imaginable tort action, because these articles were
intended to expand the concept of torts in out
jurisdiction. It grants adequate legal remedies for the
(otherwise) untold number of moral wrongs, which is
impossible for human foresight to provide in our
statutes.
VIOLATIONS OF A PERSON’S SECURITY AND
PHYSICAL INJURIES (NCC 33)
BATTERY (PHYSICAL INJURY)
The actual infliction of any unlawful or unauthorized
violence on the person of another, irrespective of its
degree.
The least touching of another in anger, or in any
manner which amounts to an unlawful setting upon
his person,” may subject one to an action for battery.
INTERESTS PROTECTED BY LAW:
(1) Interest of the individual in freedom from bodily
harm or any impairment whatever of the physical
integrity of the body
(2) Interest in freedom from offensive bodily touching
although no actual harm is done.
Carandang vs. Santiago and Valenton (1955):
Defamation and fraud (in Art. 33) are used in their
ordinary sense because there are no specific
provisions in the Revised Penal Code using these
terms as names of offenses defined therein, so that
these two terms defamation and fraud must have
been used not to impart to them any technical
meaning in the laws of the Philippines, but in their
generic sense. With these apparent circumstances in
mind, it is evident that the term “physical injuries”
could not have been used in its specific sense as a
crime defined in the Revised Penal Code, for it is
difficult to believe that the Code Commission would
have used terms in same article—some in this
general and others in its technical sense. In other
words, the term “physical injuries” should be
understood to mean bodily injury, not the crime of
physical injuries, because the terms used with the
latter are general terms.
PAGE 337
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
ASSAULT (GRAVE THREAT)
An intentional, unlawful offer of physical injury to
another by force unlawfully directed toward the
person of another, under such circumstances as to
create a well-founded fear of imminent peril,
coupled with the apparent present ability to
effectuate the attempt if not prevented.
The wrong is committed when unreasonable fear is
inspired in the plaintiff by threatening gestures,
especially when these are connected with unlawful,
sinister, and wicked conduct on the part of the
defendant.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT (ILLEGAL DETENTION)
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs,
defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or
impairs any of the following rights and liberties of
another person shall be liable to the latter for
damages:
(1) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention
xxx
INTERFERENCE WITH PERSONAL PROPERTY
TRESPASS TO LAND
Any intentional use of another’s real property,
without authorization and without a privilege by law
to do so, is actionable as a trespass without regard to
harm. (Prosser and Keeton, p. 70)
Elements
An invasion
(1) which interfered with the right of exclusive
possession of the land, and
(2) which was a direct result of some act committed
by the defendant. (Prosser and Keeton, p. 67)
TRESPASS TO CHATTELS
Any direct and immediate intentional interference
with a chattel in the possession of another. (Prosser
and Keeton, p. 85)
CONVERSION
Major interferences with the chattel, or with the
plaintiff’s rights in it, which are so serious, and so
important, as to justify the forced judicial sale to the
defendant. (Prosser and Keeton, p. 90)
INTENTIONAL NON-PHYSICAL HARMS
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons. The following and
similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for
damages, prevention and other relief;
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
(1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from
his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his
religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of
birth, physical defect, or other personal
condition.
The principal rights protected under this provision
are the following:
(1) The right to personal dignity
(2) The right to personal security
(3) The right to family relations
(4) The right to social intercourse
(5) The right to privacy
(6) The right to peace of mind
VIOLATION OF PERSONAL DIGNITY
In order to be actionable it is not necessary that the
act constitutes a criminal offense. The remedy
afforded by the law is not only the recovery of
damages. “Prevention and other relief” is also
available. In other words, injunction and other
appropriate reliefs may also be obtained by the
aggrieved party.
St. Louis Realty Corporation vs. CA (Illustration of a
“similar act”): The acts and omissions of the firm fall
under Article 26. Persons who know the residence of
Doctor Aramil were confused by the distorted,
lingering impression that he was renting his
residence from Arcadio or that Arcadio had leased it
from him. Either way, his private life was mistakenly
and unnecessarily exposed.
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
MVRS Publications vs. Islamic Da'wah Council (2003):
Article 26 specifically applies to intentional acts
which fall short of being criminal offenses. It itself
expressly refers to tortious conduct which "may not
constitute criminal offenses." The purpose is
precisely to fill a gap or lacuna in the law where a
person who suffers injury because of a wrongful act
not constituting a crime is left without any redress.
Under Article 26, the person responsible for such act
becomes liable for "damages, prevention and other
relief." In short, to preserve peace and harmony in
the family and in the community, Article 26 seeks to
eliminate cases of damnum absque injuria in human
relations.
Consequently, the elements that qualify the same
acts as criminal offenses do not apply in determining
responsibility for tortious conduct under Article 26.
PAGE 338
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
In intentional infliction of mental distress, the
gravamen of the tort is not the injury to plaintiff's
reputation, but the harm to plaintiff's mental and
emotional state. In libel, the gist of the action is the
injury to plaintiff's reputation. Reputation is the
community's opinion of what a person is. In
intentional infliction of mental distress, the opinion
of the community is immaterial to the existence of
the action although the court can consider it in
awarding damages. What is material is the
disturbance on the mental or emotional state of the
plaintiff who is entitled to peace of mind.
VIOLATION OF PRIVACY
It is the right to be let alone, or to be free from
unwarranted publicity, or to live without
unwarranted interference by the public in matters in
which the public is not necessarily concerned.
Reasonableness of Expectation of Privacy
(The 2-prong test)
(1) Whether by one’s conduct, the individual has
exhibited an expectation of privacy
(2) Whether this expectation is one that society
recognizes and accepts as reasonable
Note:
Coverage of Art. 26 is not limited to those
enumerated therein, the enumeration being merely
examples of acts violative of a person’s rights to
dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind. Other
“similar acts” are also covered within the scope of
the article.
Persons who can invoke privacy
General Rule: The right to privacy may only be
invoked by natural persons. Juridical persons cannot
invoke this because the basis to this right is an injury
to the feelings and sensibilities of the injured party,
and a corporation has none of those
Exception: The right to privacy may be invoked along
with the right against unreasonable searches and
seizures.
General Rule: The right to privacy is purely personal in
nature:
(1) It can be invoked only by the person actually
injured
(2) It is subject to a proper waiver
(3) It ceases upon death
Exception: The privilege may be given to the heirs of
a deceased to protect his memory, but this privilege
exists for the benefit of the living. It enables the
protection of their feelings, and prevents the
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
violation of their own rights regarding the character
and memory of the deceased.
Invasion of Privacy
Types:
(1) Publication of embarrassing private facts – The
interest here is the right to be free from
unwarranted publicity, wrongful publicizing of
private affairs and activities, as these are outside
the ambit of legitimate public concern.
Ayer v. Capulong (1988): Public figures enjoy a limited
right to privacy as compared to ordinary individuals.
(2) Intrusion upon plaintiff’s private affairs – This is
not limited to situations where the wrongdoer
physically trespasses into one’s property.
(a) Generally, there is no invasion of privacy
when journalists report something that
occurs in the public realm, except when the
acts of the journalist are to an extent that it
constitutes harassment.
(b) RA 4200: it is illegal for any person not
authorized by both parties to any private
communication to secretly record such
communication.
(c) Limitations to Right to Information v. Right
to Privacy:
(i) Must be of public interest
(ii) Must not be excluded by law
(3) Publicity which puts one in a false light in the
public eye – To protect the interest of one in not
being made or forced to appear before the public
in an objectionable false light or position.
Tort of putting in false Defamation
light
The embarrassment of a Concerns the reputational
person being portrayed harm to a person
as something he is not
Statement should be Publication is satisfied
actually made in public even if communicated to
only one specific third
person
(4) Commercial appropriation of likeness of image
It consists of appropriation, for the defendant’s
benefit or advantage (ex. It was used in the
defendant’s advertisement), of the plaintiff’s name or
likeness (picture or portrait).
PAGE 339
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
DISTURBANCE OF PEACE OF MIND
The disturbance of the mental and emotional
tranquility of the plaintiff by the defendant is a legal
injury in itself and, therefore, a sufficient cause of
action for damages, injunction, and other relief.
A person, however, cannot be held liable for
damages for the mental or emotional disturbance of
the plaintiff which was due to the latter’s
susceptibility to such disturbance, where the
defendant had no knowledge of such peculiar
susceptibility. The tendency of the law is to secure an
interest in mental comfort only to the extent of the
ordinary sensibilities of men.
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the
following and analogous cases:
xxx
(8) Malicious prosecution
Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury
to another in manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter
for the damage.
Malicious prosecution is the institution of any action
or proceeding either civil or criminal against another,
maliciously and without probable cause.
Elements:
(1) That the defendant was himself the prosecutor
or that he instigated its commencement
(2) That the action was finally terminated with an
acquittal
(3) That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted
without probable cause
(4) That he was actuated or impelled by legal
malice, that is, by improper and sinister motives.
(Lao v. CA)
Drilon vs. CA (1997): Malicious Prosecution defined:
An action for damages brought by one against whom
a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other legal
proceeding has been instituted maliciously and
without probable cause, after the termination of such
prosecution, suit or other proceeding in favor of the
defendant herein. The gist of the action is the putting
of legal process in force, regularly, for the mere
purpose of vexation or injury.
Buenaventura vs. Domingo and Ignacio (1958): The
provisions of the Civil Code in taking reference to
malicious prosecutions must necessarily imply that
the person to be held liable to pay moral damages
should have acted deliberately and with knowledge
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
that his accusation of the person subject to such
malicious prosecution, was false and groundless.
xxx Proof and motive that the prosecution or
institution of the action was prompted by a sinister
design to vex and humiliate a person and to cast
dishonor and disgrace must be clearly and
preponderantly established to entitle the victims to
damages and other rights granted by law; otherwise,
there would always be a civil action for damages
after every prosecution's failure to prove its cause
resulting in the consequent, acquittal of the accused
therein.
DEFAMATION, FRAUD AND PHYSICAL INJURIES
Art. 33. In case of defamation, fraud, and physical
injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate
and distinct from the criminal action, may be
brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution,
and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
DEFAMATION
Cojuangco vs. CA (1991): Separate civil action may be
consolidated with the criminal action.
MVRS vs. Islamic Da'wah (2003): Defamation is that
which tends to injure reputation or diminish esteem,
respect, good will, or confidence of the plaintiff, or
excite derogatory feelings about him. It must be
personal. (What is definitive is not the level of hurt,
but the effect of the statement on the reputation or
standing of the person.)
Arafiles vs. Philippine Journalists (2004): In actions for
damages for libel, it is axiomatic that the published
work alleged to contain libelous material must be
examined and viewed as a whole.
The article must be construed in its entirety including
the headlines, as they may enlarge, explain, or
restrict or be enlarged, explained or strengthened or
restricted by the context. Whether or not it is
libelous, depends upon the scope, spirit and motive
of the publication taken in its entirety.
A publication claimed to be defamatory must be
read and construed in the sense in which the readers
to whom it is addressed would ordinarily understand
it.
DEFENSES:
(1) Absence of elements
(2) Privilege
TORTS & DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION (FORMERLY DECEIT)
Salta vs. De Veyra (1982): Independent civil actions
are permitted to be filed separately regardless of the
result of the criminal action.
Samson vs. Daway (2004): Unfair competition under
the Intellectual Property Code and fraud under Art.
33 are independent actions. Art. 33 does not operate
as a prejudicial question to justify the suspension of
the criminal cases at bar.
SEDUCTION
Sangco: Seduction is sexual intercourse with an
unmarried woman of chaste character whose
consent was obtained through abuse of confidence
or through deceit.
Seduction under the RPC (criminal seduction) is
different from seduction under the NCC (civil
seduction, Art. 21)
(a) In criminal seduction, either qualified or simple,
the offended woman must be less than 18 years
of age.
(b) In civil seduction, the offended woman may be
over 18 years of age.
Tanjanco vs. CA (1966): The essential feature is
seduction, that in law is more than mere sexual
intercourse, or a breach of a promise of marriage; it
connotes essentially the idea of deceit, enticement,
superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of
the seducer to which the woman has yielded.
To constitute seduction there must in all cases be
some sufficient promise or inducement and the
woman must yield because of the promise or other
inducement. If she consents merely from carnal lust
and the intercourse is from mutual desire, there is no
seduction.
UNJUST DISMISSAL
The employer’s right to dismiss his employee differs
from, and should not be confused with the manner in
which the right is exercised. When the manner in
which the company exercised its right to dismiss was
abusive, oppressive or malicious, it is liable for
damages.
Quisaba vs. Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer & Plywood (1974):
Although the acts complained of seemingly appear
to constitute "matters involving employee-employer
relations" as Quisaba's dismissal was the severance
of a pre-existing employee-employer relation, his
complaint is grounded not on his dismissal per se as
in fact he does not ask for reinstatement or
PAGE 340
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
backwages, but on the manner of his dismissal and
the consequent effects of such dismissal.
The case at bar is intrinsically concerned with a civil
(not a labor) dispute; it has to do with an alleged
violation of Quisaba's rights as a member of society,
and does not involve an existing employee-employer
relation within the meaning of section 2(1) of
Presidential Decree No. 21. The complaint is thus
properly and exclusively cognizable by the regular
courts of justice, not by the National Labor Relations
Commission.
Note:
The foregoing decision thus states that where the
employee does not seek reinstatement or expressly
or impliedly accepts the employer’s right to
terminate the contract of employment but questions
the manner in which said right was exercised and
predicates thereon his claim for moral and
exemplary damages, the claim is one for tort under
the Civil Code and not one arising from employer-
employee relation under the Labor Code even if he
also demands in the action therefor payment of
termination pay which unquestionably derives from
their prior employer-employee relation.
INTERFERENCE WITH RELATIONS
An interference with the continuance of unimpaired
interests founded upon the relation in which the
plaintiff stands toward one or more third persons.
(Prosser and Keeton, p. 915)
KINDS
(1) Family relations
(2) Social relations
(3) Economic relations
(4) Political relations
FAMILY RELATIONS
The three causes of action enumerated below are
offenses against marital relations.
ALIENATION OF AFFECTION
This is a cause of action in favor of a husband against
one who wrongfully alienates the affection of his
wife, depriving him of his conjugal rights to her
consortium, that is, her society, affection, and
assistance.
Elements:
(1) Wrongful conduct of the defendant: intentional
and malicious enticing of a spouse away from
the other spouse
Note: Where the alienation or separation of the
spouses is caused by the plaintiff’s own conduct
PAGE 341
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
and not by reason of the wrongful conduct of the
defendant, there is no liability on the defendant.
However, if the defendant interferes and by his
wrongful conduct prevents a reconciliation
between the spouses, or destroys the possibility
thereof, the defendant is liable for alienation of
affection.
(2) Loss of affection or consortium
Note: Complete absence of affection between
the spouses is not a defense.
(3) Causal connection between such conduct and
loss
Tenchavez vs. Escaño (1965): There is no evidence
that the parents of Vicenta, out of improper motives,
aided and abetted her original suit for annulment, or
her subsequent divorce; she appears to have acted
independently, and being of age, she was entitled to
judge what was best for her and ask that her
decisions be respected. Her parents, in so doing,
certainly cannot be charged with alienation of
affections in the absence of malice or unworthy
motives, which have not been shown, good faith
being always presumed until the contrary is proved.
LIABILITY OF PARENTS, GUARDIANS OR KIN
The law distinguishes between the right of a parent
to interest himself in the marital affairs of his child
and the absence of rights in a stranger to
intermeddle in such affairs. However, such
distinction between the liability of parents and that
of strangers is only in regard to what will justify
interference. A parent is liable for alienation of
affections resulting from his own malicious conduct,
as where he wrongfully entices his son or daughter to
leave his or her spouse, but he is not liable unless he
acts maliciously, without justification and from
unworthy motives. He is not liable where he acts and
advises his child in good faith with respect to his
child's marital relations in the interest of his child as
he sees it, the marriage of his child not terminating
his right and liberty to interest himself in, and be
extremely solicitous for, his child's welfare and
happiness even where his conduct and advice
suggest or result in the separation of the spouses or
the obtaining of a divorce or annulment, or where he
acts under mistake or misinformation, or where his
advice or interference are indiscreet or unfortunate,
although it has been held that the parent is liable for
consequences resulting from recklessness. He may in
good faith take his child into his home and afford
him or her protection and support, so long as he has
not maliciously enticed his child away, or does not
maliciously entice or cause him or her to stay away,
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
from his or her spouse. This rule has more frequently
been applied in the case of advice given to a married
daughter, but it is equally applicable in the case of
advice given to a son.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Lilius vs. Manila Railroad Company (1934): The
plaintiff Aleko E. Lilius also seeks to recover the sum
of P2,500 for the loss of what is called Anglo-Saxon
common law "consortium" of his wife, that is, "her
services, society and conjugal companionship", as a
result of personal injuries which she had received
from the accident now under consideration.
In the case of Goitia vs. Campos Rueda, this court,
interpreting the provisions of the Civil Marriage Law
of 1870, in force in these Islands with reference to the
mutual rights and obligations of the spouses,
contained in articles 44-48 thereof, said as follows:
The above quoted provisions of the Law of Civil
Marriage and the Civil Code fix the duties and
obligations of the spouses. The spouses must be
faithful to, assist, and support each other. The
husband must live with and protect his wife. The
wife must obey and live with her husband and
follow him when he changes his domicile or
residence, except when he removes to a foreign
country. . . .
Therefore, under the law and the doctrine of this
court, one of the husband's rights is to count on his
wife's assistance. This assistance comprises the
management of the home and the performance of
household duties, including the care and education
of the children and attention to the husband upon
whom primarily devolves the duty of supporting the
family of which he is the head. When the wife's
mission was circumscribed to the home, it was not
difficult to assume, by virtue of the marriage alone,
that she performed all the said tasks and her
physical incapacity always redounded to the
husband's prejudice inasmuch as it deprived him of
her assistance. However, nowadays when women, in
their desire to be more useful to society and to the
nation, are demanding greater civil rights and are
aspiring to become man's equal in all the activities of
life, commercial and industrial, professional and
political, many of them spending their time outside
the home, engaged in their businesses, industry,
profession and within a short time, in politics, and
entrusting the care of their home to a housekeeper,
and their children, if not to a nursemaid, to public or
private institutions which take charge of young
children while their mothers are at work, marriage
has ceased to create the presumption that a woman
complies with the duties to her husband and
children, which the law imposes upon her, and he
PAGE 342
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
who seeks to collect indemnity for damages resulting
from deprivation of her domestic services must prove
such services.
Furthermore, inasmuch as a wife's domestic
assistance and conjugal companionship are purely
personal and voluntary acts which neither of the
spouses may be compelled to render, it is necessary
for the party claiming indemnity for the loss of such
services to prove that the person obliged to render
them had done so before he was injured and that he
would be willing to continue rendering them had he
not been prevented from so doing.
CRIMINAL CONVERSATION (ADULTERY)
Interference with the marital relations by committing
adultery with one of the spouses. This is obvious
enough in the case of rape but also applies where
the adulterous spouse consented to or initiated the
intercourse. (Prosser and Keeton, p. 917)
SOCIAL RELATIONS
MEDDLING WITH OR DISTURBING FAMILY RELATIONS
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons. The following and
similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for
damages, prevention and other relief;
xxx
2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another;
Developed as an offshoot of the action for enticing
away a servant and depriving the master of the
proprietary interest in [the servant’s] services until
there has been a gradual shift of emphasis away
from “services” and toward a recognition of more
intangible elements in the domestic relations, such
as companionship and affection. (Prosser and
Keeton, p. 916)
INTRIGUING TO CAUSE ANOTHER TO BE ALIENATED FROM
HIS FRIENDS
A person who committed affirmative acts intended to
alienate the existing friendship of one with his
friends is liable for damages. A man is a social being
and for being so, he needs friends to socialize with
and to depend upon in case of need. To alienate him
wrongfully or with malice from his friends is to cause
him suffering for which he is entitled to damages.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
ECONOMIC RELATIONS
INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
Art 1314. Any third person who induces another to
violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the
other contracting party.
Gilchrist vs. Cuddy (1915): Everyone has a right to
enjoy the fruits of his enterprise. He has no right to
be protected from competition, but he has the right
to be free from malicious and wanton interference. If
the injury is a result of competition, it is a case of
damnum absque injuria, unless superior right by
contract is interfered with.
Injunction is the proper remedy to prevent wrongful
interference with contracts by strangers, where other
legal remedies are insufficient and the resulting
injury is irreparable.
So Ping Bun vs. CA (1999): Bad faith/Malice is
required to make the defendant liable for DAMAGES
in cases of tortuous interference.
Elements of Interference
(1) Existence of a valid contract;
(2) Knowledge of the third person of the existence
of such contract; and
(3) Interference without legal justification or excuse.
Lagon vs. CA (2005): If there is no bad faith, there is
no tortious interference; Actual knowledge of the
contract is not required so long as there are facts
leading one to investigate.
Proper business interest provides a legal justification
to negate the presence of the third element.
UNFAIR COMPETITION
Art. 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
highhanded method shall give rise to a right of
action by the person who thereby suffers damage.
Free competition in agricultural, commercial or
industrial enterprises and in labor is essential in a
democracy and should be encouraged. Monopolies,
generally speaking, are prejudicial to public interest.
However, the right of free competition is not
unlimited.
PAGE 343
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Permissible competition
There is a privilege to interfere with prospects of
advantageous economic relations of others when:
(1) The defendant’s purpose is justifiable, and
(2) He employs no means which may be regarded as
unfair.
Prohibited competition
In order to qualify as “unfair,” it must have 2
characteristics:
(1) It must involve an injury to a trade or rival
(2) It must involve acts which are characterized as
“contrary to good conscience,” or “shocking to
judicial sensibilities,” or otherwise unlawful
Note:
Jarencio: Unfair competition dealt with in Art. 28 is
different from the unfair competition under Sec. 29
of RA 166. Unfair competition under Sec. 29 of Rep.
Act 166 consists in giving the same general
appearance to the goods manufactured or dealt in or
the services rendered by one person as the goods or
services of another who has already acquired a
public goodwill for such goods or services. Unfair
competition under Art. 28 of the Civil Code refers to
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. Unfair
competition under the Civil Code covers a broader
area than Rep. Act 166.
POLITICAL RELATIONS
VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO SUFFRAGE (NCC, ART. 32)
Art 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs,
defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or
impairs any of the following rights and liberties of
another person shall be liable to the latter for
damages:
(1) Freedom of religion
(2) Freedom of speech
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a
periodical publication
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention
(5) Freedom of suffrage
(6) The right against deprivation of property without
due process of law
(7) The right to just compensation when property is
taken for public use
(8) The right to equal protection of the laws
(9) The right to be secure in one’s person, house,
papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
(11) The right to privacy of communication and
correspondence
(12) The right to become a member of associations
and societies for purposes not contrary to law
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly
and petition the government for redress of
grievances
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in
any form
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself
and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
the cause of the accusation against him, to have
a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses
face to face, to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses on is behalf;
(17) Freedom form being compelled to be a witness
against one’s self, or from being forced to
confess his guilt, or from being induced by a
promise of immunity or reward to make such
confession, except when the person confessing
becomes a State witness.
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and
unusual punishment, unless the same is
imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute
which has not been judicially declared
unconstitutional;
(19) Freedom of access to the courts
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether
or not the defendant’s act or omission constitutes a
criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to
commence an entirely separate and distinct civil
action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of any criminal
prosecution (if the latter be instituted) and may be
proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages.
Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable
from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a
violation of the Penal code or any other penal
statute.
VIOLATION OF OTHER POLITICAL RIGHTS (FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY AND PETITION, ETC.)
Jarencio: Article 32 of the Civil Code holds any public
officer, employee or private individual civilly liable for
the violation of civil liberties, political liberties and
other basic rights under the Constitution. The
aggrieved party may recover actual, moral and
exemplary damages and other relief. The civil action
is separate and distinct and shall proceed
independently of a criminal prosecution if one is
instituted. Only a preponderance of evidence is
PAGE 344
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
required. If the violation of the civil or political rights
constitutes a crime and a criminal action is instituted
the civil action is also deemed instituted with the
criminal action unless the same is reserved.
Cojuangco vs. CA (1999): The purpose of article 32 is
to remind us that basic rights are immutable. Thus,
absence of bad faith or malice is not a defense.
Vinzons-Chato vs. Fortune (2007): A public officer
may be sued under Art. 32 even if his acts were not
so tainted with malice, as long as there is a violation
of a constitutional right. Its precise object is to put an
end to official abuse, done on the plea of good faith.
Negligence
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor
consists in the omission of that diligence which is
required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds with the circumstances of the persons,
of the time and of the place. When negligence shows
bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201,
paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence
which is to be observed in the performance, that
which is expected of a good father of a family shall
be required.
ELEMENTS
(1) Legal duty
(2) Breach
(3) Causation
(4) Damages
Layugan vs. IAC (1988): Negligence is the omission to
do something which a reasonable man, guided by
those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of
something which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do.
TEST OF NEGLIGENCE
Philippine National Railways vs. Brunty (2006): Did
defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use
that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily
prudent person would have used in the same
situation? If not, the person is guilty of negligence.
The law, in effect, adopts the standard supposed to
be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet
pater familias of the Roman law.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY (BONUS PATER
FAMILIAS)
A standard man does not mean an ideal or perfect
man, but an ordinary member of the community. He
is usually spoken of as an ordinarily reasonable,
careful, and prudent man.
WHAT CONSTITUTES THE CONDUCT OF A PRUDENT MAN IN
A GIVEN SITUATION?
Picart vs. Smith (1918): Conduct determined in the
light of human experience and in view of the facts
involved in the particular case. Abstract speculations
cannot be of much value here; instead, reasonable
men govern their conduct by the circumstances
which are known before them. They are not
supposed to be omniscient of the future.
STANDARD OF CARE
Picart vs. Smith (1918): Test: Did the defendant in
doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable
care and caution which an ordinarily prudent man
would have used in the same situation? If not, then he
is negligent. Negligence in a given case is not
determined by reference to the personal judgment of
the actor in the situation before him, but is
determined in the light of human experience and the
facts involved in the particular case.
Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man
in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen
that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently
probable to warrant his foregoing the conduct or
guarding against its consequences.
Note:
Only the KIND of injury needs to be foreseen, NOT
the actual specific injury.
STANDARD OF CARE REQUIRED OF BANKS
Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. CA (1997): In the
case of banks, however, the degree of diligence
required is more than that of a good father of a
family. Considering the fiduciary nature of their
relationship with their depositors, banks are duty
bound to treat the accounts of their clients with the
highest degree of care.
Simex International (Manila), Inc. v. CA: In every case,
the depositor expects the bank to treat his account
with the utmost fidelity, whether such account
consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions.
xxx A blunder on the part of the bank, such as the
failure to duly credit him his deposits as soon as they
are made, can cause the depositor not a little
PAGE 345
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
embarrassment if not financial loss and perhaps
even civil and criminal litigation.
The point is that as a business affected with public
interest and because of the nature of its functions,
the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of
its depositors with meticulous care, always having in
mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.
STANDARD OF CARE OF CHILDREN
Taylor vs. Manila Railroad (1910): Children must be
expected to act upon childlike instincts and impulses
and others chargeable with a duty of care and
caution toward them must take precautions
accordingly. If they leave exposed to the observation
of children anything which would be tempting to
them, and which they in their immature judgment
might naturally suppose they were at liberty to play
with, they should expect that liberty to be taken. (But
the child in this case was still negligent because of
his experience).
Jarco v. CA (1999): The rule, therefore, is that a child
under nine years of age must be conclusively
presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a
matter of law. The presumption of lack of
discernment or incapacity for negligence in the case
of a child over nine but under fifteen years of age is a
rebuttable one.
Ylarde vs. Aquino (1988): The degree of care required
to be exercised must vary with the capacity of the
person endangered to care for himself. A minor should
not be held to the same degree of care as an adult,
but his conduct should be judged according to the
average conduct of persons of his age and
experience: that degree of care ordinarily exercised
by children of the same age, capacity, discretion,
knowledge and experience under the same or similar
circumstances.
STANDARD OF CARE OF EXPERTS/PROFESSIONALS
Culion vs. Philippine (1930): When a person holds
himself out as being competent to do things
requiring professional skill, he will be held liable for
negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of
one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he
attempts to do.
Cruz vs. CA (1997): Whether or not a physician has
committed an "inexcusable lack of precaution" in the
treatment of his patient is to be determined
according to the standard of care observed by other
members of the profession in good standing under
similar circumstances bearing in mind the advanced
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
state of the profession at the time of treatment or
the present state of medical science.
IN CASE OF INSANE PERSONS
Art. 2180. …Guardians are liable for damages caused
by the minors or incapacitated persons who are
under their authority and live in their company…
Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing
damage has no parents or guardian, the minor or
insane person shall be answerable with his own
property in an action against him where a guardian
ad litem shall be appointed.
US vs. Baggay (1911): A lunatic or insane person who,
in spite of his irresponsibility on account of the
deplorable condition of his deranged mind, is still
reasonably and justly liable with his property for the
consequences of his acts.
EMERGENCY RULE OR SUDDEN PERIL DOCTRINE
Valenzuela vs. CA (1996): An individual, who suddenly
finds himself in a situation of danger and is required
to act without much time to consider the best means
that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger,
is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake
what subsequently and upon reflection may appear
to be a better solution, unless the emergency was
brought by his own negligence.
UNREASONABLE RISK OR HARM
Art 1711. Owners of enterprises and other employers
are obliged to pay compensation for the death of or
injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or
other employees even though the event may have
been purely accidental or entirely due to fortuitous
cause, if the death or personal injury arose out of and
in the course of employment. The employer is also
liable for compensation if the employee contracts
any illness or disease caused by such employment or
as a result of the nature of the employment. If the
mishap was due to the employee’s own notorious
negligence, or voluntary act, or drunkenness, the
employer shall not be liable for compensation.
When the employee’s lack of due care contributed to
his death or injury, the compensation shall be
equitably reduced
Art. 1712. If the death or injury is due to the
negligence of a fellow-worker, the latter and the
employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation.
If a fellow-worker’s intentional or malicious act is the
only cause of the death or injury, the employer shall
not be answerable, unless it should be shown that
the latter did not exercise due diligence in the
PAGE 346
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
selection or supervision of the plaintiff’s fellow-
worker.
Amedo vs. Rio (1954): By jumping into the sea, the
employee failed to exercise even slight care and
diligence and displayed a reckless disregard of the
safety of his person. His death was caused by his
notorious negligence. Notorious negligence has
been held to be tantamount to gross negligence
which is want of even slight care and diligence.
EVIDENCE
QUANTUM OF PROOF IN QUASI-DELICT VS. QUANTUM OF
PROOF IN BREACH OF CONTRACT
Calalas vs. CA: In quasi-delict, the negligence or fault
should be clearly established because it is the basis
of action, whereas in breach of contract, the action
can be prosecuted merely by proving the existence of
a contract and the fact that the obligor, in this case a
common carrier, failed to transport his passenger
safely to his destination.
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is
solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was
in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due
diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputable
presumed that the driver was negligent, if he had
been found guilty of reckless driving or violating
traffic regulations at least twice within the next
preceding two months.
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is
presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has
been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic regulation.
Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of
negligence if the death or injury results from his
possession of dangerous weapons or substances,
such as firearms and poison, except when the use or
possession thereof is indispensable in his occupation
or business.
Art. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article
(calamity, act of public enemy in war, act of owner of
the goods, character of the goods, order of
competent public authority), if the goods are lost
destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently, unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as required under Art. 1733.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
PRESUMED NEGLIGENCE OR NEGLIGENCE PER SE
Teague vs. Fernandez (1973): Violation of a statute or
ordinance constitutes negligence as a matter of law
or negligence per se because non-observance of
what the law provides as a suitable precaution is
failure to observe that care which an ordinarily
prudent man would observe.
When the standard of care is fixed by law, failure
conform to such standard is negligence, negligence
per se or negligence in and of itself, in the absence of
a legal excuse.
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks
for itself”) is a rule of evidence (not of substantive
law) peculiar to the law of negligence.
3 conditions for applicability:
F.F. Cruz vs. CA (1988): Res ipsa loquitur is applicable
when:
(1) The thing causing the injury is under the control
of the defendant or his servant;
(2) In the ordinary cause of things, the accident does
not happen if those who have control used proper
care;
(3) In the absence of explanation from the
defendant, a presumption of negligence results.
Layugan vs. IAC 1988): Where the thing which causes
injury is shown to be under the management of the
defendant, and the accident is such as in the
ordinary course of things does not happen if those
who have the management use proper care, it
affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an
explanation by the defendant, that the accident
arose from want of care.
Ramos vs. CA (1999): The injury itself, taken together
with the circumstances, raises the presumption of
negligence that the defendant must meet with an
explanation.
Elements
(1) The accident is such that it would not have
happened in the ordinary course of events
without the negligence of someone;
(2) The defendant exercises control and
management.
(3) There is no contributory negligence on the part of
the plaintiff.
DM Consunji vs. CA (2001): The res ipsa loquitur
doctrine is based in part upon the theory that the
defendant in charge of the instrumentality which
causes the injury either knows the cause of the
PAGE 347
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
accident or has the best opportunity of ascertaining
it and that the plaintiff has no such knowledge, and
therefore is compelled to allege negligence in
general terms and to rely upon the proof of the
happening of the accident in order to establish
negligence.
Note: For the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to apply, it
must appear that the injured party had no
knowledge as to the cause of the accident, or that
the party to be charged with negligence has superior
knowledge or opportunity for explanation of the
accident.
DEFENSES
DUE DILIGENCE
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
demandable not only for one’s own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
one is responsible.
xxx
Par. 8. The responsibility treated of in this article
shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage.
Ramos vs. PEPSI (1967): The presumption of
negligence on the part of the master or employer,
either in the selection of servant/employee or in the
supervision, when an injury is caused by the
negligence of a servant/employee may be rebutted if
the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court
that in the selection and supervision, he has
exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a
family
Metro Manila vs. CA (1993): The defense of due
diligence is plausible when defendant has presented
enough evidence to overcome the presumption of
negligence. It is not enough that it is alleged.
ACTS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Vinzons-Chato vs. Fortune (2008): When what is
involved is a duty owing to the public in general, an
individual cannot have a cause of action against the
public officer although he may have been injured by
the action or inaction of the officer, except when the
individual suffers a particular or special injury.
ACCIDENT OR FORTUITOUS EVENT
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the
law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation,
or when the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk, no person shall be seen
 UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
responsible for those events which, could not
foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
Elements
Juntilla vs. Fontanar (1985): The elements of caso
fortuito are:
(1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected
occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to
comply with his obligation, must be independent
of the human will;
(2) It must be impossible to foresee the event or if it
can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid;
(3) The occurrence must be such as to render it
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation
in a normal manner; and
(4) The obligor must be free from any participation in
the aggravation of the injury resulting to the
creditor.
Hernandez vs. COA (1984): The robbery that
happened to him cannot be said to be the result of
his imprudence and negligence. This was
undoubtedly a fortuitous event covered by the said
provisions, something that could not have been
reasonably foreseen although it could have
happened.
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
Custodio vs. CA (1996): Right to recover damages
does not arise from the mere fact that the plaintiff
suffered losses. To warrant the recovery of damages,
there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong
inflicted by the defendant, and damage resulting to
the plaintiff therefrom. Wrong without damage, or
damage without wrong, does not constitute a cause
of action, since damages are merely part of the
remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or
wrong.
Injury Damage Damages
Illegal Loss, hurt, harm Recompense or
invasion of a resulting from compensation
legal right the injury awarded
Damnum absque injuria. There can be damage
without injury in those instances in which the loss or
harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty.
In order that the law will give redress for an act
causing damage, that act must be not only hurtful,
but wrongful. There must be damnum et injuria. If,
as may happen in many cases, a person sustains
actual damage, that is, harm or loss to his person or
property, without sustaining any legal injury, that is,
an act or omission which the law does not deem an
PAGE 348
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
injury, the damage is regarded as damnum absque
injuria.
AUTHORITY OF LAW
Art. 5. Acts executed against the provisions of
mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except
when the law itself authorizes their validity.
Art. 11. (RPC) The following do not incur any criminal
liability:
(5) Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty
or in the lawful exercise of a right or office
(8) Any person who acts in obedience to an order
issued by a superior for some lawful purpose
ASSUMPTION OF RISK (VOLENTI NON FIT INJURA)
General rule:
One who voluntarily assumed the risk of injury from a
known danger is debarred from recovery. A plaintiff
who, by his conduct, brought himself within the
operation of the maxim, “volenti non fit injuria” (that
to which a person assents is not presumed in law an
injury), cannot recover on the basis of the
defendant’s negligence.
One who knows, appreciates, and deliberately
exposes himself to a danger assumes the risk
thereof.
Where the defense of assumption of risk is based on
this principle, it negates negligence or liability on the
part of the defendant, even though his conduct
would otherwise have constituted actionable
negligence, and without regard to the fact that the
plaintiff may have acted with due care.
The defense bars recovery without regard to whether
the plaintiff’s conduct was reasonable, because, in
theory, the plaintiff’s acceptance of the risk has
wiped out the defendant’s duty, and as to the
plaintiff the defendant’s negligence is not a legal
wrong.
Afialda vs. Hisole (1958): It is the caretaker's business
to try to prevent the animal from causing injury or
damage to anyone, including himself. It was a risk he
voluntarily assumed.
Requisites
(1) That the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the
danger;
(2) That he understood and appreciated the risk from
the danger
(3) That he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
Exception:
Ilocos Norte vs. CA (1989): A person is excused from
the force of the rule (volenti non fit injuria), that
when he voluntarily assents to a known danger he
must abide by the consequences, if an emergency is
found to exist or if the life or property of another is in
peril or when he seeks to rescue his endangered
property.
LAST CLEAR CHANCE
The doctrine is also known as:
(1) The doctrine of discovered peril;
(2) The doctrine of supervening negligence;
(3) Humanitarian doctrine
A negligent defendant is liable to a negligent
plaintiff, or even to a plaintiff who has been grossly
negligent in placing himself in peril, if the defendant,
aware of the plaintiff’s peril, had in fact a later
opportunity than the plaintiff to avoid the accident.
Picart vs. Smith (1918): The person who has the last
fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to
do so is chargeable with the consequences, without
reference to the prior negligence of the other party.
Bustamante vs. CA (1991): Negligence of the plaintiff
does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of
the defendant where it appears that the defendant,
by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might
have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff
notwithstanding the plaintiff’s negligence.
Consolidated Bank vs. CA (2003): This is a case of
culpa contractual where neither contributory
negligence nor last clear chance will exonerate
defendant from liability. (NOTE: This means that
Last Clear Chance is not a defense in culpa
contractual.)
PRESCRIPTION – NCC, ART. 1144, 1146, AND 1150
Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought
within ten years from the time the right of action
accrues:
(1) Upon a written contract;
(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment.
Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted
within four years:
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict;
However, when the action arises from or out of any
act, activity, or conduct of any public officer involving
the exercise of powers or authority arising from
PAGE 349
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Martial Law including the arrest, detention and/or
trial of the plaintiff, the same must be brought within
one (1) year.
Art. 1150. The time for prescription for all kinds of
actions, when there is no special provision which
ordains otherwise, shall be counted from the day
they may be brought.
Prescription periods:
(a) years for QD
(b) 1 year for defamation
Kramer vs. CA (1989): It is clear that the prescriptive
period must be counted from the time of the
commission of an act or omission violative of the
right of the plaintiff, which is the time when the
cause of action arises.
Allied Banking vs. CA (1989): Relations Back Doctrine
(footnote 17 of Allied Banking case): That principle of
law by which an act done at one time is considered
by a fiction of law to have been done at some
antecedent period.
WAIVER
Art. 6. Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is
contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or
good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a
right recognized by law.
Art. 1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is
demandable in all obligations. Any waiver of an
action for future fraud is void.
DOUBLE RECOVERY – NCC ART. 2177
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under
the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct
from the civil liability arising from negligence under
the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the
defendant.
Art. 100 (RPC). Civil liability of a person guilty of
felony. - Every person criminally liable for a felony is
also civilly liable.
Art. 2177 distinguishes 2 kinds of negligence:
(1) Civil and
(2) Criminal.
The same negligence causing damage may produce
liability arising from crime, if the act or omission is
punished by the RPC, or may create an action for
quasi-delict under the NCC.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
ACTIONS AVAILABLE TO VICTIMS OF NEGLIGENCE
(1) An action to enforce the civil liability arising from
culpa criminal under Art. 100 of the RPC
(2) An action for quasi-delict under Art. 2176-2194 of
the NCC.
The only limitation is that the injured party cannot
recover twice for the same act or omission.
EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED ON HIS CIVIL
LIABILITY
Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution
is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for
damages for the same act or omission may be
instituted. Such action requires only a
preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the
defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a
bond to answer for damages in case the complaint
should be found to be malicious.
The acquittal of the accused in the criminal case will
not necessarily exonerate him from civil liability.
The judgment of acquittal does not necessarily
extinguish the civil liability of the accused EXCEPT:
(1) When it declares that the facts from which the
civil liability might arise did not exist;
(2) When it declares that the accused is not the
author of the crime;
(3) When the judgment expressly declares that the
liability is only civil in nature;
(4) Where the civil liability is not derived or based on
the criminal act of which the accused was
acquitted;
(5) Where the acquittal is based on reasonable
doubt;
(6) Where the civil action has prescribed.
NO RESERVATION IS REQUIRED IN THE CRIMINAL CASE FOR
THE FILING OF CIVIL ACTION ARISING FROM QUASI-DELICT
Rule 111, Sec. 3, ROC. When civil action may
proceeded independently. — In the cases provided
for in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines, the independent civil action may be
brought by the offended party. It shall proceed
independently of the criminal action and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case,
however, may the offended party recover damages
twice for the same act or omission charged in the
criminal action.
PAGE 350
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Question
As a result of a collision between a taxicab owned by
A and another taxicab owned by B, X, a passenger of
the first taxicab, was seriously injured. X later filed a
criminal action against both drivers.
(a) Is it necessary for X to reserve his right to institute
a civil action for damages against both taxicab
owners before he can file a civil action for damages
against them? Why?
(b) May both taxicab owners raise the defense of due
diligence in the selection and supervision of their
drivers to be absolved from liability for damages to
X? Reason.
Suggested Answer:
It depends. If the separate civil action is to recover
damages arising from the criminal act, reservation is
necessary. If the civil action against the taxicab
owners is based on culpa contractual or on quasi-
delict, there is no need for reservation.
It depends. If the civil action is based on quasi-delict,
the taxicab owners may raise the defense of
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection
and supervision of the driver; if the action against
them is based on culpa contractual or civil liability
arising from a crime, they cannot raise the defense.
Alternative Answer:
No such reservation is necessary. Under Section 1
Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure,
what is “deemed instituted” with the criminal action
is only the action to recover civil liability arising from
the crime or ex delicto. All the other civil actions
under Articles 32, 33, 34, 2176 of the New Civil Code
are no longer “deemed instituted,” and may be filed
separately and prosecuted independently even
without any reservation in the criminal action
(Section 3, Rule 111, 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure). The failure to make a reservation of the
criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a
separate and independent civil action based on
these articles of the New Civil Code (Casupanan vs.
Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, August 26, 2002)
Special Liability in Particular
Cases
In some cases tort law imposes liability on
defendants who are neither negligent nor guilty of
intentional wrongdoing. Known as Strict Liability, or
liability without fault, this branch of torts seeks to
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
regulate those activities that are useful and
necessary but that create abnormally dangerous
risks to society.
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of
foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods
shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any
noxious or harmful substances used, although no
contractual relation exists between them and the
consumers.
Under the foregoing provision, liability is not made to
depend upon fault or negligence of the
manufacturer or processor. The provision likewise
dispensed with any contractual relation between the
manufacturer and the consumer, thereby clearly
implying that liability is imposed by law as a matter
of PUBLIC POLICY.
Proof of negligence under this provision is not
necessary; as such, traditional contract and warranty
defenses as (1) lack of privity; (2) lack of reliance on a
warranty; (3) lack of notice to the defendant of the
breach of warranty; and (4) disclaimer of implied
warranties are INAPPLICABLE.
REQUISITES OF LIABILITY
(1) Defendant is a manufacturer or possessor of
foodstuff, drinks, toilet articles and similar
goods;
(2) He used noxious or harmful substances in the
manufacture or processing of the foodstuff,
drinks or toilet articles consumed or used by the
plaintiff;
(3) Plaintiff’s death or injury was caused by the
product so consumed or used; and
(4) The damages sustained and claimed by the
plaintiff and the amount thereof.
BURDEN OF PROOF
The burden of proof that the product was in a
defective condition at the time it left the hands of the
manufacturer and particular seller is upon the
INJURED PLAINTIFF.
WHO MAY RECOVER
Although the article used the term “consumer”, such
term includes a “user” and “purchaser” of the
injuriously defective food product or toilet article. The
person who may recover NEED NOT BE THE
PURCHASER of the foodstuff or toilet article.
CONSUMER ACT –RA 7394, SECS. 92-107 (CH. 1)
Consumer Act Provisions
Article 4. Definition of Terms.
PAGE 351
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(n) "Consumer" means a natural person who is a
purchaser, lessee, recipient or prospective purchaser,
lessor or recipient of consumer products, services or
credit.
(as) "Manufacturer" means any person who
manufactures, assembles or processes consumer
products, except that if the goods are manufactured,
assembled or processed for another person who
attaches his own brand name to the consumer
products, the latter shall be deemed the
manufacturer. In case of imported products, the
manufacturer's representatives or, in his absence, the
importer, shall be deemed the manufacturer.
Article 92. Exemptions. – If the concerned
department finds that for good or sufficient reasons,
full compliance with the labeling requirements
otherwise applicable under this Act is impracticable
or is not necessary for the adequate protection of
public health and safety, it shall promulgate
regulations exempting such substances from these
requirements to the extent it deems consistent with
the objective of adequately safeguarding public
health and safety, and any hazardous substance
which does not bear a label in accordance with such
regulations shall be deemed mislabeled hazardous
substance.
Article 93. Grounds for Seizure and Condemnation of
Mislabeled Hazardous Substances. –
(a) Any mislabeled hazardous substance when
introduced into commerce or while held for sale
shall be liable to be proceeded against and
condemned upon order of the concerned
department in accordance with existing
procedure for seizure and condemnation of
articles in commerce: Provided, That this Article
shall not apply to a hazardous substance
intended for export to any foreign country if:
(1) it is in a package labeled in accordance with
the specifications of the foreign purchaser;
(2) it is labeled in accordance with the laws of
the foreign country;
(3) it is labeled on the outside of the shipping
package to show that it is intended for
export; and
(4) it is so exported,
(b) any hazardous substance condemned under this
Article shall after entry of order of condemnation
be disposed of by destruction or sale as the
concerned department may direct, and the
proceeds thereof, if sold, less the legal cost and
charges, shall be paid into the treasury of the
Philippines; but such hazardous substance shall
not be sold under any order which is contrary to
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
the provisions of this Act; Provided, That, after
entry of the order and upon the payment of the
costs of such proceedings and the execution of a
good and sufficient bond conditioned that such
hazardous substance shall not be sold or
disposed of contrary to the provisions of this Act,
the concerned department may direct that such
hazardous substance be delivered to or retained
by the owner thereof for destruction or for
alteration to comply with the provisions of this
Act under the supervision of an officer or
employee duly designated by the concerned
department. The expenses for such supervision
shall be paid by the person obtaining release of
the hazardous substance under bond.
(c) all expenses in connection with the destruction
provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
Article and all expenses in connection with the
storage and labor with respect to such
hazardous substance shall be paid by the owner
or consignee, and default in such payment shall
constitute a lien against any importation by such
owner or consignee.
Article 94. Labeling Requirements of Cigarettes. – All
cigarettes for sale or distribution within the country
shall be contained in a package which shall bear the
following statement or its equivalent in Filipino:
"Warning" Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your
Health". Such statement shall be located in
conspicuous place on every cigarette package and
shall appear in conspicuous and legible type in
contrast by typography, layout or color with other
printed matter on the package. Any advertisement of
cigarette shall contain the name warning as
indicated in the label.
Article 95. Penalties. –
(a) Any person who shall violate the provisions of
Title III, Chapter IV of this Act, or its
implementing rules and regulations, except
Articles 81 to 83 of the same Chapter, shall be
subject to a fine of not less than Five hundred
pesos (P500.00) but not more than Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or imprisonment
of not less than three (3) months but not more
than two (2) years or both, at the discretion of
the court: Provided, That, if the consumer
product is one which is not a food, cosmetic,
drug, device or hazardous substance, the
penalty shall be a fine of not less than Two
hundred pesos (P200.00) but not more than
Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) or
imprisonment of not less than one (1) month but
not more than one (1) year or both, at the
discretion of the court.
PAGE 352
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(b) Any person who violates the provisions of Article
81 to 83 for the first time shall be subject to a
fine of not less than Two hundred pesos
(P200.00) but not more than Five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00) or by imprisonment of not
less than one (1) month but not more than six (6)
months or both, at the discretion of the court. A
second conviction under this paragraph shall
also carry with it the penalty of revocation of
business permit and license.
Article 96. Implementing Agency. – The Department
of Trade and Industry shall enforce the provisions of
this Chapter and its implementing rules and
regulations.
Article 97. Liability for the Defective Products. – Any
Filipino or foreign manufacturer, producer, and any
importer, shall be liable for redress, independently of
fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects
resulting from design, manufacture, construction,
assembly and erection, formulas and handling and
making up, presentation or packing of their products,
as well as for the insufficient or inadequate
information on the use and hazards thereof.
A product is defective when it does not offer the
safety rightfully expected of it, taking relevant
circumstances into consideration, including but not
limited to:
(a) presentation of product
(b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it;
(c) the time it was put into circulation.
A product is not considered defective because
another better quality product has been placed in
the market. The manufacturer, builder, producer or
importer shall not be held liable when it evidences:
(a) that it did not place the product on the market;
(b) that although it did place the product on the
market such product has no defect;
(c) that the consumer or a third party is solely at
fault.
Article 98. Liability of Tradesman or Seller. – The
tradesman/seller is likewise liable, pursuant to the
preceding article when:
(a) it is not possible to identify the manufacturer,
builder, producer or importer;
(b) the product is supplied, without clear
identification of the manufacturer, producer,
builder or importer;
(c) he does not adequately preserve perishable
goods. The party making payment to the
damaged party may exercise the right to recover
a part of the whole of the payment made
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
against the other responsible parties, in
accordance with their part or responsibility in the
cause of the damage effected.
Article 99. Liability for Defective Services. – The
service supplier is liable for redress, independently of
fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects
relating to the rendering of the services, as well as
for insufficient or inadequate information on the
fruition and hazards thereof.
The service is defective when it does not provide the
safety the consumer may rightfully expect of it,
taking the relevant circumstances into consideration,
including but not limited to:
(a) the manner in which it is provided;
(b) the result of hazards which may reasonably be
expected of it;
(c) the time when it was provided.
A service is not considered defective because of the
use or introduction of new techniques.
The supplier of the services shall not be held liable
when it is proven:
(a) that there is no defect in the service rendered;
(b) that the consumer or third party is solely at
fault.
Article 100. Liability for Product and Service
Imperfection. – The suppliers of durable or
nondurable consumer products are jointly liable for
imperfections in quality that render the products
unfit or inadequate for consumption for which they
are designed or decrease their value, and for those
resulting from inconsistency with the information
provided on the container, packaging, labels or
publicity messages/advertisement, with due regard
to the variations resulting from their nature, the
consumer being able to demand replacement to the
imperfect parts.
If the imperfection is not corrected within thirty (30)
days, the consumer may alternatively demand at his
option:
a) the replacement of the product by another of
the same kind, in a perfect state of use;
b) the immediate reimbursement of the amount
paid, with monetary updating, without prejudice
to any losses and damages;
c) a proportionate price reduction.
The parties may agree to reduce or increase the term
specified in the immediately preceding paragraph;
but such shall not be less than seven (7) nor more
than one hundred and eighty (180) days.
PAGE 353
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
The consumer may make immediate use of the
alternatives under the second paragraph of this
Article when by virtue of the extent of the
imperfection, the replacement of the imperfect parts
may jeopardize the product quality or characteristics,
thus decreasing its value.
If the consumer opts for the alternative under sub-
paragraph (a) of the second paragraph of this Article,
and replacement of the product is not possible, it
may be replaced by another of a different kind, mark
or model: Provided, That any difference in price may
result thereof shall be supplemented or reimbursed
by the party which caused the damage, without
prejudice to the provisions of the second, third and
fourth paragraphs of this Article.
Article 101. Liability for Product Quantity
Imperfection. – Suppliers are jointly liable for
imperfections in the quantity of the product when, in
due regard for variations inherent thereto, their net
content is less than that indicated on the container,
packaging, labeling or advertisement, the consumer
having powers to demand, alternatively, at his own
option:
a) the proportionate price
b) the supplementing of weight or measure
differential;
c) the replacement of the product by another of
the same kind, mark or model, without said
imperfections;
d) the immediate reimbursement of the amount
paid, with monetary updating without prejudice
to losses and damages if any.
The provisions of the fifth paragraph of Article 99
shall apply to this Article.
The immediate supplier shall be liable if the
instrument used for weighing or measuring is not
gauged in accordance with official standards.
Article 102. Liability for Service Quality Imperfection.
– The service supplier is liable for any quality
imperfections that render the services improper for
consumption or decrease their value, and for those
resulting from inconsistency with the information
contained in the offer or advertisement, the
consumer being entitled to demand alternatively at
his option:
a) the performance of the services, without any
additional cost and when applicable;
b) the immediate reimbursement of the amount
paid, with monetary updating without prejudice
to losses and damages, if any;
c) a proportionate price reduction.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Reperformance of services may be entrusted to duly
qualified third parties, at the supplier's risk and cost.
Improper services are those which prove to be
inadequate for purposes reasonably expected of
them and those that fail to meet the provisions of
this Act regulating service rendering.
Article 103. Repair Service Obligation. – When
services are provided for the repair of any product,
the supplier shall be considered implicitly bound to
use adequate, new, original replacement parts, or
those that maintain the manufacturer's technical
specifications unless, otherwise authorized, as
regards to the latter by the consumer.
Article 104. Ignorance of Quality Imperfection. – The
supplier's ignorance of the quality imperfections due
to inadequacy of the products and services does not
exempt him from any liability.
Article 105. Legal Guarantee of Adequacy. – The
legal guarantee of product or service adequacy does
not require an express instrument or contractual
exoneration of the supplier being forbidden.
Article 106. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation. –
The stipulation in a contract of a clause preventing,
exonerating or reducing the obligation to indemnify
for damages effected, as provided for in this and in
the preceding Articles, is hereby prohibited, if there is
more than one person responsible for the cause of
the damage, they shall be jointly liable for the
redress established in the pertinent provisions of this
Act. However, if the damage is caused by a
component or part incorporated in the product or
service, its manufacturer, builder or importer and the
person who incorporated the component or part are
jointly liable.
Article 107. Penalties. – Any person who shall violate
any provision of this Chapter or its implementing
rules and regulations with respect to any consumer
product which is not food, cosmetic, or hazardous
substance shall upon conviction, be subject to a fine
of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00)
and by imprisonment of not more than one (1) year or
both upon the discretion of the court.
In case of juridical persons, the penalty shall be
imposed upon its president, manager or head. If the
offender is an alien, he shall, after payment of fine
and service of sentence, be deported without further
deportation proceedings.
TORTS & DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
NUISANCE
Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission,
establishment, business, condition of property, or
anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of
others; or
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality;
or
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of
any public highway or street, or any body of
water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.
Art. 696. Every successive owner or possessor of
property who fails or refuses to abate a nuisance in
that property started by a former owner or possessor
is liable therefor in the same manner as the one who
created it.
Art. 697. The abatement of a nuisance does not
preclude the right of any person injured to recover
damages for its past existence.
Art. 698. Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance,
whether public or private.
LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE VS. LIABILITY FOR NUISANCE
Negligence Nuisance
Basis
Liability is based on lack Liability attaches
of proper care and regardless of the skill
diligence exercised to avoid the
injury
Condition of the Act
Act complained of is There is continuing harm
already done which being suffered by the
caused injury to the aggrieved party by the
plaintiff maintenance of the act
or thing which
constitutes the nuisance
Remedy
Action for damages Abatement
NUISANCE PER SE
It is recognized as a nuisance under any and all
circumstances because it constitutes a direct menace
to public health and safety and, for that reason, may
be abated summarily under the undefined law of
necessity.
To become a nuisance per se, the thing must, of
itself, because of its inherent qualities, without
complement, be productive of injury, or, by reason of
PAGE 354
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
the matter of its use or exposure, threaten or be
dangerous to life or property.
NUISANCE PER ACCIDENCE
It becomes a nuisance depending upon certain
conditions and circumstances, and its existence
being a question of fact, it cannot be abated without
due hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to
decide whether such a thing does in law constitute a
nuisance.
PUBLIC NUISANCE
Art. 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A public
nuisance affects a community or neighborhood or
any considerable number of persons, although the
extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon
individuals may be unequal. A private nuisance is
one that is not included in the foregoing definition.
A public nuisance is the doing of or the failure to do
something that injuriously affects safety, health, or
morals of the public, or works some substantial
annoyance, inconvenience or injury to the public. It
causes hurt, inconvenience, or damage to the public
generally, or such part of the public as necessarily
comes in contact with it in the exercise of a public or
common right.
Art. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:
(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local
ordinance: or
(2) A civil action; or
(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
Art. 700. The district health officer shall take care
that one or all of the remedies against a public
nuisance are availed of.
Art. 701. If a civil action is brought by reason of the
maintenance of a public nuisance, such action shall
be commenced by the city or municipal mayor.
Art. 702. The district health officer shall determine
whether or not abatement, without judicial
proceedings, is the best remedy against a public
nuisance.
Art. 703. A private person may file an action on
account of a public nuisance, if it is specially injurious
to himself.
Art. 704. Any private person may abate a public
nuisance which is specially injurious to him by
removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing
which constitutes the same, without committing a
PAGE 355
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But
it is necessary:
(1) That demand be first made upon the owner or
possessor of the property to abate the nuisance;
(2) That such demand has been rejected;
(3) That the abatement be approved by the district
health officer and executed with the assistance
of the local police; and
(4) That the value of the destruction does not
exceed three thousand pesos.
PRIVATE NUISANCE
It is one which violates only private rights and
produces damage to but one or a few persons, and
cannot be said to be public.
Art. 705. The remedies against a private nuisance
are:
(1) A civil action; or
(2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
Art. 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance
may abate it by removing, or if necessary, by
destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance,
without committing a breach of the peace or doing
unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensable that
the procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public
nuisance by a private person be followed.
Art. 707. A private person or a public official
extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable for
damages:
(1) If he causes unnecessary injury; or
(2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the
courts to be not a real nuisance.
ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE
Contributory negligence of a minor does not bar
recovery, where his immaturity and natural curiosity
impelled him to act to his injury; but discretion
shown by the child is the decisive factor.
Del Rosario vs. Manila Electric Co. (1932): It is doubtful
whether contributory negligence can properly be
imputed to the deceased, owing to his immature
years and the natural curiosity which a child would
feel to do something out of the ordinary, and the
mere fact that the deceased ignored the caution of a
companion of the age of 8 years does not, in our
opinion, alter the case.
Hidalgo Enterprises vs. Balandan (1952): One who
maintains on his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely
to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise
ordinary care to prevent children from playing
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of
tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child
is technically a trespasser in the premises.
The principle reason for the doctrine is that the
condition or appliance in question although its
danger is apparent to those of age, is so enticing or
alluring to children of tender years as to induce them
to approach, get on or use it, and this attractiveness
is an implied invitation to such children
VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
VIOLATION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES
Art 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs,
defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or
impairs any of the following rights and liberties of
another person shall be liable to the latter for
damages:
(1) Freedom of religion
(2) Freedom of speech
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a
periodical publication
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention
(5) Freedom of suffrage
(6) The right against deprivation of property without
due process of law
(7) The right to just compensation when property is
taken for public use
(8) The right to equal protection of the laws
(9) The right to be secure in one’s person, house,
papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same
(11) The right to privacy of communication and
correspondence
(12) The right to become a member of associations
and societies for purposes not contrary to law
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly
and petition the government for redress of
grievances
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in
any form
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself
and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
the cause of the accusation against him, to have
a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses
face to face, to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses on is behalf;
(17) Freedom form being compelled to be a witness
against one’s self, or from being forced to
confess his guilt, or from being induced by a
promise of immunity or reward to make such
confession, except when the person confessing
becomes a State witness.
PAGE 356
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and
unusual punishment, unless the same is
imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute
which has not been judicially declared
unconstitutional;
(19) Freedom of access to the courts
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether
or not the defendant’s act or omission constitutes a
criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to
commence an entirely separate and distinct civil
action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of any criminal
prosecution (if the latter be instituted) and may be
proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages.
Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable
from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a
violation of the Penal code or any other penal
statute.
Aberca, et al. vs. Ver, et al. (1988): It is obvious that
the purpose of the above codal provision (Art. 32) is
to provide a sanction to the deeply cherished rights
and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. Its
message is clear; no man may seek to violate those
sacred rights with impunity. In times of great
upheaval or of social and political stress, when the
temptation is strongest to yield — borrowing the
words of Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee — to the
law of force rather than the force of law, it is
necessary to remind ourselves that certain basic
rights and liberties are immutable and cannot be
sacrificed to the transient needs or imperious
demands of the ruling power. The rule of law must
prevail, or else liberty will perish.
VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss
because a public servant or employee refuses or
neglects, without just cause, to perform his official
duty may file an action for damages and other relief
against the latter, without prejudice to any
disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.
Art. 32, supra.
Dereliction of Duty
Amaro vs. Samanguit: Requisites:
(1) Defendant is a public officer charged with a
performance of a duty in favor of the plaintiff;
(2) He refused or neglected without just cause to
perform the duty;
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
(3) Plaintiff sustained material or moral loss as a
consequence of such non-performance;
(4) The amount of such damages, if material.
Coverage
Applies only to acts of nonfeasance or the
nonperformance of some acts which a person is
obliged or has responsibility to perform.
The duty of the public servant must be ministerial in
character. If the duty is discretionary, he is not liable
unless he acted in a notoriously arbitrary manner.
Defense of Good Faith is not available
The reason of its unavailability is that an officer is
under constant obligation to discharge the duties of
his office, and it is not necessary to show that his
failure to act was due to malice or willfulness.
Art. 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 officer shall be primarily liable for damages,
and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily
responsible therefor. The civil action herein
recognized shall be independent of any criminal
proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall
suffice to support such action.
Art. 34 covers a situation where:
(a) There is danger to the life or property of person;
(b) A member of a city or municipal police force who
is present in the scene refused or failed to render
aid or protection to the person; and
(c) Damages are caused wither to the person and/or
property of the victim.
Nature of liability
(1) Of the police officer – Primary
(2) City or municipality - Susidiary
The defense of having observed the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent the damage is not
available to the city/municipality.
PROVINCES, CITIES, AND MUNICIPALITIES
Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be
liable for damages for the death of, or injuries
suffered by, any person by reason of the defective
condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings,
and other public works under their control or
supervision.
Ownership of Roads, etc. is not required
City of Manila vs. Teotico (1968): It is not necessary for
the liability therein established to attach that the
PAGE 357
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
defective roads or streets belong to the province, city
or municipality. What said article requires is that the
province, city or municipality have either "control or
supervision" over said street or road.
OWNERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is
solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was
in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due
diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably
presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been
found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the next preceding
two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the
provisions of article 2180 are applicable.
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is
presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has
been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic regulation.
Art. 2186. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file
with the proper government office a bond executed
by a government-controlled corporation or office, to
answer for damages to third persons. The amount of
the bond and other terms shall be fixed by the
competent public official.
The owner is SOLIDARILY liable with the driver for
motor vehicle mishaps when:
(1) The owner was IN the vehicle at the time, AND
(2) The owner could have, by the use of due
diligence, prevented the misfortune.
Owner of the vehicle
“Owner” shall mean the actual legal owner of the
motor vehicle, in whose name such vehicle is duly
registered with the LTO.
Registration of motor vehicles is required not
because it is the operative act which transfers
ownership in vehicles, but because it is the means by
which the owner can be identified so that if any
accident occurs, or damage or injury is caused in the
operation of the vehicle, responsibility can be fixed.
As held in Vargas vs. Langcay, “the registered
owner/operator of a passenger vehicle is jointly and
severally liable with the driver for damages incurred
by passengers or third persons as a consequence of
injuries or death sustained in the operation of said
vehicles. Regardless of who the actual owner of a
vehicle is, the operator of record continues to be the
operator of the vehicle as regards the public and
 UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
third persons and as such is directly and primarily
responsible for the consequences incident to its
operation, so that in contemplation of law, such
owner/operator of record is the employer of the
driver, the actual operator and employer being
considered merely as his agent.”
The registered owner of a motor vehicle is primarily
liable for the damage or injury caused to another,
but he has a right to be indemnified by the real
owner of the amount he was required to pay
(Tamayo vs, Aquino) This rule applies both to private
and to common carriers with respect to their
passengers.
Note:
If the owner was NOT inside the vehicle, Art. 2180
applies.
The presumption is AGAINST the owner of the motor
vehicle. He has the burden of proving due diligence.
Thus, once a driver is proven negligent in causing
damage, the law presumes the vehicle owner equally
negligent and imposes upon the latter the burden of
proving proper selection of employee as a defense.
Summary:
Owner PRESENT in the Owner NOT PRESENT in
Vehicle the Vehicle
Owner is liable if he could Owner may be held
have prevented the liable under Art. 2180,
mishap by the exercise of par. 5.
due diligence.
Caedo vs. Yu Khe Tai (1968): Car owners are not held
to a uniform and inflexible standard of diligence as
are professional drivers. In many cases they refrain
from driving their own cars and instead hire other
persons to drive for them precisely because they are
not trained or endowed with sufficient discernment
to know the rules of traffic or to appreciate the
relative dangers posed by the different situations
that are continually encountered on the road. What
would be a negligent omission under aforesaid
Article on the part of a car owner who is in the prime
of age and knows how to handle a motor vehicle is
not necessarily so on the part, say, of an old and
infirm person who is not similarly equipped.
The law does not require that a person must possess
a certain measure of skill or proficiency either in the
mechanics of driving or in the observance of traffic
rules before he may own a motor vehicle. The test of
his negligence, within the meaning of Article 2184, is
his omission to do that which the evidence of his own
senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the
PAGE 358
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
accident. And as far as perception is concerned,
absent a minimum level imposed by law, a maneuver
that appears to be fraught with danger to one
passenger may appear to be entirely safe and
commonplace to another. Were the law to require a
uniform standard of perceptiveness, employment of
professional drivers by car owners who, by their very
inadequacies, have real need of drivers' services,
would be effectively proscribed.
Duavit vs. CA (1989): An owner of a vehicle cannot be
held liable for an accident involving the said vehicle if
the same was driven without his consent or
knowledge and by a person not employed by him.
PROPRIETOR OF BUILDING OR STRUCTURE
Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is
responsible for the damages resulting from its total
or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of
necessary repairs.
Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for
damages caused:
(1) By the explosion of machinery which has not
been taken care of with due diligence, and the
inflammation of explosive substances which
have not been kept in a safe and adequate
place;
(2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to
persons or property;
(3) By the falling of trees situated at or near
highways or lanes, if not caused by force
majeure;
(4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or
deposits of infectious matter, constructed
without precautions suitable to the place.
Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding
articles should be the result of any defect in the
construction mentioned in article 1723, the third
person suffering damages may proceed only against
the engineer or architect or contractor in accordance
with said article, within the period therein fixed.
Ownership of a building imposes on the proprietor
thereof the duty to maintain it in good condition at
all times to the end that it may not collapse either
totally or partially as to cause damage or injury to
another’s person or property.
This duty obtains whether the building is leased or
held in usufruct.
Considering, however, that the lessee or usufructuary
has direct and immediate control of the building, the
law imposes on him the duty to notify the proprietor
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES
of such urgent or extra-ordinary repairs AND where
the proprietor’s failure to make the necessary repairs
was due to the failure of the lessee or usufructuary to
notify him, the proprietor is entitled to
indemnification for damages he may have been
required to pay to the parties.
Gotesco Investment Corp. vs. Chatto (1992): The
owner or proprietor of a place of public amusement
impliedly warrants that the premises, appliances and
amusement devices are safe for the purpose for
which they are designed, the doctrine being subject
to no other exception or qualification than that he
does not contract against unknown defects not
discoverable by ordinary or reasonable means.
HEAD OF FAMILY
Art 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building
or a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused
by things thrown or falling from the same.
Purpose of the law
To relieve the injured party of the difficulty of
determining and proving who threw the thing or
what caused it to fall, or that either was due to the
fault or negligence of any particular individual.
Dingcong vs. Kanaan (1941): Lessee is considered as
the head of the family. It is enough that he lives in
and has control over it.
Strict Liability
POSSESSOR AND USER OF AN ANIMAL
Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever
may make use of the same is responsible for the
damage which it may cause, although it may escape
or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case
the damage should come from force majeure or from
the fault of the person who has suffered damage.
APPLICABILITY OF PROVISION
Since the law makes no distinction, this is applicable
to both wild (in case the wild animal is kept) and
domestic animals. It is enough that defendant is the
possessor, owner, or user of the animal at the time it
caused the damage complained of, to hold him
liable therefor.
BASIS
Vestil vs. IAC (1989): Possession of the animal, not
ownership, is determinative of liability under Art.
2183. The obligation imposed by said article is not
PAGE 359
BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of
vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal
causing damage. It is based on natural equity and on
the principle of social interest that he who possesses
animals for his utility, pleasure, or service, must
answer for any damage which such animal may
cause.
POSSIBLE DEFENSES AGAINST THIS LIABILITY
(1) Force Majeure
(2) Fault of person suffering damage
(3) Act of third persons
SCOPE OF PROVISION
Contention that the defendant could not be
expected to exercise remote control of the animal is
not acceptable. In fact, Art. 2183 holds the possessor
liable even if the animal should “escape or be lost”
and so be removed from his control.
It is likewise immaterial that the animal was tame
and was merely provoked by the victim. The law does
not speak only of vicious animals but covers even
tame ones as long as they cause injury.
NUISANCE
Sangco: A person who creates or maintains a
nuisance is liable for the resulting injury to others
regardless of the degree of care or skill exercised to
avoid the injury. The creation or maintenance of a
nuisance is a violation of an absolute duty.
Nuisance is a condition and not an act or failure to
act, so that if a wrongful condition exists, the person
responsible for its existence is responsible for the
resulting damages to others.
CLASSES
(1) Nuisance per se; Nuisance per accidence
(2) Public nuisance; private nuisance
Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. vs. Municipal Council
(1913): A nuisance is, according to Blackstone, "Any
thing that worketh hurt, inconvenience, or damages."
They arise from pursuing particular trades or
industries in populous neighborhoods; from acts of
public indecency, keeping disorderly houses, and
houses of ill fame, gambling houses, etc. Nuisances
have been divided into two classes: Nuisances per se,
and nuisances per accidens. To the first belong those
which are unquestionably and under all
circumstances nuisances, such as gambling houses,
houses of ill fame, etc. The number of such
nuisances is necessarily limited, and by far the
greater number of nuisances are such because of
particular facts and circumstances surrounding the
otherwise harmless cause of the nuisance. For this
UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

reason, it will readily be seen that whether a There can be no doubt that commercial and
particular thing is a nuisance is generally a question industrial activities which are lawful in themselves
of fact, to be determined in the first instance before may become nuisances if they are so offensive to the
the term nuisance can be applied to it. senses that they render the enjoyment of life and
property uncomfortable. It is no defense that skill
Salao and Lucas vs. Santos (1939): Nuisances are of and care have been exercised and the most improved
two kinds: nuisance per se and nuisance per methods and appliances employed to prevent such
accidens. The first is recognized as a nuisance under result.
any and all circumstances because it constitutes a
direct menace to public health or safety and, for that PRODUCTS LIABILITY (SUPRA)
reason, may ‘be abated summarily under the Art 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs,
undefined law of necessity. The second is that which drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable
depends upon certain conditions and circumstances, for death or injuries caused by any noxious or
and its existence being a question of fact, it cannot harmful substances used, although no contractual
be abated without due hearing thereon in a tribunal relation exists between them and the consumers.
authorized to decide whether such a thing does in
law constitute a nuisance. CONSUMER ACT
Consumer Act Provisions (supra)
EASEMENT AGAINST NUISANCE
Art. 682. Every building or piece of land is subject to Coca-Cola v. CA (1993): While it may be true that the
the easement which prohibits the proprietor or pre-existing contract between the parties may, as a
possessor from committing nuisance through noise, general rule, bar the applicability of the law on
jarring, offensive odor, smoke, heat, dust, water, quasi-delict, the liability may itself be deemed to
glare and other causes. arise from quasi-delict if the act which breaks the
contract is also a quasi-delict.
Art. 683. Subject to zoning, health, police and other
laws and regulations, factories and shops may be Summary:
maintained provided the least possible annoyance is Person Strictly For What Defenses or
caused to the neighborhood. Liable Exceptions
Possessor of an For the damage Force majeure
The provisions impose a prohibition upon owners of animal or it may cause Fault of the
buildings of land from committing therein a nuisance whoever makes person who
or using such buildings or lands in a manner as will use of them suffered
constitute a nuisance. It is based on the maxim sic even if the damage
utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (so use your own as animal is lost or
not to injure another’s property). escaped
Owner of Motor Motor vehicle Solidary liability
Velasco vs. Manila Electric Co. (1971): The general rule Vehicle mishaps only if the
is that everyone is bound to bear the habitual or owner was in
customary inconveniences that result from the the vehicle and
proximity of others, and so long as this level is not if he could have
surpassed, he may not complain against them. But if prevented it
the prejudice exceeds the inconveniences that such thru due
proximity habitually brings, the neighbor who causes diligence
such disturbances is held responsible for the If not in vehicle
resulting damage, being guilty of causing nuisance. 2180
Manufacturers Death and Absence on
While no previous adjudications on the specific issue and Processors injuries caused contractual
have been made in the Philippines, our law of of foodstuffs, by any noxious relation NOT a
nuisances is of American origin, and a review of drinks, toilet or harmful defense
authorities clearly indicates the rule to be that the articles and substances used
causing or maintenance of disturbing noise or sound similar goods
may constitute an actionable nuisance. (FDTAS)
Defendant in Death or injury possession or
possession of results from use thereof is
dangerous such possession indispensable in

PAGE 360
 UP COLLEGE OF LAW TORTS & DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

Person Strictly For What Defenses or Person Strictly For What Defenses or
Liable Exceptions Liable Exceptions
weapons/ his occupation without
substances or business precautions
such as firearms suitable to the
and poison place
Provinces, Cities The death or Public works Engineer, if damage of
and injuries suffered must be under Architect or building or
Municipalities by any person by their Contractor structure is
reason of the supervisions caused by defect
defective in construction
condition of which happens
roads, streets, within 15 years
bridges, public from
buildings, and construction;
other public action must be
works brought within
Proprietor ofa) Total or partial Responsibility 10 years from
building/ collapse of for collapse collapse
structure building or should be due Head of the Liable for
structure if due to the lack of Family that lives damages
to lack of necessary in a building or caused by
necessary repair repairs any part thereof things thrown or
s falling from the
b) Explosion of same
machinery
which has not
been taken
cared of with
due diligence,
and the
inflammation of
explosive
substances
which have not
been kept in a
safe and
adequate place
c) By excessive
smoke, which
may be harmful
to persons or
property
d) By falling of
trees situated at
or near
highways or
lanes, if not
caused by force
majeure
e) By emanations
from tubes,
canals, sewers
or deposits of
infectious
matter,
constructed

PAGE 361
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
Damages
DEFINITION
People vs. Ballesteros: Damages may be defined as
the pecuniary compensation, recompense, or
satisfaction for an injury sustained, or as otherwise
expressed, the pecuniary consequences which the
law imposes for the breach of some duty or the
violation of some right.
DAMAGES VS. INJURY
Custodio v. CA (1996): Injury is the illegal invasion of
a legal right. Damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which
results from the injury. Damages are the recompense
or compensation awarded for the damage suffered.
Ocena vs. Icamina: The obligation to repair the
damages exists whether done intentionally or
negligently and whether or not punishable by law.
ELEMENTS FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES
(1) Right of action
(2) For a wrong inflicted by the defendant
(3) Damage resulting to the plaintiff
CLASSIFICATION
Art. 2197. Damages may be:
(1) Actual or compensatory;
(2) Moral;
(3) Nominal;
(4) Temperate or moderate;
(5) Liquidated; or
(6) Exemplary or corrective.
ACCORDING TO PURPOSE
(1) For adequate reparation of the injury
a) Compensatory (reparation of pecuniary
losses)
b) Moral (reparation for non-pecuniary losses:
injury to feelings; physical suffering, etc.)
(2) For vindication of the right violated: Nominal
(3) For less than adequate reparation: Moderate
(4) For deterring future violations: Exemplary or
corrective
ACCORDING TO MANNER OF DETERMINATION
(1) Conventional (or liquidated)
(2) Non-conventional, which may either be:
(a) Statutory (fixed by law, as in moratory
interest)
(b) Judicial (determined by the courts)
SPECIAL AND ORDINARY
General damages
Those which are the natural and necessary result of
the wrongful act or omission asserted as the
PAGE 362
DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
foundation of liability, and include those which
follow as a conclusion of law from the statement of
the facts of the injury.
Special damages
Damages that arise from the special circumstance of
the case, which, if properly pleaded, may be added to
the general damages which the law presumes or
implies from the mere invasion of the plaintiff’s
rights. Special damages are the natural, but NOT the
necessary result of an injury. These are not implied
by law.
Actual and Compensatory
Damages
Compensatory damages are damages in satisfaction
of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained. The
phrase “actual damages” is sometimes used as
synonymous with compensatory damages.
REQUISITES
Asilio, Jr. v. People and Sps. Bombasi (2011): To seek
recovery of actual damages, it is necessary to prove
the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree
of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on
the best evidence obtainable.
WHEN IS A PERSON ENTITLED?
(1) When there is a pecuniary loss suffered by him;
(2) When he has alleged and prayed for such relief
(Manchester Dev’t Corp vs. CA);
(3) When he has duly proved it;
(4) When provided by law or by stipulation.
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary for: moral,
nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages.
The assessment of such damages is discretionary
upon the court, except liquidated ones. (Art. 2216)
ALLEGED AND PROVED WITH CERTAINTY
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation,
one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for
such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly
proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual
or compensatory damages.
THE DAMAGES MUST BE PROVEN BY
COMPETENT EVIDENCE (ADMISSIBLE OR
PROBATIVE)
Integrated Packaging Corp. vs. CA; Fuentes vs. CA: It
is necessary to prove with a reasonable degree of
certainty, premised upon competent proof and on
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
the best evidence obtainable by the injured party, the
actual amount of loss.
Damages must be proved and cannot be presumed.
It must be established by clear evidence.
Valencia vs. Tantoco (1956): Damages must be
proved with reasonable accuracy, even when not
denied.
DEGREE OF CERTAINTY REQUIRED AS TO: FACT,
CAUSE AND AMOUNT OF DAMAGES
Damages are not rendered uncertain just because
they cannot be calculated with absolute exactness or
because the consequences of the wrong are not
precisely definite in pecuniary amount.
The principle which will disallow recovery of
damages when their existence rests solely on
speculation applies both to the fact and cause of
damages.
(1) The requirement of certainty does not prevent the
drawing of reasonable inferences from the fact
and circumstance in evidence.
(2) Events which occur after the wrong complained
of may serve to render the damage sufficiently
certain.
(3) The damages must be susceptible of
ascertainment in some manner other than by
mere speculation, conjecture or surmise and by
reference to some fairly definite standard, such as
market value, established experience or direct
inference from known circumstances.
Talisay-Silay vs. Associacion: Where, however, it is
reasonably certain that injury consisting of failure to
realize otherwise reasonably expected profits had
been incurred, uncertainty as to the precise amount
of such unrealized profits will not prevent recovery or
the award of damages.
NOT SPECULATIVE
Actual damages to be compensable must be proved
by clear evidence, a court cannot rely on speculation,
conjectures or guesswork as to the fact and amount
of damages, but must depend on actual proof that
damages has been suffered and on evidence of the
actual amount.
COMPONENTS
Actual damage covers the following:
(1) Value of loss; unrealized profit
(2) Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation
(3) Interest
PAGE 363
DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
VALUE OF LOSS; UNREALIZED PROFIT
Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall
comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered,
but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to
obtain.
In other words, indemnification for damages is not
limited to damnum emergens (actual loss) but
extends to lucrum cessans (a cession of gain or
amount of profit lost).
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPENSES OF
LITIGATION
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's
fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial
costs, cannot be recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has
compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
persons or to incur expenses to protect his
interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution
against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or
proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident
bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's
plainly valid, just and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household
helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's
compensation and employer's liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability
arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just
and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses
of litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation must be reasonable.
General Rule
Attorney’s fees and costs of litigation are recoverable
IF stipulated.
Exceptions
If there is no stipulation, they are recoverable only in
the following cases:
(1) By reason of malice or bad faith
(a) When exemplary damages are awarded
(b) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action
(c) Where defendant acted in gross and evident
bad faith
UP COLLEGE OF LAW DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

(d) When at least double judicial costs are No interest may be recovered on unliquidated (not
awarded fixed in amount) claims or damages, except when
(2) By reason of plaintiff’s indigence in the demand can be established with reasonable
(a) Actions for legal support certainty at the Court’s discretion.
(b) Actions for recovery of wages of laborers,
etc. COMPOUNDING OF INTEREST
(c) Actions for workmen’s compensation Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it
(3) By reason of crimes in is judicially demanded, although the obligation may
(a) Criminal cases of malicious prosecution be silent on the point.
(b) Separate actions to recover civil liability
arising from crime Note that interest due can earn only at 6%, whether
(4) By reason of equity the rate of interest of the principal is greater than
(a) Where the defendant’s act compelled 6%.
plaintiff to litigate with third persons
(b) Where the Court deems it just and equitable DETERMINATION OF LEGAL INTEREST
(1) When an obligation, regardless of its source (i.e.,
Note: law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts or quasi-
In all cases, attorney’s fees and costs of litigation delicts) is breached, the contravenor can be held
must be reasonable. liable for damages.
(2) With regard particularly to an AWARD OF
Even if expressly stipulated, attorney’s fees are INTEREST in the concept of actual and
subject to control by the Courts. compensatory damages, the RATE of interest, as
well as the ACCRUAL thereof, is imposed, as
INTEREST follows (Eastern Shipping Lines vs. CA, 1994):
Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of
a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the
indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to Base Rate Accrual
the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest
agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the (a) When the (a) That which to be computed
legal interest, which is six per cent per annum. obligation is may have from default, i.e.,
breached, and it been from JUDICIAL or
consists in the stipulated in EXTRAJUDICIAL
Art. 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, PAYMENT OF A writing. demand under
be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of SUM OF b) In the and subject to the
contract. MONEY, i.e., a absence of provisions of
loan or stipulation, Article 1169 of the
Art. 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a forbearance of the rate of Civil Code.
part of the damages may, in a proper case, be money, the interest shall
adjudicated in the discretion of the court. interest due be 12% per
should be annum (legal
Art. 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from interest)
the time it is judicially demanded, although the (b) Furthermore, legal interest from the time it is
obligation may be silent upon this point. the INTEREST JUDICIALLY
DUE shall itself demanded.
earn
Art. 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon (c) When an at the rate of If claim or
unliquidated claims or damages, except when the obligation, NOT 6% per damages are
demand can be established with reasonable constituting a annum. LIQUIDATED,
certainty. loan or from default, i.e.,
forbearance of from judicial or
INTEREST ACCRUES WHEN: money, is extrajudicial
(1) The obligation consists in the payment of a sum breached, an demand. (Art.
of money interest on the 1169, Civil Code)
(2) Debtor incurs in delay AMOUNT OF
(3) There being no stipulation to the contrary DAMAGES If UNLIQUIDATED,
awarded may from the time the
be imposed at demand can be

PAGE 364
 UP COLLEGE OF LAW DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

IN CONTRACTS AND QUASI-CONTRACTS

Base Rate Accrual Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the
damages for which the obligor who acted in good
the discretion of established with faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and
the court. reasonable probable consequences of the breach of the
certainty. Hence, obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or
The actual base the interest shall could have reasonably foreseen at the time the
for the begin to run only obligation was constituted.
computation of FROM THE DATE
legal interest THE JUDGMENT In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude,
shall be on the OF THE COURT IS the obligor shall be responsible for all damages
amount finally MADE (at which which may be reasonably attributed to the non-
adjudged. time the performance of the obligation.
quantification of
damages may be
deemed to have Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory
been reasonably negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages
ascertained). that he may recover.
(d) When the the rate of from FINALITY
JUDGMENT of legal interest, UNTIL ITS Art. 2215. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-
the court whether the SATISFACTION, delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the
awarding a sum case falls this period being damages under circumstances other than the case
of money under a,b, or deemed to be an referred to in the preceding article, as in the
becomes final c, above, shall equivalent to a following instances:
and executory, be 12% per forbearance of (1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the
annum credit. terms of the contract;
(2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a
START OF DELAY result of the contract;
(1) Extrajudicial: demand letter (3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be
(2) Judicial: Filing of complaint awarded, that the defendant acted upon the
(3) Award advice of counsel;
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any event;
EXTENT OR SCOPE OF ACTUAL DAMAGES (5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant
Art. Liability extends Note: has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or
2201 to those: Liability injury.
(1) natural and extends to
probable all damages (a) The obligor IN GOOD FAITH is liable for such
consequences which may damages
of the breach be (1) That are the natural and probable
(2) those that reasonably consequences of the breach of the
have been attributed to obligation; and
Contracts
foreseen the non- (2) That the parties have foreseen (or could
and quasi
(3) those that performance have reasonably foreseen) such damages at
contracts
could have of the the time the obligation was constituted
been obligation in
reasonably case of “Natural and probable” consequence
foreseen fraud, bad requires:
Provided: obligor faith, malice (1) Causality: That the damage would not
in good faith or wanton have resulted without fault or
attitude negligence of the defendant (but for
(FBM-WA). rule)
Art. Liability extends Note: (2) Adequacy: That the fault of the obligor
2202 Crimes to all damages WON would normally (ordinarily) result in the
and which are the damage is damage suffered by the obligee
quasi- natural and foreseen is
delicts probable irrelevant (b) In case of FRAUD, BAD FAITH, MALICE OR
consequence WANT OF ATTITUDE, the obligor answers for

PAGE 365
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
(1) All damages which may be reasonably
attributed to the non-performance of the
obligation, whether foreseen or not
(2) Exemplary or corrective damages
Note:
Interest may be allowed on damages awarded, in the
discretion of the court.
Daywalt vs. Recoletos et al.: The damages
recoverable upon breach of contract are, primarily,
the ordinary, natural and in a sense the necessary
damages resulting from the breach. Other damages,
known as special damages, are recoverable where it
appears that the particular conditions which made
such damages a probable consequence of the
breach were known to the delinquent party at the
time the contract was made.
IN CRIMES AND QUASI-DELICTS
Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant
shall be liable for all damages which are the natural
and probable consequences of the act or omission
complained of. It is not necessary that such damages
have been foreseen or could have reasonably been
foreseen by the defendant.
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused
by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three
thousand pesos, even though there may have been
mitigating circumstances. In addition:
(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 every case be assessed
and awarded by the court, unless the deceased
on account of permanent physical disability not
caused by the defendant, had no earning
capacity at the time of his death;
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support
according to the provisions of article 291, the
recipient who is not an heir called to the
decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or
intestate succession, may demand support from
the person causing the death, for a period not
exceeding five years, the exact duration to be
fixed by the court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate
descendants and ascendants of the deceased
may demand moral damages for mental
anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
Defendant is liable for all damages which are the
natural and probable consequences of the act or
omission complained of; it is not necessary that such
PAGE 366
DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
damages were foreseen, or reasonably foreseeable
by the defendant.
Algarra vs. Sandejas: Actual damages for a negligent
act or omission are confined to those which "were
foreseen or might have been foreseen," or those
which were "the natural and probable
consequences" or "the direct and immediate
consequences" of the act or omission.
Note:
Damages are to be increased or decreased (in case of
crimes only) according to aggravating or mitigating
circumstances present.
Interest, as part of damages, may be adjudicated in a
proper case, in the Court’s discretion.
Contributory negligence of the plaintiff, in case of
quasi-delicts, shall reduce the damages to which he
may be entitled.
Note:
In crimes, no mitigation for contributory negligence.
Moral Damages
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of
pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant's wrongful act for omission.
Art. 2218. In the adjudication of moral damages, the
sentimental value of property, real or personal, may
be considered.
Visayan Sawmill vs. CA: Moral damages are
emphatically not intended to enrich a complainant
at the expense of the defendant. Its award is aimed
at the restoration, within the limits of the possible, of
the spiritual status quo ante, and it must be
proportional to the suffering inflicted.
Bagumbayan Corp. vs. IAC (1984): Mental suffering
means distress or serious pain as distinguished from
annoyance, regret or vexation.
Mental anguish is intense mental suffering.
Generally, damages for mental anguish are limited
to cases in which there has been a personal physical
injury or where the defendant willfully, wantonly,
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
recklessly, or intentionally caused the mental
anguish.
WHEN AWARDED
Awarded when injury consists of: (PBMF-MWSSS)
(a) Physical suffering
(b) Besmirched reputation
(c) Mental anguish
(d) Fright
(e) Moral shock
(f) Wounded feelings
(g) Social humiliation
(h) Serious anxiety
(i) Similar injury
(1) Though incapable of pecuniary computation
(2) If such is the proximate result of defendant’s act
or omission.
REQUISITES FOR AWARDING MORAL DAMAGES
Villanueva vs. Salvador: Requisites for awarding
moral damages:
(1) there must be an injury, whether physical, mental
or psychological, clearly sustained by the
claimant;
(2) there must be a culpable act or omission factually
established;
(3) the wrongful act or omission of the defendant
must be the proximate cause of the injury
sustained by the claimant; and
(4) the award of damages is predicated on any of the
cases stated in ART. 2219 NCC.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF RECOVERY:
(1) Moral damages must somehow be proportional
to the suffering inflicted.
(2) In culpa contractual or breach of contract, moral
damages may be recovered when the defendant
acted in bad faith or was guilty of gross
negligence (amounting to bad faith) or in
wanton disregard of his contractual obligation
and, exceptionally, when the act of breach of
contract itself is constitutive of tort resulting in
physical injuries.
(3) By special rule in Article 1764, in relation to
Article 2206, moral damages may also be
awarded in case the death of a passenger
results from a breach of carriage.
(4) In culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict,
(a) when an act or omission causes physical
injuries, or
(b) where the defendant is guilty of intentional
tort, moral damages may aptly be
recovered. This rule also applies to
PAGE 367
DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
contracts when breached by tort.
(5) In culpa criminal, moral damages could be
lawfully due when the accused is found guilty of
physical injuries, lascivious acts, adultery or
concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention,
illegal arrest, illegal search, or defamation.
(6) Malicious prosecution can also give rise to a
claim for moral damages. The term "analogous
cases," referred to in Article 2219, following the
ejusdem generis rule, must be held similar to
those expressly enumerated by the law.
(7) Although the institution of a clearly unfounded
civil suit can at times be a legal justification for
an award of attorney's fees, such filing, however,
has almost invariably been held not to be a
ground for an award of moral damages.
(Expertravel& Tours vs. CA, 1 to 7)
(8) The burden rests on the person claiming moral
damages to show convincing evidence for good
faith is presumed. In a case involving simple
negligence, moral damages cannot be
recovered. (Villanueva vs. Salvador)
(9) Failure to use the precise legal terms or
"sacramental phrases" of "mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, wounded feelings or
moral shock" does not justify the denial of the
claim for damages. It is sufficient that these
exact terms have been pleaded in the complaint
and evidence has been adduced (Miranda-
Ribaya vs. Bautista)
(10) Even if the allegations regarding the amount of
damages in the complaint are not specifically
denied in the answer, such damages are not
deemed admitted. (Raagas, et al. vs. Traya et al).
(11) An appeal in a criminal case opens the whole
case for review and this 'includes the review of
the penalty, indemnity and damages. Even if the
offended party had not appealed from said
award, and the only party who sought a review
of the decision of said court was the accused, the
court can increase damages awarded.
(Sumalpong vs. CA)
(12) It can only be awarded to natural persons.
ABS-CBN vs. CA: The award of moral damages
cannot be granted in favor of a corporation because,
being an artificial person and having existence only
in legal contemplation, it has no feelings, no
emotions, no senses, It cannot, therefore, experience
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
physical suffering and mental anguish, which can be
experienced only by one having a nervous system.
The statement in People vs. Manero and Mambulao
Lumber Co. vs. PNB that a corporation may recover
moral damages if it "has a good reputation that is
debased, resulting in social humiliation" is an obiter
dictum.
NAPOCOR vs. Philipp Brothers: While it is true that
besmirched reputation is included in moral
damages, it cannot cause mental anguish to a
corporation, unlike in the case of a natural person,
for a corporation has no reputation in the sense that
an individual has, and besides, it is inherently
impossible for a corporation to suffer mental
anguish.
Question
Ortillo contracts Fabricato, Inc. to supply and install
tile materials in a building he is donating to his
province. Ortillo pays 50% of the contract price as
per agreement. It is also agreed that the balance
would be payable periodically after every 10%
performance until completed. After performing
about 93% of the contract, for which it has been paid
an additional 40% as per agreement, Fabricato, Inc.
did not complete the project due to its sudden
cessation of operations. Instead, Fabricato, Inc.
demands payment of the last 10% of the contract
despite its non-completion of the project. Ortillo
refuses to pay, invoking the stipulation that payment
of the last amount of 10% shall be upon completion.
Fabricato, Inc. brings suit for the entire 10% plus
damages. Ortillo counters with claims for (a) moral
damages for Fabricato, Inc.’s unfounded suit which
has damaged his reputation as a philanthropist and
respected businessman in his community, and (b)
attorney’s fees.
(a) Does Ortillo have a legal basis for his claim for
moral damages?
(b) How about his claim for attorney’s fees, having
hired a lawyer to defend him?
Suggested Answer:
(a) There is no legal basis to Ortillo’s claim for
moral damages. It does not fall under the
coverage of Article 2219 of the New Civil Code.
(b) Ortillo is entitled to attorney’s fees because
Fabricato’s complaint is a case of malicious
prosecution or a clearly unfounded civil action
(Art. 2208 [4] and [11], NCC).
WHEN RECOVERABLE
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the
following and analogous cases:
PAGE 368
DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious
acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27,
28, 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 moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers
and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9
of this article, in the order named.
Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal
ground for awarding moral damages if the court
should find that, under the circumstances, such
damages are justly due. The same rule applies to
breaches of contract where the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith.
IN SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION, RAPE AND OTHER LASCIVIOUS
ACTS
People vs. Calongui: Anent the award of damages,
civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon finding
of the fact of rape while moral damages is awarded
upon such finding without need of further proof
because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually
suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such
award. If without factual and legal bases, no award
of exemplary damages should be allowed.
Note:
Recovery may be had by the offended party and also
by her parents.
IN ACTS REFERRED TO IN ARTS. 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32,
34 &35, NCC
Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury
to another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage.
Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons. The following and
similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for
damages, prevention and other relief:
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence:
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from
his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his
religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of
birth, physical defect, or other personal
condition.
Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss
because a public servant or employee refuses or
neglects, without just cause, to perform his official
duty may file an action for damages and other relief
against he latter, without prejudice to any
disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.
Art. 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
highhanded method shall give rise to a right of
action by the person who thereby suffers damage.
Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution
is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for
damages for the same act or omission may be
instituted. Such action requires only a
preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the
defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a
bond to answer for damages in case the complaint
should be found to be malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is
based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so
declare. In the absence of any declaration to that
effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision
whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs,
defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or
impairs any of the following rights and liberties of
another person shall be liable to the latter for
damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a
periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without
due process of law;
PAGE 369
DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(7) The right to a just compensation when private
property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house,
papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and
correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations
or societies for purposes not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly
to petition the government for redress of
grievances;
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in
any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself
and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have a
speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses
face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness
against one's self, or from being forced to
confess guilt, or from being induced by a
promise of immunity or reward to make such
confession, except when the person confessing
becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and
unusual punishment, unless the same is
imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute
which has not been judicially declared
unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether
or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a
criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to
commence an entirely separate and distinct civil
action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of any criminal
prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be
proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages.
Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable
from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a
violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
Art. 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 officer shall be primarily liable for damages,
and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily
responsible therefor. The civil action herein
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
recognized shall be independent of any criminal
proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall
suffice to support such action.
Art. 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a
criminal offense, charges another with the same, for
which no independent civil action is granted in this
Code or any special law, but the justice of the peace
finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime
has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney
refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the
complaint may bring a civil action for damages
against the alleged offender. Such civil action may
be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon
the defendant's motion, the court may require the
plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in
case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
If during the pendency of the civil action, an
information should be presented by the prosecuting
attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the
termination of the criminal proceedings.
Please refer to previous discussions on the
provisions.
IN CASES OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
Mijares vs. CA: Moral damages cannot be recovered
from a person who has filed a complaint against
another in good faith, or without malice or bad faith.
If damage results from the filing of the complaint, it
is damnum absque injuria.
Castillo vs. Castillo: The adverse result of an action
does not per se make the act wrongful and subject
the actor to the payment of moral damages. The law
could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right
to litigate; such right is so precious that moral
damages may not be charged on those who may
exercise it erroneously.
Nominal Damages
Nominal damages consist in damages awarded, not
for purposes of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss
suffered, but for the vindication or recognition of a
right violated by the defendant.
REQUISITES AND CHARACTERISTICS
(1) Invasion or violation of any legal or property right.
(2) No proof of loss is required.
(3) The award is to vindicate the right violated.
WHEN AWARDED
PAGE 370
DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order
that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated
or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or
recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying
the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in
every obligation arising from any source enumerated
in article 1157, or in every case where any property
right has been invaded.
Art. 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 their respective heirs and
assigns.
General Rule: One does not ask for nominal
damages, and it is in lieu of the actual, moral,
temperate, or liquidated damages.
Nominal damages are incompatible with: actual,
temperate and exemplary damages.
Armovit vs. CA: Nominal damages cannot co-exist
with actual or compensatory damages.
Francisco v. Ferrer: No moral or exemplary damages
was awarded. Nevertheless, when confronted with
their failure to deliver on the wedding day the
wedding cake ordered and paid for, petitioners gave
the lame excuse that delivery was probably delayed
because of the traffic, when in truth, no cake could
be delivered because the order slip got lost. For such
prevarication, petitioners must be held liable for
nominal damages for insensitivity, inadvertence or
inattention to their customer's anxiety and need of
the hour.
Temperate Damages
Art. 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which
are 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 nature of the case, be
provided with certainty.
Art. 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable
under the circumstances.
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
These damages are awarded for pecuniary loss, in an
amount that, from the nature of the case, cannot be
proved with certainty.
REQUISITES
(1) Actual existence of pecuniary loss
(2) The nature and circumstances of the loss
prevents proof of the exact amount
(3) They are more than nominal and less than
compensatory.
(4) Causal connection between the loss and the
defendant’s act or omission.
(5) Amount must be reasonable.
In cases where the resulting injury might be
continuing and possible future complications directly
arising from the injury, while certain to occur are
difficult to predict, temperate damages can and
should be awarded on top of actual or compensatory
damages; in such cases there is no incompatibility
between actual and temperate damages.
Citytrust Bank vs. IAC: Temperate damages are
incompatible with nominal damages hence, cannot
be granted concurrently.
Pleno vs. CA: Temperate damages are included
within the context of compensatory damages (RCPI
vs. CA).
There are cases where from the nature of the case,
definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered,
although the court is convinced that there has been
such loss. For instance, injury to one's commercial
credit or to the goodwill of a business firm is often
hard to show certainty in terms of money. (NOTE: In
this case actual and temperate damages were
awarded. It is postulated that the actual damages is
for the car while the temperate damages is for the lost
actual income not sufficiently proved.)
Liquidated Damages
Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed
upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case
of breach thereof.
Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as
an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced
if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.
PAGE 371
DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Liquidated damages are those damages agreed
upon by the parties to a contract to be paid in case of
breach thereof.
It differs from a penal clause in that in the latter case
the amount agreed to be paid may bear no relation
to the probable damages resulting from the breach.
Basically, a penalty is “ad terrorem,” while liquidated
damages are “ad reparationem.”
REQUISITES AND CHARACTERISTICS
(1) Liquidated damages must be validly stipulated.
(2) There is no need to prove the amount of actual
damages.
(3) Breach of the principal contract must be proved.
RULES GOVERNING BREACH OF CONTRACT
Art. 2228. When the breach of the contract
committed by the defendant is not the one
contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon the
liquidated damages, the law shall determine the
measure of damages, and not the stipulation.
(a) These damages are agreed upon in a contract in
case of breach thereof.
(b) There is no need to prove the amount, only the
fact of the breach.
(c) The amount can be reduced if:
(1) unconscionable as determined by the court
(2) partial or irregular performance.
General Rule: The penalty shall substitute the
indemnity for damages and the payment of the
interests in case or breach.
Exceptions
(1) When there is a stipulation to the contrary.
(2) When the obligor is sued for refusal to pay the
agreed penalty.
(3) When the obligor is guilty of fraud.
Exemplary Or Corrective
Damages
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are
imposed, by way of example or correction for the
public good, in addition to the moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages.
In common law, these damages were termed
“punitive.”
UP COLLEGE OF LAW DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

PNB vs. CA: However, the award of P1,000,000
exemplary damages is also far too excessive and
should likewise be reduced to an equitable level.
Exemplary damages are imposed not to enrich one
party or impoverish another but to serve as a
deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb
socially deleterious actions.
WHEN RECOVERABLE
plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to
moral, temperate or compensatory damages were it
not for the stipulation for liquidated damages.
Art. 2235. A stipulation whereby exemplary damages
are renounced in advance shall be null and void.
Requisites to recover exemplary damages and
liquidated damages agreed upon
The plaintiff must show that he/she is entitled to
moral, temperate or compensatory damages:

IN CRIMINAL OFFENSES; NCC ART. 2230

When exemplary
If arising from
damages are granted
Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages the crime was
as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when Art. committed with an
the crime was committed with one or more Crimes
2230 aggravating
aggravating circumstances. Such damages are circumstance/s
separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to Art. defendant acted with
the offended party. Quasi-delicts
2231 gross negligence
defendant acted in a
Award of exemplary damages is part of the civil wanton, fraudulent,
liability, not of the penalty. Art. Contracts and
reckless, oppressive, or
2232 Quasi- contracts
malevolent manner
Damages are paid to the offended party separately (WFROMM)
from the fines.
General Principles
IN QUASI-DELICTS; NCC ART. 2231 (1) Exemplary damages cannot be awarded alone:
Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may they must be awarded IN ADDITION to moral,
be granted if the defendant acted with gross temperate, liquidated or compensatory
negligence. damages.
(2) The purpose of the award is to deter the
IN CONTRACTS AND QUASI-CONTRACTS; NCC ART. 2232 defendant (and others in a similar condition)
Art. 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court from a repetition of the acts for which exemplary
may award exemplary damages if the defendant damages were awarded; hence, they are not
acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, recoverable as a matter of right.
or malevolent manner. (3) The defendant must be guilty of other malice or
else negligence above the ordinary.
(4) Plaintiff is not required to prove the amount of
REQUISITES
exemplary damages.
ARTS. 2233, 2234
a. But plaintiff must show that he is entitled to
Art. 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered moral, temperate, or compensatory
as a matter of right; the court will decide whether or damage; that is, substantial damages, not
not they should be adjudicated. purely nominal ones. This requirement
applies even if the contract stipulates
Art. 2234. While the amount of the exemplary liquidated damages.
damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must b. The amount of exemplary damage need not
show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or be pleaded in the complaint because the
compensatory damages before the court may same cannot be proved. It is merely
consider the question of whether or not exemplary incidental or dependent upon what the
damages should be awarded. In case liquidated court may award as compensatory
damages have been agreed upon, although no proof damages.
of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated
damages may be recovered, nevertheless, before the
court may consider the question of granting
exemplary in addition to the liquidated damages, the

PAGE 372
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
DAMAGES IN CASE OF DEATH
RE. CRIMES AND QUASI-DELICTS
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused
by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three
thousand pesos, even though there may have been
mitigating circumstances. In addition:
(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 every case be assessed
and awarded by the court, unless the deceased
on account of permanent physical disability not
caused by the defendant, had no earning
capacity at the time of his death;
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support
according to the provisions of article 291, the
recipient who is not an heir called to the
decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or
intestate succession, may demand support from
the person causing the death, for a period not
exceeding five years, the exact duration to be
fixed by the court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate
descendants and ascendants of the deceased
may demand moral damages for mental
anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
In death caused by breach of conduct by a common
crime
Heirs of Raymundo Castro vs. Bustos (1969): when
death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the
deceased are entitled to the following items of
damages:
(1) As indemnity for the death of the victim of the
offense — P12,000.00, without the need of any
evidence or proof of damages, and even though
there may have been mitigating circumstances
attending the commission of the offense.
(2) As indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the
deceased — an amount to be fixed by the Court
according to the circumstances of the deceased
related to his actual income at the time of death
and his probable life expectancy, the said
indemnity to be assessed and awarded by the
court as a matter of duty, unless the deceased
had no earning capacity at said time on account
of permanent disability not caused by the
accused. If the deceased was obliged to give
support, under Art. 291, Civil Code, the recipient
who is not an heir, may demand support from
the accused for not more than five years, the
exact duration to be fixed by the court.
(3) As moral damages for mental anguish, — an
amount to be fixed by the court. This may be
recovered even by the illegitimate descendants
and ascendants of the deceased.
PAGE 373
DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
(4) As exemplary damages, when the crime is
attended by one or more aggravating
circumstances, — an amount to be fixed in the
discretion of the court, the same to be
considered separate from fines.
(5) As attorney's fees and expresses of litigation, —
the actual amount thereof, (but only when a
separate civil action to recover civil liability has
been filed or when exemplary damages are
awarded).
(6) Interests in the proper cases.
(7) It must be emphasized that the indemnities for
loss of earning capacity of the deceased and for
moral damages are recoverable separately from
and in addition to the fixed sum of P12,000.00
corresponding to the indemnity for the sole fact
of death, and that these damages may, however,
be respectively increased or lessened according
to the mitigating or aggravating circumstances,
except items 1 and 4 above, for obvious reasons.
Formula for the net earning capacity
People vs. Aringue (1997):
Net earning capacity = Life expectancy * (Gross
annual income – Reasonable living expenses)
Where:
Life expectancy = 2/3 * (80 – age of victim at the
time of death)
Tan, et al. vs. OMC Carriers, Inc. (2011): As a rule,
documentary evidence should be presented to
substantiate the claim for loss of earning capacity.
By way of exception, damages for loss of earning
capacity may be awarded despite the absence of
documentary evidence when: (1) the deceased is self-
employed and earning less than the minimum wage
under current labor laws, in which case, judicial
notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's
line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or
(2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker
earning less than the minimum wage under current
labor laws.
Graduation of Damages
DUTY OF THE INJURED PARTY
Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must
exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to
minimize the damages resulting from the act or
omission in question.
Lim and Gunnaban vs. CA (2002): Article 2203 of the
Civil Code exhorts parties suffering from loss or injury
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family
to minimize the damages resulting from the act or
omission in question. One who is injured then by the
wrongful or negligent act of another should exercise
reasonable care and diligence to minimize the
resulting damage. Anyway, he can recover from the
wrongdoer money lost in reasonable efforts to
preserve the property injured and for injuries incurred
in attempting to prevent damage to it.
BURDEN OF PROOF
The DEFENDANT has the burden of proof to
establish that the victim, by the exercise of the
diligence of a good father of a family, could have
mitigated the damages. In the absence of such
proof, the amount of damages cannot be reduced.
Note:
The victim is required only to take such steps as an
ordinary prudent man would reasonably adopt for
his own interest.
RULES
IN CRIMES
Art. 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated
may be respectively increased or lessened according
to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
IN QUASI-DELICTS
Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory
negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages
that he may recover.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Genobiagon vs. CA (1989): The alleged contributory
negligence of the victim, if any, does not exonerate
the accused in criminal cases committed through
reckless imprudence, since one cannot allege the
negligence of another to evade the effects of his own
negligence.
Rakes vs. Atlantic (1907): If so, the disobedience of
the plaintiff in placing himself in danger contributed
in some degree to the injury as a proximate,
although not as its primary cause.
(Supreme Court in this case cited numerous foreign
precedents, mostly leaning towards the doctrine that
contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff
did not exonerate defendant from liability, but it led
to the reduction of damages awarded to the plantiff.)
PAGE 374
DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co. (1918): In determining
the question of contributory negligence in
performing such act — that is to say, whether the
passenger acted prudently or recklessly — the age,
sex, and physical condition of the passenger are
circumstances necessarily affecting the safety of the
passenger, and should be considered.
PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE
Manila Electric vs. Remonquillo (1956): Even if Manila
Electric is negligent, in order that it may be held
liable, its negligence must be the proximate and
direct cause of the accident.
Bernardo vs. Legaspi (1914): Both of the parties
contributed to the proximate cause; hence, they
cannot recover from one another.
IN CONTRACTS, QUASI-CONTRACTS AND QUASI-DELICTS
Art. 2215 In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-
delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the
damages under circumstances other than the case
referred to in the preceding article, as in the
following instances:
(1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the
terms of the contract;
(2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a
result of the contract;
(3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be
awarded, that the defendant acted upon the
advice of counsel;
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any event;
(5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant
has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or
injury.
INSTANCES OF GROUNDS FOR MITIGATION OF DAMAGES
(a) For Contracts:
(1) Violation of terms of the contract by the
plaintiff himself;
(2) Obtention or enjoyment of benefit under the
contract by the plaintiff himself;
(3) Defendant acted upon advice of counsel in
cases where exemplary damages are to be
awarded such as under Articles 2230, 2231,
and 2232;
(4) Defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff’s injury or loss.
(b) For Quasi-Contracts:
(1) In cases where exemplary damages are to
be awarded such as in Art. 2232;
(2) Defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff’s injury or loss.
(c) For Quasi-Delicts:
UP COLLEGE OF LAW
(1) That the loss would have resulted in any
event because of the negligence or omission
of another, and where such negligence or
omission is the immediate and proximate
cause of the damage or injury;
(2) Defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff’s injury or loss.
RULE WHEN CONTRACTING PARTIES ARE IN PARI DELICTO
Generally, parties to a void agreement cannot expect
the aid of the law; the courts leave them as they are,
because they are deemed in pari delicto or "in equal
fault." In pari delicto is "a universal doctrine which
holds that no action arises, in equity or at law, from
an illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its
specific performance, or to recover the property
agreed to be sold or delivered, or the money agreed
to be paid, or damages for its violation; and where
the parties are in pari delicto, no affirmative relief of
any kind will be given to one against the other."
This rule, however, is subject to exceptions that
permit the return of that which may have been given
under a void contract to:
(a) the innocent party (Arts. 1411-1412, Civil Code);
(b) the debtor who pays usurious interest (Art. 1413,
Civil Code);
(c) the party repudiating the void contract before
the illegal purpose is accomplished or before
damage is caused to a third person and if public
interest is subserved by allowing recovery (Art.
1414, Civil Code);
(d) the incapacitated party if the interest of justice
so demands (Art. 1415, Civil Code);
(e) the party for whose protection the prohibition by
law is intended if the agreement is not illegal
per se but merely prohibited and if public policy
would be enhanced by permitting recovery (Art.
1416, Civil Code); and
(f) the party for whose benefit the law has been
intended such as in price ceiling laws (Art. 1417,
Civil Code) and labor laws (Arts. 1418-1419, Civil
Code).
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as
an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced
if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.
COMPROMISE
Art. 2031. The courts may mitigate the damages to
be paid by the losing party who has shown a sincere
desire for a compromise.
PAGE 375
DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION
Miscellaneous Rules
DAMAGES THAT CANNOT CO-EXIST
NOMINAL WITH OTHER DAMAGES
Art. 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 their respective heirs and
assigns.
Vda. De Medina vs. Cresencia (1956): The propriety of
the damages awarded has not been questioned,
Nevertheless, it is patent upon the record that the
award of P10,000 by way of nominal damages is
untenable as a matter of law, since nominal
damages cannot co-exist with compensatory
damages. The purpose of nominal damages is to
vindicate or recognize a right that has been violated,
in order to preclude further contest thereon; “and
not for the purpose of indemnifying the Plaintiff for
any loss suffered by him” (Articles 2221, 2223, new
Civil Code.) Since the court below has already
awarded compensatory and exemplary damages
that are in themselves a judicial recognition that
Plaintiff’s right was violated, the award of nominal
damages is unnecessary and improper. Anyway, ten
thousand pesos cannot, in common sense, be
deemed “nominal”.
ACTUAL AND LIQUIDATED
Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed
upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case
of breach thereof.
DAMAGES THAT MUST CO-EXIST
EXEMPLARY WITH MORAL, TEMPERATE, LIQUIDATED OR
COMPENSATORY
Francisco vs. GSIS (1963): There is no basis for
awarding exemplary damages either, because this
species of damages is only allowed in addition to
moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory
damages, none of which have been allowed in this
case, for reasons herein before discussed.
Scott Consultants & Resource Development Corp. vs.
CA (1995): There was, therefore, no legal basis for the
award of exemplary damages since the private
respondent was not entitled to moral, temperate, or
compensatory damages and there was no
agreement on stipulated damages.
DAMAGES THAT MUST STAND ALONE
UP COLLEGE OF LAW DAMAGES BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

NOMINAL DAMAGES
Art. 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 their respective heirs and
assigns.

PAGE 376