LAW 104

TORTs AND DAMAGES

BUTALID JAVELLANA LOPEZ, C. VILLARAMA

Some tips for the exam from Prof. Casis himself:

1. Pay attention to how the question is phrased. Make sure you answer the
right question, not the one that you imagine, or the one that you hope is
being asked.
2. Answer directly. Most of the questions are answered by yes/no.
3. Start with the law. You need not state the article number or the case title,
but you have to know the rule.
4. Apply the rules to the facts.
5. Lead with your strongest argument.
6. Good penmanship creates a presumption of brilliance.

"YOU WILL NEVER BE HAPPY UNLESS YOU GIVE 100%." (CASIS, 2014)
 Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune
Held Casis Critiques
(2007)
PART ONE VC was then
Commissioner of Internal
SC granted damages
based on Art. 32 (6).
Court’s characterization of
Art. 32 as a tort was

TORT AND QUASI-DELICT Revenue. Was faulted for

issuing an invalid
It is not necessary that
VC should have acted
important. Thus, Court
seems to be saying that
Memorandum Circular with malice or bad faith; intent is not an element of
reclassifying Champion, it suffices that there is a tort.
Hope, More (Fortune violation of the
brands) as locally constitutional right of Arguably, Vinzons-Chato
manufactured cigarettes Fortune. A tort is a wrong, definition not binding also
I. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK . bearing a foreign brand a tortious act which has for being part of obiter-
with 55% ad valorem tax, been defined as the dictum. Several cases
deliberately after the commission or omission decided prior ruled that
A. THE CONCEPT OF A TORT
legislature passed a law of an act by one, without bad faith not requirement
classifying them as local right, whereby another for action based on Art 32.
a. Etymology – Latin tortus, meaning “twisted” or “crooked”
brands with only 20-45% receives some injury,
b. Existence of “Philippine Tort Law” ad valorem tax. directly or indirectly, in Hypothetical:
§ Code Commission chose the term “quasi-delict” and rejected “tort” person, property or Can Kim Henares,
because they wanted exclude intentional and malicious acts from the Fortune sued for being reputation. authorizing TV ads
coverage of the concept because these are to be governed by the RPC demanded P9M, citing showing documents of
§ However, the Civil Code doesn’t reject the concept of tort because constitutional right Failure to specifically delinquent tax payers, be
some provisions seem to correspond with common law torts against deprivation of allege bad faith and liable for tort?
• Human Relations Torts – Arts. 19, 20, 21, 26 property. malice will not amount to • May answer in
• Strict Liability Torts – Arts. 1711, 1723, 2183, 2187, 2189-2193 VC defense: No cause of “failure to state cause of terms of Vinzons-
• Independent Civil Actions – Arts. 32 to 35 action because no action.” Chato definition
citation of malice or bad
c. Definition of Tort Under Philippine Law faith.
Naguiat v. NLRC (1997) Held Casis Critiques d. Elements of Tort
Clark Field Taxi FTI held a Court recognized no This definition not Garcia v. Salvador (2007) Held
concessionaire’s contract jusriprudential definition binding because mere Ranida Salvador was required a medical Garcia liable for gross negligence. All the
with Army Air Force for corporate tort. Instead, obiter dictum in the case. exam for regular employment. She was elements of actionable conduct under
Exchange Services. AAFES they provided definition Sergio Naguiat already found “reactive” to a liver disease test by Art. 20 were present:
dissolved due to phase- for tort: found liable as employer Community Diagnostic Center. Her • Duty – Violation of statutory
out of US military bases; under Ransom Labor father had a heart attack upon finding duty is negligence. RA 4688
drivers and officers “Essentially, tort consists Union v. NLRC, prior to out. She took 2 more tests and found “The Clinical Laboratory Law”
terminated. The Union in the violation of a right discussion of corporate she was actually “non-reactive.” mandates lab must have
refused the P500/yr given or the omission of a torts. Complaint for damages against Garcia supervision of pathologist.
severance pay filed a duty imposed by law. (the examiner in CDC) and Castro (the Castro not counted.
complaint against Pres. Simply stated, a tort is a Hypothetical: pathologist who only goes to CDC when • Breach - Garcia failed to comply
Sergio and VP Antionio for breach of a legal duty.” Can company president there’s a problem) for conducting a test w/o
separation pay. Issue was guilty of illegal
supervision of pathologist
whether they can be held Art. 283 of Labor Code termination under the
• Injury – the anxiety, loss of job,
solidarily held liable with mandates separation pay. Labor Code be liable for
mental trauma
the company. Failure to do so makes Tort?
the stockholder If yes – use Naguiat • Proximate Causation
personally liable. Sergio If no – also use
solidarily liable. Naguiat and say it
was obiter

 
2
 Lucas v. Tuaño (2009) Held B. THE CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT
What started out as sore eyes turned Dr. Tuaño not liable. Since no specific
into steroid-induced glaucoma. The law on medical negligence, can anchor
issue was whether the Dr. Tuaño could claim for damages on Art 2176, with 4 1. Historical Background
be held liable, after prescribing Maxitrol essential elements:
for prolonged periods of time. 1) Duty • Also referred to as "culpa-aquiliana", “culpa-extracontractual” or “cuasi-
2) Breach delitos”
3) Injury • In Barredo v. Garcia: A “culpa-aquiliana” is a separate legal institution under
4) Proximate Causation the Civil Code, with a substantivity of its own, and individuality that is
All 4 elements must co-exist. Negligence entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime”
must be the proximate cause of the o This case shows that concept of “quasi-delict” existed even under
injury. Breach must constitute the old Civil Code
actionable malpractice and proof of
breach must be established by expert 2. Nature
witnesses.
Art 1157. Obligations arise from:
Ocean Builders v. Sps. (1) Law;
Held Casis Critiques
Cubacub (2011) (2) Contracts;
Bladimir was foreman at Hao not liable, no Court characterized the (3) Quasi-contracts;
construction company; negligence. To action as based on tort (4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and
(5) Quasi-delicts
had chickenpox; was told successfully prosecute an but in the end stated Hao
to rest by employer for 3 action anchored on torts, and company not guilty of
days. When he resumed 3 elements must be negligence. It’s 3. Governing Provisions
work, he asked to be present: “interesting” (aka
brought home. Employer (1) Duty “stupid”?) because Art. 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions of
Hao gave P1k to another (2) Breach negligence doesn’t appear Chapter 2, Title XVII of the Civil Code, and by special laws. (aka Arts. 2176-2194)
employee to accompany (3) Injury and Proximate to be relevant in the
him to nearest hospital, Causation. context of elements 4. Definition
Bladimir died 2 days later identified by the Court.
of pneumonia. His parents Art 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
filed complaint for negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
damages for Hao’s pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this Chapter
negligence leading to his
death.
5. Scope
3. The Purpose of Tort Law
• Compensation of individuals for losses which they have suffered within the a. “Intentional” Acts Included?
scope of their legally recognized interests • GENERALLY, NO. Art. 2176 clear that cause of action based on QD requires
o In a nutshell: Compensation for harm that act/omission be committed with negligence. This means there must
have been NO INTENT on the part of the defendant to harm the plaintiff.
• The liability arising from extra-contractual culpa is always based upon a
voluntary act or omission which, without willful intent, but by mere
negligence or inattention, has caused damage to another. (Cangco v.
Manila Railroad)
o Note: Voluntary =/= willful

 
3
Divergent Rulings on whether QD includes “intentional acts”:
YES IT CAN:
Elcano v. Hill (1977)
Reginald Hill, son of Marvin Hill, was
killed by Agapito Elcano. In the criminal
trial, Elcano was aquitted due to “lack of
intent to kill, coupled with mistake”
Is the present civil action for damages
barred by the acquittal of Reginald?
Andamo v. IAC (1990)
Sps. Andamo own parcel of land
adjacent to that of Missionaries of Our
Lady of La Salle. The Missionaries’ land
constructed an artificial lake; damaged
Andamo’s crops, created flooding,
inundated their land. A criminal action
(destruction by means of inundation)
and a civil action (damages) were filed.
Held
No. Concept of culpa aquiliana includes
acts which are criminal in character OR
in violation of the penal law, whether
voluntary or negligent. An action against
offender in criminal act can lie as long as
offended party doesn’t recover twice.
Held
Lower court ordered to proceed with civil
action. Acquittal or conviction in the
criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the
civil case, unless there is an acquittal
declaring the fact from which the civil
action arose did not exist.
6. Elements
Art. 2176:
• Act or omission
• Damage to another
• Fault or negligence; and
• No pre-existing contractual relation
Jurisprudence (PNR v. Brunty; Andamo v. IAC):
• Damage (should be: injury – Casis) to the plaintiff
• Negligence, by act or omission, of the defendant, or by some other person
for whose act the defendant must respond; and
• Connection of cause and effect between the fault/negligence of the
defendant and the damage incurred by the plaintiff
C. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TORT AND QUASI-DELICT

NO IT CAN’T:
Baksh v. CA (1993)
Mariolou, 21, was courted
and talked into living with
Baksh, an Iranian, to
whom she surrendered
her virginity to. Then he
started maltreating her,
and during a
confrontation with Brgy.
Officer, he repudiated his
promise to marry.
Held
Baksh liable under Art. 21,
but Court mentioned the
scope of Art. 2176 in
explaining nature of Torts
(that Art. 21 was between
spectrum between RPC
and 2176). Art 2176 is
limited to negligent acts
or omissions and
excludes the notion of
willfulness or intent.
1. Distinct Concepts
• Torts is a classification of several causes of action, while quasi-delict
is a single cause of action
Casis Critiques 2. Framework
It is more in accord with
• They can overlap; it is possible that the same act or omission may be
sound doctrine to rule that
considered either as a tort or as a quasi-delict
a quasi-delict is
• One way of looking at it: a quasi-delict is a tort committed via
committed by negligence
negligence or a quasi-delict is a “negligence tort”.
and without willful intent
to injure although the act
may be voluntary.
D. QUASI-DELICT & DELICT

b. Damage to Property
Cinco v. Canonoy (1979)
Petitioner filed a complaint for recovery
of damages re: vehicular accident
involving his automobile and a jeepney.
Held
The concept of QD under 2176 is broad
enough to include not only injuries to
persons but also damage to property.
“Damage” is used in 2 concepts: the
“harm” done and the “reparation” for the
harm done. “Harm” includes both injuries
to person and property since “harm” is
not limited to personal but also to
property injuries.
1. Distinguishing quasi-delict from delict - The success of the quasi-delictual
action does not depend on the success of the criminal action.
Differences between crimes and cuasi-delitos (Barredo v. Garcia)
1. Crimes affect the public interest, while cuasi-delitos are only of private
concern.
2. The RPC punishes or corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code
merely repairs the damage
3. Delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts; because the latter includes all
acts in which “any kind of fault or negligence intervenes.”

 
4
 2. Overlap between quasi-delict and delict
Barredo v. Garcia (1942)
Collision between taxi and carretela.
Carretela passenger died. Barredo, as
employer of taxi driver, defended himself
from liability by saying he was only
subsidiarily liable, under the RPC. Issue:
Can the parents of deceased bring
separate civil action against the
employer of the taxi driver, making him
primarily and directly responsible?
Held
YES. Art. 2177 supports the view that the
same act, which was the basis of a
criminal action, can be the basis for a
civil action for damages. Art 1903 (now
2176) provides a more expeditious
remedy, rather than the cumbersome
method of exhausting the driver’s
property first. Just remember Art 2177
forestalls a double recovery.
b. Burden of Proof
Source of Obligation Upon which
Plaintiff’s Action Depends
Negligent act/omission
Contractual undertaking between
plaintiff and defendant
Burden of Proof
Burden rests upon plaintiff to prove the
negligence
Proof of the contract and its
nonperformance is sufficient prima facie
to warrant a recovery. Not necessary to
specify in pleadings whether the breach
of the contract is due to willful fault or to
negligence.

LG Foods v. Philadelfa (2006) Held Once the plaintiff proves breach of

A 7-yr old boy was hit by a van owned by Art 2177 provides alternative remedies. contract, there is a presumption that the
LG Foods and driven by their employee. An act/omission causing damage can defendant was at fault or negligent.
An info for Reckless Imprudence give rise to 2 separate civil liabilities: Burden is placed on the defendant to
Resulting to Homicide was filed against 1) Civil Liability ex delicto prove that it was due to an unforeseen
the driver, but he committed suicide so 2) Independent civil liabilities event or to force majeure.
the case was dismissed. Employers If, as here, the action chosen is for • Cangco v. Manila Railroad
denied liability because insisted a quasi-delict, the P may hold the ER liable
conviction for driver before their for the negligent EE’s act, subject to FGU Insurance v. Sarmiento (2002) Held
subsidiary liability. defense of exercise of diligence of a GPS trucking company undertook to Even though GPS not a common carrier,
good father of the family. If action transport cargoes to CII but it collided it was still liable. The mere proof of the
Can a case be dismissed because of chosen is for culpa criminal, the P can with another truck. FGU, the insurer of existence of the contract and the failure
failure to reserve civil action? No. hold the ER subsidiarily liable only upon the shipment, paid the value of the of its compliance justify, prima facie, a
prior conviction of its EE. covered cargo and, as subrogee of CII, corresponding right of relief. HOWEVER,
sued GPS and its driver for driver is not liable because it wasn’t a
E. CULPA AQUILIANA AND CULPA CONTRACTUAL reimbursement. GPS’ defense was that it party to the contract of carriage. Thus,
was not a common carrier. FGU’s civil action against the driver can
1. Distinguishing culpa aquiliana from culpa contractual
only be based on culpa aquiliana, which,
Differences in source, burden of proof, applicability of doctrine of proximate cause,
unlike culpa contractual, would require
and defenses available
the claimant for damages to prove
a. Source: Culpa aquiliana has its source in the breach or omission of those
negligence or fault on the part of the
mutual duties which civil society imposes upon its members, or which arise
defendant.
from these relations, other than contractual, of certain members of society
to others. (Cangco v. Manila Railroad)
c. Applicability of doctrine of proximate cause
Cangco v. Manila Railroad (1918) Held only applicable for quasi-delicts, not breach of contract
Cangco was an employee at the Manila The negligence of the employees
Railroad and gets a free pass to ride the constituted an effective legal cause of Calalas v. CA (2000) Held
train. One day, upon stepping off the the injuries sustained by Cangco. Eliza Sunga rode a passenger jeep Calalas liable. It is immaterial that the
platform, he stepped on a sack of Foundation of MR’s liability was the operated by Calalas; it was filled to proximate was negligence of the truck
watermelons, fell on the platform, and contract of carriage, and obligation to capacity so she was given an extension driver. The doctrine of proximate cause
his arm was crushed. Cangco sued MR respond for the damage arose from seat at the rear end of the vehicle. When is applicable only in actions for quasi-
based on the negligence of its breach of failing to exercise due care in she gave way to an outgoing passenger, delict, not in actions involving breach of
employees in leaving the watermelons its performance. Because of this, the a truck owned by Salva bumped the rear contract. The Doctrine is a device for
on the platform. liability of Manila Road was direct and portion of the jeepney and injured Sunga. imputing liability to a person where there
immediate, and can be rebutted by proof Sunga filed a complaint for damages is no relation between him and another
of its exercise of due care in their against Calalas under contract of party. Contracts already have
selection and supervision. carriage. established obligation.

 
5
 d. Defense of Employer for Negligence of Employee Air France v. Carrascoso
Source of Obligation Defense Available Held Casis Critiques
(1966)
Culpa Aquiliana Defense of due diligence in the Carrascoso bought a 1
st
There was bad faith in The issue was the award
- ER can be made liable on the basis selection and supervision of his class ticket on Air France, compelling him to move of moral damages. Thus,
of his own negligence employees bound for Rome, but upon after he was already the statement is obiter
Culpa Contractual - Force Majeure the BKK stopover was told seated, causing wounded dictum and not binding. At
- Fact of breach of contract may - Proof of exercise extraordinary by the stewardess that a feelings etc. Although the best, this case can be
give rise to liability. diligence in the case of common white man had a better relation of passenger and cited for the rule that an
carriers (Art. 1756) right to it. Issue was carrier is contractual, act that breaches a
whether Carrascoso was nevertheless the act that contract can also be a
Note: In either case, ER cannot raise defense that breach was caused by EE’s negligence entitled to moral breaks the contract may violation of Art. 21.
damages. also be a tort.
2. Is there an intersection?
Casis: If you want to give a simple answer, you can cite Art. 2176, which says “no
pre-existing contractual relation.” But if a Bar question mentions familiar names, you Far East Bank v. CA
Held Casis Critiques
can cite the ruling of that case. (1995)
  FEBTC issued a credit No; only awarded P5k To reconcile: Under this
nd
Art 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or card to Luis Luna and nominal damages. In test, the 2 sentence of
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre- issued a supplemental culpa contractual, moral Art. 2176 is interpreted
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the card to Clarita Luna. damages may be not as a rule of preclusion
provisions of this Chapter Clarita lost her card and recovered where the (i.e. the existences of a
informed FEBTC. When defendant is shown to contract precludes the
• An intersection is possible if the ACT (which breaches the contract) is under
Luis hosted a lunch at the have acted in bad faith or existence of a quasi-
such conditions (ex: duty, breach, injury, proximate causation) that would
InterCon hotel, his card with malice in the breach delict) but merely a rule
constitute CULPA EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL, had no contract existed between the
was dishonored and he of contract and that bad requiring independence.
parties. (Cangco v. Manila Railroad)
had to pay in cash and faith, in this context, This means a quasi-delict
• However, Cangco was decided under the Old Code. New Code is explicit.
was embarrassed. Were includes gross but not can exist between parties
Fores v. Miranda (1959) Held moral damages to be simple negligence. The IF the cause of action
Driver was charged serious physical No. Culpa contractual is excluded by awarded? claim was predicated on exists without a contract.
injuries thru reckless imprudence; he definition of quasi-delicts under 2176. contractual relationship, Applying to this case:
pleaded guilty. The issue now was Court cited differences in “conditions, thus moral damages not Luna’s damage claim was
whether moral damages ought to be defenses and proof” between quasi- awarded because no predicated solely on
awarded. Art 2219 provides a list of delict and breach of contract. proven bad faith from contract. Without the
instances where moral damages can be FEBTC. The test on agreement, the
awarded. It cites “(2) Quasi-delicts Thus, while moral damages are whether QD can be act/omission complained
causing physical injuries” and automatic if QD with injury, there has to deemed to underlie of can’t by itself stand as
“analogous cases.” Was a breach of be bad faith in the breach of contract to breach is: where, without a separate cause of action
contract analogous to a quasi-delict? recover moral damages. pre-existing contract, the because no obligation on
act/omission nonetheless the part of FEBTC to give
Consolidated Bank v. CA amounts to an actionable credit to Luna outside
Held Casis Critiques
(2003) tort by itself. their contract.
Case of the messenger of Lower courts differed bec. No basis for this general
LC Diaz Accounting Firm considered rules on rule without an exception.
who left the passbook quasi-delict, but this is
with the teller of culpa contractual. The law
Consolidated Bank. It on quasi-delict or culpa
went into someone else’s aquiliana is generally
hands and the LC Diaz applicable when there is
lost P300k. SC held bank no pre-existing
liable (culpa contractual). contractual relationship.
 
6
 PSBA v. CA (1992) Held Casis Critiques II. NEGLIGENCE .
Case of Carlitos Bautista Because the - Ambiguous use of the absence of the diligence required
who was stabbed by an circumstances of the case word “really”
nd
outsider on the 2 floor of evince a contractual - Court says that an Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which
PSBA. PSBA held liable. relation between PSBA action under Art. 21 is still is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the
There is a contract and Bautista, the rules on possible even without the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of
between the student and quasi-delict do not really contract, but it forgets Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
school, and schools have govern. The negligence of that Art. 21 requires the If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance,
a built-in obligation to the school cannot exist act complained of to be that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required.
provide atmosphere independently of the “wilfull” and not merely
conducive for learning. contract, unless the negligent. A. CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE
negligence occurs under
the circumstances set out Based on Art. 1173 (1), a determination of negligence requires determining:
in Art. 21 of the Civil Code. • Diligence required under the circumstances
• Whether the actor has performed it
Syquia v. CA (1993) Held Nevertheless, the Court provides for other definitions.
Case of the flooded vault of the late Memorial park was absolved. No breach
Juan Syquia. His family found that there of contract because Absolute Deed of 1. Determining the Diligence Required
was a hole in the vault, and so water Sale didn’t guarantee it to be waterproof. • Factors are the nature of the obligation, and the circumstances of the
collected, the coffin was damaged and There was no culpa aquiliana because persons, time, and place (Art. 1173)
the remains of the deceased were internment foreman was diligent in • Varies with nature of the situation, importance of the act (Sicam v. Jorge)
damaged. choosing to drill the holes. SC said • Greater danger = greater degree of care required (Far Eastern v. CA)
“although a pre-existing contract does
not preclude the existence of culpa PNR v. Brunty (2006) Held Casis Critiques
aquiliana, we find no reason to disregard Car running at 70kph Due diligence required of This due diligence is
respondent Court’s finding that there overtook another car, then railroad companies: different from the
was no negligence.” collided with a PNR train. reasonable degree of care extraordinary diligence
This case is No. 1 on Sir’s Most Hated Cases haha PNR's safety measures to avoid injury to persons standard applicable to its
were inadequate: and property, both in the contract of carriage with
- no of flagbars/ safety operation of trains and in passengers.
Light Rail Transit v. Natividad (2003) Held
railroad bars the maintenance of
Natividad was drunk upon entering the The foundation of LRTA’s liability was
- inadequacy of installed crossings, including a
LRT premises. He was told off by the the contract of carriage and its
warning signals large sign to indicate the
Security Guard, and they had an obligation to indemnify the victim arose
- lack of proper lighting in proximity of the railway
altercation that caused him to fall into from the breach of that contract by
the area
the platform, where he was struck by the reason of its failure to exercise the high
train and killed. LRT and Prudent, the diligence of the common carrier. Prudent PNR v. CA (2007) Held Casis Critiques
security agency, were both charged but not liable because the guard’s Driver stopped for a while - Failure to keep the signal It may be said that a
only LRT was liable. negligence was not duly proven. A before crossing the devices in working order higher diligence (full stop)
contractual obligation may be breached railroad track but still would be an indication of is required of motorists
by tort when the same act causes injury, collided with PNR train. negligence. when they cross railroad
thereby allowing the rules on tort to "Listen" sign was missing; - Obligation to come to a tracks properly sign
apply. "Look" sign was bent. full stop before traversing posted. Still, driver made a
PNR invokes right of way. a "through street" only full stop in this case.
accrues from the time the
said crossing is so
designated and sign-
posted.

2. Default Standard of Diligence: that of a good father of a family (Art. 1173(2))

 
7
 B. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE C. STANDARD OF CONDUCT

• Slight - failure to use great care (which a person of extraordinary prudence 1. Importance of a Standard of Conduct
and foresight would use) • The standard of conduct corresponds to the level of diligence required.
• Ordinary - failure to use ordinary care Without a standard, it cannot be determined W/N a person is negligent.
• Gross - failure to use even slight care (which a careless person would use)
These reflect how close/far the conduct complied with the standard of diligence. 2. The Fictitious Person
In reality it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure a person's negligence.
a. Common Law's Reasonable Person (reasonable man of ordinary prudence)
One rule in jurisprudence to establish gross negligence in committing an act:
• Personification of community ideal of reasonable behavior
determine whether the act was dangerous per se.
b. Civil Law's Good Father of a Family (bonus paterfamilias)
Amedo v. Rio (1954) Held
• Default standard if the law or contract does not provide otherwise
Seaman drowned while retrieving his 2- Jumping into the sea, 1.5 miles away
• Personal circumstances of the actor must be taken into account (Art. 1173)
peso bill. To claim under the Workmen's from the shore, is a failure to exercise
Compensation Act, the accident must (1) "even slight care and diligence". The • The standard does not require that the actor act according to facts known
arise out of and (2) in the course of the danger it entails being clear, potent and to the judge at the time of adjudication but by the circumstances before
employment, (3) not be caused by obvious, it is distinguishable from other them or known to them (Picart v. Smith)
employee's notorious (gross) acts not being dangerous per se and the Picart v. Smith (1918) Held Casis Critiques
negligence. employee being legally justified to "Perturbed by the novelty As he approached the - Under Art. 1173 of the
perform in the course of his employment. of the apparition or the center, he should have current Civil Code, the
Marinduque Iron Mines v. Workmen's rapidity of the approach" perceived that it was too personal circumstances of
Held of the car running at 10- late for the horse to cross the actor must be taken
Compensation Commission (1956)
12mph, Picart thought he with safety. The control of into account.
Laborers boarded a truck which turned Mere riding on a haulage truck or stealing
did not have enough time the situation had then - In this case, the Court
over and hit a coconut tree after a ride thereon is not negligence,
to direct his pony to the passed entirely to Smith. appears to require that the
overtaking another truck on the ordinarily. Transportation by truck is not
correct side of the bridge. - The existence of actor be able to foresee
company road. dangerous per se. Violation of a rule
Seeing the horse was negligence in a given case the danger caused by his
promulgated by a Commission/ board is
quiet, Smith did not slow is not determined by action in order to be
Note: Sir said this decision should be not negligence per se; but it may be
down and change lanes reference to the personal negligent. It seems the
taken with a grain of salt. evidence of negligence. Even granting
while he was still far away. judgment of the actor but Court applied this test
there was negligence, it could not be
The pony was struck and by what would be rather than the standard
gross negligence.
Picart was thrown off. reckless, blameworthy, or of the "ordinary prudent
Ilao-Oreta v. Ronquillo Court held Smith's negligent in the man of person".
Held Casis Critiques
(2007) decision to stay on his ordinary intelligence. - The Court equated
Doctor did not arrive at the She was negligent, but not Thus, the Court took into course at the same speed - Reasonable foresight of common law's "ordinary
scheduled time for a grossly. Negligence could account two factors in was negligent, even harm, followed by ignoring prudent person" with civil
laparoscopic procedure. have been caused by determining the degree of though he was on the the suggestion, is needed law's "bonus
She not consider time human frailty (honeymoon negligence: proper side of the road. before negligence can be paterfamilias".
difference between the preparations). Also, the - nature of the operation held to exist.
Philippines and Hawaii. procedure was elective, - personal circumstances
not life-threatening. of the doctor Sicam v. Jorge (2007) Held
Pawnshop was allegedly robbed. The - Quoting Cruz v. Gangan: Negligence is
If the first factor vault was open at the time of the robbery the omission to do something which a
corresponds to the nature and there was no clear showing that reasonable man would do; or the doing of
of the obligation, then there was even a security guard. something which a prudent and
these correspond to reasonable man would not to.
factors determining the - Sicam failed to exercise reasonable care
diligence required. and caution required by circumstances/
operation of his pawnshop business.

 
8
 Corinthian Gardens v.
Tanjangco (2008)
Cuasos' perimeter fence
encroached on the
Tanjangcos' lot by 87
sqm. Cuasos ascribe
negligence to the builder,
the engineer who
conducted the relocation
survey, and to the village
association for approving
their relocation survey and
building plans without
verifying their accuracy.
3. Special Circumstances
Añonuevo v. CA (2004)
Bicycle collided with a car
that was making a left
turn.
Heirs of Completo v.
Albayda (2010)
Speeding car bumped and
sideswiped a bicycle.
Pacis v. Morales (2010)
Gun shop sales agent was
shot in the head while
handling a defective gun
that (still loaded) was left
on the table.
Held
- A negligent act is one
from which an ordinary
prudent person in the
actor's position, in the
same or similar
circumstances, would
foresee such an
appreciable risk of harm
to others.
- Failure to prevent the
encroachment, despite the
inspection conducted,
constitutes negligence,
and at the very least,
contributed to the injury.
Held
A driver of an automobile
is required to use a greater
degree of care because
the machine is capable of
greater destruction.
Held
More will be required of a
motorist than a bicyclist in
discharging his duty of
care because of the
physical advantages the
automobile has over the
bicycle.
Held
A higher degree of care is
required of someone who
has in his possession/
under his control an
instrumentality extremely
dangerous in character.
Such person has the duty
to take exceptional
precautions to prevent any
injury being done thereby.
Casis Critiques
Based on this case, it may
be said that if one is given
authority to approve/
disapprove plans or
designs, then the requisite
diligence is one which
makes sure the said plans
are compliant.
Casis Critiques
Court recognized a greater
degree of diligence on the
part of drivers of motor
vehicles in case of
collision with bicycles.
Casis Critiques
-The special circumstance
here is the inherent
differences in the vehicles.
- The role here of special
circumstance is unclear;
the case was decided on
preponderance of
evidence, not by a higher
degree of diligence.
Casis Critiques
Interestingly, the Court
initially characterized the
cause of action as one
based on Art. 2180 in rel.
to Art 2176 (vicarious
liability), but it seems the
gun shop owner was held
accountable for his own
negligence, not that of his
employee.
9
4. Children
Under Art. 2180, parents or guardians may be held responsible for the negligent acts
of their children. Thus, the law recognizes that even children can be negligent.
The issue re: diligence required of children has given rise to many views/ methods:
1. "Age brackets" standard: children have absolute immunity at a certain age.
• The problem is determining the age when it applies.
• Sangco's age brackets: applies rules on criminal liability by analogy;
hence, a child under 9 years of age must be conclusively presumed
incapable of contributory negligence.
2. Take into account the specific characteristic of the child
• Subjective standard; uses the maturity and capacity of the child
3. Measure the acts of the child against "average conduct of persons his age
and experience" (same age, capacity, discretion, knowledge, and experience
under the same or similar circumstances)
• Both objective (child will be compared to others of similar age and
experience) and subjective (age and experience of the child himself)
• This is similar to the fictitious person standard. The child's actions are
measured against "average conduct" and the fictitious person is also
the average conduct expected by the community.
Taylor v. Manila Railroad
Held Casis Critiques
(1910)
15y/o boy and 12y/o boy The care and caution This case makes use of
picked up fulminating required of a child is the subjective standard
camps from Manila according to his maturity (see #2, above).
Electric. After a series of and capacity, determined
experiments, they opened by the circumstances of
a cap with a knife and put the case. Here, the 15 y/o
a match to it. The ensuing boy had worked as a cabin
explosion injured them boy and was able to work
and a 9 y/o girl. as a draftsman after the
injury.
Jarco Marketing v. CA
Held Casis Critiques
(1999)
6y/o girl was pinned by The rule is: A child under 9 The Court in this case
the store's gift-wrapping y/o must be conclusively adopted the "age
counter while her mother presumed incapable of brackets" proposed by
was at the payment and contributory negligence as Sangco (see #1, above).
verification counter. a matter of law.
Ylarde v. Aquino (1988) Held Casis Critiques
Pupils aged 10-11 played He did only what any other This test is both
in an excavation pit while 10 y/o child would do in subjective and objective
their teacher was away. the same situation. His (see #3, above)
One boy jumped on a conduct should be judged
concrete block, which slid according to the average
into the pit and pinned his conduct of persons of his
classmate, killing him. age and experience.
5. Experts III. PRESUMPTIONS OF NEGLIGENCE .
a. In General General rule: the person who alleges negligence has the burden of proving it (Sec. 1,
• If one offers his services he is understood as holding himself out to the Rule 131), but law and jurisprudence provide for certain presumptions.
public as possessing the degree of skill commonly possessed by others in
the same employment; if his pretensions are unfounded, he commits a A. IN MOTOR VEHICLE MISHAPS
series of fraud on every man who employs him (Far Eastern Shipping v. CA)
1. Previous Violation
Culion v. Philippine Motors (1930) Held
Schooner engine to be changed from When a person holds himself out as Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former,
gasoline to crude oil. New carburetor being competent to do things requiring who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It
started flooding, with the fuel trickling, professional skill, he will be held liable is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless
but this was ignored by PM's manager. for negligence if he fails to exhibit the driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months.
The schooner was engulfed in flames care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable.
during the trial run. the particular work.
2. Simultaneous Violations
b. Pharmacists
• Jurisprudence places a high standard of diligence for pharmacists. Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor
o Highest degree of care and diligence (Mercury Drug v. De Leon) vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
• Caveat emptor cannot apply to purchase and sale of drugs (US v. Pineda)
Tison v. Sps. Pomasin
US v. Pineda (1918) Held Casis Critiques Held Casis Critiques
(2011)
Santos purchased Delivery of a poisonous It is unreasonable to apply Tractor-trailer driver's A causal connection must This doesn't mean that the
potassium chlorate. He drug by mistake is prima this rule if the packaging license restriction was exist between the injury presumption arises only
was given barium facie negligence. Caveat of the medicine dispensed violated at the time the received and the violation when the traffic violation
chlorate, which poisoned emptor cannot apply; it makes it clear that it is not vehicle collided with a of the traffic regulation. It was the proximate cause.
some of his sick horses. should be caveat venditor. the one requested. jitney from opposite must be proven that the It means that despite the
Mercury Drug v. De Leon (2008) Held direction. Court found traffic regulation was the presumption of negligence
Judge De Leon showed his prescription Diligence required of a pharmacist (US negligence on jitney proximate/ legal cause of in 2185, the claimant must
for "Cortisporin Opthalmic" (eye drops) jurisp.): highest degree of care known to driver's part (zigzagging the injury or that it still prove that such
but was given "Cortisporin Otic Solution". practical men. His mistake is negligence. downhill, overloaded). substantially contributed. negligence was the
The pharmacist did not apologize. She Such mistake cannot be tolerated. proximate cause.
said she was unable to fully read the Mercury Drug was grossly negligence in Sanitary Steam v. CA
prescription and she gave the only dispensing ear drops. Worse, they tried to Held Casis Critiques
(1998)
Cortisporin Solution available in the PH. blame the victim. To avoid hitting jeepney Petitioner must show that This supports the view
that made sudden stop in the violation of the statute stated above.
c. Medical Professionals front, a truck swerved to was the proximate/legal
• Medical malpractice/negligence: failure of a physician/ surgeon to apply to other lane, hitting a cause of the injury or that
his practice that degree of care and skill ordinarily employed by the Cimarron (which had only it substantially
profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like surrounding 1 working headlight, contributed thereto.
circumstances (Cayao Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete) overloaded front seat).
Cruz v. CA (2008) Held Añonuevo v. CA (2004) Held
Hysterectomy in clinic that lacked the Doctors have a duty to use at least the Bicycle collided with a car that was Art. 2185 should not apply to non-
necessary blood bags and oxygen tanks. same level of care that any other making a left turn. The bicycle was not motorized vehicles, even by analogy.
The patient died but Dr. Ninevetch was reasonably competent doctor would use registered and had no safety gadgets Moreover, Añonuevo did not attempt to
acquitted because the standard of care to treat a condition under the same installed in violation of a 1948 municipal establish a causal connection between
(and failure to comply with it) was not circumstances. It is in this aspect that ordinance. Car driver invokes Art. 2185 the safety violations and the accident
established by expert testimony. expert testimony is essential. against the bicycle rider. itself. His speeding was the prox cause.

 
10
 B. POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS OR SUBSTANCES
Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the
death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as
firearms and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his
occupation or business.
C. COMMON CARRIERS
a. Nature of the Accident
• In light of ordinary experience, gives rise to an inference that someone must
have been negligent (e.g. a fire not caused by spontaneous natural event)
b. Control over the Cause
• Fundamental element
• Usually required to be "exclusive control", but Professional Services v.
Agana indicates that "control and management" is sufficient

Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the Professional Services v. Agana (2007) Held
goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: 2 pieces of gauze were left in the The element of control and management
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
patient's body after an operation. Patient was lacking. Dr. Fuentes was no longer in
(3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; sued the lead surgeon (Dr. Ampil) and the the hospital when the incision was
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers; surgeon who was asked to perform the closed. Even if he stayed in the OR, RIL
(5) Order or act of competent public authority. hysterectomy only (Dr. Fuentes). The would remain inapplicable under the
latter was exculpated. "Captain of the Ship" rule.
Art. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding
article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have c. No Contribution to the Injury from the Injured
been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
diligence as required in Article 1733.
• Not necessary that the plaintiff be completely inactive, but merely that there
be evidence removing inference of his own responsibility (Prosser&Keaton)
Art. 1752. Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier in the • Prime example: medical negligence cases (patient is usually incapable of
vigilance over the goods, the common carrier is disputably presumed to have been negligent in acting), provided it does not involve a question requiring expert testimony
case of their loss, destruction or deterioration.

4. Effect of Direct Evidence

D. RES IPSA LOQUITUR
• RIL can only be invoked when under the circumstances, direct evidence of
1. Definition: "the thing or the transaction speaks of itself" negligence or direct cause of the injury is absent and not readily available
2. Statement of the Rule (N.B. Prof. Casis said we should memorize this.)
• Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management Layugan v. IAC (1988) Held Casis Critiques
of the defendant (or his servants), and the accident is such as in the Layugan parked his cargo RIL should not apply The doctrine here does not
ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the truck along the National because truck driver's mean RIL can only be
management (or control) used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, Hwy to repair a tire. negligence was shown by invoked in the complete
in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose Isidro's truck bumped him. clear and convincing absence of evidence. In
from (or was caused by the defendants) want of care. (Tan v. Jam Transit) Isidro argues Layugan evidence. A kerosene lamp Ramos v. CA, the Court
• Where the thing which caused the injury, without the fault of the injured, is must show he put an EWD (EWD) was placed 3-4 m said RIL can be used
under the exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is such that it or else he is presumed from the rear of the parked along with other proof.
should not have occurred if he, having such control used proper care, it negligent based on RIL. cargo truck.
affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation that the injury Defendant should not
arose from the defendant's want of care, and the burden of proof is shifted (Unusual: It was the invoke RIL. He doesn't
to him to establish that he has observed due care and diligence. defendant who invoked have to; if plaintiff
(Professional Services v. Agana) RIL as a defense.) presents evidence, he
must respond with
3. Elements of RIL, based on Ramos v. CA ( RIL N I C E ): evidence also. If no
• Ordinarily does not occur unless someone is negligent evidence, defendant
• Caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control (or control and should move to dismiss.
management) of the person sought to be liable
• Possibility of contributing conduct, which would make the plaintiff
responsible, is eliminated
• No explanation by the defendant (added by Professional Services v. Agana)
 
11
 Tan v. Jam Transit (2009) Held Casis Critiques 6. Effect of the Rule
Jitney loaded with salted RIL applies because based It is not clear if the Court • Creates a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant
eggs, balot, and quail eggs on the evidence is considering that if the • Does not dispense with requirement of proof of culpable negligence
turned turtle. Jitney driver presented, all the violation of a traffic • Merely determines and regulates what shall be prima facie evidence
argues the Jam bus tried requisites are present. regulation is negligence • Bridge by which plaintiff reaches over to defendant for an explanation
to overtake despite the There was no direct per se or merely raises a • But in Ramos v. CA, Court applied RIL to allow non-expert testimony
double yellow center lines. evidence of negligence but presumption of negligence o Hence it can be said that the secondary effect of RIL is to allow
the evidence presented under Art. 2185. Needless certain types of evidence to be admissible
TC, applying RIL, found the can establish "how the to say, a presumption
Jam bus driver at fault incident happened". By arising from a violation of 7. Justification for the Rule
because it was violating a overtaking on the left lane, a traffic regulation Jurisprudence provides at least 2 reasons:
traffic regulation when the the driver was violating simultaneous with the 1. Doctrine of common knowledge - certain occurrences, based on common
collision took place. the double yellow center mishap is different from knowledge, will not occur without negligence
line regulation and the ban RIL. Certainly, RIL does 2. Person in charge of the instrumentality ordinarily knows the cause of the
CA reversed because Tan on overtaking on hwy not arise simply because injury, while the plaintiff does not
had access to direct intersections. an actor is violating a
evidence. traffic regulation. DM Consunji v. CA (2001) Held
College Assurance v. Platform carrying a construction worker This contention loses relevance in the
Held Casis Critiques fell from 14th floor of the Renaissance face of CA's application of RIL. The effect
Belfranlt (2007)
Overheated coffee Even w/o the testimony of Thus, the Court applied Tower. RIL became an issue in relation to of RIL is to warrant a presumption/
percolator in CAP's the fireman and the RIL even if there were police officer's testimony as to the cause inference that the mere fall of the
storeroom caused a fire documents he presented, documents from the of the fall (mere opinion, generally elevator was a result of the person
which destroyed several finding of negligence Bureau of Fire Protection inadmissible). having charge of the instrumentality
portions of Belfranlt's could not be overturned by that were presented as being negligent. It furnishes a substitute
building. bare denial. Under RIL, evidence as to the cause for specific proof of negligence.
expert testimony may be of the fire. One of the theoretical bases for the
dispensed with to sustain doctrine is necessity; necessary evidence
an allegation of is absent/ not available (bridge).
negligence if the elements
obtain. 8. Res Ipsa Loquitur versus Expert Testimony in Medical Negligence Cases
• Expert testimony is essential to establish:
BJDC Construction v. Lanuzo (2014) Held o Standard of care of the profession
Motorcycle rider sideswiped a concrete RIL has no application here. The fatal o Physician's conduct falls below such standard
barrier at a road re-blocking site. His accident was not caused by an o Failure to observe the standard is the proximate cause of the injury
heirs allege the site's inadequate lighting instrumentality within the exclusive • Usually necessary to support to conclusion as to causation
was the proximate cause of the accident. control of the construction company. In
At the time of the accident, the re- contrast, the rider had the exclusive Cruz v. CA (1997) Held
blocking had been going on for over a control of how he operated and managed Hysterectomy in 'untidy' clinic that W/N there was reckless imprudence was
month. He passed the site daily. his motorcycle. He was speeding and lacked the necessary blood bags and a conclusion best arrived at by the
had no helmet or headlights. oxygen tanks. The patient died but Dr. unquestionable knowledge of expert
Ninevetch was acquitted because the witnesses, not through the uneducated
5. Nature of the Rule standard of care (and failure to comply surmises of laymen, including judges.
• Procedural; a rule of evidence and not of substantive law with it) was not established by expert Expert testimony should have been
• Does not create or constitute an independent/separate ground of liability testimony. offered to prove that the circumstances
• Mode of proof/ mere procedural convenience (inadequate facilities) are constitutive of
conduct falling below the standard of
• Peculiar to the law of negligence that recognizes that prima facie
care employed by other physicians in
negligence may be established without direct proof, and furnishes a
good standing when performing the
substitute for specific proof of negligence
same operation.
• Relieves plaintiff of burden of producing specific proof of negligence
 
12
 Cayao-Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete (2008) Held IV. DEFENSES AGAINST CHARGE OF NEGLIGENCE .
Despite a dilatation and curettage (D&C) The doctor presented an expert (OB-
procedure, a dead fetus was left in the GYN/UP Prof) who testified that the D&C A. PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE
patient's womb. She eventually had to did not cause the rupture of patient's
undergo a hysterectomy because of uterus. Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his
intra-abdominal bleeding and a ruptured In addition, the proximate cause of the Art. 2179.
injury, When the
he cannot plaintiff's
recover own negligence
damages. was the immediate
But if his negligence was only and proximatethe
contributory, cause of his
immediate
uterus. Sps. did not present expert injury was patient's actions. She did not injury, he cannot
and proximate recover
cause damages.
of the But ifthe
injury being hisdefendant's
negligence lack
was of
only
duecontributory, the immediate
care, the plaintiff may
and proximate
recover cause
damages, butof the
the injuryshall
courts being the defendant's
mitigate lack to
the damages of be
dueawarded.
care, the plaintiff may
testimony, while the doctor did. return for the follow-up evaluation.
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages
Lucas v. Tuaño (2009) Held that he may recover.
Doctor prescribed different kinds of Medical negligence cases are best
medicine for a patient with sore eyes. proved by opinions of expert witnesses
The latter developed steroid-induced belonging in the same general line of • If the proximate cause consists of the plaintiff’s negligence concurring with
glaucoma. He was not able to celebrate practice as the defendant physician. the negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff cannot recover
the Christmas holidays. He alleges the There was a failure to present expert • Bernardo v. Legaspi: If the plaintiff in a negligence action, by his own
doctor was negligent in not checking if testimony to establish: carelessness contributes to the principal occurrence, that is, to the
patient was a steroid responder before (1) Standard of care to be implemented accident, as one of the determining causes thereof, he cannot recover.
prescribing meds. (2) Doctor failed to observe the standard
(3) Failure to do so caused the injury PLDT v. CA (1989) Held
Ramos v. CA (1999) Held Casis Critiques Sps. ran over a mound of earth and fell The accident was due to the lack of
Patient sustained brain RIL applies here, based on Interestingly, the Court did into an open excavation undertaken by diligence of the driver. His negligence
damage following the Voss v. Bridwell not allow the testimony of PLDT, failing to notice the uncovered was contributory to his injuries and went
intubation problems when guidelines. a pulmonologist because open trench because of the darkness to the very cause of the accident thus
she was being prepped for he was not an expert in and lack of any warning light or signs. precluding him from recovering
a gall bladder operation. Though generally, expert anesthesiology. This damages. The sps knew of the presence
Her sister who witnessed testimony is relied upon, illustrates that it is of the excavation so the presence of
the events was allowed to when RIL is availed of by possible to require expert warning signs could not have completely
testify despite being a the plaintiff, the need for testimony in a case prevented the accident.
non-expert on intubation/ expert medical testimony covered by RIL.
anesthesiology. is dispensed with because Omission to perform a duty, such as the
the injury itself provides placing of warning signs on the site of
Voss v. Bridwell guidelines the proof of negligence. excavation, constitutes the proximate
for applying RIL: Need for expert testimony cause only when the doing of the said
- Plaintiff submitted applies only to matters omitted act would have prevented the
himself to the care, clearly within the domain injury.
custody, and control of Dr of medical science, not to
- Dr had complete and those within the common Manila Electric v. Remoquillo (1956) Held
exclusive control over him knowledge of mankind. Repair of a media agua caused a Death was primarily caused by his own
- At time of submission, person’s death by electrocution. The negligence. It was presumed that due to
he was fit in mind and RIL is to be cautiously galvanized iron sheet came into contact his age and experience that he was
body, but he suffered applied. It has no with the electric wire of Meralco which qualified to repair the media agua.
irreparable damage and application in a suit was parallel and 2 ½ feet from the media Unfortunately, forgetting where he was
injury rendering him involving the merits of a agua. Widow and children filed suit to standing, holding the iron sheet,
deceberate and totally diagnosis/ treatment, or if recover damages. evidently without looking, and throwing
incapacitated only the desired result all prudence and discretion to the winds,
- Injury ordinarily does not was not accomplished. he caused his own electrocution.
occur in the process of the
operation or in the
absence of negligence

 
13
 B. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF Municipal Treasurer. to his injuries, it must be shown that he
performed an act that brought about his
• The defendant may raise the defense that the plaintiff himself had injuries in disregard of warnings or signs
contributory negligence. of an impending danger to health and
o Not a complete defense because even with contributory body. To prove contributory negligence, it
negligence, the plaintiff can still recover from the defendant. is necessary to establish a causal link,
• Proximate cause of injury to plaintiff must be the negligence of the although not proximate between the
defendant. If the proximate cause of the injury was the negligence of a third negligence of the party succeeding
party, the plaintiff cannot recover from the defendant. injury.

1. Definition of Contributory Negligence NPC v. Heirs of Casionan (2008) Held

• Contributory negligence is one that merely contributes to the plaintiff’s
injury but not to the principal occurrence.
M.H. Rakes v. The Atlantic (1907)
Laborer walked alongside 2 hand cars
which carried rails. The track sagged,
the tie broke, and the rails slid off,
breaking his leg which needed to be
amputated.
Ma-Ao Sugar v. CA (1990)
The carbonera of a sugar central’s cargo
train suddenly derailed causing its
employee onboard to jump off to escape
injury. The train fell on its side which
pinned him down and killed him.
Añonuevo v. CA (2004)
Collision between a car and bicycle. The
bicycle had no foot brakes, safety
gadgets or headlights as required by a
municipal ordinance. Nor was it
registered with the Office of the
Held
The laborer was negligent for noticing
the depression in the track yet
continuing work and for walking
alongside the car instead of along the
boards.
Contributory negligence is one that
merely contributes to the plaintiff’s injury
but not to the principal occurrence.
Where he 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.
Held
There was negligence on the part of the
sugar central. The employee was not
guilty of contributory negligence from the
mere fact that he was not at his assigned
station when the carbonera derailed. It
was pure speculation to suppose that he
would not have been injured if he stayed
in the front car rather that at the back
and that he was killed because he chose
to ride in the carbonera.
Held
The cyclist was not guilty of contributory
negligence and the driver of the car was
solely responsible for the accident.
To hold a person as having contributed
Pocket miner was carrying a long There was no contributory negligence on
bamboo pole while walking under high- the pocket miner’s part. The accident
tension electrical transmission lines would not have happened if the wires
which were already sagging 8-10 feet were properly maintained. Sagging high
from the ground. The tip of the pole tension wires were an accident waiting
touched a wire which caused his death to happen.
by electrocution. The heirs filed a claim
Contributory negligence is conduct on
for damages from the electric company.
the part of the injured party, contributing
as a legal cause to the harm he has
suffered, which falls below the standard
which he is required to conform for his
own protection.
There is contributory negligence when
the party’s act showed lack of ordinary
care and foresight that such act could
cause harm or put his life in danger.
2. Distinguishing Contributory Negligence from Proximate Cause
• Contributory negligence is negligence that is not the proximate cause of the
injury and fails the applicable test for proximate cause.
• The guiding principle is still the Rakes distinction:
o Negligence is only contributory and not the proximate cause if it
contributes to the victim’s injuries and not to the principal
occurrence or the cause of his injuries.
3. Effect of Contributory Negligence
• Contributory negligence will not prevent plaintiff from recovering from
defendant whose negligence was the proximate cause of the injury but the
plaintiff’s award of damages would be mitigated.
• Underlying precept: A plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury
should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the
consequences of his own negligence and that the defendant must thus be
held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence

 
14
Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon (2005) Held C. FORTUITOUS EVENT
A motorcycle was tailgating a jeepney The proximate cause of the collision was 1. Definition
when the jeepney made a sudden left the abrupt and sudden left turn of the • Something which could not be foreseen; or foreseen but inevitable
turn, causing a collision and the death of jeepney however the motorcycle driver
the motorcycle driver. was guilty of contributory negligence for Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by
driving at a high speed, tailgating, stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person
intoxicated, and was not wearing a shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen,
protective helmet. He can only recover were inevitable.
damages up to 50%.
Sicam v. Jorge (2007) Held Casis Critiques
Contributory negligence is one that A pawnshop was The Court found that the Reasoning is erroneous
merely contributes to the plaintiff’s injury robbed of cash and very measures the because
but not to the principal occurrence. jewelry from the pawnshop owner took 1. Definition of
pawnshop vault. The show that the possibility fortuitous event in
The defendant must thus be held liable owner of jewelry of robbery was not only Art. 1174 is not
only for the damages actually caused by pawned to the shop foreseeable but actually limited to
his negligence. sued the pawnshop foreseen and unforeseeable events
owner for failing to anticipated. His 2. Act of taking
PNR v. Brunty (2006) Held Casis Critiques return the jewelry upon testimony contradicted measures against
A collision occurred The Court found that while Implies that there are at demand. his defense of fortuitous and event should no
between a car and a train the acts of the driver of the least two types or event. bar one from arguing
causing the death of a car contributed to the degrees of causality – Owner of the pawnshop that the event was
passenger of the car. The collision, they do not one being proximate and testified that there was fortuitous.
car was overtaking negate the railroad the other not proximate. a security guard and 3. A diligent person who
another car, with a blind company’s liability. Perhaps the not that he tried opening a undertakes measures
curve ahead, when it hit proximate causal link is a vault with a bank for to guard against the
the train. To prove contributory remote cause. safekeeping the effects of a fortuitous
negligence, it is still valuables. event is barred from
necessary to establish a using it as a defense
causal link, although not while a negligent
proximate, between the person who does not
negligence of the party undertake measures
and the succeeding injury. can claim the event is
fortuitous.
Genobiagon v. CA (1989) Held
A rig was going fast and trying to The Court convicted him of homicide Court confused existence of
overtake the rig in front of him causing it through reckless imprudence. fortuitous event and
to bump an old woman who was trying availability of fortuitous event
to cross the street, which caused her Defense of contributory negligence on defense.
death. the part of the plaintiff is not available in
criminal cases committed through 2. Defense and Exceptions
The driver of the rig attributes reckless imprudence.
contributory negligence on the old • General Rule: No one is responsible for fortuitous events.
woman’s part. • Exceptions (L-SAR): In cases specified by law; when it is otherwise declared
by stipulation; when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of
risk

 
15
3. Elements D. PLAINTIFF’S ASSUMPTION OF RISK (VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA)
• HIRO • One who has assumed the risk of such an event cannot raise the defense of
o Independent of human will fortuitous event.
o Impossible to foresee or if foreseen, impossible to avoid • Philippine Jurisprudence appears to have adopted the common law concept of
o Renders it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a assumption of risk or volenti non fit injuria on the part of the plaintiff, which the
normal manner defendant may use in his defense.
o Obligor must be free from any participation
• In order for a fortuitous event to exempt one from liability, it is necessary Afialda v. Hisole (1949) Held
that one has committed no negligence or misconduct that may have Carabao caretaker was gored by one of The animal was in the custody and under
occasioned the loss the animals which caused his death as a the control of the caretaker. It was his
consequence of the injuries. duty to try to prevent the animal form
4. Three-Step Analysis causing injury or damage to anyone.
• (t) I D E Being injured by the animal under those
o Fortuitous event must be identified circumstances was one of the risks of
o It must be determined if the circumstance falls within any of the the occupation which he had voluntarily
three exceptions under Art. 1174 assumed and for which he must take the
o It must be established that all the essential requisites of a consequences.
fortuitous event are present Ilocos Norte v. CA (1989) Held
Early morning after a typhoon, a woman Volenti non fit injuria was not applicable.
Juntilla v. Fontanar (1985) Held
ventured into the waist-deep flood to The Court noted that she was merely
The right rear tire of a jeepney, exploded Common carrier is liable for an injury
look after the merchandise that might exercising her right to protect her
causing the vehicle to turn turtle. A caused by a mechanical defect if the
have been damaged in her store. As she property from the floods. An emergency
passenger sitting at the front seat was flaws were discoverable.
was wading through, she suddenly was at hand as the deceased’s property,
thrown out of the vehicle. He suffered
screamed and sank. An electric wire was a source of her livelihood, was faced
injuries and lost his Omega watch.
seen dangling from a post, moving in a with and impending loss.
Southeastern College v. snake-like fashion. The electric
Held Casis Critiques company raised the defense of volenti The doctrine of assumption of risk does
CA (1998)
A typhoon blew the roof of The defense of fortuitous Negligence which non fit injuria. not apply when:
a college’s building on a event was available “humanizes” the event • An emergency exists
house, destroying because no negligence on need not be an • The life or property of another is in
portions of their roofing. its part was proven. The antecedent negligence but peril
The owners of the house original plans and design may be simultaneous. • When a person seeks to rescue his
filed a complaint for of the school building endangered property
damages. The college were approved prior to Negligence need not be
claims that the accident construction. For a “gross” to bar the Calalas v. CA (2000) Held Casis Critiques
was a fortuitous event. fortuitous event to exempt application of the A passenger was sitting The Court did not agree No assumption of risk in
a person from liability, it is doctrine. on an extension seat in a with the contention that taking an extension seat
necessary that he be free jeepney. A truck bumped taking an extension seat or boarding an overloaded
from any previous Why is the Court making the jeepney, injuring amounted to an implied ferry, but the Court does
negligence or misconduct the plaintiff prove passenger. The truck assumption of risk. It is not provide a reason.
by reason of which the negligence? driver and owner were akin to arguing that the
loss may have been held liable. The passenger injuries to victims of
occasioned. filed a case for breach of tragedies of the seas
When the effect is found contract against the jeep should not be
to be partly the result of owner, with the truck compensated merely
the participation of man, owner as third party because those
the whole occurrence is defendant. passengers assumed a
hereby humanized. greater risk by boarding
an overloaded ferry.
 
16
 Nikko Hotel v. Roberto
Held Casis Critiques V. THE CAUSE .
Reyes (2005)
An actor allegedly gate- Volenti non fit injuria was It seems the Court made a A. DIFFERENT CATEGORIES
crashed a hotel’s private not applicable because counter-defense: defense
party. He claimed that he even if respondent of assumption of risk not 1. Proximate
was told by the executive assumed the risk, under available when the cause
secretary, in a loud voice Arts. 19 and 21 of the Civil of action is based on Arts. • Art. 2176 requires that it be proven that the act or omission of the
and with the other guests Code, the hotel was still 19 and 21. defendant be the cause of the injury
able to hear, to leave for under the obligation to o Jurisprudence requires that the injured party proves a connection
he was not invited. He treat him fairly in order not of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the
filed a complaint based to expose him to defendant and injury to the plaintiff.
on the human relations unnecessary ridicule. • Based on jurisprudence, a proximate cause is defined as:
provision. The hotel o A cause without which the injury would not have occurred; and
invoked volenti non fit o Results in the injury as a foreseeable and natural and probable
injuria. consequence
Pantaleon v. American Express (2010) Held o Bataclan v. Medina: the cause, which, in natural and continuous
While on a European tour, a rich man The Court ruled volenti non fit injuria to sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
and his family attempted to purchase be applicable. When they pushed through the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred
diamond pieces using their American with the purchase, they must have o Mercury Drug v. Baking: any cause that produces injury in a
Express, 10 minutes before their tour known that the group would naturally natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
group had to leave for Amsterdam. The become annoyed and irritated with him. intervening cause, such that the result would not have occurred
purchases were approved by only after This was the natural, foreseeable otherwise
45 minutes. The trip to Amsterdam had consequence of their decision to make o Pilipinas Bank v. CA: foreseen or reasonably anticipated by a
to be cancelled. The tour group was the tour group wait. At any time they person of ordinary case that the injury complained of or some
annoyed and irritated with them. They could have cancelled the sale but did similar injury, would result therefrom as a natural and probable
filed an action for damages against the not. consequence
credit card company. • Requirements (C U!)
o Each event must have a causal connection with its immediate
E. PRESCRIPTION predecessor or is part of a natural and continuous sequence
o The chain must be unbroken by an efficient intervening cause
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; Bataclan v. Medina
Held Casis Critiques
However, when the action arises from or out of any act, activity, or conduct of any public officer (1957)
involving the exercise of powers or authority arising from Martial Law including the arrest, One of the tires of a bus The Court held the bus The Court characterized
detention and/or trial of the plaintiff, the same must be brought within one (1) year. burst and it began to zig- company liable for the the action as anchored on
zag until it fell into a canal death of the passengers. the breach of contract of
Kramer v. CA (1989) Held or ditch on the side of the The proximate cause of carriage thus the
On Apr. 8, 1976, a fishing boat collided The Court held that the action is barred road and turned turtle. the death was the discussion on proximate
with an inter-island vessel. The Board of by prescription, to be reckoned from Men came with one of overturning of the bus. cause was irrelevant as to
Marine Inquiry conducted an when the cause of action accrued. The them carrying a lighted the liability of the carrier.
investigation. On Oct. 19, 1981, more aggrieved party need not wait for the torch made of bamboo Proximate cause is that
than 4 years after the incident, the BMI determination of an administrative body. with a wick on the end, cause, which, in natural
concluded that the negligence of the fueled with petroleum. As and continuous sequence,
inter-island vessel’s employees caused they approached the bus, unbroken by any efficient
the collision. On May 30, 1985, the a fire started burning and intervening cause,
owners of the fishing boat instituted a consuming the bus and produces the injury, and
complaint for damages. The owners of the passengers left inside. without which the result
the inter-island vessel moved to dismiss would not have occurred.
on the ground of prescription.
 
17
 Mercury Drug v. Baking 2. Concurrent
Held Casis Critiques
(2007)
Pharmacist misread the The Court found the Around three days had • The negligence in order to render a person liable need not be the sole cause
prescription for Diamicron pharmacist negligent in already lapsed from the of an injury. It is sufficient that his negligence, concurring with one or more
and instead sold selling the wrong time of the negligent act efficient causes other than plaintiff’s is the proximate cause.
Domicum, a potent medication, which was determined by the Court o There is only one proximate cause, but it may consist of two
sleeping tablet. The the proximate cause of as the proximate cause. negligent acts concurring with each other.
purchaser took the the collision. • The existence of another efficient cause does not make a cause less
medicine for three proximate
consecutive days which
caused him to fall asleep Far Eastern v. CA (1998) Held Casis Critiques
while driving which Supervising captain and The Court found that Implication that each
caused a vehicular master of vessel both on both Captains were concurring cause must by
accident. board for the safe berthing negligent. itself be a proximate
of the vessel. Bow of the cause. Inconsistent with
Pilipinas Bank v. CA vessel rammed into the The liability of one actor earlier statement of the
Held Casis Critiques
(1994) pier causing considerable is not affected by the Court that each concurrent
The deposit slip had the The proximate cause of The paragraph quoted damage to both the pier negligence of another cause is a component of
wrong account number the dishonored checks from the trial court only and the vessel. actor if both acts one proximate cause.
but with the correct name. was the bank employee’s explains why the bank comprise the proximate
The bookkeeper of the negligence in erroneously employee was negligent Owner of vessel argues cause of the injury. In order to be a concurrent
bank did not notice that posting the cash deposit in but not why the that vessel was under cause, is it sufficient that it
the surname of the owner the name of another negligence was the compulsory pilotage of combines with another
of the wrong account was depositor who had a proximate cause. the supervising captain cause to form a proximate
different from that on the similar first name. The and therefore solely cause or must it
deposit slip, so the Court quoted the trial court responsible. independently be a
deposit was credited to that the employee should proximate cause by itself?
him. Checks were have continuously gone
dishonored because of beyond mere assumption • Casis Critiques: Arguing a person’s negligence is merely a concurring cause
this. and proceeded with clear does not absolve one of liability. Exception is when the defendant argues
certainty. that his negligence concurs with that of the plaintiff.

3. Remote

• Def. A cause which would have been a proximate cause, had there been no
efficient intervening cause after it and prior to the injury.

Manila Electric v. Remoquillo (1956) Held

Media agua + galvanized iron sheet What determines the existence of a
remote cause is not the nature of such
cause itself but whether or not there is
an efficient intervening cause.

 
18
 Gabeto v. Araneta (1921) Held Casis Critiques B. TESTS TO DETERMINE PROXIMATE CAUSE
Argument about who The Court ruled that the The Court looked at the
called the carromata first. mere fact that the angry timing element in 1. But for/sine qua non
Angry guy grabbed the guy interfered with the deciding that a cause is • An act or omission is not regarded as a cause of an event if the particular
reins to stop the horse. carromata by stopping the not proximate but event would have occurred without it.
Driver tried to pull the horse would not make him remote. • Casis Critiques: Courts have not rigorously required the but for test in cases
reins to free the horse liable for the death of the involving multiple defendants or professional misconduct because
and the bit came out of original passenger. requiring definite proof would immunize culpable defendants because of
the horse’s mouth. The the difficulty of proving causation
driver got out to fix the Time and control over the
bridle but the horse vehicle was determinative 2. Sufficient Link
became disturbed and as to whether a particular • Requires only some reasonable connection between the act or omission
eventually ran at full act was considered a and the injury
speed. Original passenger proximate cause. • Not required that it be shown that the injury would not have occurred
jumped or fell from the rig without the act or omission complained of
causing his death.
Dy Teban v. Jose Ching (2008) Held
Prime move’s tire exploded, causing it to The Court found that the driver of the
ANECO v. Balen (2009) Held be parked askew, occupying a prime mover was negligent in parking
Death and injuries caused by the TV Applying the foreseeability test, the substantial portion of the highway. No askew on the right side of the national
antenna touching an electric company’s electric company should have reasonably early warning device. Passenger bus highway.
main distribution line. Electric company foreseen that, even if it complied with the swerved to avoid the parked prime mover
denies liability claiming that the victims clearance requirements installing the but instead hit another van. Plaintiff must establish a sufficient link
were negligent in allowing the antenna high-tension wires, a potential risk still between the act or omission and the
to touch the wires. existed that people would get damage or injury. That link must not be
electrocuted, considering that the wires remote or far-fetched; otherwise, no
were not insulated. liability will attach.

4. Intervening 3. Substantial Factor

• The defendant’s conduct is a cause of the event if it was a material element
• Test to determine if the defendant is still liable despite an intervening cause and a substantial factor in bringing it about
o Whether the intervention of the later cause is a significant party of • Casis Critiques: The problem with this test is that negligence is not a
the risk involved in the defendant’s conduct or is so reasonably substance that can be measured
connected with it that the responsibility should not be terminated.
• Foreseeable Intervening Causes: If the intervening cause is one which in 4. Mixed Consideration
ordinary human experience is reasonably to be anticipated, or one which • Dy Teban v. Ching: There is no exact mathematical formula to determine
the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances proximate cause. It is based upon mixed considerations of logic, common
o The defendant is responsible because such cause is within the sense, policy, and precedent.
scope of the original risk, and hence of the defendant’s negligence. • Casis Critiques: It may be an admission that there really is not test to
determine proximate cause and the Court can base its determination on
Phoenix Construction v. IAC (1987) Held anything is sees fit.
Volkswagen was on its way home and The Court found that the driver of the car
turned off its headlights because it did was negligent but ruled that the 5. Cause vs. Condition
not have a curfew pass. A dump truck proximate cause was the wrongful or • Phoenix v. IAC: “Cause” and “condition” still find occasional mention in the
was earlier left parked askew, sticking negligent manner in which the dump decisions; but the distinction is now almost entirely discredited. So far as it
out onto the street and blocking truck was parked. The collision of the car has any validity at all, it must refer to the type of case where the forces set
oncoming traffic. The car smashed into with the dump truck was a natural and in operation by the defendant have come to rest in a position of apparent
the dump truck. foreseeable consequence of the truck safety, and some new force intervenes.
driver’s negligence.

 
19
6. Last Clear Chance Phoenix v. IAC (1987) Held Casis Critiques
Volkswagen collided with The Court pointed out that The Court was saying
• Casis Critiques: It is, at best, a test for proximate cause. parked truck. Truck owner the determination of that if the reason for the
argued that while its proximate cause is not a rule did not exist in this
a. History and Rationale driver was negligent in question of determining jurisdiction, then there is
parking the truck askew, which happened last but no reason to apply the
• Common law origin; first stated in 1842 in the English case of Davies v. the Volkswagen had the the nature of the negligent rule here.
Mann “last clear chance” of act and the character and
• Doctrine allows for recovery by a negligent plaintiff If the defendant could avoiding the accident, gravity of the risks created. It is perhaps in cases
have, by employing proper care, avoided the injury hence the injuries. where the gravity of the
• Real explanation: Fundamental dislike for the harshness of the contributory negligent acts are
negligence defense relatively equal where the
doctrine of last clear
b. Statement of the Rule chance applies.

• Effect on the plaintiff’s right to recover Glan v. IAC (1989) Held Casis Critiques
o The antecedent negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude him Collision between jeep and The Court found the driver Despite the Court’s
from recovering damages caused by the supervening negligence cargo truck approaching of the jeep guilty of misgivings in Phoenix, the
of the defendant, who had the last fair chance to prevent the each other on a bridge, negligence. Truck was Court continues to apply
impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. which resulted in the already at full stop when the doctrine in
• Manner of establishing the liability of the defendant death of one of the the jeep plowed into it subsequent cases.
o Picart v. Smith: The person who has the last fair chance to avoid passengers of the jeep. thus the driver of the jeep
the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the had the last clear chance Test: If both plaintiff and
consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the to avoid the accident. defendant were negligent,
other party. the actor who had the last
The doctrine of last clear fair chance of avoiding
chance provides a valid the harm would be
and complete defense to deemed to have been
C. APPLICATION TO THIS JURISDICTION accident liability as it did responsible for the
in Picart v. Smith. (Court proximate cause of the
Picart v. Smith (1918) Held Casis Critiques ruled that last clear injury.
Car hit horseman, who After determining that the Doctrine of last clear chance was still valid)
was on the wrong side of car was negligent, the Court chance was used as a
the road. The horseman pointed out that the horse means to determine Canlas v. CA (2000) Held Casis Critiques
thought he did not have was not free from fault for he which negligent act was Through impostors, bank The bank was negligent in Applied last clear chance
time to get to the other was guilty of antecedent the proximate cause of granted loan secured by a verifying the real identity of as a means to determine
side so it stayed on its negligence in planting the injury. Not employed mortgage over the lots the impostors who had no whether the negligent act
side. The car assumed himself on the wrong side of to allow the negligent belonging to another. IDs. of the plaintiff or that of
that the horse would the road. The Court noted plaintiff to recover but to When the lots were the defendant was the
move so he didn’t reduce that the negligent acts of the point the blame to the foreclosed, true owner of Bank had the last clear proximate cause.
speed. When it came too 2 parties were not defendant. Common law lots sued to annul the chance to prevent the
close it suddenly moved contemporaneous because doctrine imported as mortgage. fraud by faithfully
to avoid hitting the the negligence of the car early as this case. complying with the
horse. The horse was succeeded the negligent requirements for banks to
frightened and turned, pony by an appreciable ascertain the identity of the
causing the car to hit interval. persons transacting with
him, breaking its leg. The them.
horse died. L

 
20

Lapanday v. Angala (2007)
Volkswagen was on its way home and
turned off its headlights because it did
not have a curfew pass. A dump truck
was earlier left parked askew, sticking out
onto the street and blocking oncoming
traffic. The car smashed into the dump
truck.
Held
The Court ruled that the crewcab had
the last clear chance to avoid the
collision because it was the rear vehicle.
He had full control of the situation
because he was in a position to observe
the vehicle in front of him.
Bustamante v. CA (1991)
Collision between truck and passenger
bus coming from opposite directions of
the highway. Bus driver saw the front
wheels of vehicle and that the truck was
heading towards his lane but he thought
it was a joke. Several passengers of the
bus were thrown out and died. Heirs of
deceased filed a complaint.
Held
The appellate court erred in applying the
doctrine of last clear chance as between
the defendants because this case was
not a suit between the owners and
drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit
brought by the heirs of the deceased
passengers against both owners and
drivers of the colliding vehicles.

Phil. Bank of Commerce Pantranco v. Baesa

Held Casis Critiques Held Casis Critiques
v. CA (1997) (1989)
President of company, Under the doctrine of the Despite the determination Bus encroached on There was nothing to show The last clear chance
entrusted funds to his last clear chance, the bank of proximate cause, the jeepney’s lane while that the jeepney driver knew doctrine does not apply if
secretary to be deposited was the culpable party. It Court still applied the negotiating a curve and of the impending danger. the defendant had not
in their bank account. The had the last clear doctrine of last clear collided with it. opportunity to avoid the
secretary instead opportunity to avert the chance. Passengers of the For the doctrine to be injury.
deposited the funds to her injury incurred by its client, jeepney died. applicable, it is necessary to
husband's account. The by faithfully observing show that the person who
President filed a their self-imposed Bus argued that driver of allegedly had the last
collection suit to demand validation procedure. the passenger jeepney opportunity to avert the
the return of the money had the last clear chance accident was aware of the
from the bank. Where both parties are to avoid the collision and existence of the peril or
negligent, but the was therefore negligent. should, with exercise of due
Bank teller validated, negligent act of one is care, have been aware of it.
stamped, and signed the appreciably later in time
deposit slips despite the than that of the other, or The last clear chance
glaring fact that the when it is impossible to doctrine can never apply
duplicate copy was not determine whose fault or where the party charged is
completely accomplished negligence should be required to act
and contrary to the bank’s attributed to the incident, instantaneously, and if the
procedure. the one who had the last injury cannot be avoided by
clear opportunity to avoid the application of all means
the impending harm and at hand after peril is or
failed to do so is should have been
chargeable with the discovered.
consequences.  
Engada v. CA (2003) Held Casis Critiques
Consolidated Bank v. CA (2003) Held Collision between a The Court found no A significance is the fact
Teller gave passbook to another person Doctrine of last clear chance Tamaraw and a pick-up. convincing evidence to that the Court found no
then an unauthorized withdrawal was inapplicable because it is not available Criminal case was filed support the invocation of problem applying the
made. True owner of the passbook sued in cases of culpa contractual, where against the pick-up for the doctrine and instead doctrine of last clear
to recover the amount withdrawn. Lower neither the contributory negligence of serious physical injuries found the presence of an chance to a criminal case.
Courts found the bank liable by using the the plaintiff not his last clear chance to and damage to property. emergency and the proper
doctrine of last clear chance. avoid the loss, would exonerate the application of the
defendant from liability. emergency rule.

 
21
 VI. PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE . 3. Other Persons Exercising Parental Authority

Vicarious liability: liability of certain persons
who are responsible for the negligence of others
Rationale: they are morally culpable for those under their absolute/limited control
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.
FC 216. In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the following person shall
exercise substitute parental authority over the child in the order indicated:
(1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 214;
(2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and
(3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified.
Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over the property of the child becomes
necessary, the same order of preference shall be observed.

Person Vicariously Liable For the Damages Caused By FC 217. In case of foundlings, abandoned neglected or abused children and other children
Father, but in case of death/ Minor children who live in their company similarly situated, parental authority shall be entrusted in summary judicial proceedings to
incapacity, mother (FC 221: "unemancipated children living in their company heads of children's homes, orphanages and similar institutions duly accredited by the proper
(FC 221: both parents liable) and under their parental authority") government agency.
Minors or incapacitated persons who are under their FC 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the
Guardians
authority and live in their company injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in
Owners and managers of an Employees in the service of the branches in which the latter their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided
establishment or enterprise are employed or on the occasion of their functions by law.
Employees and household helpers acting within the scope of
Employers their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry B. TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS
State Special agent
Teachers or heads of 1. Under the Civil Code
Pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain
establishments of arts and • Basis: They stand in loco parentis and are called upon to exercise
in their custody
trades
reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
• Does not require that the student be of minority age
prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
o (JBL Reyes' separate opinion in Amadora: a student over the age
of 21 places himself under custodial supervision and disciplinary
A. PERSONS EXERCISING PARENTAL AUTHORITY authority of the school, which is the basis of its liability in torts)
• Not required that the student/pupil must live and board in school
1. Parents Custody does not connote immediate and actual physical control but refers more to
• Parental liability is a natural/ logical consequence of parental authority the influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him
• Consists, to a large extent, of the instruction and supervision of the child
Palisoc v. Brillantes
Libi v. IAC (1992) Held Held Casis Critiques
(1971)
Teenager shot his ex-girlfriend and Sps were gravely remiss in their duties Through fist blows, an In the law of torts, Interestingly, the Court
himself using his dad's gun. It was only as parents in not diligently supervising automotive mechanics protective custody of the held both "head" and
afterwards that his parents the gun was the activities of their son, despite his student killed his school heads and "teacher" liable.
missing and that he was a CANU agent. minority and immaturity. Civil liability of classmate during recess. teachers is mandatorily
parents for quasi-delicts committed by Court held the head of the substituted for that of the
their minor kids is primary and solidary. school and the teacher parents, hence it is their
Tamargo v. IAC (1992) Held liable. The school itself responsibility to supervise
Pending adoption, 10y/o boy shot a girl. Shooting occurred when parental could not be held liable the students the whole
Petition for adoption was granted. His authority was still lodged in natural because it was not time they are in school,
natural parents claim that the adoptive parents who had actual physical custody properly impleaded. including recess time.
parents were the indispensable parties (adoptive parents were then in the US).
since parental authority had shifted from Retroactive effect may be given to the Nothing in the law requires
the moment of filing of the petition. adoption only if essential to permit some that for liability to attach,
benefit to accrue to the child. the pupil/student must
live and board in the
school.
2. Guardians - see Art. 2180, supra

 
22
 Amadora v. CA (1988)
After the sem had ended,
Daffon shot his
classmate Amadora in
the school auditorium.
Court ruled that Amadora
was still in the custody of
the school at the time of
the shooting. However,
none of the respondents
were liable because none
of them was the teacher-
in-charge..
Salvosa v. IAC (1988)
After dismissal and in
BCF's parking space,
ROTC armorer/
commerce student Abon
shot a student of the
University of Baguio.
Court ruled that BCF
could not be held liable
under 2180 because
Abon could not be
considered to be "at
attendance in the school"
or in the custody of BCF
when he shot Castro.
Held
2180 should apply to all
schools, academic or not.
If academic, teacher-in-
charge is liable. If non-
academic, head is liable.
Not required that the
student be boarding in
school, but required that
he be under the control
and influence of the
school and within its
premises, whether the
semr has not yet begun or
has already ended.
The Court is disposed not
to expect from the teacher
the same measure of
responsibility imposed on
the parent for their
influence on the child is
not equal in degree.
Held
A "recess" contemplates a
situation of temporary
adjournment of school
activities where the
student still remains
within call of his mentor
and his not permitted to
leave the school premises,
or the area within which
the school activity is
conducted. Recess by its
nature does not include
dismissal. Likewise, the
mere fact of being enrolled
or being in the premises of
a school without more
does not constitute
"attending school" or
being in the "protective
and supervisory custody"
of the school.
Casis Critiques
This focus on Amadora
was misplaced as what
matters under 2180 is
whether the offending
pupil was still in the
custody of the school.
Also, it is not required that
the claimant prove that the
teacher-in-charge was
negligent. Under 2180, the
person vicariously liable is
presumed negligent and it
is up to him to prove that
he exercised due diligence
to prevent the damage.
Casis Critiques
It appears that the
application of 2180 here
was erroneous as the
Court used a provision
regarding the vicarious
liability of teachers to
determine liability of a
school. It could have used
Art. 218 of the Family
Code. .
23
2. Under the Family Code
FC 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution
engaged in child care shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor
child while under their supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the
premises of the school, entity or institution.
St. Mary's Academy v.
Held Casis Critiques
Carpitanos (2002)
A student participating in There must be a finding Thus, the Court
an enrollment drive was that the negligent considered the liability of
killed when the jeep they act/omission was the parents under Art. 219 as
were riding turned turtle. proximate cause of the a quasi-delict, which
At the time, it was driven injury. Here, the proximate required a finding that the
by a fellow student, and cause was a mechanical negligence of the school
the steering wheel guide defect. Also, there was no was the proximate cause
got detached. evidence that the school of the injury.
allowed the minor student
to drive the jeep. It was
the grandson of the jeep
owner, who did so.
St. Joseph's College v. Miranda (2010) Held
Teacher left her class while doing a The proximate cause of the injury was
science experiment. A grade 6 student the concurrent failure of the school and
was looking into a test tube when its the teacher to prevent the foreseeable
contents spurted out, chemically burning mishap. They failed to exercise the
his eyes. Court held the teacher and the higher degree incumbent upon them, as
school liable despite teacher's specific shown by:
instructions not to look directly into the - not taking affirmative steps to avert
heated compound. damage and injury, knowing the
dangerous nature of science experiments
However, the Court affirmed the finding - not installing safety measures to
of contributory negligence on the part of protect the students who conduct
the student. experiments in class
- not providing protective gears and
devices (goggles)
- teacher's not being in the classroom
the whole time her class conducted the
experiment
 C. OWNERS/ MANAGERS OF ESTABLISHMENTS/ EMPLOYERS b. Within the Scope of Assigned Tasks
• Includes any act done by an employee in furtherance of the interests of the
• The employers' liability is not based on the principle of respondeat superior. employer or for the account of the employer at the time of the infliction of
In this jurisdiction, he is liable because of his own negligence. the injury or damage (Filamer v. IAC)
• The employer need not prove that his employee was not acting within the
1. Distinguishing the 4th and 5th Paragraphs scope of his assigned tasks; denial is enough
• Par. 4: Owner/manager of establishment/enterprise - injuries caused by
employees in the service of the branches/ on the occasion of their functions Filamer v. IAC (1990, 92) Held Casis Critiques
o The term "manager" (Spanish, "director") is used in the sense of School's jeep with only Under Sec. 14, Rule X, Bk.
"employer". The manager of a corporation is not included; he one working headlight hit III of the Labor Code's
himself is only an employee (Phil Rabbit v. Phil. American) an 82y/o teacher. It was Omnibus Rules, there is no
o Injury must have been caused while employee was doing his job. not driven by the school's employer-employee
• Par. 5: Employers - injuries caused by employees/household helpers within driver but by a working relationship between the
the scope of assigned tasks, though not engaged in business/ industry scholar who only had a working scholar and the
o In Castilex v. Vasquez, Court said Par. 5 is an expansion of Par. 4. student driver's permit. school. Even if there were,
However, this interpretation renders Par. 4 redundant and useless. The latter worked part- the school still would not
time as a janitor for the be liable because driving
2. When Applicable school/ houseboy for the the school vehicle was not
school president in within the ambit of his
a. Employer-Employee Relationship
exchange for free tuition. assigned tasks.
• Cannot be assumed; incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove by preponderant His task was to sweep the It seems that the Court
MR: Rule X is merely a
evidence. Defendant is under no obligation to prove the negative averment. school passages for 2 ruled that the school was
guide to the enforcement
Sps. Jayme v. Apostol hours every morning. of the substantive law on an employer simply
Held Casis Critiques Victim sued the school labor. It is not decisive in a because the Omnibus
(2008)
Speeding pickup truck The municipality is the Explaining 2180 through and the student. Court civil suit for damages and Rules did not apply. It did
taking mayor to the airport lawful employer. Mere common law authorities is initially exculpated the cannot be used by an not explain why the
and driven by an employee giving of directions does not proper bec the latter is school, but reversed itself employer to void liability student was an employee
of the municipality ran not establish that the not based on respondeat on MR. under the substantive based on applicable rules.
over a minor. Parents passenger has control superior. Also, it isn't clear provisions of the CC The control test was not
sued owner, possessor, over the vehicle. Neither what the Court means by applied here.
driver, and mayor. does it make one the "causal relationship" The student's act of
Court applied the four-fold employer of the driver. A between the mayor and driving the vehicle to and The Court also noted that
test to determine the fellow employee with a the driver. It is certainly from the house of the the school failed to prove
existence of an employer- right to control the not required that the school president was an that it had imposed
employee relationship b/w injuring employee incurs mayor be responsible for act in furtherance of the sanctions/ warned its
mayor and driver. no vicarious liability. the existence of the driver. interest of the school. He employees against the use
need not have an official of its vehicles by persons
appointment as a driver. It other than the driver. But
Professional Services Inc. v. Agana Held
is sufficient that the act of in hindsight, the school
2007- 2 gauze pads left in patient's body. For purposes of apportioning liability in
driving at the time of the could not possibly offered
2008 - 1st MR medical negligence cases, an employer-
incident was for the such evidence because it
employee relationship exists between
benefit of the school. would have contradicted
(same doctrine, more or less) hospitals and their visiting physicians.
its position that the
2010 - 2nd MR Employer-employee relationship exists if
The school did not set student was not its
hospital controls both means and details
forth rules prohibiting any employee.
Applying the control test, PSI is not Dr. of the process by which physician is to
one of its employees from
Ampil's employer. But PSI still solidarily accomplish his task. Here, there is
taking control over its
liable not under respondeat superior but insufficient evidence that PSI exercised
vehicles if one is not the
under the principle of ostensible agency. the power of control, but ample evidence
official driver.
that PSI held out Dr. Ampil as its agent.

 
24
 NPC v. CA (1998) Held Casis Critiques Valenzuela v. CA Held Casis Critiques
NPC-owned dump truck Quoting Filamer, the Court The Court used a Labor Alexander Commercial, The provision for the
that was part of a convoy ruled that Art. 2180, not Code provision to Inc.'s Asst. Manager unlimited use of a
collided head-on with a the Labor Code, will establish an employer- bumped a woman who company car principally
Toyota Tamaraw. The determine the liability of employer relationship but was standing at the rear of serves the business and
truck driver was employed NPC in a civil suit for also said that Civil Code her car, trying to have her goodwill of a company
by a labor-only contractor, damages resulting from provisions should govern. tire fixed. She was pulled and only incidentally the
hence an employer- any negligent act of the One distinction that can out from under the car. private purposes of the
employee relationship was employees of the labor- be made is that here, the Her leg was severed. The individual. In providing a
established between him only contractor. NPC provisions on labor-only Court held the employer company car for business
and NPC by statute. NPC could have disclaimed contracting are in the solidarily liable with the use/ to further the
argued its liability should liability had it raised the substantive law on labor employee. company's image, a
only be limited to defense of due diligence in (Arts. 106-109, Labor company owes a
violations of the Labor the selection/ supervision Code) while in Filamer, it responsibility to the public
Code, not quasi-delicts. of the driver/ contractor. was an implementing rule. to see to it that the
employees are able to use
Castilex v. Vasquez (2008) Held the car capably and
After OT, Castilex's Production Manager Principles in American Jurisprudence on responsibly.
drove a company car to a "lively" employer's liability for negligence of an The Court appears to be
restaurant. When he was leaving, he employee in the use of a company car: ACI did not demonstrate ruling that if a case
made a shortcut against the flow of that it exercised the care involves injuries caused
traffic and hit a motorcycle (a woman in 1. Going to and from meals and diligence of a good by the use of a company
his car shouted "Daddy, Daddy!" despite - Not ordinarily acting within scope of father of the family in car, evidence of due
his being only 29 y/o). The motorcycle employment in the absence of evidence entrusting its company diligence in the selection
rider died. His parents sued the manager of some special benefit to the employer car to the employee. It did and supervision of
and Castilex. not ascertain his driving employees on the part of
2. Going to and from the place of work proficiency and history. the employer would not be
In absolving Castilex, the Court - Same as in #1 enough.
discussed principles from American - "Special errand"/ "roving commission"
Jurisprudence. These principles are rule: employee's duties require him to The employee's claim that But is the employee
applicable in the PH albeit based on the go to and from home to various outside he came from a social required to prove that he
doctrine of respondeat superior, because places of work/ circulate in a general visit was a bare allegation. came from an
whether or not the fault/negligence of the area with no fixed place/ hours of work employment-related
employee is conclusive on his employer - Employer not liable if employee left the appointment? Should not
merely gives rise to the presumption juris direct route to his work/ home and is this be the job of the
tantum of negligence on the employer's pursuing a personal errand claimant?
part.
3. Employer loans vehicle for employee's Even if he did come from This ruling suggests that
Abad was carrying out a personal personal use outside working hours officemate's place, this when co-workers meet
purpose not in line with his duties. - Employer is generally not liable for the could give rise to outside of the workplace,
employee's negligent use of the car speculation that they the presumption is that
came from a work-related the meeting is work-
function or were related. It must be pointed
discussing sales or other out that although Asst.
work strategies. Manager had no regular
office hours, his co-worker
may have had a different
arrangement.

 
25
3. Presumption of Negligence D. THE STATE
• Once the employee is found liable for a quasi-delict while acting within the • Vicariously liable only when it acts through a special agent
scope of his assigned tasks, his employer is immediately disputably
presumed to be negligent in the selection/supervision of his employee Merritt v. Government (1916) Held
General Hospital's ambulance made a Neither fault nor even negligence can be
4. Rebuttal of Presumption sudden turn and hit a motorcycle rider. presumed on the part of the state in the
Court held that the chauffeur of the organization of branches of the public
• Employer must present adequate and convincing proof that he exercised
due care and diligence in the selection and supervision of his employees. ambulance was not a special agent for service and in the appointment of its
which it could be held vicariously liable. agents. State is only liable for acts of a
a. Selection - Employer is required to examine them as to their qualifications, Special agent: "one who receives a special, not executive, agent because in
experience, and service records definite and fixed order/ commission, such a case, the fault/ negligence must
foreign to the exercise of the duties of be presumed to lie with the State.
b. Supervision - Essentially requires that the employer: his office if he is a special official"
o Formulate standard operating procedures, suitable rules and Rosete v. Auditor General
regulations, issuance of proper instructions; Dissent of Perfecto, J. Casis Critiques
(1948)
o Monitor their implementation; and A fire from the warehouse ECA is a special agent. It It seems that in Justice
o Impose disciplinary measures for their breach of ECA, a government was not a branch/office of Perfecto's opinion, a
agency, destroyed other the government. It was an special agent is one
Lampesa v. De Vera (2008) Held buildings. An owner of agency set up for specific performing non-
Truck slid back down towards a jeepney. Employer should not have been satisfied some of the buildings filed purposes which were governmental functions.
Jeepney's front passenger "noticed" his by the mere possession of a professional for damages. Court held ordinarily ungovernmental
left middle finger was cut off. The Court driver's license. He was duty-bound to do that there was no showing in character and were not
found no proof that the truck owner did more. He should have carefully examined that the act was caused attainable through official
his legal duty as an employer in the the driver's qualifications, experiences, by a special agent. functions.
selection and supervision of his driver. and record of service, if any.
Fontanilla v. Maliaman Held Casis Critiques
1989 case: 2 aspects of State liability: What can/cannot be
Mercury Drug v. Huang (2007) Held
NIA's pickup bumped a 1. Public/ governmental - handled by the private
Mercury Drug truck collided with a car As regards the driver, it was proven that:
bicycle. Rider's parents can be performed only by sector = highly debatable.
driven by a 16y/o. Truck driver only had a - He took the tests for a different position
sued for damages. Court gov't; State is liable only Another question is
Traffic Violation Receipt because his - He used a light vehicle during the tests
held that NIA was a gov't for special agents whether a particular
license had been confiscated (previously - Tests conducted were inadequate
agency exercising 2. Private/proprietary - service should only be
apprehended for reckless driving; note: - NBI and police clearances not shown
proprietary functions. collects revenue; liable as done by gov't. This test
this prior incident was reported, but - Last seminar attended was 12 yrs. ago
ordinary employer would make the State's
Mercury Drug did not suspend or - No backup driver for long trips
1991 MR: Irrigation districts conduct liability uncertain, and is
reprimand him). Mercury Drug testified Mercury drug failed to show that it
NIA: Based on the Angat business only for the nearly impossible to apply
on its hiring procedure, saying applicants exercised due diligence in the
River Irrigation System private benefit of the lands if the gov't agency does
are required to take theoretical and supervision and discipline over its
case, NIA is an agency within their limits. both governmental and
actual driving tests, and a psych exam. employees.
with gov't functions. Feliciano separate: Based non-governmental tasks.
on Admin Code, "State"
Child Learning Center v. Limon (2005) Held means the GRP. All other
Court here upheld the Simpler test: consider only
A grade 4 student found himself locked The defense of due diligence in the entities are special agents. whether agent is "special".
dissent in the said case.
inside the CR. He tried to open the selection/supervision of employees does
window to call for help, but he fell right not apply. It only applies where the Sps. Jayme v. Apostol Held Casis Critiques
through and landed 3 floors below. He employer is held responsible for Speeding pickup truck A municipality may not be It is unclear from the facts
was hospitalized and treated for multiple acts/omissions of its employees under taking mayor to the airport sued because it is an how the Court determined
injuries. His parents filed an action under Art. 2180. This case was based on Art. and driven by an employee agency of the State that the driver was
Art. 2176 against the Board of Directors 2176, pertaining to the school's own of the municipality ran engaged in governmental performing governmental
and the Administrative Officer of the negligence in not ensuring that all its over a minor. functions and hence, functions and why a
school. doors were maintained. immune from suit. private vehicle was used.

 
26
 VII. PERSONS SPECIFICALLY LIABLE . B. OWNER OF MOTOR VEHICLES

• It is arguable that although these provisions are found in the chapter on quasi-
delicts, they are torts (otherwise redundant because each case would fall under
Art. 2176 anyway), hence no need to comply with quasi-delict requisites
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 or 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.

• Not based on respondeat superior but by the relationship of pater familias.

A. POSSESSOR OR USER OF ANIMALS
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.
• Possessor's responsibility arises from fact that the animal is within his control.
• User's responsibility arises from the fact that he benefits from the animal.
• Due diligence defense not provided; liability based on policy considerations
The negligence of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of
timely correction, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it.
• It may be extremely difficult to prove that the owner who was in the car
could have prevented the mishap. The only persons who can testify as to
this would be the owner himself/ his driver/ other passengers. Would they?
• Car owners are not held to a uniform standard of diligence as professional
drivers. The Court would have to look at the personal circumstances of the
owner. (Caedo v. Yu Khe Tai)
• The test of W/N owner was negligent within the meaning of Art. 2184: his
omission to do that which the evidence of his own senses tells him he
should do in order to avoid the accident (Caedo v. Yu Khe Tai)

Afialda v. Hisole (1949) Held Casis Critiques Chapman v. Underwood (1914) Held
Carabao caretaker was Art. 1905 (now 2183) did Based on this case, the Underwood's driver took a sudden right If the act is sudden, without the owner
gored. not apply where the possessor of the animal turn and struck Chapman who was having a reasonable opportunity to
caretaker of the animal cannot invoke Art. 2183 trying to board a streetcar. Court found prevent the act or to stop its continuance,
himself was injured. against the owner. the chauffeur negligent, but Underwood the latter is not responsible, either civilly
was not responsible for him under the or criminally.
Vestil v. IAC (1989) Held facts and circumstances of the case.
A 3y/o girl was bitten by a dog that was What must be determined is possession,
in the neighbors' possession. Neighbors regardless of ownership. Note that the Caedo v. Yu Khe Tai
Held Casis Critiques
argue that the dog was not theirs, that possessor is liable even if the animal (1968)
they could not be expected to exercise escapes or is lost (removed from control). Hwy. 54/EDSA. Instead of The negligence on the part These statements by the
remote control, and that the dog was The law does not speak only of vicious slowing down or stopping, of the owner, if any, must Court imply that car
tame. animals but covers tame ones as well. a Cadillac tried to overtake be sought in the owners are required a
a rig (carretela) but immediate setting and certain degree of diligence
bumped the rig's left circumstances of the in supervising their drivers
wheel, wrenching it off and accident; i.e. in his failure (cannot absolve
dragging it along as it to detain the driver from themselves by saying that
skidded to the opposite pursuing a course which they were not paying
lane and hit a Mercury car. not only gave him clear attention to driver's acts).
The family in the Mercury notice of the danger but The degree would depend
car sued the Cadillac also sufficient time to act on their circumstances,
driver and the owner. upon it. There was no e.g. car owner with poor
Cadillac driver was found reason for the car owner eyesight and cannot drive
to be negligent. to be in any special state will not be held to same
of alert. Court must look at diligence required of
personal circumstances of healthy car owner who is
the owner in each case. also a capable driver.

 
27
 C. PROVINCES, CITIES, AND MUNICIPALITIES D. PROPRIETORS OF BUILDINGS

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.
• Strict liability tort; defenses of due diligence and force majeure are absent
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.
• Strict liability tort; not required that the disrepair result from negligence
• Except #1, Art. 2191 appears to contemplate a strict liability tort.

Guilatco v. Dagupan Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused: (ExSTreEm)
Held Casis Critiques (1) By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with due diligence, and the
(1989)
inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate place;
Boarding a tricycle, a lady Control/supervision of the Based on this case, the (2) By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property;
accidentally fell into a road was provided for in basis of the liability of the (3) By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not caused by force majeure;
manhole on the sidewalk the City Charter and LGU is the fact that it has (4) By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious matter, constructed
and fractured her leg. TC exercised through the City control and supervision without precautions suitable to the place.
found City liable but CA Engineer. The Charter over the defective public
• Arts. 2190-91 hold liable those who benefit from the building/ structure.
reversed because it was a provision holding the city works. If that is the case,
national road. not liable for damages due then W/N the LGU was Art. 2192. If damage referred to in the two preceding articles should be the result of any defect
Court pointed out that it to the failure of an officer negligent is irrelevant. in the construction mentioned in Article 1723, the third person suffering damages may proceed
was not necessary for the to enforce its provisions only against the engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with said article, within the
road to belong to the cannot be used to exempt period therein fixed.
province/city/municipality the City. The Charter lays
. Either down general rules for the
E. ENGINEER/ ARCHITECT OF COLLAPSED BUILDING
control/supervision can City's liability while Art.
make liability attach. 2189 applies in particular Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications for a building is
to liability from defective liable for damages if within fifteen years from the completion of the structure, the same should
public works. collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications, or due to the defects in the
ground. The contractor is likewise responsible for the damages if the edifice falls, within the
QC v. Dacara (2005) Held Casis Critiques same period, on account of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality
Minor drove into a pile of Negligence of QC gov't - Court implied that a furnished by him, or due to any violation of the terms of the contract. If the engineer or architect
earth along Matahimik St. was the prox cause of the finding of negligence is supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the contractor.
Dad sought indemnity for injury. necessary in Art. 2189. Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver of any of the cause of action
son's injuries and damage In determining the award - This plus finding of prox by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
to the car. He sued QC and of damages, the Court cause implies that Art. The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building.
the City Engineer. applied rules on quasi- 2189 is a quasi-delict
delict. - Like Cinco v. Canonoy,
this can be basis to sue • Strict liability tort; negligence not required to be proven. Although defects
for damage to property may imply negligence, the existence of such conditions despite due
diligence would still trigger the application of the provisions.
Jimenez v. City of Manila (1987) Held
Sta. Ana Market was flooded ankle-deep. Negligence of Manila City was the F. HEAD OF A FAMILY FOR THINGS THROWN OR FALLING
Jimenez stepped on a rusty 4"nail and proximate cause of the injury.
had to be hospitalized for 20 days for Despite MOC, the fact of control and Art. 2193. The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof, is responsible for
high fever, pain. He just wanted bagoong. supervision was admitted by the Mayor damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same.
in a letter to the Sec. of Finance. The city • Strict liability tort; negligence not required and due diligence not a defense.
City claims that under the Management & even hired a Market Master to supervise. • Force majeure also not a defense.
Operating Contract and the Revised The Charter gives general rules on the o Would a head of a family be liable if their roof was torn off by a
Charter of Manila, it could not be held liability of the City for the negligence of typhoon and caused injury to someone? Yes.
liable. It pointed to the private its officer, while Art. 2189 is a particular • Article suggests that it covers places of residence of a long-term nature.
administrator of the market. Court held provision on defective structures. Thus, it may not cover situations where family rents/ leases on a short-
them solidarily liable. Jimenez had the right to assume that the term basis (e.g. hotel room).
openings, if any, would be safely covered.
 
28
 G. OWNERS OF ENTERPRISES/ OTHER EMPLOYERS I. PERSONS WHO INTERFERE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

Art. 1711. Owners of enterprises and other employers are obliged to pay compensation for the Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for
death of or injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or other employees, even though the damages to the other contracting party.
event may have been purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause, if the death or
personal injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. The employer is also liable for
compensation if the employee contracts any illness or disease caused by such employment or
1. The Common Law Doctrine
as the 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 Tort liability may be imposed upon defendant if he intentionally and improperly
compensation. When the employee's lack of due care contributed to his death or injury, the interferes with plantiff's rights under a contract with another, if the interference
compensation shall be equitably reduced. causes plaintiff to lose a right under the contract or makes the contract rights more
Art. 1712. If the death or injury is due to the negligence of a fellow worker, the latter and the
costly/ less valuable. Liability will attach if:
employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation. If a fellow worker's intentional malicious • Defendant acts with knowledge that interference will result
act is the only cause of the death or injury, the employer shall not be answerable, unless it o Basis for liability is intent; negligent interference is not actionable
should be shown that the latter did not exercise due diligence in the selection or supervision of • He acts with improper purpose
the plaintiff's fellow worker. o Malice/ spite not required
o May not be liable if he had an impersonal/ disinterested motive of
• Requirement for illness/disease is stricter than for death/injury a laudable character (e.g. protecting the public interest)
• Defenses available:
o If death/ injury is NOT caused by fellow worker: 2. Under Philippine Jurisprudence
§ Mishap was due to employee's own notorious negligence,
voluntary act, or drunkenness Gilchrist v. Cuddy (1915) Held Casis Critiques
• This defense may not be available for illness/ Cuddy owned the film - E received a letter from This case did not involve
injury. "Mishap" ordinarily refers to events that Zigomar. He rented it to his agents saying he could an action for damages
cause death/ injury. Gilchrist for a week. Days not get the film for about 6 filed against another who
§ Contributory negligence; employee's lack of due care. before delivery, Cuddy weeks. Thus they must breached his contract. In
Compensation shall be equitably reduced returned Gilchrist's money have known at the time fact, it was the alleged
o When death/ injury caused by fellow worker: because Espejo and they made their offer that interferers who were
§ If due to negligence, employer is solidarily liable Zaldarriaga (E&Z) rented it Cuddy had contracted the seeking damages against
§ If due to intentional/ malicious act, employer not liable for the same week at twice film to other parties. the victim. Nevertheless,
• Exception to exception: if it be shown that the the price. - Did not know Gilchrist the Court in succeeding
employer did not exercise due diligence in was the other party, but cases has used this as
selection/supervision of the fellow worker Gilchrist filed action for an identity is not a condition basis for the rules on
ex parte mandatory precedent to liability bec actions referred to as "tort
Alarcon v. Alarcon (1961) Held
injunction which was action would have been interference".
A teacher hired men to dig a well. When The teacher did not own any enterprise.
issued, restraining E&Z based on culpa aquiliana
one was lowered into the hole, he said Under the principle of ejusdem generis, he
from receiving and - Mere right to compete In class, emphasized that:
he was not feeling well and slumped into did not fall under the category of other
exhibiting the film. E&Z could not justify Court said the case was
a sitting position. It took some time for employers in Art 1711. Code Commission
moved to dissolve the interference with an somewhat novel
him to be pulled out. He was later used terms like "capital", "management",
injunction...denied. By way existing contract. (apparatus known as the
declared to have died of asphyxia. His "industrialist", etc. They contemplate
of cross-complaint, they - Competition is not cinematograph). Gilchrist
mother sued the teacher under Art 1711. those engaged in business/ industry.
asked for damages for the interference, provided that faced the immediate
wrongful issuance of the no superior right by prospect of diminished
injunction. Gilchrist contract/otherwise is profits, thus he was
H. MANUFACTURERS/ PRODUCERS OF PRODUCTS
moved to dismiss, which interfered with. They must justified in asking for
Art. 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods
was granted as to Cuddy have an equal/ superior injunction. Injunction is
shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used, although but denied as to E&Z to right in themselves. also the proper remedy to
no contractual relation exists between them and the consumers. give them an opportunity - No malice (only wanted prevent a wrongful
to prove the wrongful to make a profit), but this interference with
• Products contemplated are manufactured/processed issuance. does not relieve them of contracts.
• Provides remedy to consumer regardless of how he came into possession legal liability
 
29
 So Ping Bun v. CA (1999) Held Casis Critiques Go v. Cordero (2010) Held Casis Critiques
A partnership entered into The elements of tort Robinson appointed 1st and 2nd elements are Court clearly had to go to
1yr lease agreements with interference are: Cordero as exclusive present. As to the 3rd, the great lengths to justify the
a warehouse owner to (1) Valid contract existing Was there a valid contract distributor of AFFA ferries. economic interest defense argument that there was
store its textiles. When the (2) Knowledge of the 3rd in this case? Hadn't the Cordero began cannot apply because malice on the part of Go et
contracts expired, the person of such contract lease agreements expired? negotiations with Go and Go et al. transgressed the al. In fact, the Court added
parties did not renew but (3) Interference of the 3rd Moreover, partnership got his lawyers for the sale of bounds of permissible another basis for the
the partnership continued person is without legal dissolved already. the SEACAT 25. financial interest to liability by characterizing
to occupy the premises. justification/excuse Eventually, Cordero benefit themselves at the it as a violation of Art. 19.
Partnership was dissolved discovered that Go et al. expense of Cordero. They
but its original members - Econ. interest defense: were already dealing furtively went to Robinson
formed a corporation. Court interpreted Gilchrist This is inaccurate. directly with Robinsons, in after Cordero worked hard
as holding that where Gilchrist ruled that malice violation of his exclusive to close the deal for them.
When the former there was no malice in the is not required for liability. distributorship. As they continued to deal
managing partner died, his interference of a contract, Economic interest was directly with Robinson,
grandson occupied the and the impulse lies in a also not a defense. Only Court went to great they continued to demand
warehouse for his own proper business interest defense in Gilchrist was lengths to justify the and receive from Cordero
business. Lessor sent rather than wrongful an equal/ superior right. award of damages despite their "cut" from the latter's
notices of increased rent motives, a party cannot be the ruling of So Ping Bun. commission.
which the corporation did a malicious interferer.
not reply to. Grandson, as Inocencio v. Hospicio de
occupant, requested - TC awarded no damages Inaccurate again. In Held Casis Critiques
San Jose (2013)
formal contracts of lease, because citing Gilchrist, Gilchrist, damages not Inocencio subleased 2 HDSJ did not commit But in So Ping Bun, the
which the lessor granted. it's difficult/impossible to awarded because bldgs on land he leased tortious interference. grandson's interest was
determine the extent of claimants (E&Z) were not from HDSJ. When he died, 1st and 2nd elements are also purely economic yet
Corporation filed suits for damage; not quantifiable. entitled. his son Ramon collected present but 3rd element is he was still considered a
injunction, asking for the rentals. HDSJ informed lacking. HDSJ entered into tort interferer (hence
nullification of the leases. - Lack of malice precludes In this case, damages Ramon that the leases agreements with the injunction was properly
damages but does not were not awarded would not be renewed. It sublessees for purely issued against him).
relieve interferer from because TC did not award posted a Patalastas economic reasons (to
legal liability (injunction). any (see above). stating its willingness to ensure payment of
work out an amicable rentals); it had a right to
Lagon v. CA (2005) Held
settlement directly with collect the rentals upon
Lapuz accused Lagon of inducing the Lagon's purchase was merely an
the sublessees, after termination of the lease.
heirs of Bai Tonina Sepi to sell property advancement of his financial/economic
which some sublessees No proof of spite/ill will.
to him, violating Lapuz's leasehold rights. interests, absent any proof of improper
refused to pay rentals to
motive.
Ramon.
Court applied the elements and
principles in So Ping Bun v. CA: Quoting Gilchrist v. Cuddy:
• Casis question: What is an example of an equal or superior right that will
A person is not a malicious interferer if
justify interfering with a contract?
(1) Valid contract? Yes! his conduct is impelled by a proper
- Notarized copy of lease business interest. In other words, a
(2) Knowledge of alleged interferer? No. financial/ profit motivation will not
- Examination of title bore no indication necessarily make a person an officious
of leasehold interest. Even the Registry of interferer liable for damages as long as
Property had no record. there is no malice/bad faith.
(3) Interference? No.
- Lagon did not induce (persuade/ Because not all elements are present,
intimidate) the heirs; they sold the lots Lagon cannot be made to answer for
completely of their own volition. Lapuz's losses.
 
30
 nd
VIII. HUMAN RELATIONS TORTS . Baltao I was the President of believed was issued by him. No 2 and
rd
Guaranteed. Albenson filed a case 3 element. Damnum absque injuria
against Baltao I, not knowing that there applies here.
A. Abuse of Rights was a Baltao III, the issuer of the check.
Baltao I filed a case for malicious
prosecution against Albenson based on
Art 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of duties, Arts. 19, 20 and 21.
act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Amonoy v. Gutierrez (2001) Held
Effects of Art 19 (Principle of Abuse of Rights): Amonoy obtained a judgment in his Damnum absque injuria does not apply
• A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, favor over lots under litigaton. TC issued when there is an abuse of a person’s
may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. a Notice to Vacate and issued for right, or when the exercise is suspended
• It precludes the defense of damnum absque injuria demolition. However, a TRO was filed or extinguished pursuant to a court
• It must be implemented by Art. 20 and 21; Art. 19 is a mere declaration of with the SC. By the time SC issued the order. Although acts of the petitioner
principle. order setting aside the Writ of were initially justified, it amounted to
Possession, the Gutierrezes' house had abuse of right when he continued after
Elements (according to Albenson v. CA) : been demolished. A complaint for the issuance of the TRO. Damnum
1) A legal right or duty; damages was filed against Amonoy. He absque injuria is a principle premised on
2) Exercised in bad faith; invoked damnum absque injuria. a valid exercise of a right.
3) For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another
UE v. Jader (2000) Held Casis Critiques
“Bad faith” (according to Andrade v. CA) Case of the law student Educational institutions It was not an abuse of
• Not simply bad judgment or negligence; who was "incomplete” in 1 are duty-bound to inform right on the part of UE, but
• Dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong subject and only found the students of their a performance of duty. No
• Through some motive or intent of ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud out about his failing grade academic status. School bad faith here, just
after he had already should have practiced negligence.
Damnum absque injuria graduated and started principle of good dealings
1) Under this principle, the legitimate exercise of a person’s rights, even if it preparing for the Bar. enshrined in Art. 19 and
causes loss to another, does not automatically result in an actionable Jader sued UE for 20 of the Civil Code.
injury. damages. UE’s defense
was Jader’s own
Globe Mackay v. CA (1989) Held negligence.
Tobias was called a swindler and a crook Globe Mackay liable because they failed
by his employer, after he had reported to exercise in a legitimate manner their Pantaleon v. American Express (2010) Held
anomalies within the company. Tobias right to dismiss Tobias, who now has the Case of the cancelled tour because Art. 19 sets the standards for the
was told to get a lie detector test and right to recover damages under Art. 19 in Pantaleon was taking too long with his conduct of all persons, whether artificial
was charged for Estafa. The test yielded rel. to Art. 21. The application of purchases. He blames American Express or natural. However, AMEX not liable
negative and the complaint was damnum absque injuria can’t apply in for the delays and sued for damages. because acted in good faith.
dismissed. When Tobias tried applying this case, because even with the right to
elsewhere, Globe wrote them stating dismiss Tobias, the abusive manner in California Clothing v. Quiñones (2013) Held
Tobias was dismissed due to how they exercised their right amounted Case of the unpaid jeans at Robinsons They went overboard in sending a
dishonesty. to a legal wrong. Cebu; the shouting in the Cebu Pac demand letter to respondent’s employer;
office; and the demand letter sent to the they not only informed but imputed
Albenson v. CA (1993) Held accused’s employer. illegal acts on the part of respondent;
Case of the 3 Baltaos. Albenson No abuse of rights here. What prompted they sought to tarnish her reputation. Art.
delivered mild steel plates to Guaranteed Albenson to file a BP 22 against Baltao I 19 requires “good faith”, which is a state
Industries. They were given a check but was their failure to collect the P2k due of mind, manifested by acts of the
it was dishonored. Albenson found that on a bounced check which they honestly individual concerned.

 
31
 CASIS QUESTIONS:
1) In both Jader and Pantaleon, there was delay by the defendants. However, the Carpio, Intentional Torts in Philippine Law
professor in UE was held liable while AMEX wasn’t. What was the difference?
à The delay constituted bad faith in Jader, while the delay in Pantaleon was Art 20: Breach of Statutory Duty: Intentional and Negligent Tort from Civil Law
adequately justified by the bank. Jurisdiction
1) A breach of statutory duty, recognized in other jurisdictions as a tort, was
2) In the case of California Clothing, what if it was proven that she really didn’t transplanted in our jurisdiction in Art. 20.
pay? 2) As it is worded, the willful or negligent act causing damage must be
à It shouldn’t change the liability if the action was based on abuse of right. contrary to law.

Requirements under Art 20

• Illegal Acts
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
1) Includes negligence – “a violation of a statutory duty is negligence.” (Garcia
v. Salvador)
Comsavings v. Sps. Capistrano (2013)
Sps. are owners of a residential lot. They
availed of a loan under a program
implemented by the Nat’l Home
Mortgage Finance Corp. Sps. executed a
construction contract with GCB Builders,
who facilitated the application of the
loan with Comsavings Bank, an NHMC-
accredited originator. Comsavings
informed the Sps. that they would have
to sign various documents as part of the
requirements for the release of the loan;
included in the documents was a
certificate of house completion and
acceptance. After the loan was released
to GBB, construction started by GBB but
it took way longer than promised.
NHMFC started demanding for
amortizations from the Sps, because
NHMFC had already released the loan
proceeds to Comsavings, on the basis of
the alleged completion of the house.
However, house was still unfinished. The
Sps. sued GBB and Comsavings for
breach of contract and damages.
Held
GBB is liable for breach and ComSavings
is equally liable under Art. 20. A
requirement for the release of the loan by
Comsavings to GBB was a submission of
pictures of a fully-constructed house
bearing signatures of the Sps.
Comsavings accepted these unsigned
pictures, released the loan to BB
Builders, and turned over the pictures to
NHMFC for reimbursement of the loan.
This constituted gross negligence. For a
bank is obliged to exercise the highest
degree of diligence in all its transactions.
Furthermore, as a banking institution
serving as originator under the UHLP and
being the maker of the cert. of
acceptance, it should have desisted from
presenting the certificate to the Sps. for
their signature without affirming that the
house had been completely constructed
according to plan. The act of making the
Sps. sign the certificate despite the
construction of the house not yet
starting was irregular because it
contravened the purpose of the
certificate. This pre-signing was also
fraudulent because it enabled them to
gain P17k in the form of several
deduction from the proceeds of the loan,
as benefit of an originator bank.
32
1.) Person must establish that he belongs to the class of persons sought to be
protected by the statute
2.) There must be an invasion of a particular interest the law seeks to protect
a. Ex: An ordinance requires all apartment builings to be equipped
with strong fire escape ladders. A tenant can recover if he sustains
injuries while using the ladder during a fire. A robber can’t recover
if he sustained injuries while using the defective ladder as a secret
entrance.
Rules governing Article 20
3) Art. 20 should not apply to all violations of law, especially if they have their
own civil indemnity
a. Only to special criminal laws that don’t specially provide for
recovery of civil liability
b. The requirement for the violation of law here – it must be
“unlawful”. Consider that a violation may not be “unlawful” if it
falls under justified or exempting circumstances.
CASIS QUESTIONS:
o The Anti-Camcording law punishes the unauthorized recording
of movies. The penalty is a fine of P50, 000. Can movie
producers sue for violations on the basis of Art. 20?
à YES. Statute exempts those with civil liability; otherwise, Art. 20
applies to all laws. (Carpio)
2.) QC passed an ordinance setting aside 5 lanes for bikes along QC
Memorial Circle for cyclists. Celso, a cyclist, parked his bicycle and did
some stretching. As he was, a car swerving into the bike lane hit and
killed him. Does Art. 20 cover this? In other words, does Art. 20 apply
even if the law was intended for the protection of cyclists and Celso
wasn’t riding a bike at that moment?
à Sir didn’t give a categorical answer but was leaning toward yes.
 C. ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES CASIS QUESTIONS:
1. In General

Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is 1.) Wendell, not knowing Bea was engaged, courted her, causing her to ditch her
contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for supposed wedding in 2 days. Can Wendell be liable under Art. 21?
damages. à NO. There is no malice in this situation; which, according to Carpio, is required for
an action under Art. 21.
Purpose: It is intended to prevent a situation where a person suffers damage or loss
at the hands of another but has no legal remedy because the situation is not covered 2.) What if same facts as Wassmer, but there was no financial injury? What If the
by any law. notice was 3 months before? What if there was no public humiliation?
à No answer from Sir. “This just goes to show it’s hard to actually hard to apply
Plaintiff required to prove: Wassmer in the future.”
A. Existence of intent
B. The manner by which the defendant carries out such intent
Wassmer v. Velez (1964) Held
Elements: Beatriz and Francisco had their wedding It was not a mere breach of promise to
a. There is an act which is legal; all set, but 2 days prior, Francisco left marry; it was palpably and unjustifiably
b. But which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; with a note saying he will return soon. contrary to good customs, considering
c. And it is done with intent to injure He never did; Beatriz sued for damages the preparations and last-minute
and won. absconding. Though no law was violated
Carpio, Intentional Torts in Philippine Law in abandoning a fiancée, it was contrary
to morals, good customs or public policy.
Art. 21: The willful acts contrary to morals, good customs or public policy

4) Art. 21 comes closest to prescribing moral norms as a legal standard of

conduct. 2. Moral Seduction
5) Code Commission on whether this article obliterate the line between
morality and the law: “Every good law draws its breadth of life from Tanjanco v. CA (1966) Held Casis Critiques
morals…” Araceli acceded to Action under Art. 21 There was still
st
6) Under this article, acts or omissions which are perfectly legitimate may still Apolonio’s pleas for sex, in unsuccessful. Petitioner’s seduction on the 1
give rise to liability if they are contrary to morals, good customs or policy. consideration of his conduct of repeated sex carnal knowledge; the
7) Element of Malice = Carpio believes the phrase “willfully causes loss or promise of marriage. He over a year is incompatible succeeding trysts
injury to another” requires malice or deceit. succeeded in having regular with the idea of seduction. shouldn’t ratify the
8) Concept of Morals and Good Customs sex with her; she got initial deceit.
a. Customs are easier to objectify than morals; pertains to usages pregnant, and had to resign Otherwise, there
practices of people, which, by common adoption & acquiescence and sue him for damages. would be a perverse
and by long unvarying habit, became compulsory with respect to incentive to increase
place or subject. frequency of
b. The Code qualifies the term with “good”. This must refer to those enticement.
customs which are not contrary to law, public order or public
policy. Baksh v. CA (1993) Held Casis Critiques
c. According to jurisprudence, the ff. requisites must be satisfied for After Baksh forced Marilou Breach of promise to marry Why did they require
a custom to exist: to live with him, he per se is not an actionable proximate cause to
• Plurality of acts, or various resolutions of a judicial question raised maltreated and threatened wrong. To be able to claim application of Art. 21,
repeatedly on life; to kill her. He repudiated damages, plaintiff must when it is not a quasi-
• Uniformity or identity of the acts or various solutions to the judicial their marriage agreement prove: 1) that the promise delict?
question; and married someone else. was the proximate cause,
• General practice by the great mass of social group and 2) lack of intent to
fulfill the promise on the
• Continued performance of these acts for a long period of time
part of the defendant.
• General conviction that the practice corresponds to judicial necessity or
that its obligatory

 
33
 3. Public Humiliation • Statutory Basis
o Art 2219 (8) – MP is one case where moral damages may be
Pe v. Pe (1962) Held awarded
Alfonso Pe, a married man, courted The illicit affair caused great damage to o Arts 19, 20, 21, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35, 2217, 2219(8)
Lolita. They were collateral relatives. the name and reputation of the plaintiffs § “such action only requires a preponderance of evidence”
Alfonso frequented Lolita’s house (parents, brothers and sisters). Not a o 2176 CANNOT be a statutory basis because it is impossible to
because “he wanted her to him the case of seduction because in absence of commit this negligently
rosary.” They subsequently eloped and proof, court may not presume that
and Lolita’s family sued for damages. defendant deliberately induced the ELEMENTS (DAAM)
relationship. Use of Art. 21 for the 1) Prosecution of the plaintiff by defendant
betrayal of trust and shame on family. 2) Termination of prosecution in acquittal
3) Absence of probable cause
Grand Union v. Espino (1979) Held 4) Prosecution motivated by malice; that is improper or sinister motive
Case of the Engineer who put a “rat tail” Court considered totality of facts and
file in is shirt pocket but forgot to pay for circumstances + personal circumstances Que v. IAC (1989) Held
it on the way out of the grocery. He tried of the accused. The false accusation + Que and Nicolas were business partners. No MP when Que filed the estafa case.
to pay for it when his attention was threats + cause of humiliation willfully For 1 transaction, payments to Que were He had reason to believe he had been
called, but branded as a thief and the caused loss or injury to plaintiff in a stopped by Nicolas because of defects in deceived because the checks couldn’t
guards embarrassed him in front of a manner that was contrary to morals, the delivered goods. Que filed an Estafa be encashed. He was not motivated by
crowd and threatened to call police. good customs and public policy. case against Nicolas; Nicolas filed a ill feeling but mere desire to protect his
malicious prosecution case against Que. rights. The presence of probable cause
Carpio v. Valmonte (2004) Held in filing a suit means the absence of the
Valmonte was a coordinator for a Carpio transgressed provisions of Art. 19 legal malice element.
wedding. While at the suit in Manila in relation to Art. 21. Court found
Drilon v. CA (1997) Held
Hotel, she was suddenly accused for the sufficient evidence on record that
Information was filed against Adaza for No MP. 3 elements for MP suit to
loss of P1M worth of jewelry that were Carpio’s imputations against Valmonete
rebellion w/ Murder and Frustrated prosper: 1) Prosecution and acquittal, 2)
placed in the comfort room. She was were made with bad faith and malice.
Murder. Adaza filed complaint for Prosecutor acted without probable
bodily searched, interrogated, and trailed The verbal reproach was uncalled forl
damages, charging malicious prosecution, cause, 3) Prosecutor impelled by legal
by security. Her car was also searched. the attack was not merely inquisitive but
because of the non-existent crime. malice. All 3 must concur. None of these
accusatory.
alleged herein. Case was not terminated
because of discharge on bail; no
showing of acting without probable
cause because of honest belief that
4. Malicious Prosecution
crime existed; petitioners had well-
founded belief to filed the case.
Under Philippine Law
• Malicious prosecution as denuncia falsa – persecution through misuse or Magbanua v. Junsay (2007) Held
abuse of judicial processes; institution of legal proceedings for the purpose Rosemarie the housemaid was charged MP case will not prosper. Two out of the
of harassing, annoying, vexing, or injuring an innocent person (Villanueva v. for robbery of jewelry. She was four elements missing – there is no
Coconut Planters) maltreated for an extrajudicial showing that the prosecutor acted without
• “An action for damages against whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit or confession. Rosemarie sought damages probable cause; her admission gave rise
other legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously and without probable for violations and maltreatment, but was to probable cause (the fact that it was
cause, after termination of such prosecution, suit or other proceeding in actually seeking damages for malicious inadmissible is evidentiary matter). The
favor of the defendant therein” (more often used definition; Magbanua v. prosecution. prosecutor was not impelled by legal
Junsay) malice because the mere act of
o Includes: disbarment proceedings submitting a case to authorities for
• Gravamen of MP– deliberate initiation of an action with the knowledge that prosecution doesn’t make one
the charges were false and groundless; not the filing of a complaint based immediately liable; the stat doesn’t put
on wrong provision impose a penalty on right to litigate.

 
34

5. Oppressive Dismissal
Quisaba v. Sta. Ines (1974)
Quisaba filed a complaint for moral and
exemplary damages because he was
temporarily relieved as internal auditor of
Sta. Ines on the ground of his refusal to
purchase logs because it was
“inconsistent with his work as internal
auditor.”
Held
This is a case of oppressive dismissal
because of the MANNER of dismissal
and the consequent effects. If the
dismissal was done anti-socially or
oppressively, as the complaint alleges,
then the respondents violated Art 1701
which prohibits acts of oppression by
either capital or labor against the other,
and Art. 21, which makes a person liable
for damages if he willfully causes loss or
injury to another in a manner contrary to
morals, good customs, or public policy.
o Defamation: an invasion of a person’s right to enjoy a
reputation and good name unimpaired by false attacks
which tend to diminish the esteem in which a person is
held by men whose standard of opinion the court can
properly recognize.
o The reputation protected is the opinion of others
§ Libel consists of the publication of defamatory
matter by written or printed words.
§ Slander – all other defamation
• Both libel and slander are crimes in the Philippines.
• Malice Requirement:
o As a crime: Malice is required
o As an action Art. 26:
§ Generally: not essential.
§ Exception: Malice or ill will remains important
where there exercise of a qualified privilege is in
question.

CASIS QUESTIONS:
D. VIOLATION OF HUMAN DIGNITY
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, through they may not
constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention
and other relief:
B. Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;
C. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
D. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
E. Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly
station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
o Does peeking into someone’s bag for magic notes constitute
an action under Art. 26?
à YES, under Carpio’s 6 rights
o Alyzza, a model, posted a photo on Instagram with police
officer’s calling card with the note “Please assist my EA Alyzza”
and her post caption was “Thanks Hon, saved me from traffic
violation today.” Can the police officer file an action against her
under Art. 26?
à YES. It can be either defamation, or alienation of family relations (if he
was married), or violation of privacy (because the calling card note was
not meant to be public)

Carpio, Intentional Torts in Philippine Law 2) The Right to Personal Security

• “Although up to the present it has remained sorely neglected, perhaps • Such action is identical with: battery and assault – unlawful touching or
one of the most fertile sources of tort action in the Civil Code is Art. 26.” striking of the person of another done with intention of bringing about a
• ART 26’s enumeration is not exclusive; merely illustrative. harmful or offensive contact or apprehension
o Thus, Art. 26(1) is not limited to invasion of the privacy of • Interest protected: Freedom from apprehension of a harmful or offensive
residence; encroachment on one’s personal privacy is included. contact with the person, as distinguished from the contact itself.
• The following principal rights are covered by the protective mantle of • “Thus, it is an assault to shake, in a threatening manner, one’s fist under
this provision: another’s nose, or to chase him in a belligerent manner”
o Right to personal dignity • Defendant must have intended to interfere with the plaintiff’s personal
o Right to personal security dignity
o Right to family relations o Assault can’t be committed through negligence.
o Right to social intercourse
o Right to privacy 3) The Right to Social Relations
o Right to peace of mind • No parallel in American law
• Liability for intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends
1) The Right to Personal Dignity • Malice requirement: “Intrigue” implies malice or ill will
• Violation of the right to personal dignity is analogous to the American
law concept of defamation.

 
35
4.) The Right to Family Relations 5.) The Right of Privacy
d. Husband and wife • “The right to be let alone.”
a. The law expressly recognizes the right of either spouse to sue • Invasion of the right of privacy involves 4 distinct types of tort:
the other without any limitations as to the subject matter of 5) Intrusion upon the plaintiff’s physical and mental solitude
litigation. 6) Public disclosure of private facts
b. Carpio believes that a personal tort action, like battery, can be 7) Placing the plaintiff in false light in the public eye
maintained by a wife against her husband, or vise versa. 8) Commercial appropriation of the plaintiff’s name or likeness
e. Interferences by Third Persons • RE: public figure – even those who unwillingly court public attention,
• The right to family relations includes the right to consortium and to through association with crime or other interesting events, become
recover damages for breach thereof. reluctant public figures.
i. Consortium – bundle of legal rights namely: services, • Examples in American Jurisprudence: use of plaintiff’s picture for an
society, sexual intercourse, conjugal affection advertisement in a newspaper, use of plaintiff’s name in the title of a
ii. The gist of a husband’s cause of action for loss of his corporation, unauthorized prying into the plaintiff’s private bank
wife’s consortium is a loss sustained by him and not account, peeping into plaintiff’s windows
the damage sustained by her.
• Examples of forms of interferences 6.) Right to Peace of Mind
o Adultery – husband may maintain an action against the 2rd • Parallel to American tort of intentional infliction of mental distress
party, whether or not the wife consented to it (referring to physical illness suffered by plaintiff as a result of offensive
o Alienation of affection – Required to prove that: (1) The words or acts)
rd
defendant, the 3 party, acted for the purpose of affecting the
relation, and (2) The defendant was a substantial factor in Sps. Guanio v. Makati Shangri-la
causing the alienation. Held
(2011)
§ The attempt to alienate must be successful to be Case where Makati Shang Court cited the essence of Art. 26 –
actionable. Wife may recover even if husband did not mishandled their wedding – wrong every person is entitled to respect of
desert the family home. No defense that husband was food, lacked wine, etc. his dignity, personality, privacy and
seducer, as long as there was encouragement on the peace of mind – to justify award of
other woman’s part. nominal damages.
o Can a meddling-mother-in-law be liable for alienation of
affection? NO. Tenchavez v. Escaño adopted the view that St. Louis v. CA (1984) Held
parents enjoy a qualified privilege to interest themselves in the
Dr. Aramil’s house was twice published There was a violation of Aramil’s
marital affairs of their child.
in Manila Times for the publicity of St. right to privacy under Art. 26. His
f. Parent and Child
Louis Realty, falsely depicting his house private life was unnecessarily and
o Nowhere in our law is there a prohibition against a child suing
as the Arcadio Family’s, and how they mistakenly exposed.
the parent. Carpio believes a child has the right to sue a parent
had to scrimp up to be able to afford it,
for excessive punishment.
etc. No rectification because no
o Parents must also be allowed to institute a personal tort action
apologies even after they had stopped
against the child under Art. 26, like an action for assault or
publication.
battery.
g. Enticement
o Under Art. 26, a parent may institute a tort action against a CASIS QUESTION:
person who entices a child away from home. What if the subdivision had houses that all looked the same anyway?
o Can a child sue his mother’s paramour for enticing her to leave à The result would still be the same if you can show the house was identifiable as
the conjugal home? Carpio believes YES; the child can sue on Dr. Aramil’s.
the basis of interference of family relations. Family relations
include those between ascendants and descendants. Child
also has a right to an undisturbed family right.

 
36
 Gregorio v. CA (2009) Held IX. INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS .
Gregorio was arrested by armed men in Article 26 grants a cause of action for
her QC residence, in front of her husband damages, prevention and other relief
and children, for allegedly violating BP for cases not necessarily constituting
22. She was taken to the DILG office and a criminal offense – the 6 rights. A. VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
was fingerprinted and mugshot. The case Citing Art. 26, the Court said
was later dismissed upon motion incalculable damages has been
because of insufficiency of evidence inflicted on the plaintiff on account of Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly
against her; the signatures on the checks the defendant’s wanton, callous, and obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights
were not even hers. She filed an action reckless disregard of the and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
for damages. The SC granted her fundamental legal precept that “Every
1) Freedom of religion
petition. person shall respect the dignity,
2) Freedom of speech
personality, privacy and peace of 3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain periodical publication
mind of his neighbors and other 4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention
persons.” 5) Freedom of suffrage
6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law
Sps. Hing v. Choachuy (2013) Held 7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use
Respondent owners of Aldo Development Art. 26 (1) – “Prying into the privacy 8) The right to equal protection of the laws
9) The right to be secured in one’s person, house, papers, and effects against
& Resources, constructing an auto-repair of another’s residence” includes
unreasonable searches and seizures
shop, claimed that the adjacent lot, Sps. business office also. The Reasonable 10) The liberty of abode and changing the same
Hing, were constructing a fence that was Expectation of Privacy Test is used to 11) The privacy of communication and correspondence
destroying the wall of its building. They determine whether there is a violation 12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not
installed on their building 2 surveillance of the right to privacy: (1) Whether, contrary to law
cameras facing petitioner’s property, by his conduct, the individual 13) The right to take part in a peacable assembly to petition the Government for
without their consent. exhibited an expectation of privacy; redress of grievances
and (2) this expectation is one that 14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form
15) The right of the accused against excessive bail
society recognizes as reasonable. 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
• Dereliction of Duty attendance of witness in his behalf
Art 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or 17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one’s self, or from being
employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty, forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward
may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State
prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. witness
18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same
• Unfair Competition is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially
Art 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in declared unconstitutional, and
19) Freedom of access to courts
labor thru 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.
1. Persons Responsible
- Public officers or public individuals
- Generally: “Directly or indirectly” à not actor alone who must answer for damages
Exception: If the defendant is a judge, responsibility is not demandable unless his act
or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.

 
37
 MHP Garments v. CA (1994) Held action against a public NOT REQUIRED” is not
MHP Garments was awarded an MHP was liable even if it was the police officer without a particular reversed though; they
exclusive franchise to sell and distribute who conducted the raid, and MHP’s injury, or a particular right. merely held that in this
official Boy Scout uniforms. Upon participation was only to report the “Financial and business case an allegation of bad
receiving info that Gonzales was selling alleged illegal activity. MHP was difficulties” in Fortune’s faith was essential to
the same without authority, MHP indirectly involved in transgressing the complaint is not a substantiate their claim.
instigated a raid with the help of the right agsainst unreasonable search and “particular injury”. The SC
police to seize without warrant seizure. Larry de Guzman, an employee impliedly ruled that
Gonzales’ premises. The unfair who stood by the raid, is also liable for allegation of bad faith was
competition charge against Gonzales apparently assenting thereto. needed for suit to prosper.
was dismissed and MHP was ordered to
return the goods, but they only returned
the “inferior quality” ones. 3. Nature of Acts Covered
- NECESSARY that there is a violation of the constitutional right of the plaintiff, AND
2. Malice or Bad Faith that such right must be listed in Art. 32
- NOT NECESSARY, in either (otherwise, subject to justifiable motives of good faith
in the performance of their duties) - Aggrieved has a right to proceed on an entirely separate and distinct civil action for
damages, whether or not the defendant’s act or omission constitutes a criminal
Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune (2007) Held offense. This civil action will proceed independently and be proved by a
VC was the Commissioner of Internal Malice need not be proven in an action preponderance of evidence.
Revenue. The problem was how, after RA under Art. 32, precisely because torts
7654 already considered the brands don’t require malice. Very few public
Champion, Hope and More as “local officials would openly abuse individual Silahis v. Soluta (2006) Held
brands” (subject to 20-45% tax), she rights of citizens. To require malice Marijuana was allegedly found in the Waiver by implication can’t be presumed.
reclassified as “locally manufactured would be to limit the scope of this office of the Silahis Employee’s union. A There must be clear and convincing
cigarettes bearing foreign brand”, subject article. VC liable; failure to allege malice complaint was filed against the union evidence of an actual intention to
to 55% ad valorem tax. After not giving or bad faith will not amount to failure of officers for violation of Dangerous Drugs constitute a waiver thereof. It is required
due notice, she demanded collection of state of a cause of action. Act. Petitioners barged into and the that: 1) the right exists, 2) the person
around P9M. In response to the suits office without a warrant and searched involved had knowledge, either actual or
against her, she claims that no showing the premises. Court held the search to constructive, of existence of such right,
of bad faith, malice or gross negligence . be illegal. and 3) the person had an actual intention
to relinquish the right.
Vinzons- Chato v.
Held Casis Critiques B. DEFAMATION, FRAUD, PHYSICAL INJURIES
Fortune (2008)
VC moved for recon. She There are 2 kinds of duties Art. 32 does not
was acquitted. exercised by public officers: distinguish types of Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages,
1) Duty owing to the officers nor types of entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party.
public collectively duties of public officers. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require
– whether wholly Court had no legal basis only a preponderance of evidence.
or partially in first determining which
2) Duty owing to the of the 2 classes of duties 1. Defamation
public individuals is involved. -­‐ It is the publication of anything which is injurious to the good name or
– in his official reputation of another or tends to bring him in disrepute. Defamation is an
capacity, under a The “liability depending invasion of a relational interest since it involves the opinion which others in
particular on duty” is even worse the community may have, or tend to have, of the plaintiff. (MVRS v. Islamic
obligation. than the good faith Da’wah)
defense. -­‐ Words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per
General Rule: An individual se; the fact that language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it
cannot have a particular The rule that “MALICE actionable by itself.
 
38
 Yuchengco v. Manila Chronicle (2009) Held
Libel Yuchengco was imputed twice as a Although “libel” is defined in the RPC, it
-­‐ RPC: A public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, “Marcos crony” of unsound and can be instituted as a purely civil action
real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance immoral business practices, in articles under Art 33. The elements of libel were
tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical published by the Manila Chronicle. adopted in purely civil action for damages
person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. (A PIE). For the existence of malice, Court
-­‐ Although “libel” is defined in the RPC, it can be instituted as a purely civil said it does not necessarily have to be
action under Art 33. (Yuchengco v. Manila Chronicle) proven. In the PH, there is a presumption
of malice in a defamatory imputation
Elements of Libel (A PIE) when there is no showing of good faith,
-­‐ Allegation or imputation of a discreditable act or condition concerning except in qualifiedly privileged
another; communications:
-­‐ Publication of the imputation 1.Private communication by a person
o not only when widely circulated, but also when it is made known or made to another in the performance of
brought to the attention or notice of another person other than its legal, moral, social duty;
author and the offended party 2. Fair and true report, without comment;
-­‐ Identity of the person defamed; and 3. Fair commentaries on matters of public
-­‐ Existence of malice interest
-­‐ Need: Public figure (libel suit
Arafiles v. Phil Journalists (1988) Held actionable if actual malice –
Morales, a reporter of People’s Journal The allegation of the “overly knowledge of publication’s
Tonight published a story “GOVT EXEC sensationalized reporting” does not falsity or reckless disregard for
RAPES COED” based on a complaint stand; the article must be construed as whether the contents of the
filed with the police district an entirety including the headlines, as publication were false - proven)
rd
headquarters for Forcible Abduction they may enlarge, explain, or restrict or Applying the 3 type - because
with Rape and Forcible Abduction with be enlarged, explained or strengthened or Yuchengco neither public officer nor
Attempted Rape. Court held that restricted by the context. Whether or not public figure, articles are not qualified
Morales was not liable for libel. it is libelous, depends upon the scope, privileged communications even if they
spirit and motive of the publication taken dealt with matters of public concern. The
in entirety. Court ruled that the failure to present
evidence showing that they verified the
truth of any of the subject articles was
MVRS Publications Inc. v. Islamic fatal to their cause.
Held
(2003)
Islamic Da’wah filed a complaint for libel Suit will not prosper as class suit without 2. Fraud
against MVRS publications for an article circumstances specifically alluding to a -­‐ estafa falls under fraud in Art. 33
in Bulgar containing a statement about particular member of a class. Heirs of Simon v. Elvin Chan (2011) Held
the pig as the god of Muslims. Requirement for defamation against a Case for BP 22 was filed against Eduardo There is no independent civil action to
group is that the statement must be so Simon. Three years later, civil action for recover the civil liability arising from the
sweeping or all-embracing to apply to the collection of the principal amount of issuance of an unfunded check
every individual in the group, or so P336,000 was commenced. prohibited and punished under BP 22.
specific that each member can prove the The issuance of a bouncing check may
defamatory statement specifically result in 2 separate and distinct crimes:
pointed to him. Court noted that estafa and BP22. But recovery for civil
members of Muslim community each liabilities are distinct. While a party may
have separate and distinct reputation opt to reserve civil action for estafa,
with varying views on the matter. Court prohibits reservation of a separate
civil action to claim civil liability arising
from issuance of the bouncing check.
 
39
 through Reckless a bar to the civil action for injured party the initiative
Consing v. People (2013) Held Imprudence was filed damages. Even if to personally demand
Consing had various loans from There is no prejudicial question when the against bus driver. Heirs “physical injuries” damages by independent
Unicapital totaling P18M. Unicapital civil action and criminal action can of Marcia reserved their includes homicide, the civil action; not meant for
later learned that the mortgaged proceed independently of each other. right to institute separate charge to the bus driver his lawyer to institute.
property had spurious TCTs. Consing The Civil Case for Damages and civil action for damages. was reckless imprudence
filed for injunctive relief at Pasig RTC, Attachment on account of the alleged Paje acquitted, finding (criminal negligence
saying he acted as a mere agent of his fraud committed by Consing and his reckess imprudence didn’t resulting in homicide),
mother. Unicapital initiated criminal mother in selling the mortgaged property exist. which is not included in
rd
complaint of Estada thru Falsification of to a 3 party is an independent civil the 3 crimes under Art. 33.
public document at Makati RTC, then action under Article 33. As such, it will Therefore, no independent
filed for recovery of money and damages not operate as a prejudicial question that civil action for damages in
with application for writ of preliminary will justify the suspension of the criminal connection with reckless
attachment. The prosecutor filed an info case at bar. imprudence.
for estafa thru falsification of public
docs with Makati RTC. Upon motion by Madeja v. Caro (1983) Held
Consing, Makati RTC suspended Doctor was accused of Homicide thru Court ruled that civil action against
proceedings on ground of existence of Reckless Imprudence for the death of doctor may proceed independently of the
prejudicial question (with the injunctive patient after an surgery for removal of criminal action because covered under
relief daw). appendix. Heir of patient reserved right Art. 33. “Physical injuries” covers
to file separate civil action. While attempted, frustrated and consummated
criminal case pending, heir sued doctor homicide. (this was
3. Physical Injuries for damages.
-­‐ Includes physical injuries causing death (Capuno v. Pepsi)
-­‐ It does not cover acts committed via negligence Bonite v. Zosa (1988) Held
Bonite was working as a “caminero” Civil liability is not extinguished by
Capuno v. Pepsi Cola (1965) Held when he was hit by a truck, resulting in acquittal of the accused where acquittal
Pepsi Cola truck collided with car driven Heirs of Capuno correctly considered it his death. Heirs of Bonite filed a criminal is based on reasonable doubt – civil
by Capuno. Truck driver was charged as entirely independent of the criminal complaint for Homicdie thru Reckless action for the same act or omission may
triple Homicide thru Reckless action, pursuant to Art. 31 and Art. 33. Imprudence against driver. He was be instituted and requires only a
Imprudence, which included claims for Court explained the term “physical acquitted for failure to prove guilt preponderance of evidence.
damages of the heirs. While the crim injuries” in Art 33 includes bodily injuries beyond reasonable doubt.
case was pending, a civil case for causing death… so the civil action for
damages was filed by the Intestate damages could have been commenced Dulay v. CA (1995) Held
Estate of the Buan spouses by Capuno immediately upon the death Security guard and lawyer had an Although in Corpus v. Paje it was held
of their decedent, and the same would altercation at the Big Bang sa Alabang that no independent civil action may be
not have been stayed by the filing of the carnival; lawyer was shot and killed. filed under Art. 33 where the crime is the
criminal action for homicide thru Heirs of lawyer filed action for damages result of criminal negligence, it must be
reckless imprudence. (altho case against guard and his employers. During noted the accused in the case at bar is
dismissed bec. prescribed) pendency of case, an information for charged with homicide, not with reckless
Homicide was filed (aka nauna yung civ imprudence, whereas the defendant in
Corpus v. Paje (1969) Held Casis Critiques case). Corpus was charged with reckless
Collision between Victory Civil action dismissed. Casis emphasized the imprudence. Therefore, in this case, a
Liner bus and jeep driven Since it was based upon footnote of Justice civil action based on Article 33 lies.
by Marcia, resulting in his the same criminal Capistrano, who thinks
death and physical negligence of which Paje physicial injuries
injuries. An information was acquitted in the shouldn’t include death
for Homicide and double criminal action, the because the reason for
Serious Physical Injuries acquittal thus constituted the law was to give

 
40
 C. NEGLECT OF DUTY
PART TWO
D A M A G E S
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.
I. THE CONCEPT OF DAMAGES .

D. CATCH-ALL INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION A. Importance and Definition

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
complainant 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.
• The pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an
injury sustained or “he pecuniary consequences which the law
imposes for the breach of some duty or violation of some right.
(People v. Ballesteros)
• The recompense or compensation awarded for damages suffered.
(Custodio v. CA)
• ONLY WITH MONEY
B. When Allowed
• There must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by
the defendants AND damage resulting therefrom. Damnum absque
injuria is not a cause of action, since damages are merely part of
the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong
o Injury – illegal invasion of a legal right
o Damage – the loss, hurt, or harm which results from the
injury
o Damages – the recompense or compensation awarded
for the damage suffered
• Basis: breach of some duty and the imposition of liability for that
breach

Custodio v. CA (1996) Held

Pacifico owned a property surrounded by
immovable; he had 2 possible
passageways to access the main street.
One neighbor blocked 1 passageway with
his adobe fence and its extension,
justifying it with the inconveniences of
having drunk people pass by their house
and steal their stuff. Pacifico filed for
grant of easement of right of way against
that neighbor. Lower courts granted
permanent access + damages. Court held
the award of damages was WRONG if
based solely on losses from unrealized
rentals from the tenants who left bec. of
the closure of the passageway.
The mere fact that the plaintiff suffered
losses does not give rise to a right to
recover damages. 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.
There must be damnum et injuria. The
law affords no remedy for damages
resulting from an act with does not
amount to a legal injury or wrong.

Casis Question: What are examples of damage absque injuria?

 
41

C. Law on Damages
• Art 2196 – rules under the title are without prejudice to special
provisions o damages formulated elsewhere in the Code
• Art 2198 – principles of general law on damages are adopted insofar as
they are not inconsistent with the Civil Code
• Art 2195 – DAMAGES not limited to torts or QD – applicable to all
obligations in 1157 (law, contracts, quasi-contracts and crimes)
D. Types of Damages (MENTAL)
v Art 2197
o Moral
o Exemplary or corrective
o Nominal
o Temperate or moderate
o Actual or compensatory
o Liquidated
E. Apportionment of Damages
People v. Halil Gambao
Held
(2013)
Each principal accused-
Conviction for kidnapping appellant should shoulder a
for ransom of Chan, a fish greater share in the total
dealer. Conspiracy between amount of indemnity and
10 people was established damages than Perpenian
beyond reasonable doubt; who was adjudged as only
the act on 1 is the act of all. an accomplice.
Taking into account the
difference in the degrees of
their participation, all of
them shall be liable for the
total amount of P300,000.00
divided among the
principals who shall be liable
for P288,000.00 (or
P32,000.00 each) and
Perpenian who shall be
liable for P12,000.00.
II. ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES.
A. DEFINITION/ PURPOSE
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.
2 Possible Interpretations of "except as provided for by law or by stipulation":
• Actual damages may be awarded even if pecuniary loss is not proven,
provided it is allowed by law/ stipulation (takes form of liquidated damages)
• Even if pecuniary loss is proven, actual damages may not be awarded if this
is provided for by law/ stipulation (in effect, a stipulation on liquidated
damages)
B. PROOF REQUIRED
1. Pleading and proof of actual damage
• The award must be based on the evidence presented
• Judges cannot make estimates based on their knowledge of the cost (but
see Gatchalian v. Delim, infra)
• Claimant is duty-bound to point out specific facts that afford a basis for
Casis Critiques
measuring the award
Court did not provide a
formula at all. 2. Nature of loss and proof
• Losses that are actually sustained and susceptible of (pecuniary)
measurement in market value
• Reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or the best
evidence obtainable
• Court is required to state the factual bases of the award in decision
Gatchalian v. Delim
Held Casis Critiques
(1991)
Woman suffered a wound A scar, especially one on Court appears to have
on her forehead because the face of the woman, merely estimated the
the bus she was riding got resulting from the amount.
involved in an accident. infliction of injury upon
She filed a suit for breach her, is a violation of bodily Also, Araneta involved
of contract of carriage integrity, giving rise to a restorative surgery while
and prayed for damages legitimate claim for here, the surgery is purely
including P10k for the restoration to her conditio cosmetic.
cost of plastic surgery. ante. In Araneta, et al. vs.
Court noted the lapse of Areglado, et al., this Court
time (increase in cost, awarded actual or
difficulty of removal). compensatory damages
for, among other things,
the surgical removal of
the scar on the face of a
young boy.
42
 Oceaneering v. Baretto
(2011)
Oceaneering transported
construction materials on
Baretto's barge under a
Time Charter Agreement.
The barge capsized.
Oceaneering sued Baretto
for the unexpired portion
of the agreement plus the
value of the lost cargo.
Held
Oceaneering is entitled to
unexpired portion AND
actual damages for the
portions duly pleaded and
proved by vouchers and
receipts in its Answer
(minus the value of the
materials salvaged).
Actual/compensatory
damages "are those
damages which an injured
party is entitled to recover
for the wrong done and
injuries received when
none were intended".
Candano v. Sugata-on
Casis Critiques Held Casis Critiques
(2007)
The cited definition is Sugata-on went missing 50%rule: Because Art. 1711 covers
inaccurate as actual when employer's vessel In computing the neither a crime/quasi-
damages may also be sank. His wife claimed necessary living expense, delict, Art. 2206(1) could
awarded based on indemnity from his jurisprudence shows the not be the basis of the
intentional acts. employer based on Art. Court pegged it at 50% of award for loss of earning
This case is instructive on 1711. Court adopted the the gross annual income capacity. True enough, the
how to plead and prove Villa Rey formula "in order (in the absence of Court cited Arts. 2199 and
actual damages. to give breath to the evidence). 2200.
provisions on damages".
2. In contracts and quasi-contracts
Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in
good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of the breach
of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the
time the obligation was constituted.

In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all
damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.
C. LOSS COVERED
• Thus, in the absence of good faith, foreseeability is not a requirement and
Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, the link between damage and breach need not be natural and probable.
but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain.
Sps. Zalamea v. CA (1993) Held
Sps. and daughter bought tickets from Overbooking amounts to bad faith. The
• Daño emergente - loss of what a person already possesses NY to LA. While in NY, they received US law allowing it was not proven. Even
• Lucro cesante - failure to receive as a benefit that which would have confirmation from TransWorld Airlines. if proven, it would not apply because PH
pertained to him They arrived an hour before boarding but follows lex loci contractus; PH law
were placed on the waitlist because applies. In accordance with Art. 2201,
other passengers had taken all the TWA should be responsible for all
1. In General seats. Next flight was also full. Mom and damages which may be reasonably
daughter had to buy tickets from attributed to the breach. Instead of being
PNOC v. CA (1998) Held American Airlines. They sued TWA. refunded, Zalameas should be
Vessels owned by MEFC and Luzon Where goods are destroyed by the TWA alleged that under US law, reimbursed for actual cost of the
Stevedoring collided. MEFC prayed for wrongful act of the defendant the overbooking was an accepted practice. American Airlines tickets.
the value of the equipment and plaintiff is entitled to their value at the
unrealized profits and lost business time of destruction, that is, normally, the BPI Family v. Franco
Held Casis Critiques
opportunities. Actual damages were sum of money which he would have to (2007)
proven though the sole testimony of pay in the market for identical or BPI unilaterally froze No bad faith on the part of BPI still could have been
MEFC's GM and certain documents. essentially similar goods, plus in a Franco's accounts, BPI. It acted out of the liable for damages if it
Court held that while plaintiff would have proper case damages for the loss of use suspecting funds were impetus of self-protection were proven that the
been entitled to the value at the time of during the period before replacement. In transferred to him and not out of injury to Franco (dishonor
destruction, the price quotations other words, in the case of emanating from a forged malevolence or ill-will. of checks) was a
submitted partook of the nature of profit‑earning chattels, what has to be Authority to Debit. Checks Bad faith imports a foreseeable consequence
hearsay evidence because the authors assessed is the value of the chattel to its he issued were dishonest purpose or of its breach (freezing of
were not made to testify. Hence, actual owner at the time and place of the loss. dishonored because his some moral obliquity and accounts). However, the
damages were not sufficiently proven. account was under conscious doing of wrong; Court did not discuss this.
Only nominal damages were awarded. garnishment. it partakes of the nature of
fraud.

 
43
3. In crimes and quasi-delicts 4. Earning capacity, business standing

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. 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened
according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Art. 2205. Damages may be recovered:
(1) For loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury;
(2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit.
a. Loss or impairment of earning capacity

• In crimes and quasi-delicts, foreseeability and good faith are irrelevant. Gatchalian v. Delim
Held Casis Critiques
(1991)
Llorente v. Woman suffered a wound In view of her employment This is correct if what is
Held Casis Critiques
Sandiganbayan (1991) on her forehead because status (casual, episodic) claimed is loss of
Llorente was charged with Llorente was guilty of Thus, while Art. 2202 the bus she was riding got CA held she could not be earnings. But if what is
violation of RA3019 for abuse or right. Because of specifically applies to involved in an accident. said to have lost any meant is loss of earning
refusing to issue a his actions, the employee crimes and quasi-delicts, She claims she was on employment. She has not capacity, a person's
certificate of clearance to was not able to land jobs the Court held it to ba the way to confer with the submitted any basis and earning capacity is not
one PCA employee. He that he applied for. Either applicable to Art. 19 district supervisor for a she may not be awarded necessarily shown by his
was acquitted because job would have given him which is neither a crime job as a substitute public damages on the basis of employment status.
there was no evidence a salary of P150k in 5 yrs. nor a quasi-delict. If Art. teacher's job. speculation or conjecture.
that he acted with evident Deducting his expenses, 19 is considered a tort, it
bad faith (element of the actual damages amount may be said that Art. 2202 Mercury Drug v. Huang (2007) Held
offense) but he was made to P90k. The award of applies to torts as well. It Mercury Drug truck collided with a car Court affirmed award of P23.4M for the
to pay compensatory P90k was justified under seems that as far as Art. driven by a (very promising) 16y/o. life care cost based on average monthly
damages because he was Art. 2202 which holds the 2202 is concerned, expense and the remaining years that he
guilty of abuse of right (he defendant liable for all "quasi-delict" is held to be is expected to live, PLUS a "conservative
acted with bad faith "natural and probable" equivalent to "tort". amount of P10M" for the loss or
nevertheless). damages. impairment of his earning capacity
PNOC v. CA (1998) Held Casis Critiques considering his age, probable life
Case where 2 vessels "In actions based on torts Assuming that the Court expectancy, and his mental and physical
collided. or quasi-delicts, actual is not using torts as a condition before the accident.
damages include all the synonym of quasi-delict Considering that Art. 2206(1) makes the defendant liable for the loss of the earning
natural and probable but as referring to tort-like capacity of the deceased, it may be suggested that Art. 2205(1) applies to loss or
consequences of the act provisions, then the Court impairment of earning capacity of a person injured but not killed. This may be
or omission complained holds Art. 2202 applicable supported by the fact that Art. 2205(1) covers both temporary and permanent injury.
of." to such tort provisions.
• But the Court used Art. 2205(1) in a case where the injured person died
People v. Sarcia (2009) Held (Magbanua v. Tabusares Jr.).
Sarcia was convicted of rape. Because Civil liability ex delicto is equivalent to
of lack of proof of his age and the date of actual damages. The minority of the b. Injury to business standing or commercial credit
the commission, the privileged offender has no bearing on the gravity
mitigating circumstance of minority was and extent of injury caused to the victim Tanay Recreation Center v. Fausto
Held
appreciated with respect to the penalty and her family. More so in this case (2005) *not a required case
but not as regards his civil liability. when the circumstance was appreciated Plaintiff claimed P1.1M as An award of damages for lost goodwill or
for lack of proof rather than compensation for lost goodwill or reputation falls under actual or
Starting with this case, if rape is moral/evidentiary certainty. reputation, alleging that because of the compensatory damages as provided in
qualified by any circumstance under unjust and wrongful conduct of the Art. 2205. Even if it is not awarded in the
which the death penalty is authorized, No justifiable ground to depart from the defendants, it stood to lose its goodwill concept of damages, it may still be
the indemnity shall be increased to not jurisprudential trend in the award of and reputation established for 20 years. awarded in the concept of temperate or
less than P75k. damages for qualified rape. Court found the claim unsupported. moderate damages.

 
44
 D. DEATH BY CRIME OR QUASI-DELICT People v. Lopez (2011) Held
Lopez was found guilty of murder and Evidence not objected to is deemed
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least sentenced to RP. Victim's wife presented admitted and may be validly considered
three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition: 2 certifications from his office showing by the court. Thus, the victim's net
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the his salary range plus his honorarium and earning capacity can be derived from 2
indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be
transpo allowance. Defense did not sources: salary, and honorarium and
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; object when the prosecution presented transpo allowance.
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 291, the these docs. Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy x
recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or Gross Annual Income - Living Expenses
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; Philippine Hawk v. Lee (2010) Held
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may Phil. Hawk's vehicle hit a motorcycle. As to the computation of loss of earning
demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. Motorcycle driver died. His widow was capacity, only net earnings, not gross
injured. The latter filed an action for earnings, are to be considered. In the
damages based on quasi-delict. She absence of documentary evidence, it is
1. Civil/ death indemnity
testified her husband earned an annual reasonable to peg necessary expenses
• In crimes resulting in death, there seems to be inconsistency on whether
income of P1M from leasing and for the lease and operation of the gas
the award is P50k or P75k. The Court awarded P75k if the imposable
operating a gas station, and she station at 80% of the gross income, and
penalty was death had it not been for RA 9346. But if the imposable penalty
presented a tax certificate showing her peg the living expenses at 50% of the net
was only reclusion perpetua, the Court awarded P50k.
husband earned a gross income of income (gross income less necessary
• In robbery with homicide, civil indemnity and moral damages in the amount P950,988. However, no documentary expenses).
of P50k each is granted automatically in the absence of any qualifying evidence was presented re: copra Using this formula, the Court determined
aggravating circumstances. These awards are mandatory without need of business, hence her testimony as to that that the net earning capacity of the
allegation and evidence other than the death of the victim owing to the fact could not be considered. victim was P1M.
of the commission of the offense. (Crisostomo v. People)
Pleyto v. Lomboy (2004) Held Casis Critiques
People v. Halil Gambao (2013) Held
PH Rabbit bus collided Failure to present Tracing the roots of the
Kidnapping for ransom of a woman who The Court took the opportunity to
with a car. Damages were documentary evidence to rule, there is a sufficient
was the proprietor of a market stall. increase the amounts of indemnity and
awarded to the heirs of a support a claim for loss of body of jurisprudence to
damages whrere, as in this case, the
car passenger. The bus earning capacity of the justify it as a principle to
penalty for the crime comitted is death
company and driver deceased need not be be applied in future cases.
which cannot be imposed because of RA
argued that there was no fatal to its cause. The problem is when to
9346. It awarded P100k each for civil
substantial proof to prove Testimonial evidence apply it. Perhaps it should
indemnity, moral damages, and
the victim's gross income. suffices to establish a only be applied to cases
exemplary damages.
Widow's testimony as to basis for which the court where the testimony is
2. Loss of earning capacity husband's income was can make a fair and highly credible and there
used as a basis. reasonable estimate for is no reason to suspect
• Not for loss of earnings but for loss of capacity to earn money the loss of earning that the witness is
• General rule: Documentary evidence should be presented. Exceptions: capacity. inflating the amount.
o Deceased was self-employed and earning less than the minimum
wage (judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the People v. Ibañez (2013) Leonen Concurring & Dissenting Opinion
deceased's line of work, no documentary evidence is available) 2 accused were convicted of murder and The widow's estimate does not vary too
o Deceased was employed as a daily wage worker earning less than sentenced to RP. SC deleted the award far from the regional min wage of P400.
the minimum wage of loss of earning capacity because no Evidence presented, if seen as credible
o (Another possible exception provided in Pleyto v. Lomboy) documentary evidence was presented by the RTC, should stand in the absence
Testimonial evidence suffices to establish a basis for which the except for the "bare assertions" of his of clear basis to refute it. In any event,
court can make a fair and reasonable estimate widow. He did not fall under either of the the Court has awarded temperate
• The Court has used the Villa Rey formula to determine the loss of earning 2 exceptions because his widow testified damages in lieu of an award for
capacity under Art. 2206. Note that Villa Rey did not involve a crime or that he earned P400-P500. unearned income. The P25k awarded
quasi-delict. The Court has also applied the same for cases not under 2206. here was too meager.

 
45
 E. IN RAPE CASES
People v. Astrologo (2007)
Accused was convicted of raping his
daughter by means of force and
intimidation. He was sentenced to RP
and to pay P75k as civil indemnity.
People v. Apattad (2011)
The accused was convicted of 3 counts
of qualified rape (raped his daughter).
The imposable penalty would have been
death were it not for RA 9346.
People v. Bañago (1999)
Accused was found guilty of rape and
sentenced to RP. Only P50k moral
damages was awarded.
People v. Bartolini (2010)
Lower courts found the accused guilty of
3 counts of incestuous rape against his
2 daughters. The Court modified the
judgment because of certain facts not
being alleged in the information. It found
him guilty of 2 counts of qualified rape
and sentenced him to RP in lieu of death,
and guilty of 1 count of simple rape,
sentencing him to RP. It also increased
the civil indemnity from P50k to P75k.
Held
Civil indemnity is mandatory upon the
finding of the fact of rape. Court reduced
the award to P50k because the crime
committed was only simple rape.
Held
When the circumstances surrounding
the crime would justify the imposition of
the penalty of death were it not for RA
9346, the award of civil indemnity
should be P75k. The reason for this rule
was given in People v. Victor:
- reaction to the apathetic societal
perception of the penal law and the
financial fluctuations over time
- expression of the Court's displeasure
over the incidence of heinous crimes
against chastity
Held
While the award of moral damages is
discretionary on the part of the court, the
civil indemnity, which is in the nature of
actual damages, is mandatory upon the
finding of the fact of rape. Hence, in
addition to the moral damages awarded,
the accused should pay P75k by way of
civil indemnity.
Held
Where the special qualifying
circumstances of age and relationship,
although not alleged in the information,
are nonetheless established during the
trial, the award of civil indemnity and
moral damages in a conviction for
simple rape should equal the award for
qualified rape.
46
F. ATTORNEY'S FEES
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than
judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: (ELMUR'S WISe DJ must be reasonable.)
(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.
• The attorney's fees in Art. 2208 is not payment for services rendered by a
lawyer but an award in favor of the litigant, who is the judgment creditor
who may enforce the judgment (Quirante v. IAC).
• Atty's fees must be specifically prayed for. This demands factual, legal, and
equitable justification. The Court must state explicitly in the body of the
decision the legal reason for the award.
Quirante v. IAC Held
Dr. Casasola obtained favorable Counsel's claim for atty's fees may be
judgment in a case. Atty. Quirante filed a asserted either in the same or in a
motion for confirmation of his atty's separate action. However, what is
fees, which TC granted, but IAC reversed claimed here is different from the atty's
because the motion was premature, fees as an item for damages in Art. 2208
considering the main case was still wherein the award is made in favor of
pending before the SC. the litigant, not his counsel (litigant is
the judgment creditor who may enforce
by execution). Here, the petitioner's
claims are based on an alleged contract
for professional services. Still, SC agrees
with IAC that the motion is premature
because the main case has not reached
finality. The remedy for recovering
attorney's fees as an incident of the
main action may be availed of only when
something is due to the client.
 Manila Electric v. Ramoy Bank of America v. Phil.
Held Casis Critiques Held Casis Critiques
(2008) Racing (2009)
NPC won in an ejectment Meralco willfully caused SC's statement should A John Doe encashed An adverse decision does By this ruling, the Court is
case. It requested Meralco injury to Ramoy, hence the only be taken to mean (stolen) checks pre- not ipso facto justify an requiring bad faith on the
to disconnect the power latter is entitled to CA's that atty's fees could not signed by PRCI officers. award of attorney’s fees part of the losing party if
supply to the defendants award of moral damages. be awarded because the PRCI filed a complaint to the winning party. Even the basis of the award is
in the said case. It was However, exemplary basis of the CA's award against the bank and was when a claimant is Art. 2208 (2).
later found out that the damages should not be was its grant of exemplary awarded P20k atty's fees, compelled to litigate with
Ramoys' property was awarded because Meralco damages. Since the Court among others. CA third persons or to incur
outside the NPC property. did not act in a wanton, deleted the exemplary affirmed but SC found expenses to protect his
TC ordered reconnection fraudulent, reckless, damages, it follows that contributory negligence. rights, still attorney’s fees
but dismissed the claim oppressive or malevolent atty's fees are also may not be awarded
for damages and atty's manner. Since the Court deleted. where no sufficient
fees. CA granted all does not deem it proper to showing of bad faith
claims. award exemplary could be reflected in a
damages in this case, party’s persistence in a
then the CA's award for case other than an
atty's fees should likewise erroneous conviction of
be deleted, as Article 2208 the righteousness of his
states that in the absence cause.
of stipulation, atty's fees
can't be recovered except Sps. Andrada v. Pilhino
Held Casis Critiques
in cases provided for. (2011)
Pilhino caused the levy on Not entitled to atty's fees. If an unfounded civil suit
Briones v. Macabagdal (2010) Held execution of a Hino truck Pilhino's bad faith, is by definition one
Sps. Briones mistakenly constructed a The Court deletes the award to Vergon of previously owned by Jose necessary to predicate the instituted in bad faith,
house on the Macabagdals' lot. The compensatory damages and attorney’s Andrada Jr. when it had grant of attorney’s fees stating that bad faith was
latter won in an action for recovery of fees as such amounts were not already been sold to based on Art. 2208(4), not established is the
possession of the parcel of land, and TC specifically prayed for in its Answer. Moises Andrada. Moises was not established. No same as saying that an
awarded P30k in atty's fees. Atty's fees must be specifically prayed sued Pilhino based on premium should be unfounded civil suit did
for—as was not done in this case—and Arts. 19 and 21, and placed on the right to not exist.
may not be deemed incorporated within sought Atty's fees based litigate and that not every
a general prayer for “such other relief on Art. 2208(4). winning party is entitled Bad faith requirement
and remedy as this court may deem just to an automatic grant of here is more palatable
and equitable.” The body of the TC’s attorney’s fees. since it's already required
decision was devoid of any statement in an unfounded civil suit.
regarding attorney’s fees. The power of PNCC v. APAC (2013) Held
the court to award atty’s fees under Art. APAC sued PNCC for collection of sum There is an obvious lack of a compelling
2208 demands factual, legal, and of money. TC granted and awarded P50k legal reason to consider the present
equitable justification; its basis cannot atty's fees + P3k per appearance case as one that falls within the
be left to speculation or conjecture. The because "plaintiff was compelled to hire exception provided under Art. 2208. Due
court must explicitly state in the body of the services of a counsel, to litigate and to the special nature of the award of
the decision, and not only in the to protect his interest by reason of an attorney’s fees, a rigid standard is
dispositive portion thereof, the legal unjustified act of the other party". CA imposed on the courts before these fees
reason for the award of atty’s fees. affirmed. could be granted. Hence, it is imperative
that they clearly and distinctly set forth
in their decisions the basis for the award
thereof. It is not enough that they merely
state the amount in the dispositive.

 
47
 G. INTEREST Frias v. San Diego-Sison (2007) Held
On 12/07/90, Frias and Dr. San Diego- While the CA’s conclusion, that a loan
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 the contrary, shall be the Sison entered into a MOA for which the always bears interest otherwise it is not
payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which latter paid P2M in cash (option money to a loan, is flawed since a simple loan may
is six per cent per annum. be considered a loan payable in 6 mos. be gratuitous or with a stipulation to pay
in case of decision not to buy). Dr. SDS interest, we find no error committed by
Art. 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed upon damages awarded for
decided not to buy the property and the CA in awarding a 25% interest p.a. on
breach of contract.
upon Frias' failure to pay, filed a the P2M loan even beyond the second
Art. 2211. In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of the damages may, in a proper case, collection suit. RTC ordered Frias to pay six months stipulated period. The Court
be adjudicated in the discretion of the court. P2M at 32%p.a. from 12/07/91 until fully adopted the CA's interpretation of the
Art. 2212. Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded, although paid. CA reduced rate to 25% from period. This means that no interest will
the obligation may be silent upon this point. 06/07/91. Frias alleges the agreement be charged for the first 6-mo. period
provides that if respondent would decide while appellee was making up her mind
Art. 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except when the
not to buy, petitioner has the period of W/N to buy. Certainly, there is nothing in
demand can be established with reasonably certainty.
another 6 mos. to pay the loan with their agreement that suggests that
compounded bank interest for the last 6 interest will be charged for
Rules provided in Eastern Shipping v. CA (1994): mos. only. 6 mos. only even if it takes Frias an
eternity to pay the loan. Certification
1. Breach involving payment of a sum of money (loans/ forbearances of money), from Prudential Bank showed interest in
the interest due should be: 1) that which may have been stipulated in writing, 1991 ranged from 25-32%. The rate of
(plus the interest shall itself earn legal interest from judicial demand); OR 2) if 25%p.a. is fair and reasonable.
no stipulation, then 12% p.a. to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial/
extrajudicial demand under and subject to Art. 1169. Nacar v. Gallery Frames (2013) Held
Nacar obtained favorable judgment in an The illegal dismissal ruling stands; only
2. Breach not involving a loan/forbearance of money, an interest on the amount
illegal dismissal case. He asked for the computation of monetary
of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at
recomputation of backwages in LA's consequences of this dismissal is
6% p.a. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or
decision from dismissal until finality of affected, and this is not a violation of the
damages except when or until the demand can be established with
SC resolution. principle of immutability of final
reasonable certainty. If so established, the interest shall begin to run from the
judgments. Anent the computation of
time the claim is made judicially/ extrajudicially) but when such certainty
interest, BSP Monetary Board issued
cannot be so reasonably established at time of demand, the interest shall
Circular No. 799, effective July 1, 2013.
begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court. The actual base for
Eastern Shipping v. CA rules are
the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally
amended so that:
adjudged.
In the absence of an express stipulation
3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and as to the rate of interest, the rate of legal
executory, the rate of legal interest, whether under par. 1 or par. 2, above, shall interest for loans or forbearance of any
be 12% p.a. from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being money, goods or credits and the rate
deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. allowed in judgments shall be 6% p.a.
instead of 12% p.a., applied
Rules provided in Pan Pacific v. Equitable (2010): prospectively. Prior to July 1, 2013, 12%
1. In discharging an obligation involving a sum of money, the appropriate p.a. applies.
measure for damages in cases of delay is the payment of penalty interest
agreed upon by the parties. Re: judgments that have become final
and executory prior to July 1, they shall
2. In the absence of stipulation, payment of additional interest at a rate equal not be disturbed. Hence in this case,
to the regular monetary interest becomes due and payable. interest is to be set at 12%p.a. from
3. If no regular interest had been agreed upon, then damages payable will finality of the resolution (May 27, 2002)
consist of payment of legal interest which is 6%, or in cases of to June 30, 2013, and at 6% from July 1,
loans/forbearances of money, 12%p.a. 2013, until their full satisfaction. LA
ordered to make another recomputation.

 
48
 H. DUTY TO MINIMIZE I. MITIGATION OF DAMAGES

Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages
family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question. that he may recover.

While the provision does not state the consequences of not complying with this rule,
we find the answer in jurisprudence:
• If the party at fault sufficiently proves that the injured party was remiss in
preventing further injury, the damages awarded may be reduced
Note: Costs undertaken by the injured party will be recovered from the party at fault
Lim v. CA (2002)
Jeepney involved in a collision was left
by the roadside to corrode and decay.
The owner refused all proposals to repair
it and filed a complaint against those
responsible for the accident. TC granted.
CA and SC affirmed.
Mackay Radio v. Rich (1969)
Among others, Rich wanted
reimbursement for transpo expenses in
returning to San Francisco after he was
wrongfully discharged from employment
by Mackay.
Held
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. However, it is the
burden of petitioners to show
satisfactorily not only that the injured
party could have mitigated his damages
but also the amount thereof; failing in
this regard, the amount of damages
awarded cannot be reduced.
Held
Under Art. 2203, the party suffering loss
or injury must exercise the diligence of a
good father of a family to minimize the
damage resulting from the act/ omission
of another. In the instant case, We
consider it reasonable that whatever
measure the discharged employee had
taken to minimize the damage he
suffered should be at the cost of the
person liable to pay the damage, being
an indirect consequence of the act of the
latter, and an integral part of the injury
caused. It is but just that an employee
wrongfully discharged by his employer
should be entitled to recover from his
employer the necessary and reasonable
expenses incurred by him in seeking or
in obtaining other employment.
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: CBA LossLess
(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.
Sweet Lines v. CA (1983) Held
Suit for breach of contract of carriage Article 2215(2) is inapplicable herein.
wherein the passenger was brought to a The harm done to private respondents
different port because the ship outweighs any benefits they may have
developed engine trouble. derived from being transported to
Tacloban instead of being taken to
Catbalogan, their destination and the
vessel's first port of call, pursuant to its
normal schedule.
Ong v. Bogñabal (2006) Held
Construction of a boutique in EDSA Under Art. 1192, the 2nd infractor is not
Shang. Owner and contractor both liable for damages at all; the damages
breached their obligations. which would have been payable to the
1st infractor is compensated instead by
Court reconciled Arts. 1192 and 2215; the mitigation of the 1st infractor's
they are not irreconcilably conflicting. liability.
The plaintiff referred to in Art. 2215(1)
should be deemed to be the 2nd The 1st infractor, on the other hand, is
infractor, while the one whose liability for liable for damages, but the same shall be
damages may be mitigated is the 1st equitably tempered by the courts, since
infractor. the 2nd infractor also derived or thought
he would derive some advantage by his
own act or neglect.
The directions to equitably temper the
liability of the 1st infractor in Arts. 1192
and 2215 are both subject to the
discretion of the court, despite the word
"shall" in Art. 1192.

 
49
 III. MORAL DAMAGES. 2. Within Specific Cases
To compensate claimant for actual injury suffered
(CQ / SarlAc / IdIs / Lsd / MA309 / 21,26-30,32,34,35)
A. PURPOSE Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
Code Commission – predicated on the idea that physical suffering, mental anguish, (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
and sumilar injury are incapable of pecuniary estimatio. But it is unquestionable that (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
the loss or injury is just as real as in other cases. (4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
Jurisprudence: (6) Illegal search;
1. To compensate the morally injured (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
2. To alleviate his suffering
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
*Compensatory NOT punitive; aimed at restoration of the spiritual status quo ante. (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
Intended to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements to article, may also recover moral damages.
alleviate the moral suffering The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action
mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.
Kierulf v. CA (1997) Held Casis Critiques
Bus bumped truck. Truck In order that moral Take note of cited case Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the
passenger suffered: damages be awarded, Rodriguez (invalid court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same
- Injuries requiring major there must be pleading husband) re: MC rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith
surgeries. and proof. Husband of - “The loss is immediate
- Disfigured face hence victim did not testify on and consequential, rather a. A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries
loss of marital consortium how his right to MC was than remote and
(MC) affected, not supported by unforeseeable.” i. Includes crimes resulting to death
evidence. Court awarded - claim must be factual in
damages to victim for the origin; must find basis in Art. 2206 (3). The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and descendants of the
deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the
multiple injuries. evidence and findings of deceased
Court
ii. Need for testimony on moral suffering
B. WHEN RECOVERABLE
Conditions to be met:
General rule: there must be a testimony of moral suffering before moral damages
• Clearly substantiated physical, mental, or psychological injury
can be awarded. (Basis: Art. 2217)
• Factually established culpable act/omission
• Act/om is proximate cause of injury In some cases of violent death or brutal killing, Court held that allegation and proof
• Award of damages predicated on Art 2219 or 2220 of moral suffering not required.
Simplified:
• Moral suffering is proximate result of act/omission People v. Cleopas &
Act/omission falls within specfied cases of Art 2219/2220 Held Casis Critiques
• Pirame (2000)
Victim struck with iron Moral and exemplary Court did not characterize
1. Moral Suffering is the proximate result pipe and piece of wood. damages unsupported death as violent but it was
Respondents guilty of because widow of victim no less violent than
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, murder. did not testify on any stabbing. Being clubbed is
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar mental anguish or actually more violent
injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if emotional distress due to since death is not as
they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission. husband’s death. immediate.

• Claimant should satisfactorily show the existence of factual basis of

damage and its causal connection to defendant’s act
 
50
 Arcona v. CA (2002) Held Casis Critiques * Parents of female seduced, abducted, raped or abused also entitled to moral
Victim 1 hit with piece of A violent death invariably Conflict between Cleopas damages because they also suffer besmirched reputation, social humiliation, mental
bamboo. Victim 2 and necessarily brings and Arcona. Court anguish, and wounded feelings.
stabbed. Accused only about emotional painand characterized death by d. Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest
convicted of murder of anguish on victim’s stabbing as violent.
Victim 2. family. Moral damages e. Illegal Search
must be awarded even in • Although separate item in Art. 2219(6), it could also fall under Art. 32; which
absence of allegation and is also included in Art. 2219(10)
proof.
f. Libel, Slander or any other form of Defamation
People v. Villarmea (2013) Held Casis Critiques • May also fall under Art. 33; which is also included in Art. 2219 (10)
Victim stabbed. Accused Award of moral damages What started out as * Art. 33 is not part of the enumeration but Prof Casis says so in his book
guilty of murder increased from P10k to “violent death” exception
P50k even without proof to the rule requiring Occena v. Icamina (1990) Held
of mental or emotional testimony of moral “Gago, ikaw nga Barangay Captain, Victim is entitled to P5k moral damages
suffering as violent death suffering (Arcona) has Montisco, traidor, malugus, hudas” = because the offense was one where
necessarily brings about now become a general convicted of slight oral defamation there is an offended party. Art 2219 (7)
emotional pain rule not requiring allows recover of moral dam for injury to
testimony of moral feelings and reputation.
suffering.
g. Malicious Prosecution
b. Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries
Jurisprudence provides moral damages may be awarded: • Not limited to criminal action, includes civil and administrative suits also
a) When an act/om causes physical injuries according to Drilon v. CA
b) Where the defendant is guilty of intentional tort
c) Breaches of contract by tort Elements from Magbanua v. Junsay (PAPL)
• Fact of the prosecution and the defendant was prosecutor or he instigated
B.F. Metal v. Lomotan (2008) Held its commencement
BF Metal’s truck driven by Rivera hit jeep BF Metal (negligence in supervision) and • Action terminated with an acquittal
driven by Umuyon, owned by Sps. Rivera (negligence) liable for moral dam • In bringing the action, prosecutor acted without probable cause
Lomotan. Jeep was a total wreck, to Umuyon. No basis to award moral • Prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice
Umuyon sustained injuries rendering dam to Lomotan bec accident was not
him unable to drive. willful (Art 2220) nor did it cause them Expertravel v. CA (1999) Held Casis Critiques
phys injuries (Art 2219) Expertravel filed a This was an unfounded Same rationale can be
complaint for recovery of civil suit. It can be said for malicious
c. Seduction, Abduction, Rape or Other Lascivious Acts the amount for 4 plane justification for atty’s fees prosecution suits. Court
tickets even though they but not for moral did not explain why moral
People v. Lizano (2007) Held Casis Critiques were already paid. damages. The rationale damages can't be
11 y.o. raped by husband Moral damages are Cited People v. Bartolini: for the rule is: the law awarded for unfounded
of aunt. automatically granted in where special qualifying could not have meant to civil suits. Maybe because
rape without need of circ are not alleged but impose a penalty on right imprisonment is only
further proof other than proven during trial, the to litigate. possible for criminal suits.
the comission of the crime award of civil indemnity BUT there is anxiety either
because it is assumed and moral dam in simple way. At best, there is only
that victim suffered moral rape should equal the a question of degree
injuries. award if convicted for which should only affect
qualified rape amount not w/n it should
be awarded.

 
51
 People v. Madsali (2010) Held Casis Critiques Article 26 – Violation of Human Dignity
Victim was detained for 5 Entitled to P50k moral Cited case of People v. Concepcion v. CA (2000) Held
months in a forest, damages having suffered Bernardo where they “Kabit ka ni Bing!”; wrongfully accused of Awarded moral damages for the mental
restrained from going serious anxiety and fright. reduced moral damages adultery; wife doubted fidelity; husband anguish, besmirched reputation,
home. because kidnapping only felt extreme embarrassment and shame wounded feelings, and social humiliation
lasted a few minutes. as proximate result of abusive,
scandalous and insulting language
Reasons why no moral damages in unfounded civil suits from Malonzo v. Galang:
• Not one of the cases included in Art 2219, but included in 2208
Article 27 – Refusal or Neglect of Duty
o Casis comment: intention of CC to limit award of atty’s fees and
A public officer may be liable for moral damages for as long as the moral damages
moral damages to specific cases BUT neither 2208 nor 2219 are
suffered were the proximate result of the public officer’s wrongful act/omission. A
exhaustive.
public official may be made to pay damages for performing a perfectly legal act,
• Does not fall within “analogous cases” albeit with bad faith or in violation of the “abuse of right doctrine.” (Vital-Gozon v.
o If all analogous cases required to be expressly mentioned in 2219 CA)
then there would be no such thing as an analogous case.
• 2219 excludes quasi-delicts not resulting in physical injuries A claimant’s failure to state the monetary award of moral damages suffered
o unfounded civil actions are not limited to quasi-delictual actions. It presents no legal obstacle to the court’s determination as long as there is factual
may be based on Art 21. basis such as testimony as to his sufferings.
o
Industrial Insurance v. Article 28 – Unfair Competition
Held Casis Critiques
Bondad (2000)
Bus hit a jeep parked at Court awarded moral This case awarded moral Calamba Medical Center v. NLRC (not assigned, in book only)
the side of the road, jeep damages to jeep driver. damages for an • Doctor-spouses illegally dismissed, awarded moral damages
hit car. Insurance unfounded civil suit. Court • Illegal dismissal + circulation of “watch out list” intended to prevent
company sued jeep driver, did not identify any other employment = unfair labor practice; gives right to damages
knowing they were not at basis for the award other
fault. than 2219. Article 32 – Violation of Civil and Political Rights
Manila Electric v. Sps.
h. Acts mentioned in Article 309 Held Casis Critiques
Chua (2010)
Spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring action in the Electricity bill = P180k; Court awarded moral When public utility
order stated. MERALCO disconnected damages because of charges unjustly is
Article 309. Any person who shows disrespect to the dead, or wrongfully interferes in a after non-payment; deprivation of property considered as taking thus
funeral shall be liable to the family of the deceases, material and moral “Power thieves. w/o due process. Manner violation of Art 32. It
of disconnection wreaked would be easier to prove
i. Acts and actions referred to in Article 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35 havoc on the lives of Sps. this through Art 19 or 21
Chua. Also caused social but art. 19 is not part of
Article 21 – Acts Contra Bonos Mores humiliation Art 2219 (10)
• Intended to provide legal remedy for untold number of moral wrongs. enumeration.
• Applicable for: moral seduction, public humiliation, malicious prosecution
and oppressive dismissal. Cojuangco v. CA (1999) Held Casis Critiques
Racehorse winnings Awarded nominal NOT There was no taking in
Triple Eight v NLRC (1998) Held withheld by PCSO moral because no BF. this case; merely a
Recruitment Agency sent employee to Moral damages awarded because pursuant to instructions Liable under Art 32, withholding of prize so it’s
Saudi Arabia (supposed to be as waitress dismissal of employee was attended of PCGG violation of right to use not really a deprivation of
but ended up as janitor), treated to unfair bad faith or fraud or constituted an act property (winnings) property. And BF is not
working conditions, unpaid salaries, oppressive to labor necessary to award moral
dismissed due to “illness” (carpal tunnel damages under Art 32.
directly caused by work)

 
52
j. Willful Injury to Property
• General Rule: Moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages
Manila Electric v. Ramoy (2008) Held predicated on breach of contract
MERALCO disconnected power supply MERALCO breached contract by its o Exception: Breach of contract in bad faith or fraud
upon request of NPC without checking if negligence. They willfully caused injury o Exception to exception: Moral damages recoverable in breaches of
those to get cut off were truly illegal by withholding electricity. Public utilities contract of carriage that results in death of passenger in
occupants are subject to strict regulation and accordance with Art 1764, in relation to Art 2206(3)
failure to comply = BF/ abuse of right.
Moral damages awarded. C. WHO MAY RECOVER
Regala v. Carin (2011) Held Casis Critiques
Art 2219. (par. 2) The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to
Renovation of residence No moral damages Gave alternative in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages.
caused dirt and dust to because Carin failed to requirements for proving The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action
land on adjoining house; establish that injuries was proximate cause because mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named
demolished shared wall caused by Regala’s it required looking into the
act/om. Regala was manner by which 1. Relative of Injured Person
engaged in lawful petitioner carried out
exercise of property rights renovation. Requires that
Sulpicio Lines v. Curso
and no BF the wrongful/illegal act Held Casis Critiques
(2010)
precedes the injury
Dr. Curso did on board a No moral damages Provision excludes
k. Breach of Contract in Bad Faith vessel. Bros and sis tried awarded because Art succession collaterally so
Gross negligence = bad faith (Expertravel v. CA) to claim damages based 2206 (3) only allows it should only be
on breach of contract of spouse, ascendants and recoverable when a) death
Francisco v. Ferrer (1999) Held carriage; negliegent in descendants to recover. results; b) carrier was
Wedding cake – late, lost order slip, 2 No moral damages because breach of transporting passengers Legislative intent is to guilty of fraud. But
layers instead of 3 contract was not palpably wanton, exclude siblings (inclusio siblings cannot recover
reckless, malicious, in BF, oppressive or unius est exclusio anyway.
abusive. Nominal damages only. alterius)
Bankard Inc v. Feliciano (2006) Held
Dishonored credit card, bank’s attempts Moral damages awarded because there 2. Juridical Persons
to inform card fell short of degree of was gross negligence, which amounted
diligence required. to BF. Meaning: conscious or intentional ABS-CBN v. CA (1999) Held
design not necessary to be present. Film exhibtion agreement between ABS RBS won but no moral damages. Claim
and Viva. No perfected contract so Viva against ABSCBN was not based on
PAL v. Lopez (2008) Held Casis Critiques signed agreement with RBS. ABS CBN contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-
Downgraded from Moral damages awarded “The SC hates airlines” filed complaint against RBS. delict so only Art 19, 20 or 21. No BF on
business class to because inattention and part of ABSCBN because it was honestly
economy lack of care on part of convinced of the merits of the case.
common carrier was BF Also, corporations are not entitled to
moral damages because it is artificial
Sps. Valenzuela v. Sps. Held Casis Critiques
person and has no feelings, emotions or
Mano (2010)
senses.
Land dispute; Valenzuela Moral damages awarded Ponente did not apply the
constructed fence, because there was fraud principle to facts of case.
prevented by Mano in obtaining title. Mere findng of fraud is not
alleging it was on his land; sufficient to award moral
Mano actually damages without
fraudulently obtained TCT compliance with 2217 and
with larger area. identification of case
under 2219/2220.
 
53
 Filipinas Broadcasting v. D. FACTORS CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING AMOUNT
Held Casis Critiques
Ago (2005) General Principles:
School sued radio show Moral damages awarded There is no provision that 1. “Goldilocks” Principle – Not too much or too little
for libel to school. qualifies whether a person • No hard and fast rule in determining proper amount.
General rule: juridical should be natural or • Not be so palpably and scandalously excessive as to indicate that it was
entities not entitled to juridical. Just because it the result of passion, prejudice or corruption
moral damages because is not qualified does not • Not be so little or paltry that it rubs salt to the injury already inflicted (Kierulf
they cannot experience change the fact that v. CA)
physical suffering. corporations cannot 2. Proportional to and in approximation of suffering inflicted
BUT school’s claim falls experience wounded • Award should be commensurate to suffering inflicted
under Art 2219 (7) which feelings. (Valenzuela v. CA)
authorizes moral
damages in case of libel. Factors:
Provision does not qualify a) Social and financial standing of injured parties
whether person is natural b) Wounded moral feelings and personal pride
or juridical.
Lopez v. PanAm (1966) Held Casis Critiques
Republic v. Tuvera (2007) Held Senator and companions Proximate result of Applying a person’s
Wealth acquired fraudulently during No moral damages. Nothing in 2219 got bumped to tourist breach of contract in BF political, social, or
Marcos period to be sequestered by allows the award of damages in this from First Class. caused social humiliation,economic standing as a
PCGG. Republic asked for moral case. wounded feelings, serious factor in determining the
damages. “Any lawyer for the Republic who poses anxiety and mental amount may not be proper
a claim for moral damages in behalf of anguish. Sen. Lopez was because suffering is
the State stands in risk of serious Senate President and universally experienced. A
ridicule.” former VP of Phils. His powerful status may
wife, daughter and create sense of
Crystal v. BPI (2008) Held daughter’s husband all entitlement but not
Sps. Crystal unable to pay loan to BPI so BPI won but no moral damages. Lower shared prestige and sufficient to give
bank foreclosed mortgaged properties. courts awarded moral damages citing humiliation. P100k to favorable treatment.
Crystal said foreclosure was illegal Manero and Mambulao. The statements Lopez, P50k to wife, P25k Reference to social status
because they are not allowed to go after in the cited cases are mere obiter dicta. to daughter and husband is relevant only to the
conjugal property. extent that it sheds more
light on the depth of the
San Fernando v. Cargill (2013) Held suffering inflicted
Both companies cane molasses traders. San Fernando won but no moral *A person’s moral suffering is not determined by relationship. Moral damages
Cargill delivered an insufficient amount. damages because it cannot be awarded should be determined by degree and gravity of injury.
San Fernando refused to accept. to a corporation unless it enjoyed a good
rep that the offender besmirched. Also Kierulf v. CA
cannot award based on culpa • Social and financial standing of injured person could not be considered in
contractual because no BF. awarding moral damages because there was no rude and rough perception.
• Standing may only be considered only if subjected to contemptuous
conduct despite offender’s knowledge of social/financial standing.
Valenzuela v. CA
• Traumatic amputation means that reduction of moral damages is
unjustified
• The gravity of injury, physical and psychological, merits a higher award.

 
54
 IV. NOMINAL DAMAGES . 2. No actual loss caused or proven
For the vindication or recognition of a right violated or invaded Nominal damages recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be
vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind,
or breach of contract and no substantial injury or actual damages whatsoever have
Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been or can be shown.
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. Areola v. CA (1994) Held Casis Critiques
Personal accident policy Areola won and was The rule that the court
Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source was unilaterally cancelled awarded nominal even stated, “nominal damages
enumerated in Article 1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded. because premiums were though there was no are recoverable where
• Damages in name only, not in fact. not remitted. Fault of actual present loss. some injury has been
• Not as an equivalent of wrong inflicted but simply in recognition of the branch manager. Insured But no actual, moral or done, the amount of which
existence of a technical injury. filed complaint for breach exemplary because fails to show” makes it
of contract. insurance company took similar to temperate.
A. PURPOSE AND WHEN RECOVERABLE steps to rectify the wrong
within reasonable time.
1. Violation of a Right
PNOC v. CA (1998) Held Casis Critiques
Vessel collided with No proof of actual P2M is hardly nominal, it
• Not intended for indemnification of loss but vindication of right violated.
Petroparcel with damage suffered, so is fairly substantial. Most
• Punitive in nature
Petroparcel at fault. nominal damages likely it was an
• Violation of right, even if only technical, is sufficient to award nominal
awarded. P2M awarded approximation of the
damages.
bec 1) injury was value of the lost ship not
sustained 2) case the valuation of the right
People v. Marquez (2011) Held Casis Critiques dragged on for 2 decades to be vindicated.
Kidnapping and failure to Merano’s right as a parent Merano’s right as a parent
return minor. Baby was was violated and was violated and Francisco v. Ferrer (2001) Held Casis Critiques
returned almost a year recognized thus she is recognized thus she is Late cake, ordered 3- Nominal damages Weddings only happen
after kidnapping. entitled to nominal entitled to nominal layered cake but only 2- awarded because they once in a lifetime. Maybe
damages damages layered delivered lied about the lost order they deserve more than
slip and gave the lame just nominal.
Almeda v. Cariño (2003) Held excuse of traffic. Liable
Cariño sold lots to Almeda and despite Cariño entitled to nominal damages due to their insensitivity,
repeated demands Almeda refused to because it was a violation of right of the inadvertence, inattention.
pay even though they already sold vendor to receive unpaid balance to the
Twin Ace v. Rufina (2006) Held Casis Critiques
property to third parties. lots sold.
Rufina used Tanduay Nominal damages This statement is different
bottles, which they awarded to Rufina (since from previous rule that
Gonzales v. PCIB (2011) Held
bought, for their patis. their property was taken). nominal damages may be
Gonzales as accommodation party only Termination of the loan agreement by
Twin Ace (Tanduay When the plaintiff suffers awarded if injury is
of Sps. Panlilio. Gonzales’ check PCIB without prior notice and dishonour
manufacturers) filed for some species of injury not caused but not proven.
dishonoured and accounts frozen of check was acts contra bonus mores.
recovery of possession enough to warrant actual Language of Court implies
because of Panlilio’s default. Such acts warranted indemnity thru
and sheriff seized bottles. damages, nominal is that injury must reach a
nominal damages even though there
proper. certain threshold so
was no actual present loss of any kind.
actual damages may be
Gonzales had the right to be informed of
awarded, otherwise
the accrued interest and suspension of
nominal only.
loan agreement.

 
55
 China Airlines Ltd. v. CA B. NATURE AND DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT
Held Casis Critiques
(2003)
Passengers were Nominal damages Court did not award “Assessment of amount is left to the discretion of the TC acc to circumstances of
prevented from boarding awarded to passengers actual not bec injury did case” (Gonzales v. People)
because of confusion with because passengers were not reach certain
travel agencies. injured due to reckless threshold but bec there In determining amount, courts may be guided by jurisprudence.
confirmation of was no pecuniary loss.
reservation. Plaintiff The Court may consider 1. Small but Substantial
suffered some specie of the degree of injury in Nominal damages are by their nature “small sums”
injury not enough to awarding nom dam but it - Should not be based on extent of harm to injured party
warrant actual damages. should not be basis of Substantial claim
But no moral or exemplary w/n it should be awarded - law presumes a damage, although actual or compensatory damages not
because no BF. No actual at all. proven
because replacement Temperate damages
tickets cost less than would be more proper. 2. Commensurate to injury suffered
original tickets. Amount should not be equivalent of a wrong inflicted but merely recognition of the
existence of a technical injury.
*cited Lufthansa German Airlines v. CA (1995)
• Court denied actual damages for lack of evidence Magnitude of wrong or damage inflicted should not affect amount awarded because
• Nominal awarded because “in the absence of competent proof of actual the right remains the same regardless of amount of damage caused.
damages suffered, private resp is entitled to nominal” If at all, amount of nominal damages considering gravity of right violated. Example:
Casis comment: Curious how abovementioned rule transformed in China Airlines and damages for violation of right to life > violation of right to property.
later Twin Ace.
Rule: Nominal damages may take the place of actual damages which is not proven BUT there is body of jurisprudence that provides award must be commensurate to
• Consistent with: nominal damages cannot co-exist with compensatory. injury sustained.
• Makes nominal damages similar to temperate.
Gonzales v. People (2007) Held Casis Critiques
Considering that temperate damages performs similar function – awarding damages Gonzales convicted of Temperate and exemplary Court did not mention an
in lieu of unproven actual damages, it may be best to limit award of nominal arson awarded. As to nominal: award for nominal though.
damages to “small sums” and temperate for more substantial amounts. “nominal damages are by
their nature small sums
3. Under Considerations of Equity fixed by the court w/o
Equity – ruling not based on law regard to extent of harm
done to injured party.” It is
Sps. Guania v. Makati also a substantial claim if
Held Casis Critiques based upon violation of
Shangri-la (2011)
Delay in service during Delay in service might Basis of award was equity legal right.
wedding reception; rude have been avoided if which implies that, Pedrosa v. CA (2001) Held Casis Critiques
waiters; guests forced to Shangri-la exercised techinically, they were not In the partition of Partition invalid but no Gonzales, PNOC, China
pay for own drinks prescience in scheduling. entitled to nominal property, the adopted substantiated claims for Airlines, and Pedrosa all
Nominal damages damages. At best, the child of one of the heirs damages. Adopted child ruled that nominal
awarded because ever negligence was an affront, was excluded. still entitled to nominal damages should be
person is entitled to not necessarily a damages which should be commensurate to injury
respect of his dignity, violation. commensurate to injury suffered. The amount of
personality, privacy, and sustained (violation of nominal damages should
peace of mind (Art 26) legal participation) not be based on amount
and Shang’s lack of of damage. However
prudence was an affront nature of injury may be
to this right. considered.

 
56
3. Special reasons extant in the case
Robes-Francisco v. CFI
(1978)
Developer failed to issue
TCT despite full payment
because title was still
with GSIS by virtue of a
forecolsed mortgage.
People v. Bernardo (2002)
Kidnapped minor for short
duration of time; was
returned right away.
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.
*similar to res judicata – bar to question issue ever again.
Held
Developer guilty of delay
amounting to
nonperformance of
obligation. Nominal
damages awarded
because right to acquire
title was violated. ND are
recoverable where some
injury has been done the
amount of which the
evidence fails to show, the
assessment of damages
will be left to the court.
Absence of BF means a
reduction of ND.
Held
ND awarded but reduced
given the relatively short
duration of kidnapping.
C. EFFECT OF AWARD
Casis Critiques
“Circumstances of a
particular case will
determine w/n the amount
assessed as nominal
damages is within the
scope or intent of law” –
Northwest Airlines Inc. v.
Cuenca.
The special reason extant
in Robes-Francisco is the
absence of BF.
Casis Critiques
Period of time should not
be considered in
determining amount
because it does not alter
the fact that a right was
violated. The length of
time goes in the amount
of moral suffering which
should be considered in
moral damages, if ever.
57
IV. TEMPERATE DAMAGES .
More than Nominal, but less than Compensatory;
pecuniary loss cannot be proved with certainty
Within the context of compensatory damages
A. WHEN AWARDED
1. Nature of case prevents determination of actual loss
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 can not, from the nature of the case, be provided with
certainty.
Examples in class: damage to environment, besmirched reputation
2. Cases where amount of loss not proved
Jurisprudence allows temperate damages where the actual amount of loss was not
proven with certainty, even if nature of case allows for possibility of pecuniary loss
being proven with certainty.
“In criminal cases, Court has awarded temperate damages to heirs of victim where
amount of actual damages was not proven due to inadequacy of evidence.”
- Republic v. Tuvera
Pleno v. CA ( 1988) Held Casis Critiques
Delivery truck sideswiped Temperate and moral This could be another
van causing van to hit damages awarded. Lower exception to the rule
parked truck. Van driver court’s reduction of requiring documentary
suffered injuries affecting termperate unjustified evidence for the award of
brain. because it did not show LEC.
sufficient reasons for Court also granted actual
doing so. Temperate damages for medical
damages were awarded expenses.
for loss of earning
capacity because his
actual income was not
sufficiently established.
Tan v. OMC Carriers
Held Casis Critiques
(2011)
Truck lost brakes, driver Temperate damages Because the income-
jumped out. Truck awarded: P200k for earning capacity loss was
rammed into tailoring destroyed property clearly established, TD
shop; killed owner. (evidenced by photos; was awarded. Although
amount cannot be proven) TD have been awarded for
and P300k for LEC actual damages not
because earning capacity provem, it may no longer
is plainly established but be awarded if nominal
no evidence to support damages have been
allegation of actual awarded for same
income purpose.
3. In addition to actual damages B. FACTORS IN DETERMINING AMOUNT

Ventanilla v. Centeno 1. In general

Held Casis Critiques
(1961) • More than nominal but less than compensatory
Attorney neglected to Nominal damages A claim for actual and • Reasonable under the circumstances
perfect appeal of his lient awarded so it precludes temperate damages is
within reglementary temperate damages inconsistent BUT possible De Guzman v. Tumolva (2011) Held
period. because both are if TD has a basis separate Constructor made deviations from the Temperate damages increased taking
substitutes for actual. from actual damages. plan regarding the fence. It was into account the cost of rebuilding the
destroyed during typhoon. damaged fence. Court arrived amount by
a. Chronic and continuing injury estimating cost of rebuilding.
Ramos v. CA (1999) Held Casis Critiques
Patient became comatose Temperate damages Award of temperate 2. Receipts amounting to less than P25,000
due to appendectomy awarded in addition to damages should allow Some cases provide that if amount of actual damages proven by receipts is less
actual damages because petitioners to provide for than P25k, the award of temperate damages for P25k is justified.
damages cover two optimal care; anything BUT if actual damages are proven to be more than P25k, then TD will no longer be
distinct phases. The less would be grossly awarded (Villanueva Rule)
amount of temperate, inadequate.
though to a certain extent Aggrieved party awarded P600k as actual damages and P1M for LEC by TC but SC
speculative, should take only awarded P25k in lieu of actual damages LEC which was not proven.
into account the cost of
proper care. People v. Lucero (2010) Held Casis Critiques
Murder, receipt for Award of P25k as TD in The Court treated amount
b. In addition to civil indemnity embalming was P3k, other murder cases is proper for embalming like an
Civil indemnity for death is a type of actual damages provided for in Art 2206. expenses like coffin were when no evidence of expense not covered by a
However, temperate damages may be awarded in addition. not evidenced by receipt burial and funeral receipt. Cited case of
expenses is presented in Gidoc had no evidence
“In lieu of actual damages because funeral expenses lacked evidentiary basis, TC. P3k as actual presented which is
temperate damages were awarded. Civil indemnity also awarded.” (People v. Yrat) damages was deleted. different from this case
Cited People v. Gidoc which presented
c. In addition to other actual damages proven embalming expenses.

Funeral, burial and other expenses lacked evidentiary basis so Court awarded TD Serrano v. People (2010) Held Casis Critiques
because it was shown that family suffered pecuniary loss but amount cannot be Attempted homicide Actual damages was only The amount covered by
certain. (People v. Magalona) (stabbed victim) because P3858 which is less than receipts (P15k medical
two UP-D rival groups P25k so Court awarded expenses, P4k LEC) was
fought. Prayed for P19k P25k as TD the amount prayed for
as actual damages and did not exceed P25k.
No one died hence to
funeral or burial. No
indication that the total
amount would have
exceeded P25k in any
case.

 
58
 People v. Andres (2003) Held
Murder, actual damages P25k was awarded as TD,
proven by competent actual damages no longer
documents was P24,363 awarded.
3. No Receipts Provided
Some cases provide for an award of TD of P25k even where no receipts are
presented in evidence
People v. Gidoc (2009) Held
Two counts of murder Awarded P25k/count of
murder as TD since it is
proper in homicide or
murder cases when no
evidence of burial and
funeral expenses is
presented. It cannot be
denied that heir suffered
pecuniary loss although
exact amount can’t be
proven.
People v. Abrazaldo
Held
(2003)
Murdered man who tried Heirs did incur funeral
to help him. Receipts to expenses so awarded
prove claim of expenses P25k for TD. Why P25k?
from heirs of victim = bec ½ of death indemnity
P13,100 only. No receipts (P50k). TD equal to award
for burial or funeral. for exemplary.
*Effect of P25k award in lieu of actual damages not proven/ actual damages of
lesser amount: Amount of actual damages always > P25k.
Rule: Award of Actual Damages – never less than P25k.
Original rule: only funeral expenses (People v. Abrazaldo)
Evolved to cover also medical and loss of income.
Casis Critiques
No indication that the
amount of actual
damages exceeded P25,
similar to Serrano
Casis Critiques
Casis Critiques
The problem with pegging
the amount to P25k as
half of P50k does not look
into the future when there
might be inflation of
prices.
59
VI. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES .
A. DEFINITION AND PURPOSE
1. Definition
Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in
case of breach thereof.
• Can only exist if there is a contract or an agreement between the partners
• Common for liquidated damages to be referred to as “attorney’s fees”
Suatengco v. Reyes
Held Casis Critiques
(2008)
Sps. borrowed money to The Court ruled that A provision on liquidated
pay an obligation and attorney’s fees were in damages will not
executed a promissory the nature of liquidated necessarily apply in a case
note binding them jointly damages and not the of breach of contract
and severally to pay in attorney’s fees because liquidated
monthly installments. recoverable as between damages do not
Only one installment was attorney and client. necessarily answer for all
paid so the creditor filed types of breach but only
an action for collection of A penalty clause, those contemplated by the
a sum of money. expressly recognized by parties.
law, is an accessory
Sps. argue that the award undertaking to assume
of attorney’s fees of 20% greater liability on the
by the lower courts was part of the obligor in case
illegal or erroneous of breach of an
because the promissory obligation.
note provided for an
unqualified rate of 5%.
• Liquidated damages do not necessarily answer for all types of breach but only
those contemplated by the parties.
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.
2. Purpose
Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be
equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.
• Sum of money stipulated can either be intended to:
• Compensate the non-breaching party for the injury caused by the other party’s
breach (indemnity)
• Punish the breaching party (penalty)
 H.L. Carlos v. Marina
Held
(2004)
Real estate developer The Court ruled that the
entered into a contract construction company
with a construction was liable for liquidated
company to construct a damages as provided in
condominium complex. its contract. It abandoned
The construction the project prior to its
company instituted a case completion and as a
for sum of money seeking result the real estate
payment of various sums. developer contracted out
the work to another entity.
The contract had
stipulated payment of
liquidated damages for
each calendar day of
delay. Amount agreed
upon in the contract
answers for damages
suffered by the owner due
to delays in the
completion of the project.
Under Philippine laws,
these damages “take the
nature of penalties”.
Titan v. Uni-Field (2007) Held
Construction supplies The award of attorney’s
company filed complaint fees of “25% of whatever
against construction amount due and payable”
company for failing to pay was too much because it
balance of construction included the principal,
supplies and materials. interest, and liquidated
damages. Court reduced
The lower courts ruled in the attorney’s fees to 25%
favor of the supplies of the principal only.
company and ordered The supplies company
liquidated damages to be more than adequately
paid plus attorney’s fees protected itself from a
equivalent to 25% of possible breach of
whatever amount is due contract because of the
and payable. stipulations on the
payment of interest,
liquidated damages, and
attorney’s fees.
Attorney’s fees are in the
nature of liquidated
damages because the
intention is that it is a
penal clause.
Casis Critiques
Characterization of the
liquidated damages in this
case as a penalty was
incorrect. Liquidated
damages in this case
were in the concept of
indemnity rather that
penalty.
• Amount agreed upon
answers for damages
suffered
• Provision of the
contract states that
the amount is “not by
way of penalty” and
that the party
claiming liquidated
damages was not
required to prove that
he has incurred
actual damages to be
entitled to liquidated
damages.
Casis Critiques
It is possible to receive
liquidated damages and
attorney’s fees even if
both are in the nature of
penal clauses.
60
1. When Iniquitous or Unconscionable
2. Possible Tests
a. Apply rules on penalty clauses
Ligutan v. CA (2002)
Promissory note binding
themselves jointly and
severally to pay a bank
loan with a penalty of 5%
every month on the
outstanding principal and
interest in case of default
plus 10% of the total
amount due by way of
attorney’s fees if the
matter was indorsed to a
lawyer for collection or if a
suit was instituted to
enforce payment. Bank
filed complaint for
recovery of the amount.
B. REDUCING THE AMOUNT
Held Casis Critiques
The Court reduced the It would seem that there
stipulated penalty from are a number of factors
5% to 3% for being that may be considered by
unconscionable. the Court to determine if
Question of whether a the stipulated penalty is
penalty is reasonable or iniquitous.
iniquitous can be partly
subjective and partly
objective.
Resolution would depend
of such factors, but not
necessarily confined to:
• type, extent, and
purpose of penalty
• nature of the obligation
• mode of breach and its
consequences
• supervening realities
• standing and
relationship of the
parties
The stipulated penalty
might likewise be reduced
when a partial or irregular
performance is made by
the debtor.
Stipulated penalty may be
deleted:
• when there has been
substantial
performance in good
faith by the obligor
• when the penalty clause
itself suffers from the
fatal infirmity, or when
exceptional
circumstances so exist
as to warrant it.
b. “Attorney’s Fees” Test contract. It also stipulated revolving capital. argued that both are
that the distributor would entitled to liquidated
• Polytrade v. Blanco: Amount and character of the services rendered, the nature extend a revolving capital However the producer damages, which would
and importance of the litigation, and the professional character and the social to the distributor. also failed to deliver the mean that neither should
standing of the attorney may be an aid in the determination of the iniquity or leaves as agreed upon. receive the stipulated
unconscionableness of attorney’s fees. Since they also violated amount not unless the
the contract, although the amount stipulated may be
c. Applying Precedent violation was not reduced in proportion to
actionable, the Court the nature of the breach.
• In Polytrade v. Blanco the Court reviewed recent jurisprudence to determine reduced the liquidated In this case, because the
whether the award of liquidated damages was iniquitous or unconscionable. damages in the exercise stipulated damages
of its discretion. awarded to one party was
d. “Proportionality to Purpose” Test reduced by half, it means
that his breach was not as
• If the purpose is to compensate: amount must correspond to the actual injury grave as the breach of the
suffered other party.
• Test: Is the stipulated amount justified by the injury suffered by the innocent
party? g. Consider Actual Damages
• If the purpose is punitive: becomes a policy decision and injury suffered by the
innocent part need not be taken into consideration • Domel Trading v. CA: A court may very well take into account the actual
• Test: What is the proper penalty for this kind of breach? damages sustained by a creditor who was compelled to sue the defaulting
debtor, which actual damages would include the interest and penalties the
e. Necessity Test creditor may have had to pay on its own from its funding source.

Henry Dela Rama Co. v. Admiral United

Savings Bank (2008)
Loan from bank was evidenced by
promissory note with interest at the rate
of 18% per annum, service charge at 10%
per annum, and liquidated damages at
3% per annum in the event of non-
payment. The loan was not paid so the
bank filed a collection case.
Held
The Court sustained the interest rate of
18% per annum but reduced the awarded
liquidated damages due to the claimant
being “adequately protected” by the
payment of interest, service fee,
liquidated, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Test: Given the other stipulations in the
contract, is the amount stipulated as
liquidated damages necessary as
indemnity or penalty?

f. When in pari delicto

Sy v. CA (1983) Held Casis Critiques

Producer agreed to supply
distributor with ipil-ipil
leaves. The agreement
provided that the
aggrieved party had the
right to collect liquidated
damages for violation of
any provision in the
The Court ruled that there
was no question that
liquidated damages were
agreed upon by the
parties in case of breach
and that the distributor
breached the contract by
failing to provide the
The Court reduced the
liquidated damages in half
because the other party
was also guilty of a
breach.
If both parties were guilty
of breach then it may be
61
 VII. EXEMPLARY/ CORRECTIVE DAMAGES . PNB v. CA (1996) Held Casis Critiques
Court ordered PNB to PNB was held liable but The Court left out the part
release Php32,480 as exemplary damages were that states that the
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for
payment for government not awarded. provision pertains to
the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
expropriation actions based on
proceedings. PNB Under Art. 2232 of the contracts and quasi-
A. PURPOSE delivered it to someone Civil Code, exemplary contracts. The rule cited
• Imposed by way of example or correction for the public good who allegedly had a damages may be awarded does not apply to all
• Rationale: Identification of obnoxious behavior and the expression that such special power of attorney. if a party acted in wanton, cases.
behavior must not be tolerated PNB refused to deliver the fraudulent, reckless,
• People v. Catubig: Intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings and amount to the right oppressive, or malevolent Application of the rule is
as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an person because they manner, However, they of doubtful validity
injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct already released it. cannot be recovered as a because the obligation of
matter of right. PNB was not based on a
Complaint against PNB to contract or quasi-
B. WHEN IMPOSED recover the amount for Requirements for contract.
expropriation. Exemplary Damages:
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for
1. Imposed by way of The enumeration of
the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. example only after requirements mentioned
claimant’s right to should not be interpreted
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for them has been to refer to all cases where
the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. established exemplary damages are to
2. Cannot be recovered be awarded.
as a matter of right,
1. In General
their determination Art. 2234 cannot be
depending on the interpreted to mean that
• Cannot be recovered as a matter of right
amount of compensatory damages
compensatory must be awarded before
2. In Addition to Other Types
damages exemplary damages are
3. Act must be awarded.
• Exemplary damages cannot be awarded if moral, temperate, or compensatory
accompanied by bad
damages are not awarded faith or done in a
• In liquidated damages, the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to wanton, fraudulent,
moral, temperate, or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for oppressive, or
liquidated damages malevolent manner

Canada v. All Commodities

(2008)
Agreement to deliver sacks
of sugar but the trucks
disappeared along with
their drivers.
Complaint against trucking
company to recover the
value of the lost sugar.
Held
Trucking company was
liable. Exemplary
damages were awarded
because temperate
damages were awarded.
Casis Critiques
3. Renunciation in Advance
Action was based on a
contract however the • Because the award is meant to serve as a deterrent to similar acts, there is a
ponencia was silent on public interest element to the award, which therefore cannot be stipulated away
the wanton, fraudulent, by parties to a contract.
reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent act required. It
simply relied on the award 4. In Crimes
of temperate damages to
• Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the
justify the award of
offended party.
exemplary damages.
• People v. Catubig: “aggravating circumstances” in Art. 2230 should be
interpreted in its broad or generic sense

 
62
 People v. Catubig (2001) Held
Court convicted accused of rape but The court awarded exemplary damages. People v. Dadulla (2011) Held
ruled that the information failed to state The rule in the Revised Rules on Criminal Accused was convicted of rape and acts The Court awarded exemplary damages
the minority of the victim and her Procedure requiring qualifying or of lasciviousness. The qualifying despite failure to allege the aggravating
relationship with the offender. aggravating circumstances to be alleged circumstances of relationship and circumstances.
in the complaint or information is minority were not alleged in the The established presence of one or two
inapplicable to offenses committed prior information. aggravating circumstances of any kind
to the effectivity of the new rules or nature entitles the offended party to
(December 1, 2000). exemplary damages under Art. 2230 of
the Civil Code because the requirements
People v. Diunsay-Jalandoni (2007) Held of specificity in the information affects
Court convicted accused of qualified Pursuant to People v. Catubig, exemplary only the criminal liability and not the civil
rape proving during the trial that he damages were awarded. The crime was liability of the accused.
knew of the victim’s mental disability. committed prior to the enactment of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure thus 5. In Quasi-Delicts
the retroactive application of the rules
could not adversely affect the right of a Kapalaran Bus Line v.
Held Casis Critiques
private offended party. Coronado (1989)
Aggravating circumstances which were Collision between a bus The Court found the bus The Court did not fully
not alleged in the information but proved and jeep. Owner of the bus driver grossly and very explain why the driver’s
during the trial may be appreciated for the filed a complaint for probably criminally negligence in this case
limited purpose of determining damage to property and negligent and awarded amounted to gross
rd
appellant’s liability for exemplary injuries sustained. A 3 exemplary damages to negligence.
damages. party complaint was filed the jeepney passenger.
by one of the jeepney’s It is the duty of the
People v. Dalisay (2009) Held Casis Critiques passengers. claimant to prove that
Accused was convicted of Award of exemplary In Catubig, the Court there was gross
simple rape because the damages sustained to ruled that the Revised negligence on the part of
special qualifying discourage and deter such Rule did not apply to the defendant in order to
circumstances of minority aberrant behavior and crimes committed before be entitled to exemplary
and relationship were not reprehensible conduct but and not instituted before damages.
sufficiently alleged in the based the award of the Revised Rules.
information. damages on Art. 2229 not Baliwag Transit v. CA
Held Casis Critiques
2230. Court used Art. 2229 as (1996)
Two sets of jurisprudence basis rather then Art. Driver brought the bus to The Court held that the The Court also did not
exist: one awarding 2230. But this opens the the terminal to repair its driver acted with gross explain fully why the
exemplary damages even door to the award of faulty brakes. It ran over negligence when he negligence amounted to
if aggravating exemplary damages the mechanic, moved the bus without gross negligence. Neither
circumstances have not despite non-compliance sandwiching him with first ascertaining if the did it explain why the
been alleged and another with specific another bus. The heirs of brakes were already award for exemplary
awarding such damages requirements of the Civil the victim filed a repaired. Exemplary damages was reduced.
only if aggravating Code. complaint for damages. damages were awarded to
circumstances have both the heirs.
been alleged and proven.
The difference rests on Philtranco v. CA (1997) Held
when the criminal case Bus was being pushed to jumpstart the The Court held the bus company liable
was instituted; either engine. As the engine started, it hit and finding that the driver was grossly
before or after the ran over a biker, promptly killing him. negligent in attempting to jumpstart the
effectivity of the Revised The heirs of the victim filed a complaint bus at such a place. Exemplary damages
Rules. against the bus company and driver. were awarded.

 
63
• Globe Mackay v. CA: The Court applied the rule applicable to quasi-delicts to an
action based on Articles 19, 20, and 21 even though these provisions do not
refer to quasi-delicts.
o Casis Critiques: What about the other provisions (a.k.a. 33, 36, etc.)?

6. In Contracts and Quasi-Contracts

• F R O W M (according to Aves)
o Fraudulent
o Reckless
o Oppressive
o Wanton
o Malevolent

• No explicit rule on what constitutes wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or

malevolent manner although it is often associated with bad faith.

Munsayac v. De Lara (1968) Held

A jeepney passenger filed a complaint
against the operator of the jeepney due to
the injuries suffered from an accident
while she was on board. The jeepney
operator argues that the wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent act referred to in Art. 2232
must be coetaneous with and
characterizes the breach of the contract
on which the suit is based and not one
which is subsequent to such breach and
therefore has no causal relation.
The Court agreed with the jeepney
operator holding that it could not be
held liable for something it did or did not
do after the breach, which had no causal
relation. For the jeepney operator to be
liable, it must be shown that it had
previously authorized or knowingly
ratified the act.
The jeepney operator was held liable
due to the driver’s negligence but
exemplary damages were not awarded.

Singapore Airlines v. Fernandez (2003) Held

Acclaimed soprano missed her flight
and was treated very badly by the airline
causing her to performance in front of
the Malaysian Royal Family to be
subpar and bringing medical problems
into her life. She filed an action for
damages against the airline.
The Court found that there was a clear
breach of contract and bad faith on the
part of the airline. The inattentiveness
and rudeness of the airline personnel to
the soprano’s plight was gross enough
amounting to bad faith. Exemplary
damages were awarded.

Francisco v. Ferrer (2001) Held

Three-layered wedding cake. Exemplary damages were not awarded in
finding that there was no wanton,
fraudulent, oppressive, or malevolent act.

 
64