WEEK 1 the defendant was a contract and until proven

1. What is Tort under Philippine Law? Discuss for it is based that it was 2)not guilty.
and Explain. on alleged carried out. It is Prosecutor
What are generally considered tortious acts negligence on the duty of the has the
in the Philippines are limited to acts committed the part of the debtor to prove burden of
by negligence and without intent. Quasi-delict defendant; otherwise; proving
negligence;
under Art. 2176 is limited to negligent acts or
There is
omission and excludes the notion of willfulness
No presumption of
or intent. Intentional and malicious acts, with presumption of negligence No
certain exceptions, are to be governed by the negligence presumption
Revised Penal Code while negligent acts or of negligence
omission are to be covered by Art. 2176 of the Quantum of evidence
Civil Code. In between these opposite Preponderance Preponderance of Beyond
spectrums are injurious acts which, in the of evidence; evidence; reasonable
absence of Art. 21, would have been beyond doubt;
redress. Thus, Art. 21 fills that vacuum and, As to the applicability of the defense of a good
together with Arts. 19 and 20, broadens the father of a family
scope of the law on civil wrongs; it has become Proper and Not proper and Not a proper
much more supple and adaptable than the complete. complete but may defense. The
Anglo-American law on torts (Tolentino, 72). mitigate the employee’s
damages. guilt is
automatically
2. What are the elements of tort?
Reason: Master- the
a. Duty
servant rule or employer’s
b. Breach
respondeat guilt if the
c. Injury
superior. former is
d. Proximate cause – that which, in
insolvent.
natural and continuous sequence,
As to law that governs
unbroken by an efficient intervening
Art. 2176, CC Arts. 1170-1174, Art. 100, RPC
cause, produces injury, and without
CC
which, the result would not have
occurred As to presumption of negligence
3. What is Culpa-Aquiliana? Distinguish from No There is No
presumption of presumption as presumption
Culpa-Contractual and Culpa Criminal.
negligence long as the
CULPA CULPA CULPA
creditor proves the
AQUILIANA CONTRACTUAL CRIMINAL
existence of
As to negligence breach
Substantive Merely incidental Direct,
and to the substantive
independent, performance of an and
WEEK 2
which of itself obligation already independent
constitutes the existing because of of a contract;
source of an a contract; QUASI-DELICT UNDER THE CIVIL CODE
obligation
between ART. 2176
persons not Requisites of Culpa-Aquiliana
formerly I. Acts or Omission
connected by Europa vs. Hunter Garments (July 18, 1989)
any legal tie; The Supreme Court held that, in actions based on
As to pre-existing obligation
None; Either express or None quasi-delict as in this case, all damages for the
implied; natural and probable consequences of the act or
As to weight of evidence
omission complained of are recoverable as provided
Victim has to Presumed that the Accused is
prove the debtor is at fault presumed in Article 2202 of the New Civil Code.
negligence of as long as 1)there innocent
1|Page
PLDT vs. Court of Appeals
The Supreme Court ruled that not only did Antonio
Esteban have negligence contributory towards the
accident, but it was the main cause of the accident,
and thus has no right to recover from the damages
that he and his wife suffered. His negligence was
the contributing factor that caused the accident,
and his failure to show the due diligence in
traversing the road that he had knowledge of a
hazard was present on Lacson Street.
II. Fault or Negligence
Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping vs. Catalino
Baja (June 10, 2002)
Negligence is conduct that creates undue risk of
harm to another. It is the failure to observe that
degree of care, precaution and vigilance that the
circumstances justly demand, whereby that other
person suffers injury. Petitioners vessel was
carrying chemical cargo -- alkyl benzene and
methyl methacrylate monomer. While knowing
that their vessel was carrying dangerous
inflammable chemicals, its officers and crew failed
to take all the necessary precautions to prevent an
accident. Petitioner was, therefore, negligent.
The three elements of quasi delict are: (a) damages
suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of
the defendant, and (c) the connection of cause and
effect between the fault or negligence of the
defendant and the damages inflicted on the
plaintiff. All these elements were established in
this case. Knowing fully well that it was carrying
dangerous chemicals, petitioner was negligent in
not taking all the necessary precautions in
transporting the cargo. This negligence resulted in
an explosion which in turn caused Borja’s injuries.
National Power Corporation vs. Heirs of
Casionan (November 27, 2008)
Negligence is the failure to observe for the
protection of the interest of another person, that
degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other
person suffers injury. On the other hand,
contributory negligence is conduct on 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.
The underlying precept on contributory negligence
is that 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.
Norman Gaid vs. People (April 7, 2009)
Reckless imprudence
Consists of voluntary doing or failing to do, without
malice, an act from which material damage results by
reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part
of the person performing or failing to perform such act.
Negligence
It is the failure to observe for the protection of the
interest of another person that degree of care,
precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances
justly demand, whereby such other person suffers
injury.
Elements of Negligence
1. That there is lack of precaution on the part of
the offender; and
2. That the damage impending to be caused is not
immediate or the danger is not clearly
manifest.
2|Page

Test in determining Negligence
“Could a prudent man, in the position of the person to
whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the
person injured as a reasonable consequence of the
course actually pursued?”
Proximate Cause
That which, in the natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient, intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result would not
have occurred.
Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. Court of
Appeals (November 6, 1989)
In times of calamities, extraordinary diligence requires
a supplier of electricity to be in constant vigil to prevent
or avoid any probable incident that might imperil life
or limb.
Picart vs. Smith (37 Phil. 809)
The Supreme Court ruled that the test by which to
determine the existence of negligence in a particular
case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in
doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care
and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would
have used in the same situation? If not, then he is
guilty of negligence. Furthermore, conduct is said to be
negligent when a prudent man in the position of the
tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful
to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his
foregoing the conduct of guarding against its
consequences.
Acuna vs. Alcantara (March 20, 2001)
Rodolfo Alcantara was guilty of simple negligence.
According to the Supreme Court, the refusal of the
Philippine Coast Guard to initially take custody of the
flatboats should have prompted Alcantara to the trial
court for an order to have the custody of the flatboats
be transferred to the Philippine Coast Guard. There
was delay on his part to secure such order. However,
the loss of the boats cannot be entirely blamed on
Alcantara but it cannot be denied that is initial action
may have contributed to the deterioration of the boats.
His fine was reduced by the Court.
Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad (16 Phil. 8)
Doctrine of Turntable and Torpedo such as in the
case of Railroad Co. vs. Stout which provides that,
“While it is the general rule in regard to an adult that
to entitle him to recover damages for an injury
resulting from the fault or negligence of another he
must himself have been free from fault, such is not the
rule in regard to an infant of tender years. 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”
Also, negligence is not presumed, but must be proven
by him who alleges it. Finally, in personal injury cases,
law in this jurisdiction required the application of "the
principle of proportional damages," but expressly and
definitely denied the right of recovery when the acts of
the injured party were the immediate causes of the
accident.
III. Damage
Air France vs. Court of Appeals (March 21, 1989)
The Supreme Court ruled that it is essential before an
award of damages that the claimant must satisfactorily
prove during the trial the existence of the factual basis
of the damages and its causal connection to defendant’s
acts.
Banzon vs. Court of Appeals (July 13, 1989)
It is a settled principle that moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant’s wrongful act or omission.
Under the Civil Code, the damages for which a
defendant may be held liable are those which are the
natural and probable consequences of the act or
omission complained of
IV. Causal connection between fault or
negligence and the damage.
Sanitary Steam Laundry vs. CA (December 10,
1998)
3|Page
He must show that the violation of the statute was the
proximate or legal cause of the injury or that it
substantially contributed thereto. Negligence,
consisting in whole or in part, of violation of law, like
any other negligence, is without legal consequence
unless it is a contributing cause of the injury.
V. No pre-existing contractual relation.
Adamo vs. IAC
The complaint shows that the civil action is one under
Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-
delicts. 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.
Vergara vs. Court of Appeals (September 30,
1987)
As to negligence, the Court held that the fact of
negligence may be deduced from the surrounding
circumstances by the fact that the cargo truck was
travelling on the right side of the road going to Manila
and then it crossed to the center line and went to the
left side of the highway; it then bumped a tricycle; and
then another bicycle; and then said cargo truck
rammed the store warehouse of the plaintiff." The
Court also held that a mishap caused by defective
brakes cannot be considered as fortuitous in character.
Certainly, the defects were curable and the accident
preventable.
Corinthian Gardens Associations vs. Spouses
Tan-Jangco and Spouses Cuaso (June 27, 2008)
A negligent act is an inadvertent act; it may be merely
carelessly done from a lack of ordinary prudence and
may be one which creates a situation involving an
unreasonable risk to another because of the expectable
action of the other, a third person, an animal, or a force
of nature. 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 as to cause him not
to do the act or to do it in a more careful manner.
Greenstar Express vs. Universal Robina Corp.
(October 17, 2016)
Art. 2180 requires that first, there must be an
employer-employee relationship between the driver
and owner, and second, that the driver acted within the
scope of his assigned tasks.
Gumabon vs. PNB (July 25, 2016)
Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the
injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm
he has suffered, which falls below the standard to
which he is required to conform for his own protection.
Whether contributory negligence transpired is a
factual matter that must be proven.
WEEK 3
Specific Cases of Negligence
1. Common Carrier
Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping vs.
Philippine First Insurance (June 5, 2002)
Well-settled is the rule that common carriers, from the
nature of their business and for reasons of public policy,
are bound to observe extraordinary diligence and
vigilance with respect to the safety of the goods and the
passengers they transport. Thus, common carriers are
required to render service with the greatest skill and
foresight and “to use all reasonable means to ascertain
the nature and characteristics of the goods tendered for
shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling and
stowage, including such methods as their nature
requires.”
2. Negligence of Doctor (Medical
Negligence)
To successfully pursue a medical malpractice suit, the
plaintiff (in this case, the deceased patient’s heir) must
prove that the doctor either failed to do what a
reasonably prudent doctor would have done, or did
what a reasonably prudent doctor would not have done;
and the act or omission had caused injury to the
patient.
4|Page
The elements of medical negligence are: (1) duty; (2)
breach; (3) injury; and (4) proximate causation.
Duty refers to the standard of behavior that imposes
restrictions on one’s conduct, and requires proof of
professional relationship between the physician and
the patient. A physician-patient relationship is created
when a patient engages the services of a physician, and
the latter accepts or agrees to provide care to the
patient. Once a physician-patient relationship is
established, the legal duty of care follows, and this
includes the use at least the same standard of care that
a reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a
medical condition under similar circumstances.
Breach of duty occurs when the doctor fails to comply
with, or improperly performs his duties under
professional standards. If the patient, as a result of the
breach of duty, is injured in body or in health,
actionable malpractice is committed, entitling the
patient to damages.
Lastly, the patient must prove the causal relation
between the negligence and the injury, which must be
direct, natural, and should be unbroken by any
intervening efficient causes. Meaning, the negligence
must be the proximate cause of the injury.
3. Negligence of Lawyers
Paluca vs. COA (2016)
The general rule is that the negligence and mistakes of
counsel are binding on the client.
The exception to this rule is when there is a showing
that the petitioner regularly followed up with his
counsel as to the status of the case, and mere
endorsement does not excuse the client of a counsel’s
negligence.
It is the client’s duty to be in contact with his lawyer
from time to time, to be informed of the status of the
case, as this is an exercise of due diligence on the part
of the client.
A further exception, which is absent from the case, is
when the negligence of the counsel is so gross, reckless,
and inexcusable that the client is denied his day in
court
Jacot vs. Dal (2008)
It is a well-settled rule that a client is bound by his
counsel’s conduct, negligence, and mistakes in
handling the case, and the client cannot be heard to
complain that the result might have been different had
his lawyer proceeded differently. The only exceptions
to the general rule—that a client is bound by the
mistakes of his counsel—which this Court finds
acceptable are when the reckless or gross negligence of
counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or
when the application of the rule results in the outright
deprivation of one’s property through a technicality.
These exceptions are not attendant in this case.
Mistakes of attorneys as to the competency of a
witness; the sufficiency, relevancy or irrelevancy of
certain evidence; the proper defense or the burden of
proof, failure to introduce evidence, to summon
witnesses and to argue the case—unless they prejudice
the client and prevent him from properly presenting
his case—do not constitute gross incompetence or
negligence, such that clients may no longer be bound
by the acts of their counsel.
Guevarra vs. Bautista (2008)
A relief from judgement is a remedy provided by law to
any person against whom a decision or order is entered
through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence. Negligence, to be excusable, must be such
that ordinary diligence and prudence could not have
guarded against it. It is settled that clients are bound
by the mistakes, negligence and omission of their
5|Page
counsel. As an exception, the client may be excused
from the failure of counsel, the circumstances in the
present case do not convince the Court to take the
exception.
Fraud, accident, mistake and excusable negligence
should first be established before relief from judgement
can be granted. Relief will not be granted to a party
who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgement
when the loss of remedy at law was due to his own
negligence; otherwise, petition for relief can be used to
revive the right to appeal which had been lost through
excusable negligence.
Reyes vs. NLRC (2009)
Gen. Rule:
In simple negligence, the negligence of counsel binds
his client.
Reason:
To avoid the possibility that every losing party would
raise the issue of negligence of his or her counsel to
escape an adverse decision of the court, to the
detriment of our justice system, as no party would ever
accept a losing verdict.
Exception: Where the negligence of a counsel is
one that is so gross, palpable, pervasive, reckless and
inexcusable, then it does not bind the client since, in
such a case, the client is effectively deprived of his or
her day in court.
When is counsel’s negligence considered gross?
If it invariably resulted to the foreclosure of remedies
otherwise readily available to the petitioner.
4. Negligence of Judges
Heirs of Jose vs. Beldia (2009)
The simple misconduct is premised on the violation of
Rules 3.08 and 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. “A
judge should diligently discharge his administrative
responsibilities, maintain professional competence in
court management, and facilitate the performance of
administrative functions of other judges and court
personnel.” A judge should organize and supervise the
court personnel to ensure prompt and efficient dispatch
of business, and require at all times the observance of
high standards of public service and fidelity.
Proper and efficient court management is the
responsibility of the judge. It is incumbent upon
judges to devise an efficient recording and filing
system in their courts so that no disorderliness
can affect the flow of cases and their speedy
disposition.
5. Negligence of Drivers and
Commuters/Bystanders
Gaid vs. People
Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection
of the interest of another person that degree of care,
precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances
justly demand, whereby such other person suffers
injury. The elements of negligence are: 1) That there
is lack of precaution on the part of the offender; and 2)
That the damage impending to be caused is not
immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest. The
standard test in determining negligence is: “could a
prudent man, in the position of the person to whom
negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person
injured as a reasonable consequence of the course
actually pursued?”
I. 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)
WEEK 4
6|Page
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Meaning of Res Ipsa Loquitur
What is the doctrine all about?
Applicability of the rule
Africa vs. Caltex (1966)
principle of res ipsa loquitur (“the transaction speaks
for itself”) which states: “where the thing which caused
injury, without fault of the injured person, is under the
exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is
such as in the ordinary course of things does not occur
if he having such control use proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of the explanation,
that the injury arose from defendant’s want of care.”
Ma-ao Central Co. vs. Court of Appeals (1990)
Res ipsa loquitur. The doctrine was described recently
in Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, thus:
Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be
under the management of the defendant, and the
accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does
not happen if those who have the management use
proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the
absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the
accident arose from want of care.
Ludo and Luym Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
(2001)
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur provides that ‘where
the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the
management of the defendant, and the accident is such
as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if
those who have the management use proper care, it
affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an
explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose
from want of care.’
This recognizes that parties may establish prima facie
negligence without direct proof and allows the principle
to substitute for specific proof of negligence. It is
invoked when under the circumstances, direct evidence
is absent and not readily available.
Ramos vs. Court of Appeals (1999)
res ipsa loquitur is applied in conjunction with the
doctrine of common knowledge. The following
requisites must be satisfactorily shown: 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.
In the above requisites, the fundamental element is the
“control of the instrumentality” which caused the
damage. Such element of control must be shown to be
within the dominion of the defendant. In order to have
the benefit of the rule, a plaintiff, in addition to proving
injury or damage, must show a situation where it is
applicable, and must establish that the essential
elements of the doctrine were present in a particular
incident. In cases where the res ipsa loquitur is
applicable, the court is permitted to find a physician
negligent upon proper proof of injury to the patient,
without the aid of expert testimony, where the court
from its fund of common knowledge can determine the
proper standard of care.
Assumption of Risk Doctrine [Defense]
Defense in an action for negligence
Assumption of risk vs. Contributory Negligence
The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk means that one
who voluntarily exposes himself to an obvious, known
and appreciated danger assumes the risk of injury that
it may result therefrom. It rests on the fact that the
person injured has consented to relieve the defendant
of an obligation of the conduct toward him and to take
his chance of injury from a known risk and whether the
former has exercised proper caution or not is
immaterial.
The Doctrine of Assumption of risk has three elements:
1. The plaintiff must know that the risk is present;
2. He must further understand its nature; and
3. His choice to incur it must be free and voluntary.
7|Page
 BF Metal vs. Lomotan (2008)
When doctrine of assumption of risk does not Moral Damages are those designed to compensate
apply
and alleviate the physical suffering, mental anguish,
Abrogar vs. Cosmos Bottling Company (2017)
Afralda vs. Hasole (85 Phil. 671) fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
The Supreme Court ruled that Art. 1905 of the Civil wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and
Code names the possessor or user of the animal as the
similar harm unjustly caused to a person.
person liable for "any damages it may cause," and this
for the obvious reason that the possessor or user has
the custody and control of the animal and is therefore Requisites in awarding moral damages
the one in a position to prevent it from causing damage.
1. Evidence of besmirched reputation or physical,
Volenti Non Fit Injuria mental or psychological suffering sustained;
Define and Explain
2. A culpable act or omission factually
Ilocos Norte Electric Co. vs. Court of Appeals
(1989) established;
The maxim volenti non fit injuria (to a willing person, 3. Proof that the wrongful act or omission of the
injury is not done)
defendant is the proximate cause of the
It is used when there is contractual relationship damages sustained; and
4. The case is predicated on any of the instances
Substantial Factor Test
Define and Explain expressed or envisioned by Arts. 2019 and 2220
Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines vs. IAC (1990) of the Civil Code.
With regard to the substantial factor test, it was the
opinion of the respondent court that: “the rule under
the substantial factor test that if the actor’s conduct When can moral damages be recovered?
is a substantial factor in bringing about harm to
Culpa aquiliana or Culpa criminal
another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor
should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the Quasi-delict
manner in which it occurred does not prevent him from 1) When n act or When the accused is
being liable.
omission causes found guilty of physical
ART. 2177 physical injuries; or injuries, lascivious acts,
Distinctness of Quasi-Delicts
2) Where the adultery or concubinage,
Responsibility for Quasi-Delicts Distinct from
Civil Liability Arising from Negligence Under defendant is guilty of illegal or arbitrary
the Penal Code intentional tort detention, illegal arrest,
Bermudez vs. Judge Melencio-Herrera (1998)
illegal search, or
In cases of negligence, the injured party or his heirs has
defamation.
the choice between an action to enforce the civil
liability arising from crime under Article 100 of the
RPC and an action for quasi-delict under Article Exemplary damages are those are imposed, by way

217602194 of the Civil Code. If a party chooses the of example, or correction for the public good, in addition

latter, he may hold the employer liable for the to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory

negligent act of his employee, subject to the employer’s damages.

defense of exercise of the diligence of a good father of a

family. Requisites in awarding exemplary damages

8|Page
The plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, g. Bernal vs. House and Tacloban
temperate or compensatory damages before the court Electric (1930)
h. Tuason vs. Luzon Stevedoring
may consider the question of whether exemplary Co. (1961)
damages should be awarded C. Test to determine proximate cause
1. “Sine Qua Non” Rule
When can exemplary damages be recovered?
2. Foreseeability Test
In culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict), exemplary damages 3. The cause of condition test
may be granted if the defendant acted with gross 4. Natural and probable
consequences test
negligence. D. Doctrine of Contributory Negligence
1. Meaning of the Doctrine
Mindanao Terminal vs. Phoenix Assurance 2. Definition
(2009) 3. Effect of contributory negligence of
Article 1173 of the Civil Code is very clear that if the Plaintiff
law or contract does not state the degree of diligence a. Taylor vs. Manila Electric Co.
which is to be observed in the performance of an b. Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf (1907)
obligation then that which is expected of a good father c. BPI vs. Lifetime Marketing
of a family or ordinary diligence shall be required. (2008)
E. Conclusive Presumptions
ART. 2178 1. Children below nine years old
Read: Articles 1172, 1173, 1171, 2201, 1174 Read: RA No. 10630
Ronquillo vs. Singson (1959) F. Doctrine of Limited Liability
His act was clearly a departure from the standard of
WEEK 6
conduct required of a prudent man. He should have
desisted from making the order. His failure to Father / Mother or Guardian and Minor Children
appreciate the predictable danger and his act of 1. Responsibility is alternative not
simultaneous
offering part of the fruits as a reward clearly shows The civil code vests the liability for the acts of the minor
that he should be made to respond in damages for the to the father, or in his absence or incapacity, to the
mother; hence the liability is alternative. However, in
actionable wrong committed by him.
the Family Code, this liability is not, without such
alternative qualification. In other words, both parents
are primarily liable for the damages caused by their
Vda. De Imperial vs. Heald Lumber (1961)
child. It should be emphasized that the liability is
primary and not subsidiary.
WEEK 5

2. Kinds and degree of diligence sufficient to

ART. 2179
overcome presumption of negligence
A. Define Proximate Cause
1. Cuadra vs. Monfort (1970)
B. Doctrine of Proximate Cause
3. Intentional Crimes of Minor Children
a. Manila Electric Co. vs.
Read: RA No. 10630
Remonquillo 53 OG 1429
b. Quezon City Government vs.
Owners and Managers of an Establishment or
Dacara (2005)
Enterprise for Employee’s Torts
c. William Tiu vs. Pedro
Requisites of liability
Arriesgado (2004)
a. That the employee was chosen by the employer
d. Andamo vs. IAC (1990)
personally or through another – there exist an
e. St. Mary’s Academy vs.
employer-employee relationship;
Carpitanos (2002)
b. There is fault or negligence on the part of the
f. London vs. Baguio Club
employee which was the proximate cause of the
Corportion (2003)
damage or loss;
9|Page
 c. That illicit act of the employee was on the
occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted
to hm.
Presumption of negligence of employer
When an injury is caused by the negligence of a servant
or employee there instantly arises a presumption of the
law that there was negligence on the part of the master
or employer either culpa in eligiendo (selection) or
culpa in vigilando (supervision), or both. Said
presumption, nonetheless is only juris tantum
(rebuttable presumption) and not juris et de jure
(conclusive presumption) which may be overthrown by
satisfactory evidence that the employer indeed
exercised diligentissimi bonis patris familia.
Independent contractor distinguished from
Master-Servant Relationship; Can Independent
Contractor be an Employee at the same time?
One who hires an independent contractor but controls
the latter’s work, is responsible also for the latter’s
negligence. Of the person hired is a true independent
contractor, the person who hired him is not liable under
Art. 2180. The contractor is liable for all the claims of
laborers and other employed by him, and of third
persons for death or physical injuries during the
construction (see Art. 1728).
Genson vs. Adarle (1987)
Lampesa vs. De Vera (2008)
Distinguished from Art. 2180 (4)
Castilex vs. Vasquez (1999)
WEEK 7
Damages Caused by Employees and Wards
Discuss Subsidiary Liability vs. Primary
Liability
Dulay vs. Court of Appeals (1995)
In the performance of his assigned tasks
St. Francis High School vs. Court of Appeals
(1991)
NOTE: see Valenzuela v CA (253 SCRA 303 [1996])
where it was ruled that the ruling in St. Francis case is
no longer controlling. The subject dealing with a school
an its teacher’s supervision during an extracurricular
activity now falls under the provision on special
parental authority found in Art. 218, FC wich generally
encompasses all authorized school activities whether
inside or outside school premises.
Victory Liner vs. Heirs of Malendan (2002)
School of the Holy Spirit vs. Taguiam (2008)
Filamer Christian vs. Court of Appeals (1990)
Pacific Airways vs. Tonda (2002)

A school is not liable as employer for the acts of the Liability of the State
guard manning its premises if the latter was employed Two aspects of liability
by a security agency which is separate and distinct Distinction between Governmental and
from the school. There is no employer-employee Proprietary Function
relationship between the school and the guards and the NIA vs. Fontanilla (1991)
contractual relationship is between the school and the COA vs. Link Worth (2009)
security agency. This is because the school has no hand
in selecting who among the pool of security guards or Liability of Teachers or Heads for Damaged
watchmen employed by the agency shall be assigned to caused by Pupils
it. “So long as the students remains in their custody”
Meaning of Pupils, Students, Apprentices
Employee must be engaged in employer’s Amadora vs. Court of Appeals (2008)
business
Marquez vs. Castillo 68 Phil 568 NOTE:
Exemption from liability
Deviation (rule) RA No. 7877 Anti-Sexual Harassment Act
The employer is not liable for the negligence of an
employee in the use of employer’s motor vehicle when
the employee deviates from his ordinary course of work I. ART. 2181
such as going to or from meals, going to or from work,
use of vehicle outside regular working hours. However, II. ART. 2182
the employer may be held liable when he derives some
special benefits therefrom.
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
Employer’s subsidiary liability
10 | P a g e
 SUBSIDIARY PRIMARY matter are sure to occur in the conduct of the
LIABILITY LIABILITY employer’s enterprise, are placed upon that enterprise
itself, as required cost of doing business. Having
Governed by the Revised Governed by the Civil
engaged in an enterprise, which will on the basis of all
Penal Code; Code; past experience involve harm to others through the tort
The injured party The injured may go of employees, it is but just that the employer, rather
prosecutes the employee directly against the than the innocent injured plaintiff, should bear them;
who is primarily liable for employer who is and because he is better able to absorb them and to
the delict committed and presumed by law to be distribute them. Added to this is the makeweight that
holds the employer negligent in not an employer who is held strictly liable is under the
greatest incentive to be careful in the selection,
subsidiarily liable; preventing or avoiding
instruction and supervision of his servants, and to take
the damages; in the every precaution to see that the enterprise is conducted
selection and/or safely (Metro Manila Transit Corp. v CA, 359 SCRA 18
supervision of the [1998]).
employees who caused
the injury.
EMPLOYER’S DEFENSE
The injured party may Prior conviction of the
Employers may be relieved of responsibility for the
only recover from the employee is not negligent acts of their employees acting within the
employer when there is a necessary for the scope of their assigned task only if they can show that
prior conviction of the liability of the employer they observed all the diligence of a good father of a
employee; is direct and immediate; family to prevent damage (Pestaño v Sumayang, 346
Injure party may only Employee’s insolvency SCRA 870 [2000]).
recover from the employer is immaterial;
WEEK 8
upon insolvency of the
employee;
ART. 2183
Defense of diligence of a Diligence of a good Liability of Possessors of Animals
good father of a family is father of a family is a Vestil vs. IAC (1989)
untenable. good defense. Article 2183 provides that the possessor of an animal
or whoever makes use of the same shall be held liable
NOTE: While a separate and independent civil action
for damages may be brought against the employee for damages it may cause, although it may escape or be
under Article 33 of the Civil Code, no such action may lost. This liability shall only cease in case where the
be filed against the employer on the latter’s subsidiary
damage should come from force majeure or from the
civil liability because such liability is governed not by
the Civil Code but by the Penal Code, under which fault of the person who suffered the damage.
conviction of the employee is a condition sine qua non
The obligation imposed under Article 2183 is based on
for the employer’s subsidiary liability (Joaquin v
Aniceto, GR No. L-18719 [31.10.64]). the natural equity and on the principle of social
interest that he who possesses the animals for his
WHEN IS EMPLOYER LIABLE FOR
utility, pleasure, or service must answer for the
EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE
Before an employer may be held liable for the damage which such animal may cause.
negligence of his employee, Art. 2180, par. 4 provides
that the act or omission which caused the damage or
prejudice must have occurred while an employee was ART. 2184, 2185, 2186
in the performance of his assigned tasks. Liability of Owners of Motor Vehicle
Chapman vs. Underwood 27 Phil. 374
If the driver, by a sudden act of negligence, and without
REASON FOR EMPLOYER’S VICARIOUS the owner having a reasonable opportunity to prevent
LIABILITY the acts or its continuance, injures a person or violates
It is the deliberate allocation of a risk. The losses
the criminal law, the owner of the automobile, although
caused by the torts of employees, which as a practical
11 | P a g e
present therein at the time the act was committed, is
not responsible, either civilly or criminally, therefor.
The act complained of must be continued in the
presence of the owner for such a length a time that the
owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver's act his
own.
ART. 2187
Liability of Manufacturers and Processors
ART. 2188
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
Municipality of San Fernando vs. Judge Firme
(1971)
The doctrine of non-suability of the state is expressly
provided in Article 16, Section3 of the Constitution,
“The State may not be sued without its consent."
Thus, the general rule is that they can’t be sued
without its express or implied consent. Such
consent can be found in the general or special
law”. Unfortunately for the municipality, it is written
under their charter that they can sue and be sued.
The question of whether or not the municipality can be
held liable for torts committed by its employee depends
on whether or not the driver is performing
governmental or proprietary functions. If the employee
was committing a governmental function, they (the
municipality) are generally not liable for torts
committed by such employee; but if the employee was
acting in a proprietary capacity, the municipality shall
be liable for the tort committed.
Guilatco vs. City of Dagupan (1989)
“Article 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.”
It is not even necessary for the defective road or street
to belong to the province, city or municipality for
liability to attach. The article only requires that either
control or supervision is exercised over the defective
road or street.
City of Manila vs. IAC (November 15, 1989)
The Court further stressed that Municipal corporations
are subject to be sued upon contracts and in tort. The
rule of law is a general one, that the superior or
employer must answer civilly for the negligence or
want of skill of its agent or servant in the course or line
of his employment, by which another who is free from
contributory fault, is injured. Municipal corporations
under the conditions herein stated, fall within tile
operation of this rule of law, and are liable accordingly,
to civil actions for damages when the requisite
elements of liability co-exist. The court added that
while the following are corporate or proprietary in
character, viz: municipal waterworks, slaughter
houses, markets, stables, bathing establishments,
wharves, ferries and fisheries.
ART. 2190
ART. 2191
ART. 2192
ART. 2193
ART. 2194
WEEK9
NUISANCE
ORIGIN AND CONCEPT
Origin of nuisance
The word “nuisance” is derived from the Latin
“nocumentum,” means injury, hurt or harm. The
concept of nuisance is so broad that it covers anything
that unlawfully works hurt, inconvenience or damage
(Rabuya, “Property,” 670).
The law on nuisance is a restriction or limitation upon
ownership and a manifestation of the principle that
every person should so use his property as not to cause
damage or injury to others – sic utere tuo ut alienum
non laedas. Art. 431 of the Civil Code express the
principle, “the owner of a thing cannot make use
12 | P a g e
thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a Nuisance distinguished from Negligence
third person.” With this, there is an implied liability NUISANCE NEGLIGENCE
on the part of every holder of property who uses said Based on the resulting Based on want of a proper
property in a manner injurious to the equal enjoyment injury to others care.
of others having an equal right to the enjoyment of regardless of the degree
their property, or injurious to the rights of the of care or skill exercised
community. to avoid such injury.

CLASSIFICATION OR KINDS
Definition of nuisance 1. General Classification
NUISANCE As to the object it affects:
A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, a. Public nuisance;
condition of property, or anything else which: b. Private nuisance;
1. Injures or endangers the health or safety of c. Mixed or united nuisance.
others; As to its susceptibility to summary abatement
2. Annoys or offends the senses; (corrective action without prior judicial permission):
3. Shocks, defies or disregards decency or d. Nuisance per se;
morality; e. Nuisance per accidens.
4. Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of As to nature:
any public highway or street, or any body of f. Permanent;
water; or g. Temporary.
5. Hinders or impairs the use of property.
2. Nuisance Per Se and Per Accidens
Nuisance distinguished from Trespass NUISANCE PER SE
NUISANCE (private) TRESPASS TO LAND Affects the immediate safety of persons and property;
It consists of a use of It is an invasion of the it is recognized as a nuisance under any and all
one’s own property in plaintiff’s interest in the circumstances (Salao v Santos, GR No. L-45519
such a manner as to exclusive possession of [26.04.39]), regardless of location or surroundings
cause injury to the his land. it is any because it constitutes a direct menace to public health
property or other rights intentional intrusion that or safety, and, for that reason, may be abated
or interest of another deprives another of summarily or without prior judicial permission.
and generally results possession of land, even if The injury in some form is certain to be
from the commission of only temporarily; inflicted.
an act beyond the limits NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS
of the property affected.
That which depends upon certain conditions and
It is an interference with
circumstances, and its existence being a question of
his use and enjoyment of
it. Note that there is no fact, it cannot be abated without due hearing thereon
actual physical invasion in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing
of the plaintiff’s does constitute a nuisance (Cruz v Pandacan Hiker’s
property; Club, Inc. 778 SCRA 385 [2016]); hence, cannot be
Intended to protect the Intended to protect the abated summarily.
use and enjoyment of the possession of the land; It refers to those which are not nuisance per se but
land; may become a nuisance by reason of the circumstances
There must be a harm or No inquiry into the of the location and surroundings or manner in which it
injury to a legally presence of injury or harm is performed or operated.
protected interest of to another for the owner’s The injury is uncertain or contingent until it
another. right to exclude others actually occurs.
from his/her land is one of
the most essential
3. Temporary or Permanent
characteristics of
ownership (jus PERMANENT TEMPORARY
possidendi). NUISANCE NUISANCE
Nuisance caused by a It is the result of
single act resulting in temporary interference

13 | P a g e
 permanent injury, and with the use and Ramcar Inc. vs. Millar (1962)
damages are assessed enjoyment of property; Dela Cruz vs. Tianco (1964)
one for all injury; Iloilo Cold Storage vs. Municipal
Impracticable or Can be abated; Council (24 Phil. 471)
impossible to be abated; Hidalgo Enterprises vs. Balandon
It is inherently injurious. Not inherently injurious (1952)
but only becomes Jarco Marketing vs. Court of Appeal
harmful through its use.
(1999)
Parayno vs. Jovellanos (2006)
4. Public and Private Nuisance
AC Enterpises vs. Frabelle Properties
PUBLIC NUISANCE
(2006)
One which affects a community or neighborhood or any
Tayaban vs. People (2007)
considerable number of persons, although the extent of
A. FAILURE OR REFUSAL TO ABATE A
the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals
NUISANCE
may be unequal (Art. 695).
1. Liability of every owner or possessor
Article 696, 697, 698, 699
It comprehends a miscellaneous and diversified group
2. Who files and action for abatement of
of minor criminal offenses, based on some interference
public nuisance? Article 700, 701, 702,
with interests of the community, or the comfort or
703
convenience of the general public. It includes
3. Ways of abating a public nuisance by a
interferences with, among others, public health, safety,
private person
morals, peace, comfort and convenience.
4. Requisites to be complied with by a
private person before filing an action
PRIVATE NUISANCE
on account of public nuisance Article
One which violates only private rights and
704
produces damages to but on or few persons (Cruz v
5. Remedies against a private nuisance
Pandacan Hiker’s Club, Inc. 778 SCRA 385 [2016]). As
Article 705
distinguished from trespass, private nuisance is a
6. How is abatement done? Procedure
substantial and unreasonable interference with the
for extrajudicial abatement of a
private use and enjoyment of another’s land.
private nuisance Article 706
It includes any wrongful act which destroys or
7. When is a private person or public
deteriorates the property of an individual or of a few
official extrajudicially abating a
persons or interferes with their lawful use or
nuisance liable? Article 707
enjoyment thereof, or any act which unlawfully hinders
8. Easements against nuisance Article
them in the enjoyment of a common or public right and
682 and 683
causes them a special injury different from that
sustained by the general public.

5. Mixed or United Nuisances

MIXED OR UNITED NUISANCE
One which affects both public and private: public
because it injures many persons or all the community;
and private in that it also produces special injuries to
private rights (see Art. 703).

6. Continuing or Recurrent
7. Cases:
Bengzon vs. Province of Pangasinan
(1936)
Espiritu vs. Municipal Circuit Court of
Pozorrubio (1958)
Estate of Gregoria Francisco vs. Court
of Appeals (1991)

14 | P a g e