contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict xxx.

Scope
Intentional acts
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict
xxx.
As Manresa says 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, 1918]
Contrary to an immediate impression one might get upon a reading of the foregoing excerpts from the opinion in Garcia -
that the concurrence of the Penal Code and the Civil Code therein referred to contemplate only acts of negligence and not
intentional voluntary acts - deeper reflection would reveal that the thrust of the pronouncements therein is not so limited, but
that in fact it actually extends to fault or culpa. This can be seen in the reference made therein to the Sentence of the Supreme
Court of Spain of February 14, 1919, supra, which involved a case of fraud or estafa, not a negligent act. Indeed, Article 1093 of
the Civil Code of Spain, in force here at the time of Garcia, provided textually that obligations "which are derived from acts or
omissions in which fault or negligence, not punishable by law, intervene shall be the subject of Chapter II, Title XV of this book
(which refers to quasi-delicts.)" And it is precisely the underlined qualification, "not punishable by law", that Justice Bocobo
emphasized could lead to an undesirable construction or interpretation of the letter of the law that "killeth, rather than the
spirit that giveth life" xxx. And so, because Justice Bocobo was Chairman of the Code Commission that drafted the original text
of the new Civil
Code, it is to be noted that the said Code, which was enacted after the Garcia doctrine, no longer uses the term, "not punishable
by law," thereby making it clear that the concept of culpa aquiliana includes acts which are criminal in character or in violation
of the penal law, whether voluntary or negligent. [Elcano v. Hill, 1977]
Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligence," covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in
character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. [Ibid.; Andamo v. IAC, 1990]
Article 2176 xxx is limited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes the notion of willfulness or intent. Quasi-delict, known
in Spanish legal treatises as culpa aquiliana, is a civil law concept while torts is an Anglo-American or common law concept.
Torts is much broader than culpa aquiliana because it includes not only negligence, but intentional criminal acts as well such as
assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit. In the general scheme of the Philippine legal system envisioned by the
Commission responsible for drafting the New Civil Code, intentional and malicious acts, with certain exceptions, are to be
governed by the Revised Penal Code while negligent acts or omissions are to be covered by Article 2176 of the Civil Code. [Baksh
v. CA, 1993 ]
Damage to property
The concept of quasi-delict, as enunciated in Article 2176 of the Civil Code, is so broad that it includes not only injuries to
persons but also damage to property. It makes no distinction between "damage to persons" on the one hand and "damage to
property" on the other. Indeed, the word "damage" is used in two concepts: the "harm" done and "reparation" for the harm
done. And with respect to "harm" it is plain that it includes both injuries to person and property since "harm" is not limited to
personal but also to property injuries. In fact, examples of quasi-delict in the law itself include damage to property. [ Cinco v.
Canonoy, 1979]
Elements
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict
xxx.
All the elements of a quasi-delict are present, to wit: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the
defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault
or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. [ Andamo v. IAC, 1990]
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TORT AND QUASI-DELICT
Quasi-delict, as defined in Article 2176 of the Civil Code, (which is known in Spanish legal treatises as culpa aquiliana, culpa
extra-contractual or cuasi delitos) is homologous but not identical to tort under the common law, which includes not only
negligence, but also intentional criminal acts, such as assault and battery, false imprisonment, and deceit. [ CocaCola Bottlers v.
CA, 1993 ]

T ORT, QUASI-DELICT, AND DELICT

Distinctions
A tort is not the same thing as a crime, although the two sometimes have many features in common. The distinction between
them lies in the interests affected and the remedy afforded by law. A crime is an offense against the public at large, for which
the state, as the representative of the public, will bring proceedings in the form of a criminal
prosecution. [Prosser & Keeton]
The civil action for a tort, on the other hand, is commenced and maintained by the injured person, and its primary purpose is
to compensate for the damage suffered, at the expense of the wrongdoer. [Ibid.]
Authorities support the proposition that a quasi-delict or "culpa aquiliana" is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code,
with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from a delict or crime.
[Barredo v. Garcia, 1942]
Some of the differences xxx are:
(1) That crimes affect the public interest, while cuasidelitos are only of private concern.
(2) That, consequently, the Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code, by means of
indemnification, merely repairs the damage.
(3) That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because the former are punished only if there is a penal law clearly
covering them, while the latter, cuasi-delitos, include all acts in which "any kind of fault or negligence intervenes." However, it
should be noted that not all violations of the penal law produce civil responsibility, such as begging in contravention of
ordinances, violation of the game laws, infraction of the rules of traffic when nobody is hurt. [Ibid.]
[T]o find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case,
preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. [Ibid.]
[T]o hold that there is only one way to make, defendant's liability effective, and that is, to sue the driver and exhaust his (the
latter's) property first, would be tantamount to compelling the plaintiff to follow a devious and cumbersome method of
obtaining relief. True, there is "such a remedy under our laws, but there is also a more expeditious way, which is based on the
primary and direct responsibility of the defendant under Article 1903 of the
Civil Code . [Ibid.]
Intersections
Specifically they show that there is a distinction between civil liability arising from criminal negligence (governed by the Penal
Code) and responsibility for fault or negligence under Articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code, and that the same negligent act
may produce either a civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or a separate responsibility for fault or negligence
under Articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. [Ibid.]
[T]he Revised Penal Code in Article 365 punishes not only reckless but also simple negligence. If we were to hold that Articles
1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only to fault or negligence not punished by law, according to the literal import of Article
1093 of the Civil Code, the legal institution of culpa aquiliana would have very little scope and application in actual life. Death or
injury to persons and damage to property through any degree of negligence – even the slightest – would have to be indemnified
only through the principle of civil liability arising from a crime. In such a state of affairs, what sphere would remain for cuasi-
delito or culpa aquiliana? [Ibid.]
[B]ecause of the broad sweep of the provisions of both the Penal Code and the Civil Code on this subject, which has given rise
to the overlapping or concurrence of spheres already discussed, and for lack of understanding of the character and efficacy of
the action for culpa aquiliana, there has grown up a common practice to seek damages only by virtue of the civil responsibility
arising from a crime, forgetting that there is another remedy, which is by invoking Articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. [Ibid.]
Briefly stated, We here hold, in reiteration of Garcia, that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be
punishable by law. [Andamo v. IAC, 1990]
Stated otherwise, victims of negligence or their heirs have a choice between an action to enforce the civil liability arising from
culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and an action for quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) under Articles 2176
to 2194 of the Civil Code. If, as here, the action chosen is for quasi-delict, the plaintiff may hold the employer liable for the
negligent act of its employee, subject to the employer's defense of exercise of the diligence of a good father of the family. On
the other hand, if the action chosen is for culpa criminal, the plaintiff can hold the employer subsidiarily liable only upon proof
of prior conviction of its employee. [ LG Foods v. Philadelfa, 2006]

C ULPA AQUILIANA AND