Fatima Ritza A.

Abualas

Torts and Damages Take Home Activity #2

1. Differentiate Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code all provide legal grounds for actions for damages against torts
which are committed in nonconformance of the basic standards of conduct in human relations such as
justice, fairness, honesty, and good faith. As such, they broaden the concept of torts by granting adequate
remedy for wrongs which are otherwise not provided for in statutory law. To differentiate them, Article
19 sets the general rule of conduct for the exercise of one’s rights and the performance of one’s duties
but, technically, does not provide a remedy for its violation. Articles 20 and 21 provide such legal remedy
for violations of the general rule laid out in Article 19, but Article 20 specifically indemnifies a person for
violation thereof in the form of illegal acts whether willfully or negligently done, while Article 21
specifically indemnifies a person for violation thereof in the form of immoral acts, or acts which are
contrary to good customs or public policy, which are willfully done and intended to cause loss or injury to
another.

2. a) Is a mere breach of promise to marry an actionable wrong?

No. A breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong in itself.

b) Can the plaintiff recover damages from a breach of promise to marry?

For the recovery of actual damages, yes. Hence, any expense made or thing given or loss incurred in
consequence of the promise, such as, but not limited to, expenses for the wedding invitations, ceremony
and dinner, may be recovered from the party who fails to appear. However, generally, there can be no
recovery of moral damages from a breach of promise to marry. The exceptions are in certain cases where
there is criminal or moral seduction. Exemplary damages, in addition to moral and actual damages, may
also be recovered under certain conditions where there is deliberate desire to inflict loss or injury or when
the manner of the breach of the promise is contrary to good customs and, therefore, amounts to an
evident abuse of right.

3. Under Article 22 of the Civil Code on the principle of unjust enrichment, should the injury to the
plaintiff necessarily be the cause of the enrichment of the defendant? Explain.

No. The injury to the plaintiff need not be the cause of the enrichment of the defendant; it is enough that
there be some relation between them, that the unjust enrichment would not have been produced had it
not been for the fact from which the injury of the plaintiff is derived. For example, if A unjustly ends his
contract with B so that he can enter into another contract with C, and because of that B suffers damages,
if all other requisites for suing under Article 22 is present, B may sue A for unjust enrichment even if the
enrichment of A is not strictly due to B’s loss but due to A’s contract with C. This is because the gain A
obtained in the contract with C would not have materialized if he did not unjustly end his contract with B.
A may, then, be deemed to have inequitably enriched himself at the expense of B.
 4. In a case of unjust enrichment, how much may a plaintiff recover as indemnity?

The amount that can be recovered in a case of unjust enrichment is the amount of loss suffered by the
plaintiff or the amount of unjust enrichment obtained by the defendant, whichever is lower. Therefore,
the plaintiff cannot recover more than what he has lost even if the defendant has been unjustly enriched
with a greater amount, and the plaintiff also cannot recover the whole amount of his loss if the defendant
has been unjustly enriched with an amount less than the loss.

5. Distinguish criminal liability from civil responsibility.

Criminal liability is liability imposed on a person who violates penal laws, and its object is to punish or
correct the violator and reinforce social order. Criminal liability, then, is owed to the State or public and,
hence, cannot be the subject of compromise between private persons. Civil responsibility, on the other
hand, is imposed on a person who violates the private right(s) of another, and its object is the reparation
of the damages suffered by the latter. Civil responsibility may be the subject of compromise among the
private persons concerned. In order for one to be held criminally liable, he must be proved guilty beyond
reasonable doubt while in order to be held civilly responsible, only preponderance of evidence is required.

6. Article 29 of the Civil Code states that “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.” Thus, if a person has been charged
with homicide but has successfully pleaded self-defense, resulting to his acquittal, can a civil
action for damages still be maintained against him?

No, his acquittal by reason of the justifying circumstance of self-defense extinguishes his civil responsibility
along with his criminal liability. Civil liability in a criminal case cannot exist where the accused has been
found to be not the author of the act or omission complained of or where the act or omission from which
the civil liability may arise did not exist. Self-defense is one of the justifying circumstances under Article
11 of the Revised Penal Code wherein the act of a person is said to be in accordance with the law, so that
such person is deemed to be free from both criminal and civil liability. The act complained of being lawful,
civil liability cannot arise against the actor.

7. Under Article 34 of the Civil Code, the local government unit cannot invoke the defense of due
diligence in the selection and supervision of its police force if a member of the latter refuses or
fails to perform his duty without just cause. Under what instance can the local government
invoke this defense?

The defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of its police force may be invoked by the
local government when the police’s refusal or failure to perform its duty is in relation to a private or
corporate function of the city or municipality, such as when it operates, for instance, public utilities and
public markets. Due diligence in supervision and selection of employees is a defense only generally
allowed to private employers.

8. What is a prejudicial question?

A prejudicial question is one which must be decided first before a criminal action may be instituted or may
proceed because a decision therein is vital to the judgment in the criminal case. It is based on a fact distinct
and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that howsoever the issue raised in the
civil action is resolved will be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.
An example of a prejudicial question is the determination in a civil action of ownership over a certain
property in connection to a criminal case for damage to the same property.

9. To whom does the doctrine of attractive nuisance apply?

The doctrine of attractive nuisance is applicable to children or minors who do not yet possess the
necessary capacity to understand and appreciate the nature and consequence of their acts, in situations
where such children trespass on the premises of another person who maintains therein dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character which is likely to attract children at play, without the
exercise of ordinary care in preventing children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, thereby
resulting to injury to the trespassing children.

10. a) Distinguish nuisance from negligence.

Nuisance and negligence, when causing damage or injury to others, are both actionable wrongs under the
laws on torts. However, the creation or maintenance of a nuisance is a violation of an absolute duty while
negligence is a violation of a relative duty. Therefore, in the creation of nuisance, the act is wrong in itself
and is actionable for the injury it caused regardless of the degree of care or skill exercised to avoid such
injury, while in negligence the act or omission would not have been in itself wrongful if it was done with
the required degree of care. Thus, an act done negligently can be, at the same time, a nuisance.

b) In case the acts constituting negligence are the same acts which give rise to a cause of action
for nuisance, which rule must be applied?

It has been held that where the acts or omissions constituting negligence are the identical acts which, it
is asserted, give rise to a cause of action for nuisance, the rules applicable to negligence will be applied.

11. How is a public nuisance distinguished from a private nuisance?

Public and private nuisances are distinguished from one another through the extent or scope of their
injurious effect and the remedies available to them. In cases of private nuisance, only the private rights of
a person or individual or limited number of persons are affected, while in cases of public nuisance, the
public at large or a considerable number of persons are affected or under the tendency of being annoyed,
inconvenienced, discomforted or hurt. Moreover, public nuisances are indictable and may be the source
of public offenses while private nuisances are actionable, either for their abatement or for damages, or
both. As such, injunctive relief may be granted against a public nuisance.

12. A noise may constitute an actionable nuisance if it affects injuriously the health or comfort or
ordinary people to an unreasonable extent. What constitutes a noise to be unreasonable in
degree?

The determining factor of whether the noise is unreasonable in degree is not just intensity or volume. It
must be of such a character as to produce actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of
ordinary sensibilities. However, in the Velasco v. Manila Electric Company case (40 SCRA 342 [1971]), since
the testimonies of the witnesses therein revealed different perceptions, sound level meters were used.
The readings showed 52, 54 and 55 decibels while in a U.S. case where the noise was ordered abated, the
average reading was 44 decibels. The noise made by the MERALCO transformers, therefore, exceeded
residential levels and were therefore declared as nuisance to appellant Velasco.
 13. Generally, only the creator of a nuisance is liable for the damage resulting therefrom. State the
exception(s).

Aside from the creator or creators of the nuisance, persons who adopt and continue previously existing
nuisances also become liable for its continued maintenance. Also, a person who has the duty to abate a
nuisance even if he is not the creator thereof should also be held liable for its continuance. Furthermore,
a person who creates a structure which is in itself harmless but is subsequently used by another person
in a manner that gives rise to a nuisance could also be held liable if he is in some way connected to such
manner of use.

14. a) Who may exercise the abatement of nuisance without judicial proceeding?

Subject to limitations, the right of abatement of nuisance without judicial proceeding may be exercised
by public officers, municipal corporations, and private individuals.

b) Will the owner of the property taken or destroyed after being regarded as a public nuisance
be compensated? What is his remedy?

No. Property taken or destroyed for the purpose of abating a public nuisance is not taken for public use,
hence, there is no obligation to make compensation for such taking. The right to destroy or abate by a
summary proceeding whatever may be regarded as a public nuisance is included in the police power of
the State, therefore, no compensation is due to the owner of the property taken or destroyed unlike in
the State’s exercise of the power of eminent domain. The remedy of the owner of the property is to appeal
to the courts by an action for damages for a determination of the question whether the thing abated was
a nuisance.

15. a) Discuss the requisites when a private individual may file an action on account of public
nuisance.

A private person may file a civil action against a public nuisance if the public nuisance is especially injurious
to himself. In other words, the public nuisance causes him an injury that is special or different from that
sustained by the public. Such special injury must be in the form of an invasion of some private right of the
individual, as distinguished from the public right, which the plaintiff has in common with the rest of the
public. The determination of what constitutes special injury depends on the particular facts and
circumstances of each case.

b) Can he still file an action even if he is not the only one who is injured?

Yes. The injury need not be unique to the complaining party, and the fact that many are injured does not
make the nuisance such a common one as to disallow redress by a private individual. His grievance must
not be common to the whole public but he does not have to be the sole sufferer of such injury.