DE LA SALLE LIPA

COLLEGE OF LAW

TORTS & DAMAGES

Schedule:
1st Semester SY 2020 – 21, Tuesday 5:30 – 7:30 pm

Grading System:
30% Final Examination
30% Midterm Examination
40% Quizzes and Recitation

Reference Materials:
1. Pineda, Tort and Damages
2. Decano, Notes on Torts and Damages
3. Largo, Laws and Jurisprudence on Torts and Damages
4. De Leon, Comments and Cases on Torts and Damages
5. Aquino, Torts and Damages

INTRODUCTORY TOPIC.

1. What is Tort under Philippine Law? Discuss and Explain.

 Naguiat vs. NLRC (1997)
 Vinzons-Chato vs. Fortune (2007)

2. What are the elements of tort?

 Garcia vs. Salvador (2007)
 Lucas vs. Tuano (2009)
 Ocean Builders vs. Spouses Cubacub (2011)

3. What is Culpa-Aquilian? Distinguish from Culpa-Contractual

and Culpa Criminal.
QUASI-DELICT UNDER THE CIVIL CODE

I. ART. 2176
I. Requisites of Culpa-Aquiliana
1. Acts or Omission
a. Europa vs. Hunter Garments (July 18, 1989)
b. PLDT vs. Court of Appeals
2. Fault or Negligence
a. Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping vs. Catalino Baja (June 10, 2002)
b. National Power Corporation vs. Heirs of Casionan (November 27,
2008)
c. Norman Gaid vs. People (April 7, 2009)
d. Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. Court of Appeals (November
6, 1989)
e. Picart vs. Smith (37 Phil. 809)
f. Acuna vs. Alcantara (March 20, 2001)
g. Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad (16 Phil. 8)
3. Damage
a. Air France vs. Court of Appeals (March 21, 1989)
b. Banzon vs. Court of Appeals (July 13, 1989)
4. Causal connection between fault or negligence and the damage.
a. Sanitary Steam Laundry vs. CA (December 10, 1998)
5. No pre-existing contractual relation.
a. Adamo vs. IAC
b. Vergara vs. Court of Appeals (September 30, 1987)
c. Corinthian Gardens Associations vs. Spouses Tan-Jangco and
Spouses Cuaso (June 27, 2008)
d. Greenstar Express vs. Universal Robina Corp. (October 17,
2016)
e. Gumabon vs. PNB (July 25, 2016)
II. Specific Cases of Negligence
1. Common Carrier
a. Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping vs. Philippine First
Insurance (June 5, 2002)
2. Negligence of Doctor (Medical Negligence)
a. Casumpang vs. Cortejo
b. Flores vs. Pineda (2008)
c. Lucas vs. Tuano (2009)
d. Nograles vs. Capitol Medical Center
3. Negligence of Lawyers
a. Paluca vs. COA (2016)
b. Jacot vs. Dal (2008)
c. Guevarra vs. Bautista (2008)
d. Reyes vs. NLRC (2009)
e. Bachrach Corp. vs. PPA (2009)
f. Javellana vs. Lutero (1967)
4. Negligence of Judges
a. Heirs of Jose vs. Beldia (2009)
5. Negligence of Drivers and Commuters/Bystanders
a. Gaid vs. People

III.Last Clear Chance

1. History and Concept
a. Picart vs. Smith (1918)
2. Elements and Conditions of the Last Clear Chance Doctrine
3. Doctrine Applicable:
a. PLDT vs. CA (supra)
b. Glan’s People Lumber vs. IAC (1989)
c. Phoenix Construction vs. IAC (1987)
d. Pantranco North Express vs. Baesa
4. Doctrine Not Applicable:
a. Bustamante vs. CA (1990)
b. Roy vs. Court of Appeals (1988)
 IV. Res Ipsa Loquitur
1. Meaning of Res Ipsa Loquitur
2. What is the doctrine all about?
3. Applicability of the rule
a. Africa vs. Caltex (1966)
b. Ma-ao Central Co. vs. Court of Appeals (1990)
c. Ludo and Luym Corporation vs. Court of Appeals (2001)
d. Ramos vs. Court of Appeals (1999)

V. Assumption of Risk Doctrine [Defense]

1. Defense in an action for negligence
Assumption of risk vs. Contributory Negligence
2. When doctrine of assumption of risk does not apply
a. Abrogar vs. Cosmos Bottling Company (2017)
b. Afralda vs. Hasole (85 Phil. 671)

VI. Volenti Non Fit Injuria

1. Define and Explain
a. Ilocos Norte Electric Co. vs. Court of Appeals (1989)

VII. Substantial Factor Test

1. Define and Explain
a. Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines vs. IAC (1990)

II. ART. 2177

A. Distinctness of Quasi-Delicts
B. Responsibility for Quasi-Delicts Distinct from Civil Liability Arising from
Negligence Under the Penal Code
a. Bermudez vs. Judge Melencio-Herrera (1998)
b. BF Metal vs. Lomotan (2008)
c. Mindanao Terminal vs. Phoenix Assurance (2009)

III. ART. 2178

A. Read: Articles 1172, 1173, 1171, 2201, 1174
a. Ronquillo vs. Singson (1959)
b. Vda. De Imperial vs. Heald Lumber (1961)

IV. ART. 2179

A. Define Proximate Cause
 B. Doctrine of Proximate Cause
a. Manila Electric Co. vs. Remonquillo 53 OG 1429
b. Quezon City Government vs. Dacara (2005)
c. William Tiu vs. Pedro Arriesgado (2004)
d. Andamo vs. IAC (1990)
e. St. Mary’s Academy vs. Carpitanos (2002)
f. London vs. Baguio Club Corportion (2003)
g. Bernal vs. House and Tacloban Electric (1930)
h. Tuason vs. Luzon Stevedoring Co. (1961)
C. Test to determine proximate cause
1. “Sine Qua Non” Rule
2. Foreseeability Test
3. The cause of condition test
4. Natural and probable consequences test
D. Doctrine of Contributory Negligence
1. Meaning of the Doctrine
2. Definition
3. Effect of contributory negligence of Plaintiff
a. Taylor vs. Manila Electric Co.
b. Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf (1907)
c. BPI vs. Lifetime Marketing (2008)
E. Conclusive Presumptions
1. Children below nine years old
Read: RA No. 10630
F. Doctrine of Limited Liability

V. ART. 2180
A. Father / Mother or Guardian and Minor Children
1. Responsibility is alternative not simultaneous
 2. Kinds and degree of diligence sufficient to overcome presumption of
negligence
a. Cuadra vs. Monfort (1970)
3. Intentional Crimes of Minor Children
Read: RA No. 10630

B. Owners and Managers of an Establishment or Enterprise for

Employee’s Torts
1. Requisites of liability
2. Presumption of negligence of employer
3. Independent contractor distinguished from Master-Servant
Relationship; Can Independent Contractor be an Employee at the
same time?
4. Employee must be engaged in employer’s business
a. Marquez vs. Castillo 68 Phil 568
5. Deviation (rule)
6. Employer’s subsidiary liability
a. Genson vs. Adarle (1987)
b. Lampesa vs. De Vera (2008)
7. Distinguished from Art. 2180 (4)
a. Castilex vs. Vasquez (1999)

C. Damages Caused by Employees and Wards

1. Discuss Subsidiary Liability vs. Primary Liability
a. Dulay vs. Court of Appeals (1995)
2. In the performance of his assigned tasks
 a. St. Francis High School vs. Court of Appeals (1991)
b. Victory Liner vs. Heirs of Malendan (2002)
c. School of the Holy Spirit vs. Taguiam (2008)
d. Filamer Christian vs. Court of Appeals (1990)
e. Pacific Airways vs. Tonda (2002)

D. Liability of the State

1. Two aspects of liability
2. Distinction between Governmental and Proprietary Function
a. NIA vs. Fontanilla (1991)
b. COA vs. Link Worth (2009)

E. Liability of Teachers or Heads for Damaged caused by Pupils

1. “So long as the students remains in their custody”
2. Meaning of Pupils, Students, Apprentices
a. Amadora vs. Court of Appeals (2008)

NOTE:
 Exemption from liability
 RA No. 7877 Anti-Sexual Harassment Act

VI. ART. 2181

VII. ART. 2182

VIII. ART. 2183

A. Liability of Possessors of Animals
a. Vestil vs. IAC (1989)

IX. ART. 2184, 2185, 2186

 A. Liability of Owners of Motor Vehicle
a. Chapman vs. Underwood 27 Phil. 374

X. ART. 2187
A. Liability of Manufacturers and Processors

XI. ART. 2188

XII. ART. 2189

A. Liability of Municipal Corporation in Certain Cases
B. Meaning of Respondeat Superior
C. Test of Respondeat Superior
D. Municipal Corporations can be sued
a. Municipality of San Fernando vs. Judge Firme (1971)
b. Guilatco vs. City of Dagupan (1989)
c. City of Manila vs. IAC (November 15, 1989)

XIII. ART. 2190

XIV. ART. 2191
XV. ART. 2192
XVI. ART. 2193
XVII. ART. 2194

NUISANCE

A. ORIGIN AND CONCEPT

1. Origin of nuisance
2. Definition of nuisance
 3. Nuisance distinguished from Trespass
4. Nuisance distinguished from Negligence
B. CLASSIFICATION OR KINDS
1. General Classification
2. Nuisance Per Se and Per Accidens
3. Temporary or Permanent
4. Public and Private Nuisance
5. Difference between public and private nuisance
6. Mixed or United Nuisances
7. Continuing or Recurrent
8. Cases:
a. Bengzon vs. Province of Pangasinan (1936)
b. Espiritu vs. Municipal Circuit Court of Pozorrubio (1958)
c. Estate of Gregoria Francisco vs. Court of Appeals (1991)
d. Ramcar Inc. vs. Millar (1962)
e. Dela Cruz vs. Tianco (1964)
f. Iloilo Cold Storage vs. Municipal Council (24 Phil. 471)
g. Hidalgo Enterprises vs. Balandon (1952)
h. Jarco Marketing vs. Court of Appeal (1999)
i. Parayno vs. Jovellanos (2006)
j. AC Enterpises vs. Frabelle Properties (2006)
k. Tayaban vs. People (2007)
C. FAILURE OR REFUSAL TO ABATE A NUISANCE
1. Liability of every owner or possessor Article 696, 697, 698, 699
2. Who files and action for abatement of public nuisance? Article 700, 701,
702, 703
3. Ways of abating a public nuisance by a private person
4. Requisites to be complied with by a private person before filing an action
on account of public nuisance Article 704
5. Remedies against a private nuisance Article 705
6. How is abatement done? Procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a
private nuisance Article 706
7. When is a private person or public official extrajudicially abating a
nuisance liable? Article 707
8. Easements against nuisance Article 682 and 683

END OF FIRST HALF

MIDTERM EXAMINATION

HUMAN RELATIONS

I. Introduction
A. Human Relations Defined
B. Regulations of Human Relations
 a. Coca Cola Bottlers vs. Spouses Bernardo (2016)

II. Article 19
A. Exercise of Right; Limitations
B. Reason for Principle
C. Test of Abuse of Rights
D. Elements of Abuse of Rights
E. Cases:
a. DBP vs. Spouses Doyon (2009)
b. Adriano and Legapi Towers vs. Lasala (2013)
c. Amonoy vs. Spouses Gutierrez (2001)
d. Babst vs. CA (2001)
e. Diaz vs. Davao Light and Power (2007)
f. Heirs of Purisima Nala vs. Cabansag (2008)

III. Article 20
A. Cases:
a. Felipe vs. Leuterio (1955)
b. Fonacier vs. Court of Appeals (1955)
c. Marmont Resort vs. Federico Guiang (1987)
d. David Llorente vs. Sandiganbayan (1991)
e. Miguel Perez Rubio vs. Court of Appeals (1987)

IV. Article 21
A. Liability without violation of law
B. Loss or Injury
C. Willfully caused
D. Breach of promise to marry
E. When damage recoverable in breach of promise to marry
F. Cases:
a. Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals (1980)
b. Wasmer vs. Velez (1964)
c. Baguisa vs. Castaneda (1978)
d. Lirag Textile Mills vs. Court of Appeals (1995)
e. Albenson Enterprises vs. Court of Appeals (1993)
f. Alfredo S. Pacquiao vs. PLDT (2002)
g. Valley Gold & Country Club vs. Vda. De Caram (2009)