TORT - from the French and is a derivation of the Latin word ‘torquere’ meaning ‘to twist.

’ In
common law, tort is an unlawful violation of private right, not created by contract, and which
gives rise to an action for damages.
-private or civil wrong or injury, other than breach of contract,’’ for which the court will provide
a remedy in
the form of an action for damages.

intentional torts – Includes conduct where the actor desires to cause the consequences of his
act or believes the consequences are substantially certain to result from it. Intentional torts
include assault, battery, false imprisonment, defamation, invasion of privacy and interference
of property. (deliberate commission of a wrong)
Bad faith does not connote bad judgement or negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or
some moral obliquity and conscious of doing of wrong.
-A conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral
obliquity.
Fraud refers to all kinds of deception – whether through insidious machination, manipulation,
concealment or misrepresentation. – that would lead an ordinary and prudent person into error
after taking the circumstances into account.
Bad Faith Requirements
1. That the actor knew or should have known that the particular course of action is wrong
or illegal
2. That despite such actual or imputable knowledge, the actor voluntarily, consciously and
out of his own free will, proceeds with such course of action.

negligence - involves voluntary acts or omissions which result in injury to others, without
intending to cause the same.
- The actor fails to exercise due care in performing such acts or omissions.

strict liability in tort – There is strict liability in tort where the person is made liable independent
of fault or negligence upon submission of proof of certain facts. The conduct is generally not
wrong in itself but the wrong consists in causing harm by engaging in certain types of risky
activities. Art. 2187

PHILIPPINE TORT LAW

 A. SOURCES
-Art 1157. Quasi-delict as a source of obligation
Chapter XVII, Chapter 2 of the Code consisting of Articles 2176 to 2194
the Supreme Court broadly defined tort as a breach of legal duty. The Supreme Court explained
that tort essentially consists in the violation of a right given or omission of statutory duty
imposed by law. (Naguiat vs. NLRC)
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. culpa
aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law. (Elcano v Hill)

QUASI-DELICT VS TORT
Quasidelict, 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 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

PURPOSE OF TORT LAW

The major purposes of tort law include the following: (1) to provide a peaceful means for
adjusting the rights of parties who might otherwise take the law into their own hands; (2) deter
wrongful conduct; (3) to encourage socially responsible behaviour; and (4) to restore injured
parties to their original condition, insofar as the law can do this, by compensating them for their
injury. However, although tort law is mainly concerned with providing compensation for
personal injury and property damage caused by negligence, it also protects other interests such
as reputation, personal freedom, enjoyment of property, and commercial interests.
CANGO V MANILA RAILROAD
-Extra-contractual obligation has its source in the breach or omission of those mutual duties
which civilized society imposes upon its members, or which arise from these relations, other
than contractual, of certain members of society to others, generally embraced in the concept of
status…The fundamental distinction between obligations of this character and those which
arise from contract, rests upon the fact that in cases of non-contractual obligation it is the
wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which creates the vinculum juris, whereas in
contractual relations the vinculum exists independently of the breach of the voluntary duty
assumed by the parties when entering into the contractual relation.

NEGLIGENCE
Essential Requisites of a Quasi-delict action
the essential requisites fora quasi-delictual action are:
(1) an act or omission constituting fault or negligence;
(2) damage caused by the said act or omission;
(3) the causal relation between the damage and the act or omission.
(4) the absence of contractual relation between the plaintiff and the defendant

CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
the elements of the crime defined under article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code are as follows:
(1) that the offender does or fails to do an act;
(2) that the doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary;
(3) that it be without malice;
(4) that material damage results from the reckless imprudence; and
(5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into
consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and
other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

CONTRACT
-Culpa contractual is governed by the Civil Code provisions on Obligations and Contracts
particularly Articles 1170 to 1174. Article 1170 provides that those, who in the performance of
the obligation are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, are liable for damages.

Culpa Aquiliana Culpa Contractual

The foundation of liability is independent of a The liability is founded on a contract.
contract.
 Negligence is direct, substantive and Negligence is merely incidental to the
independent. performance of the contractual obligation.

The defense of “good father of a family” is a
complete and proper defense insofar as
parents, guardians, employers are
concerned.
There is no presumption of negligence. The
party injured must prove the negligence of
the defendant.
The defense of “good father of a family” is
not a complete defense in the selection of
employees.
There is presumption of negligence as long as
it can be proved that there is a breach of
contract.

CULPA AQUILANA V CRIMES

Culpa Aquiliana Crimes

There can be quasi-delict as long as there is There must be a law punishing the act.
fault or negligence resulting in damage or
injury to another.
Criminal intent is not necessary. There must be a criminal intent for criminal
liability to exist.
Quasi-delict is wrongful act against a private Crime is a wrong against the State or the
individual. public interest.
The quantum of proof for quasi-delict is The guilt if the accused must be proved
preponderance of evidence. beyond reasonable doubt.
The sanction is either reparation or The punishment is either imprisonment, fine,
indemnification of the injury or damage. or both (Pineda, 2019).
article 1173 defines negligence as the omission of that degree of diligence which is required by
the nature of the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of persons, time and place.
The failure to o􀁅serve for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care,
precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person
suffers injury.’
Test of negligence
The test is would a prudent man, in the position of the tortfeasor, foresee harm to the person
injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes
a duty on the actor to take precaution against its mischievous results, and failure to do so
constitutes negligence (Picart v. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918).
The test to determine the existence of negligence is to ask if the defendant used reasonable
care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used.
Degrees of negligence
1. Simple negligence – Want of slight care and diligence only.
2. Gross negligence – There is a glaringly obvious want of diligence and implies conscious
indifference to consequences (Amadeo v. Rio Y Olabarrieta, Inc., G.R. No. L-6870, May 24,
1954); pursuing a course of conduct which would probably and naturally result to injury
(Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc. v. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-
8110 June 30, 1956).

STANDARD OF CONDUCT: GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY

A good father of a family is likewise referred to as the reasonable man, man of ordinary
intelligence and prudence, or ordinary reasonable prudent man. The insanity of a person does
not excuse him or his guardian from liability based on quasi-delict. (Articles 2180 and 2182, Civil
Code)

CHILDREN - Children, wherever they go, must be expected to act upon childlike instincts and
impulses; and others who are chargeable with a duty of care and caution toward them must
calculate upon this, and take precautions accordingly.
the care and caution required of a child is according to his maturity and capacity only and this is
to be determined in each case by the circumstances of the case (taylor v manila electric)

Applying the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, Judge Sanco takes the view that a child who
is nine (9) or below is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence. (1 Sanco, Phil. Law
on Torts and Damages, 70-71). On the other hand, if the child is above nine (9) but below
fifteen 􀀋􀀔􀀘􀀌, there is a disputable presumption of absence of negligence. (taylor v manila
electric doctrine)
Jarco Marketing Corporation v CA Doctrine overruled the doctrine in taylor v manila electric
LIABILITY OF CHILDREN UNDER 9 YEARS OF AGE
If the child is under nine years, it is no longer necessary to determine his maturity and capacity
because he is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence.
Similarly, the absence of negligence or intent on the part of the child may not excuse the
parents from their vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code or Art. 221 of the
Family Code because they are liable for their own negligence in the supervision of their child.
The parents or any person exercising parental authority over him may still be liable if they did
not exercise proper diligence in supervising the child. The actor himself is liable up to the extent
of his properties.
YLARDE V AQUINO (PINAGHUKAY TAS NATABUNAN NG BATO)
The negligent act of private respondent Aquino in leaving his pupils in such a dangerous site has
a direct causal connection to the death of the child Ylarde
Defendant argues that hat the demise of Ylarde was due to his own reckless imprudence
SC: It should be remembered that he was only ten years old at the time of the incident. As such,
he is expected to be playful and daring. His actuations were natural to a boy his age. The
degree of care required to be exercised must vary with the capacity of the person endangered
to care for himself. A minor should not be held to the same degree of care as an adult, but his
conduct should be judged according to the average conduct of persons of his age and
experience.
PHYSICAL DISABILITY
A person who is physically disabled cannot be expected to act as if he is not disabled. Thus, the
standard of conduct to which he must conform to avoid being negligent is that of a reasonable
person under like disability.
EXPERTS AND PROFESSIONALS
An expert should exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular field that he
is in􀀑 􀀬n fact, when a person holds himself out as being competent to do things requiring
professional skills, he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of
one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he attempted to do.
The rule regarding experts is demonstrated in United States vs. Pineda The Supreme Court
explained that the profession of pharmacy is one demanding care and skill. It requires the
highest degree of prudence, thoughtfulness, and vigilance and the most exact and reliable
safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct of business, in order that human life may
not constantly be exposed to the danger flowing from the substitution of deadly poison for
harmless medicine.
the care required must be commensurate with the danger involved and skill employed must
correspond with the superior knowledge of the business which the law demands.
NATURE OF ACTIVITY
There are activities, however, which by nature impose duties to exercise a higher degree of
diligence. Banks, for instance, “handle daily transactions involving millions of pesos. By the very
nature of their work, the degree of responsibility, care and trustworthiness expected of their
employees and officials is far greater than those of ordinary clerks and employees.
Common carriers are also required to exercise utmost diligence in the performance of their
functions.

INTOXICATION
Mere intoxication is not negligence, nor does the mere fact of intoxication establish want of
ordinary care. It is a general rule that it is immaterial whether a man is drunk or sober if no
want of ordinary care or prudence can be imputed to him, and no greater degree of care is
required to be exercised by an intoxicated man for his own protection than a sober one.
(WRIGHT V MANILA ELECTRIC)

INSANITY
an insane person is exempt from criminal liability. However, by express provision of law, there
may be civil liability even when the perpetrator is held to be exempt from criminal liability.

PROXIMATE CAUSE
the plaintiff must still present proof that the proximate cause of his injury is the negligence of
the defendant. Proof must be presented that there was causal connection between the
negligence or violation of statute and the injury. Absent such proof, the defendant will not be
held liable.
United States vs. Bonifacio (supra) that even if the driver violated traffic rules of going beyond
the speed limit, there would still be no liability on account thereof because causal relation was
not established.

DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE
“(i)n quasidelicts exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross
negligence.” (art 2231)
BURDEN OF PROOF
GR: the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim
or defenses by the amount of evidence required by law. It is up for the plaintiff to establish his
cause of action or the defendant to establish his defense. Thus, if the plaintiff alleged in his
complaint that he was damaged because of the negligent acts of the defendant, the plaintiff
has the burden of proving such negligence. THE LAW PRESUMES THAT A PERSON TAKES
ORDINARY CARE OF HIS CONCERNS.
EXCEPTIONS:
Article 2185 requires proof that there was a violation of a traffic regulation while article 2188
requires proof of possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison.
Presumption of negligence may also arise because of certain contractual relationship between
the parties. Thus, the Civil Code provides for a presumption of negligence in case a passenger
was injured in an accident involving his carrier.
RES IPSA LOQUITUR.
The thing speaks for itself
1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s
negligence;
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or
defendants; and
3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is
eliminated.

Exclusive control of the instrumentality w/ caused the damage

The doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur as a rule of evidence is peculiar to the law of negligence which
recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a
substitute for specific proof of negligence.
The doctrine is not a rule of substantive law but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural
convenience. The rule, when applicable to the facts and circumstances of a particular case, is
not intended to and does not dispense with the requirement of proof of culpable negligence on
the part of the party charged. It merely determines and regulates what shall be prima facie
evidence thereof and facilitates the burden of plaintiff of proving a breach of the duty of due
care.

AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES
AND MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
DOCTORS SPECIALISTS
A physician who holds himself out as having special knowledge and skill in the treatment of a
particular organ or disease or injury is required to bring to the discharge of his duty to a patient
employing him as such as a specialist, not merely that of an average degree of skill possessed by
general practitioners but that special degree of skill and care which physicians, similarly
situated who devote special study and attention to the treatment of such organ, disease or
injury ordinarily possess, regard being in the state of scientific knowledge at the time.
CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP DOCTRINE
The doctor cannot blame the assisting nurse for his own omission.

Physicians are not warrantors of cures or insurers against personal injuries or death of the
patient. difficulties and uncertainties in the practice of profession are such that no practitioner
can guarantee results. Error of judgement will not necessarily make the physician liable.

IMPUTED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

Negligence is imputed if the actor is different from the person who is being made liable