TORTS AND DAMAGES nor damage, it is fault or negligence which is
called quasi-delict. The Supreme Court would
Topic Coverage/Topics asked in the Bar Exams:
 Persons liable and defences
 Damages
 Incurs Liability
 Requisites
Sources in law:
- Provisions on Quasi-Delict and Damages
Introduction:
Q: Why Quasi-Delict when the course named is
Torts and Damages? . n Example: There was a conviction and an award
A: In a way Quasi-Delict is synonymous to Torts.
The concept is Torts are based on intentional
acts, wrongful acts, and malicious acts; torts are
acts. (Dulai v CA)
Dulai v CA
Facts: The case involves an altercation between
a lawyer and a guard which resulted to the
death of the lawyer. A civil action under Quasi-
Delict was filed in RTC of Quezon City. In this
case not only the guard but also the security
agency; the employer was sued. The agency
raised the defence that the act of the guard is
not negligent act therefor not a source of claim
under quasi-delict. The premise of this
argument is that Quasi-delict to be basis of a
claim the act involved should be a negligent act.
The trial judge held that the security agency is
correct to claim that the act of the guard is not
a negligent act which is why he granted the
motion and dismissed the case.
Issue: Is quasi-delict only limited to negligent
acts.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that quasi-delict
as a source of obligation may not be only based
on negligent acts. Even intentional acts,
malicious acts, wrongful acts, or even acts
punished by law may be the basis of claim under
quasi-delict.
Quasi-Delict defined under Civil Code:
Fault or negligence, such fault or negligence is
called quasi-delict. It is not an act or omission
tell us that fault can be intentional.
Q: If the act is punished by law, can it be the
basis of claim under quasi-delict?
A: Yes, but it can be also a basis of claim under
delict. At least there is a protection of the law.
The double recovery rule under 2177, in other
words under this rule for the same act or
omission the injured cannot recover twice.
in a criminal case for 500 thousand which the
injured was able to claim. In relation to the civil
case filed for the same act the injured also won
and was awarded 800 thousand. The injured
can only now claim the excess of 300 thousand.
In this case the double claim is a partial defence
of the accused. On the other hand if the injured
was awarded the 800 thousand first and the 500
thousand later the 2177 is a total defence.
Note: A single act maybe the basis of a claim not
only under one source but possible two or even
three depending on the circumstances.
(Saludaga Case)
Saludaga case
Facts: Saludaga is a sophomore law student of
Far Eastern University. He was shot by a security
guard of the school.
Issue: What are the possible sources of
obligation?
Held: First Delict, in case the guard is convicted
the liability arise from delict. In fact the security
agency can be subsidiary liable under delict. The
second is Quasi- Delict, and third contract.
Issue: Who can be liable under Quasi-Delict?
Held: First the school cannot be liable under
Quasi-Delict because the school is not the
employer of the guard or the guard a student of
the school. The ones who are liable under quasi-
delict are the guard and his employer. This time
1
liability of the employer under quasi-delict is
direct and primary liability.
Issue: Is the School liable as well?
Held: Yes, but not under delict or quasi-delict
but under contract. It is because when a student
enrols a contract is entered into, and one of the
obligations of the school is to ensure a peaceful
environment conducive to learning.
Issue: Is the existence of contract enough to
arise liability automatically?
Held: No. the requirement for fraud, fault, or
negligence must still be proven. In this case the
court found that the school had gross
negligence because there was no officer of the
school to examine the qualification of the
guards. They are only relaying on the agency as
to who to deploy in the school.
Note: From one act there can be multiple
sources of obligation and liability. You have to
know as you read the facts the cause of action,
because there are different requisites and
defences for each cause of action.
Q: As result of a collision between a taxi cab
owned by A and another taxi cab owned by B.
X, a passenger of the first taxi cab was seriously
injured. X later filed criminals acts against both
drivers.
If a civil action was filed may both taxi cab
owners raise the defence of due diligence in
the selection and supervision of their drivers to
be absolved from liability of damages?
A: It depends on the cause of action. Since it is
civil action it can be breach of contract or filed
under quasi-delict.
If the action arises from contract the only one
liable is A, because X is not a passenger of the
other taxi.
If the action is quasi-delict it is applicable for
both A and B. Take note even if there is a pre-
existing contractual relation between parties a
claim under quasi-delict may prosper.
Now if the action is under contract the defence
of due diligence cannot be invoked; while if the
action is under quasi-delict the defence is
available.
Q: What if for criminal case, can the employer
of the driver invoke the defence of diligence?
A: Under the Revise Penal Code the answer is
no, previously it is because the employer is only
subsidiary liable. However it seems the
argument is no longer applicable under the
present laws due to the family code. Remember
as a result of the act of a minor student the one
that can be liable are the teachers,
administrators, the school, and the parents; but
the only ones who can be soldierly liable are the
teachers, administrators, and the school, while
the parents are only subsidiary liable. Under
this code all of them may invoke the defence of
diligence which is not available in the previous
laws.
Note: Always identify what is the source of
action.
Q: When is the employer primary and
subsidiary liable?
A: When it is criminal, the cause of action is
delict and there should be a conviction. There
could be no civil liability arising from delict
without conviction. In this case the liability of
the employer is subsidiary.
In the other two, contract and quasi-delict it is a
direct and primary liability of the employer and
the employee. In these two they can be solidary
liable.
In delict they cannot be solidary liable because
the employer is only subsidiary liable. (Case of
Pantranco)
Q: What would be the effect of the pendency
of the criminal case in relation to an action
under quasi-delict base on the same act or
2
omission? Would the pendency of the criminal
case be a bar to the filing of the civil action of
quasi-delict or would it at least suspend the
action under quasi-delict?
A: No, it will not bar nor suspend. The reason is
because the two proceeding is separate and
distinct from each other.
Q: Why are they separate and distinct?
A: In the aspect of party in interest, in a criminal
case the state is the party in interest while in
civil case it is the private injured party. However
the more important distinction is because of the
quantum of evidence required differs in the
two.
Q: What if the accused was acquitted, what
would be the effect of the acquittal on the
claim under quasi-delict? Would the acquittal
automatically result in the dismissal of the
action under quasi-delict?
Bar Question: A passenger of the bus operated
by Times Transit Company suffered serious
physical injuries as a result of vehicular
accident. An information was filed against the
driver of the bus for serious physical injuries
through reckless imprudence. He was however
acquitted on the merits of the case because
according to the judgement of acquittal he was
not negligent. Subsequently the passenger
instituted an action against the bus company
to recover damages. Would it prosper?
A: It may prosper despite the fact the accused
was acquitted and ruled not negligent. This
determination of the court in the criminal case
is not binding on the court where the action
under quasi-delict was filed. It was because of
the fact of the quantum of evidence required is
different. When the criminal court stated that
the accused was not negligent he was thinking
of a quantum of evidence much higher than
what is required in a civil action.
Note: On the requisites in order for a defendant
be liable under Quasi-Delict. Despite the
provision under Art. 2176 about the requisite
on “No pre-existing contractual relation” the
Supreme Court would tell us that even if there
is pre-existing contractual relation a claim
under quasi-delict may prosper because the
same act which breaches the contract may by
itself a tortious act. However it does not follow
automatically that if there is a breach its
tortious.
Requisites for quasi-delict:
1. Act or Omission there being fault or
negligence
2. Damages or Injury
3. Casual Connection between the act or
omission
Note: Art 2179 – Doctrine of Comparative
Negligence which also includes the Doctrine of
Contributory Negligence. Under this provision
the parties both being negligent as the premise,
if the negligence of the plaintiff was the direct
or proximate cause of the injury sustained by
him, he cannot recover and the action must be
dismissed. If the direct or proximate cause of
the injury sustained by the plaintiff was the
defendant’s fault or negligence, he can recover
but the liability of the defendant must be
mitigated.
Q: When would an act considered as a
negligent act under quasi-delict?
A: The definition in Art. 1173 in oblicon was
made applicable in quasi-delict by expressed
provision. This would involve an omission of the
diligence required considering the nature of the
obligation with corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, time, and the
place. (Canco v MRR)
Canco v MRR
Facts: Canco alighted from a moving train about
to stop. The result is that one of his arms went
under the train which was hit by the wheels of
the train and had to be amputated. The defence
of MRR was it was the negligence of the plaintiff
which was the direct and proximate cause. Had
he waited for the train to make a full stop
before alighting he would not be injured.
3
Issue: Is the defendant correct to say that the
act of alighting at moving vehicle of the plaintiff
negligence?
Held: The majority of the Supreme Court ruled
that under the circumstances the act of
alighting was not negligent in considering as the
person, time, and place. In considering that the
plaintiff is at his prime enabling him to jump the
Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and find
that the act is not negligence on his part.
Note: To determine if an act is negligent one
must consider the degree of diligence required.
(Philippine Bank of Commerce v Court of
Appeals)
PBCom v CA
Facts: The plaintiff company sued the Philippine
Bank of Commerce claiming that they asked a
secretary in their company to deposit a sum of
money into the account of the company in one
of the branch of PBCom. This secretary
deposited the amount into the account of her
spouse instead of the account of the company.
To make it appear like she deposited the money
to the account of the company, she fully filled
up the original slip while the duplicate was not
fully filled up where the account name was
missing. Despite the missing account name on
the duplicate the teller accepted the deposit.
After the deposit the teller would give the
duplicate as proof of deposit, it is when the
secretary would put the name of the company
in the account name making it as if the company
received the amount. The problem is that this
did not happen once and continued till they
eventually found out that their account was
empty.
The defence raised by the bank was The
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance; claiming that had
they exercised the diligence to open the state of
accounts they had discovered their account was
empty.
Issue: Is the negligence of the bank direct and
proximate cause of the injury?
Held: The Supreme Court held that the
negligence of the officers of the bank was the
direct and proximate cause of the injury
sustained by the plaintiff.
Comment: The speaker concurs for the decision
but for a reason not fully developed in the
ponencia. For him the reason for it being the
direct and proximate cause was because of the
degree of diligence required to banks. Banks are
required to exercise the highest level of
diligence.
Note: Know who are required to exercise a
degree of diligence higher than a diligence of a
good father of a family.
Singson v BPI
Facts: Singson have a bank account with BPI.
Due to the fault of the bank the account was
freeze which caused his cheques to bounce.
This resulted for his car to be taken due to lack
of funds.
Issue: Does Tony have a cause of action?
Held: Yes, under the circumstances he may
claim under breach of contract as well as under
quasi-delict.
Q: Despite a warning from the police that an
attempt to hijack a PAL plane will be made in
the following week, the airline did not take
extra precautions, such as frisking of
passengers, for fear of being accused of
violating human rights. Two days later, an
armed hijacker did attempt to hijack a PAL
flight to Cebu. Although he was subdued by the
other passengers, he managed to fire a shot
which hit and killed a female passenger. The
victim’s parents sued the airline for breach of
contract, and the airline raised the defence of
force majeure. Id the airline liable or not?
Answer: First it is not the obligation of the
airline company to frisk passenger. Now
considering the fact that there was a warning is
it now their obligation to do extra measures?
The answer is still no. By express provisions of
4
the law this scenario does not require the airline
company to exercise extra ordinary diligence
because this is an incident involving both of
them are passengers. If only a passenger would
cause injury to another passenger the common
carrier is required only to exercise ordinary
diligence under Art. 1763.
Bar Question: Jovencio operated a school bus
to ferry his two sons and five of their
schoolmates from their houses to their school,
and back. The parents of the five schoolmates
paid for the service. One morning, Porfirio, the
driver, took a short cut on the way to school
because he was running late, and drove across
an unmanned railway crossing. At the time,
Porfirio was wearing earphones because he
loved to hear loud music while driving. As he
crossed the railway tracks, a speeding PNR
train loudly blared its horn to warn Porfirio,
but the latter did not hear the horn because of
the loud music. The train inevitably rammed
into the school bus. The strong impact of the
collision between the school bus and the train
resulted in the instant death of one of the
classmates of Jovencio's younger son.
The parents of the fatality sued Jovencio for
damages based on culpa contractual alleging
that Jovencio was a common carrier; Porfirio
for being negligent; and the PNR for damages
based on culpa aquiliana.
Jovencio denied being a common carrier. He
insisted that he had exercised the diligence of
a good father of a family in supervising
Porfirio, claiming that the latter had had no
history of negligence or recklessness before
the fatal accident.
(a) Did his operation of the school bus service
for a limited clientele render Jovencio a
common carrier?
A: Yes
(b) In accordance with your answer to the
preceding question, state the degree of
diligence to be observed by Jovencio, and the
consequences thereof.
A: Extra-Ordinary Diligence also known as
Utmost Diligence
Note: As a rule the plaintiff has the burden of
proving negligence on the part of the
defendant. (Spouses Ong v Metropolitan water
district)
Spouses Ong v Metropolitan Water District
Facts: One of the children of the Spouses was
drowned in a pool managed by Metropolitan
Water District. The spouses sued the
Metropolitan Water District
Issue: Were there negligence by Metropolitan
Water District?
Held: The action was dismissed because the
plaintiff failed to prove the negligence on the
part of the defendant.
Note: There are certain circumstances the
plaintiff would not have the burden where the
law would raise a presumption. These
presumptions sometimes conclusive but most
instances are disputable only. Art. 2183-2185
and 2188 are disputable presumptions, 2187
and 2193 conclusive.
Art 2187 pertains to products containing
noxious substances.
Art 2193 pertains to things thrown from units;
the head of the family occupying the unit is the
one conclusively presumed negligent.
For the disputable, the most common scenario
is if the vehicular mishap if the driver at the time
of the mishap was violating a traffic regulation,
he would be presumed to be negligent.
Doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur latin for “The
thing speaks for itself”.
Before, the most common is the medical
malpractice pertaining to surgical tools left
inside the body; but lately the most common
are in the construction projects, for those who
fell from a height. However it is not enough to
5
just invoke the doctrine because there are
curtain facts to be proven in order for the
doctrine to apply.
Requisites:
1. It should be proven that the instrumentality
where the incident happened is under the
control of the defendant.
2. That the incident in the ordinary business
would not have happened had the
defendant only exercised the diligence
required
3. The third is there should be no proof
adduced by the defendant to prove that it
was not their fault.
This one pertains to presumption in relation to
employers.
Q: OJ was employed as professional driver of
MM Transit Bus owned by Mister BT. In the
course of his work OJ hit a pedestrian who was
seriously injured and later died in the hospital
as a result of the accident. The victim’s heirs
sued the driver and the owner of the bus for
damages.
Is there a presumption in this case that Mister
BT, the owner had been negligent, if so is the
presumption absolute or not?
A: The presumption is not absolute
presumption. In the last paragraph of Art. 2180
the employers can raise as a defence that they
exercise the diligence required in the selection
and supervision. In other words for our
employers to be liable vicariously is not only
because the driver was negligent but also
themselves were negligent.
There will be such a presumption only if there is
already a determination of negligence on the
part of OJ. The moment there is such a
determination of the driver or employee is
negligent automatically the presumption of
negligent on the part of the employer arises.
Q: Who may be held liable?
A: The person who himself caused the injury.
Take note it does not matter how old or the
mental stability of the one who caused the
injury since it is only a civil liability.
Vicarious Liability defined:
In Vicarious Liability a person who was not the
one who caused the injury may be held liable
because he is responsible over the person who
caused the injury. (Art. 2180)
Examples: (4 of the most asked in the bar)
 Parents or Guardians
 Owners
 Managers
 Teachers, Administrators, School
Parents:
Gutierrez v Gutierrez
Facts: The driver of the car is a minor. Among
sued are the parents and the other driver.
Issue: Can the suit prosper against the mother?
Held: It did not prosper because the father was
present during the incident.
Note: The incident happened back when the
liability of the mother subsidiary. However the
family code has amended how the liability of
the mother is viewed; both parents can be held
liable.
In the case of Libi v Immediate Appellant Court
the Supreme Court has explicitly said that it is
about time to re-examine the nature of liability
of the parents in relation to the acts of their
minor children. The liability of the parents is
now a direct liability not a subsidiary liability.
Q: Who can be held liable when a 7yr boy
injured his playmate while playing with his
father’s rifle?
Note: If a question is absent of a specific date
you can assume that the incident happened
during the effectively of the present laws.
A: In the family code the parents are held liable.
6
Owners: (Art. 2184 in relation to vehicular
mishaps)
The owner may be held soldierly liable with his
negligent driver.
Q: Is the owner automatically liable soldierly
because he is inside the vehicle?
A: No
Q: Does the presence of the owner inside the
vehicle causing damage to a third party affect
his liability?
A: Yes, because if he was inside the vehicle and
he could have prevented the mishaps by merely
exercising the diligence required but failed to
do so he can be held soldierly liable.
Note: It must be proven that the owner have
the opportunity to prevent the mishaps by
exercising diligence required.
Q: Rommel, have an employee of family driver.
The owner, Rommel was not on the car during
the incident. Is Rommel liable for damages to
the heirs?
A: Under the last sentence of Art. 2184, if the
owner was not inside the vehicle at the time of
the incident he may be held liable under Art.
2180. Now under Art 2180 he may be held liable
as the employer of the driver. Take note since
this is now as employer there are different
requisites and defences.
Q: Would the answer be the same if Rommel
be inside the vehicle?
A: No, if the employer is inside the vehicle Art
2184 would now apply and the question would
be if he had the opportunity to prevent the
mishaps.
Employers:
Martin v Court of Appeals
Facts: The case involves a post of Meralco. It fell
due to a certain collision from a vehicle driven
by a Martin who is allegedly an employee of the
defendant Martin. The theory of Meralco is that
the employer of the driver is liable.
Issue: Is the defendant liable?
Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the case
because Meralco was not able to prove the
employer employee relationship.
Note: One of the requisites for the employer to
be held liable is the employer employee
relationship.
Bar Question: Under the law on quasi-delict,
aside from the persons who caused injury to
persons, who else are liable under the
following circumstances:
When a domestic helper, while haggling for a
lower price with a fish vendor in the court of
buying food stuffs for her employer’s family,
slaps the fish vendor, causing her to fall and
sustain injuries.
Can the employer be liable?
A: No, One of the requisite for the employer to
be liable is that the employee must be acting in
his assigned task at the time of the incident
Bar Question: After working overtime up to
midnight, Alberto, an executive of an
insurance company drove a company vehicle
to a favourite Videoke bar where he had some
drinks and sang some songs with friends to
“unwind”. At 2:00 a.m., he drove home, but in
doing so, he bumped a tricycle, resulting in the
death of its driver. May the insurance company
be held liable for the negligent act of Alberto?
Why?
A: No, the employer cannot be held liable
because one of the requisite is lacking which is
that the employee must be acting in his
assigned task at the time of the incident.
Bar Question: A driver of a bus owned by
company Z ran over a boy who died instantly.
A criminal case for reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide was filed against the
driver. He was convicted and was ordered to
pay P2 Million in actual and moral damages to
7
the parents of the boy who was an honor
student and had a bright future. Without even
trying to find out if the driver had assets or
means to pay the award of damages, the
parents of the boy filed a civil action against
the bus company to make it directly liable for
the damages.
a) Will their action prosper?
b) If the parents of the boy do not wish to file
a separate civil action against. the bus
company, can they still make the bus company
liable if the driver cannot' pay the award for
damages? If so, what is the nature of the
employer's liability and how may civil damages
be satisfied?
A: It may prosper, because if the action is under
delict then the conviction of the criminal case
with higher quantum of evidence required was
satisfied more so in a civil case. However if the
civil action was under quasi- delict the employer
may raise the defence of diligence in selection
and supervision making the employer not liable.
They can still make the bus company subsidiary
liable. They have to prove first that the driver
cannot pay the awards before they can make
the employer held liable.
Teachers, Schools, Administrators:
Q: Can the school itself be held vicariously
liable?
A: Under Art. 2180 the answer is no, because
the one liable is the teachers of the school not
the school itself. However in the 80s the Justices
of the Supreme Court can no longer subscribe
to the interpretation. Now the prevailing rule is
that under the Family Code the school can be
held vicariously liable.
Q: What kind of school can be held liable?
A: Now under the family code all kind of
institution of learning can be held liable.
Parisoc v Brilyantes
Facts: A student died because one of his
classmates punched him. The boy fell and his
head hit the concrete. At the time of the
incident the student who caused the damage
was of age. The parents of the boy sued the
teachers, school, and administrators. The
teachers raised the defence that the one who
caused the death was of age.
Issue: Are the teachers correct in saying they
cannot be held liable because the student who
caused the death is of age?
Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the
parents because even if the cause of death is of
age the teachers, school, and administrators
can still be held liable. This is in connection to
the fact that in the civil code there was no
qualification as to the age of the student as far
as the responsibility of the teachers is
concerned.
Note: Under the current laws there is no longer
any debate because it is now clear that for a
teacher to be liable the student must be a
minor.
Q: Sumaklay a passenger of a bus owned and
operated by Kanlungan Bus Company suffered
serious injury when the vehicle went out of
control and rammed an electric post. Chuper
the bus driver was at the time of the accident
doing a 100km/hr in a school zone and hit the
post because he was trying to avoid hitting
school children crossing the street. In the suit
for damages against the bus company for
driver’s gross negligence Kanlungan interposes
the defences that all his drivers was under
strict injunctions to observe speed limits in
their particular routes and the driver should
first must have been sued, held liable, and
found insolvent, before Kanlungan would be
proceeded. Is the bus company defence
tenable?
A: This is a suit for damages not a criminal case.
Since it is not a criminal case the defence is not
tenable. The requirement of the employee to
be insolvent is only under delict but in contracts
and quasi-delict the liability of the employer is a
direct and primary liability that is why it is not
required that the driver must be sued although
it must be proven that the driver was negligent.
8
Another defence of the bus company is that he
had exercised due diligence in selecting and
supervision. However the steps enumerated
was not sufficient to be a defence. Take note
that there should be two things that must be
satisfied. First is in selection and next is in
supervision.
First in selection, the Supreme Court ruled in
one case that it is not sufficient for the
employer to demand the driver license; they
must also inquire on the history of the driver.
Second in supervision, there are 3 aspects to be
satisfied:
1) Rules promulgated
2) Monitoring for the rules
3) Appropriate Penalties imposed.
Due to these 3 the employer failed to prove it
has exercised due diligence.
Defence of fortuitous event against liability
under Quasi- Delict:
For one to invoke fortuitous event as a defence
there must be no concurring negligence on your
part.
Doctrine of Discovered Peril or Doctrine of Last
Clear Chance:
The premise of the doctrine is that both parties
are negligence of one of the parties was
followed by the negligence of the other party by
an appraisable interval of time.
Note: The defence of Last Clear Chance can only
be raised among the parties who are negligent
and not against the party who suffered damage
which is not negligent.
DAMAGES
Focus:
1. Can the defendant be held liable for actual
damages, nominal, exemplary. (Art 2197)
2. Possible liabilities in case of death as a
result of Quasi-Delictual act. (Art. 2206)
3. Moral Damages.
Note: If actual damages would be awarded the
court cannot properly award nominal damages.
The premise of nominal damages is no
peculiarly law but there were a violation of
rights that is why the plaintiff has to be
indemnified.
For actual damages to be awarded there should
be proof of peculiarly laws.
If there is award of actual damages there would
be no award of temperate or moderate,
because although both of it have the premise of
peculiarly laws but in temperate damages the
circumstances is such that it is so difficult to
prove the actual damages.
Comment: It is now automatic to the trail courts
as per order of the Supreme Court, that in cases
when someone died due to Quasi-Delictual acts
and the heirs cannot prove any or too little
actual damages; the trial courts awards 25
thousand pesos as temperate damages.
There are some extra-ordinary situations where
there could be both award for actual and
temperate damages.
6 Possible Liabilities under Art. 2206:
1. Indemnity
2. Moral
3. Exemplary
4. Loss of earning capacity
5. Interest
6. Support
Moral Damages:
Just because the plaintiff suffered mental
anguish or serious anxiety does not necessary
entitle him to moral damages. There should be
a ground which provided by law why he
suffered mental anguish.
Note: Art. 2219 enumerates grounds but not
exclusive because there are other ground
enshrined in other provisions.