1. What is tort?

 A tort is a wrong, a tortious act which has been defined as the commission or omission of
an act by one, without right, whereby another receives some injury, directly or indirectly,
in person, property, or reputation. [Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco Corporation [G.R.
No. 141309, June 19, 2007]

2. How is quasi-delict distinguished from tort?

 Article 2176 which defines quasi-delict or culpa acquiliana “is limited to negligent acts
or omissions and excludes the notion of “willingness or intent.” Tort is much broader
than culpa acquiliana because it includes not only negligence, but intentional criminal
acts as well such as assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit. (de Leon)

3. What is the doctrine of strict liability?  

 This doctrine denotes that a person may be held liable independent of fault or negligence,
or intent after establishing certain facts specified by law. It includes liability for
conversion and for injuries caused by animals, ultra-hazardous activities and nuisance.

NOTE: Strict liability tort can be committed even if reasonable care was exercised regardless of
the state of mind of the actor at that time (Aquino, 2016).There is no requirement to prove
negligence or intent.

4. What are the instances where the doctrine of strict liability is applied in the Philippines? 

 POSSESSOR OF ANIMALS is responsible for the damage caused although it may

escaped or be lost.

 FALLING OBJECTS - The head of the family that lives in a building or part thereof is
responsible for the damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same

 LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS to pay death or injuries to their employees. The liability

exists
even if the cause is purely accidental or entirely die to fortuitous event if the death or
personal injury arise out of and in the course of employment.

NOTE: If the mishap was due to the employee’s OWN NOTORIOUS NEGLIGENCE or
voluntary act or drunkness, the employer shall not be liable for compensation.

5. What is the doctrine of abuse of rights? 

 A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, may become
the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not
 conform to the norms enshrined in Art. 19 and results in damage to another, a legal
wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible.

Rationale: The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it disappears when it is
abused, especially to the prejudice of others. It cannot be said that a person exercises a right
when he unnecessarily prejudices another or offends morals or good customs.

6. What is the remedy available to the offended party when there is an abuse of right? 

 While Art. 19 lays down the rule of conduct for the government of human relations, it
does not provide a remedy (Rabuya, 2006).

Generally, an action for damages under either Art. 20 or Art. 21 of the NCC would be
proper. Art. 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores or contrary to good morals and
presupposes loss or injury, material or otherwise, which one may suffer as a result of
such violation. Under Arts. 19 and 21, the act must be intentional (Rabuya, 2006).

Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not
especially provide for their own sanction. Article 21 on the other hand, speaks of act
which is legal but is contrary to morals, good custom, public order or public policy and is
done with intent to injure.

7. What is malicious prosecution?

 The term malicious prosecution has been defined as an action for damages brought by one against
whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously
and without probable cause, after the termination of such prosecution, suit, or other proceeding in
favor of the defendant therein. While generally associated with unfounded criminal actions, the
term has been expanded to include unfounded civil suits instituted just to vex and humiliate the
defendant despite the absence of a cause of action or probable cause. [ Agustin-Se, et al. v.
Office of the President, et al. [G.R. No. 207355, February 3, 2016]

For a malicious prosecution suit to prosper, the plaintiff must prove the following: (1) the
prosecution did occur, and the defendant was himself the prosecutor or that he instigated its
commencement; (2) the criminal action finally ended with an acquittal; (3) in bringing the action,
the prosecutor acted without probable cause; and (4) the prosecution was impelled by legal malice
-- an improper or a sinister motive. The gravamen of malicious prosecution is not the filing of a
complaint based on the wrong provision of law, but the deliberate initiation of an action with the
knowledge that the charges were false and groundless.

8. Is a breach of promise to marry actionable?

 Generally, therefore, a breach of promise to marry per se is not actionable, except where
the plaintiff has actually incurred expenses for the wedding and the necessary incidents
thereof. Bunag, Jr. v. CA [G.R. No. 101749, July 10, 1992, 211 SCRA 449-450]
 9. When is there unjust enrichment? What is solutio indebiti? What is an “accion in rem
verso”?

Unjust enrichment exists "when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person
retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good
conscience."18 There is unjust enrichment under Art. 22 of the Civil Code when (1) a person is unjustly
benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another. 19

1. Additionally, unjust enrichment has been applied to actions called accion in rem verso. In order
that the accion in rem verso may prosper, the following conditions must concur: (1) that the
defendant has been enriched; (2) that the plaintiff has suffered a loss; (3) that the enrichment of
the defendant is without just or legal ground; and (4) that the plaintiff has no other action based
on contract, quasi-contract, crime, or quasi-delict. 20 The principle of unjust enrichment essentially
contemplates payment when there is no duty to pay, and the person who receives the payment has
no right to receive it. [ Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ong, G.R. No. 190755, November
24, 2010] 

Accion In Rem Verso

It is an action for recovery of what has been paid or delivered without just cause or legal ground. If a person acquires or comes
into possession of something at the expense of another without just or legal ground through an act or of performance by another
or any other means has the obligation to return the same (NCC, Art. 22).

Accion in rem verso is considered merely an auxiliary action, available only when there is no other remedy on contract, quasi-
contract, crime, and quasi-delict. Hence, if there is an obtainable action under any other institution of positive law, that action
must be resorted to, and the principle of accion in rem verso will not lie. (Shinryo Philippines Company v. RRN Incorp. G.R. No.
172525, October 20 2010)

Requisites (E-L-W-A)
1. The defendant has been Enriched;
2. The plaintiff has suffered a Loss;
3. The enrichment of the defendant is Without just or legal ground; and
4. The plaintiff has no other Action based on contract, quasi-contract, crime or quasi-delict.

Accion in rem verso v. Solutio Debiti

In accion in rem verso, it is not necessary that there should have been mistake in the payment unlike in solutio indebiti where
mistake is an essential element (Rabuya, 2006).

Article 2154: If something is received when there is no right to demand it, it was unduly delivered through mistake, the
obligation to return it arises.

Accion in rem verso v. Unjust Enrichment

An accion in rem verso is merely an auxiliary action available only when there is no other remedy on contract, quasi-contract,
crime, and quasi-delict while unjust enrichment, wherein one is unjustly enriched at the expense of or from the efforts or
obligations of others, may be availed of as a prerequisite for the enforcement of the doctrine of restitution. (Shinryo Philippines
Company v. RRNIncorp. G.R. No. 172525, October 20 2010)

10. What is the right to privacy?

The right to privacy is the right to be let alone.

The right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution44 and in our laws. It is defined as "the right to be free
from unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion into one’s private activities in such a
way as to cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities." 45 It is the right of an individual "to be
free from unwarranted publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters in
which the public is not necessarily concerned."46 Simply put, the right to privacy is "the right to be let
alone."47

11. What is meant by preponderance of evidence?

By preponderance of evidence is meant that the evidence as a whole adduced by one side is superior to
that of the other.12 It refers to the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is
usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of evidence" or "greater weight of the
credible evidence". It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that
which is offered in opposition thereto. [Raymundo vs. Lunaria G.R. No. 171036, October 17, 2008]

12. What is the effect of the death of the accused, pending finality of his conviction, to his
civil liability?

Effect of death on civil actions. — The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of
the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict. However, the independent
civil action instituted under Section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability
arising from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the
accused after proper substitution or against said estate, as the case may be. The heirs of the accused may
be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the
court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted
within a period of thirty (30) days from notice. 1âwphi1

A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall be enforced in the manner especially
provided in these rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased.

If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice to any civil action
the offended party may file against the estate of the deceased.

13. What are independent civil actions? 

 The independent civil actions are those provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the
Civil Code.
 They may proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.
 This  is  the  principle  of  independent  civil  actions—it  can  proceed independently
from the criminal action.  Nonetheless, the offended party  may  not  have  double 
recovery.    The  offended  party  only gets the bigger award.
 14. What is the “New York Times Doctrine”? 

 In Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that public officials had to show not just
that a story was inaccurate and hurt their reputation, but also that the publisher acted with
“actual malice” — with reckless disregard for the truth.

A landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the freedom of speech protections in the First

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of American public officials to sue for defamation.
Specifically, it held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or person running for
public office, not only must he or she prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false
defamatory statement to a third party—he or she must also prove that the statement was made with
"actual malice", meaning that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly
disregarded whether or not it was true.

15. What is malice? What are the two (2) types of malice?  

Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of
the person defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm.  Malice is bad faith or
34

bad motive.  It is the essence of the crime of libel.

35

a). Malice in Law or Presumed Malice.

(i) The plaintiff need not prove the existence of malice. It is for the accused to disprove this
presumption

(ii) This presumption, that accused was actuated with an evil purpose or malice, arises if the
article is defamatory on its face, or due to the grossness of the defamatory imputation even if the
facts are true, but there was no good intention or justifiable motive.

(iii) Examples:

(a). X writes an article about the sexual escapades of a society matron complete with the details
of time, place, and supported by pictures. In such case the law presumes that X was actuated by
malice even if what he wrote is true.

(b). X calls the radio and announces that the family of Juan de la Cruz is a family of thieves and
crooks.

b). Malice in Fact or Malice as a Fact. -. It is the malice which must be proven by the plaintiff.
He must prove the purpose of the accused is to malign or harm or injure his reputation. This
arises either because:

(i) the article is not defamatory on its face or if libelous it is ambiguous

(ii) the accused was able to overcome the presumption of malice.

16. What is the “doctrine of fair commentaries”? 

To reiterate, fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid
defense in an action for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in
general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is
presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed
malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in
his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to
a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based
on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts,
then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be
inferred from the facts.

17. What are the requisites for enforcing the subsidiary liability of the employer under
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code? 

An employer may be subsidiarily liable for the employee’s civil liability in the criminal action if it can be
shown that: (1) the employer is engaged in any kind of industry; (2) the employee committed the offense
in the discharge of his duties and (3) the accused is insolvent.

18. What is a prejudicial question?