Matrix: Torts and Damages Cases

MATRIX: TORTS AND DAMAGES CASES
Art. 1173 and Arts. 2176-2194, Civil Code

Damnum Absque Injuria; Proximate Cause; Assumption of Risk; Last Clear Chance; Emergency Rule; Contributory Negligence; Res Ipsa Loquitur
CASES FACTS PRINCIPLES
1 AIR FRANCE v. Air France, an airline, failed to furnish first-class EXCEPTION TO 2176 (Element of no contractual relation)
CARRASCOSO transportation to a passenger. The passenger was
G.R. No. L-21438 ousted on his seat to give the first-class The act that breaks the contract may be also a tort although the relation
Sep. 28, 1966 accommodation to a white man. of passenger and carrier is contractual both in origin and nature.
Inconvenience, embarrassments, humiliation = moral Contract to transport passengers is attended with public duty. It invites
damages people to avail of the comforts and advantages it offers.
Culpa Contractual – contract to furnish first-class Neglect/Malfeasance/Discourteous conduct (injurious language, indignities,
accommodation abuses) of the carrier’s EE could give a ground for action for damages.
Culpa Aquiliana – act of the EE (ousted passenger) Art. 21 – Any person who willfully causes loss/injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate
the latter for damages.
2 COCA-COLA BOTTLERS Proprietress of a school canteen had to close down EXCEPTION TO 2176 (Element of no contractual relation)
PH, INC. v. CA due to the discovery of foreign substances in certain The acts which break the contract may also be a quasi-delict (The reckless
227 SCRA 292 beverages sold by it. and negligent manufacture of adulterated food items intended to be sold for
public consumption).
ISSUE:
Breach of implied warranty against hidden defects The existence of a contract does not bar the commission of a tort by
(Prescriptive Period- 6 months form the delivery of the one against the other and the consequent recovery of damages
the thing Art. 1571, CC) therefor.
Or Quasi-delict may still exist despite the presence of contractual relations.
Quasi-delict – 4 yrs prescriptive period, Art. 1146, Quasi-Delict 4y prescriptive period

CC
Art. 1567, CC – Vendee may elect bet.:
a. Withdrawing from the contract + Damages; or,\
b. Proportionate reduction of the price + Damages
3 VDA. DE BATACLAN v. 4 passengers died, others sustained injuries after a Art. 1733 – Common carriers must observe extraordinary diligence in
/YCP
MEDINA bus fell into a canal/ditch and after 10 men carried a vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers
102 Phil. 181 lighted torch near the bus to rescue passengers
Art. 1759 – Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to
Tires were not changed = could’ve prevented passengers through negligence or willful acts of the former employees
accident (even if EEs acted beyond the scope of their authority/in violation of the
order of common carriers).
Bus was speeding = front tires burst and bus zig-
zagged and fell into a canal/ditch. This liability does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence
of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their EEs.
The driver/conductor should have directed from a
distance to warn rescuers not to bring a lighted torch Art. 1763 – Common carrier is responsible for injuries suffered by a
near the bus. passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of OTHER
PASENGERS / OF STRANGERS if the EEs of CCs could have
The driver must have known that the gas leaked prevented/stopped the act and omission through the exercise of diligence of
after the gasoline spilled and one can smell it. a good father of a family.
4 SANITARY STEAM Cimarron was hit on its front portion by petitioner’s Negligence, consisting in whole or in part, of violation of law, like any other
LAUNDRY, INC. v. CA panel truck because a jeepney stopped suddenly in negligence, is without legal consequence unless it is a contributing cause of
300 SCRA 20 front of the truck, and the truck driver had to swerve the injury.
to the left.
Cimarron was guilty of overloading and driving with

only one headlight during the mishap.
5 BATANGAS LAGUNA BLTB Bus tried to overtake a Ford Fiera car while It is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at
TAYABAS BUS CO. v. CA the Superlines Bus was coming from the opposite the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
64 SCRA 427 direction.
A driver abandoning his proper lane for the purpose of overtaking another
He attempted to speed up and return to his proper vehicle in ordinary situation has the duty to see that the road is clear and
lane, but it was unsuccessful, resulting in deaths and not to proceed if he cannot do so in safety.
injuries.
6 RAKES v. ATLANTIC Rakes, a laborer of the defendant had a broken leg Rakes was not at fault for continuing his work despite notice of the sagging
GULF AND PACIFIC CO. amputated due to the rails that slid off and caught of the track. There can be no contributory negligence on his part.
7 Phil. 359 him while transporting these rails.
/YCP
RULE: Where the plaintiff contributed to the principal occurrence, he
Defendant was negligent in not providing side cannot recover.
guards on the cars and that the backs had no
fishplates. Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes only to his own
injury = he may recover the
The sagging of the tracks was found to have been
caused by the water of the bay raised by a recent
typhoon.
7 PICART v. SMITH Picart was riding his pony at a bridge while Smith TEST TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF NEGLIGENCE IN A
37 Phil. 809 approached from the opposite direction driving his PARTICULAR CASE - Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act
Mar. 15, 1918 vehicle. use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person
would’ve used in the same situation?
Smith blew his horn to give warning. He noticed the
pony was not frightened so he continued without If not, negligent.
diminution of speed.
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
Smith drove his car to the right to avoid hitting the ● Prudent man in the position of Smith - would have recognized that
pony but the close proximity of the car to the horse the course which he was pursuing was fraught with risk and would
frightened the pony and turned its belly across the therefore have foreseen harm to the horse and the rider as a
bridge with its head towards the railing. reasonable consequence of that course.
Horse was stuck, limb was broken, and fell. Rider

got thrown off with some violence which ended up in
temporary unconsciousness and contusions.
8 AFRICA v. CALTEX A fire broke out at the Caltex Service Station. It RES IPSA LOQUITUR applies
G.R. No. L-12986 spread to and burned several neighboring houses Burden: on the defendant to prove that he was not negligent
Mar. 31, 1966 owned by appellants when the gasoline was being
hosed from a tank into the underground storage. ● Where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to
be under management defendant or his servants, and the accident
An unknown person lighted a cigarette and threw the is such as in the ordinary course of things doesn’t happen if those
burning matchstick near the main valve of the who have its management or control use proper care, it affords
underground tank. reasonable evidence, in absence of explanation by defendant, that
the accident arose from want of care.
Premises: very thickly populated, very busy, Those who attribute a dangerous article/agent owe a degree of protection
business district, concrete walls (south and west to the public proportionate to and commensurate with a danger involved.
/YCP
adjoining the neighborhood but only 2 ½ high and
can’t avoid the flames from leaping over it.) Even if there was a person who threw a cigarette, Caltex is still liable
If the effects of the actor’s negligent conduct actively and
Gas station also used as a garage and repair shop continuously operate to bring about harm to another, the fact that the
for defendant’s fleet of taxicabs. active and simultaneous operation of the effects of a 3rd person’s innocent,
tortious/criminal act is also a substantial factor in bringing about the harm,
DOES NOT PROTECT THE ACTOR FROM LIABILITY.
The premises, descriptive of location and objective circumstances

surrounding the operation of the gasoline station in question, strengthen the
presumption of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, since on
their face, they called for more stringent measures of caution than those
which would satisfy the standard of due diligence under ordinary
circumstances.
9 BERNARDO v. LEGASPI The drivers were equally negligent and contributed Where two automobiles, going in opposite directions, collide on turning a
G.R. No. 9308, Dec. 23, equally to the principal occurrence. street corner, and it appears from the evidence and is found by the Trial
1914 Court that the drivers thereof were EQUALLY NEGLIGENT and
CONTRIBUTED EQUALLY to the Principal Occurrence as determining
causes thereof, neither can recover of the other for the damages suffered.
10 CUADRA v. MONFORT A classmate pulled a prank on a classmate. She Defendant father was not negligent since his child was at school under the
G.R. No. L-24101 tossed a plastic headband, jokingly saying that she care and supervision of the teacher. Such innocent prank is usual among
Sep. 30, 1970 found an earthworm. When her classmate turned children. No parent, however careful, cannot anticipate/less guard it.
around, it hit her right eye which became swollen
after she rubbed it and treated it with some powder. PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION OF DOCTRINE OF VICARIOUS
It resulted to a complete loss of sight of her right eye LIABILITY CAN BE REBUTTED
despite medical efforts. Shall cease when the person responsible prove that he/she observed all
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage
Basis of Art. 2180 – fault/negligence presumed from that which

accompanied the causative act/omission
Burden of Proof – on defendant
DILIGENCE; HOW IT IS MEASURED

All the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage =
/YCP
consideration of attendant circumstances in every individual case to
determine whether or not by the exercise of such diligence could be
prevented
Only obligation of defendant father was to compensate suffering but no

legal sanction enforceable in court, only moral compulsion of good
conscience.
11 PALISOC v. BRILLANTES Daffon (student, already of age) was working on a Heads and Teachers – liable for the tortious acts of their pupils and
G.R. No. L-29025 machine while Palisoc was merely looking. Daffon students so long as they remain in their custody.
Oct. 4, 1971 said Palisoc was acting like a foreman. Palisoc
slapped Daffon in the face then Daffon gave a strong Rationale – they stand, to a certain extent, as to their pupils and students
flat blow on the face and fist blows on the stomach IN LOCO PARENTIS (in the place of a parent) and are called upon to
until Palisoc stumbled on an engine block and fell exercise reasonable suspension over the conduct of the child. (Arts. 349,
face downward. Palisoc died. 350, 352, Civil Code)
Protective custody of the school heads and teachers is MANDATORILY

SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT OF THE PARENTS. Therefore, the teachers
and the school have the obligation to provide proper suspension of
students’ activities DURING THE WHOLE TIME that they are at attendance
in the school INCLUDING RECESS TIME.
Basis of Presumption of Negligence:
CULPA IN VIGILANDO (fault in supervising)

The teacher should be the one answerable for the torts committed while
under his custody – because the parents is not supposed to interfere with
the discipline of the school nor with the authority and supervision of the
teacher while the child is under instruction. The school is also answerable
for the fault of negligence of its school head and teachers.
“so long as (the students) remain in their custody” – protective and

supervisory custody that the school and its head and teachers exercise
over pupils and students for as long as they are at attendance in the school,
including recess time.
There is nothing in the law that requires that for such liability to attach, the
/YCP
pupil/student who commits the tortious act must live and board in the
school.
The authority and custodial supervision over pupils exist REGARDLESS

OF AGE, even over 21 years old. Age doesn’t matter; it can only affect a
degree of responsibility but can’t negate the existence thereof.
12 CEREZO v. TUAZON Cerezo is the owner of the bus line. Tuazon is the Court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over ER without EE (author of the act) is
G.R. No. 141538 tricycle driver that was hit by a Country Bus Line. It SUFFICIENT because the ER’s liability is solidary, primary, and direct
Mar. 23, 2004 caused severe damage to the tricycle and serious for actions based on QUASI-DELICT.
physical injuries with the thumb and middle finger
cut. If delict – it needs the acquisition of jurisdiction over EE / author of the act
because it is merely subsidiary.
No service of summons was done for the bus driver, In the case: EE is not the indispensable party.
only for Cerezo, bus owner.
The responsibility of 2 or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is
Cerezo contends that the court could not validly solidary; EACH debtor is liable for the ENTIRE obligation. No merger or
render judgment since it failed to acquire jurisdiction renunciation of rights but only MUTUAL REPRESENTATION. EITHER OF
over Foronda. THE PARTIES IS INDISPENSABLE, and the other is NOT EVEN A
NECESSARY PARTY because COMPLETE RELIEF IS AVAILABLE
FROM EITHER.
Although liability under Art. 2180 originates from the negligent act of the
EE, the aggrieved party MAY SUE THE ER DIRECTLY.
When an EE causes damage, the law presumes that the ER has himself
committed an act of negligence in not preventing/avoiding the
damage.
Employer
- civilly liable in a subsidiary capacity for the EE’s criminal negligence.
- also, civilly liable DIRECTLY and SEPARATELY for his OWN CIVIL
negligence in failing to exercise due diligence in selecting and
supervising his EE.
The action for responsibility of the ER is in itself a PRINCIPAL action.
/YCP
13 CASTILLEX INDUSTRIAL Abad was driving a company car which collided with The mere fact that an EE was using a service vehicle at the time of the
CORP. v. VASQUEZ a motorcycle and caused the death of the motorcycle injurious incident is not of itself sufficient to charge ER wtih liability for the
G.R. No. 132266 driver. negligent operation of said vehicle unless it appears that the EE was
Dec. 21, 1999 operating the vehicle within the course/scope of his employment.
Abad made a shortcut against the flow of traffic after
he had snacks with his friends after he rendered The ER has no duty to show that it exercised the diligence of a good father
overtime. It was at 2AM, way beyond normal working of a family if Petitioner cannot present sufficient evidence that the EE was
hours at a place known for prostitutes, pimps and acting within the scope of his duties.
drug pushers and addicts.
There is no hard and fast rule in determining whether an EE is engaged in
Abad was with a woman in his car who then shouted his ER’s business in the operation of a motor vehicle. The result varies with
“Daddy, daddy!” during the accident. The woman each state of facts.
couldn’t have been Abad’s daughter because he
was only 29 years old at the time. Filamer Christian Institute v. IAC – the acts done within the scope of
EE’s assigned tasks includes “any act done by an EE in furtherance of
the interests of the ER or for the account of the ER at the time of the
infliction of the injury or damages.
Art. 2180(5) – an expansion of (4) in both ER coverage and acts included.
1. Necessary to establish ER-EE relationship.

2. Plaintiff must show that EE was acting within the scope of his
assigned task when the tort complained of was committed.
3. Then ER may interpose defense of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of the EE.
AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE
ER not liable ER liable = EE acting within scope
of Employment
1. OPERATION OF ER’S MOTOR VEHILCE IN GOING TO/FROM
MEALS
EE who uses ER’s vehicle in going If with evidence of some special
from his work to a place where he business benefit to the ER
intends to eat/in returning to work evidence that by using ER’s
from a meal. vehicle to go to and from meals –
EE is enabled to reduce his time-
/YCP
off and devote more time to the
performance of his duties.
2. IN GOING TO/FROM WORK
It is the personal problem of EE With some special business
and not part of his services to hisbenefits like:
ER, in the absence of some a. ER benefits from having the
special benefit by ER. EE at work earlier and
spending more time at his
actual duties.
b. EE’s duties (special
errand/roving commission
rule) require him to circulate in
a general area with no fixed
place/hours of work/to go from
home to various outside
places of work and his ER
furnishes him with a vehicle to
use in his work (as long as not
a personal errand of his own).
3. IN USE OF ER’S VEHICLE OUTSIDE REGULAR WORKING
HOURS AND FOR PERSONAL USE
Generally not liable for EE’s
negligent operation of the vehicle
during the period of permissive
use.
Even when ER contemplates that a

regularly assigned motor vehicle
will be used by the EE for personal
+ business purposes and there is
some incidental benefit to the ER.
14 VILORIA v. CONTINENTAL An EE of an agent of Continental Airlines, Inc. (CAI) Is the PR liable for the EE of its Agent?
AIRLINE misrepresented the available flights. A person’s vicarious liability is anchored on his possession of control,
G.R. No. 188288, Jan. 16, whether absolute or limited, on the tortfeasor. Without such control, there
2012 Viloria – demanded for a refund with CAI after is nothing which could justify extending the liability to a person other
discovering that the other airlines weren’t fully than the one who committed the tort.
/YCP
booked.
The existence of control or supervision CANNOT BE PRESUMED and
EE – Mager (employed by Holiday Travel, a travel must be proven by the one alleging it. The defendant then has no obligation
agency) to prove its denial or control/supervision if plaintiff has no evidence or
cannot prove such control.
Holiday Travel – agent of CAI
FOR CULPA AQUILIANA (action against airline co.)
CAI – principal but no control over Mager. - There must be an independent showing that the airline co. was at
fault/negligent/has contributed to the negligence/tortous conduct
committed by the EE of its agent.
15 PH RABBIT BUS LINE v. As a result of a vehicular accident, PH Rabbit Bus The term “employer” and “owner and manager of establishment or
PHILAM FORWARDERS Lines instituted a complaint against the manager of enterprise” (Art. 2180, Civil Code) doesn’t embrace a manager who may
G.R. No. L-25142 the company. himself be regarded as EE of his ER.
Mar. 25, 1975
The term manager (director in Spanish) is used in the sense of ER.
16 CAEDO v. YU Yu hired Bernardo as a driver. Bernardo had been Art. 2184 – if the causative factor is driver’s negligence it means that the
G.R. No. L-20392 employed by Yutivo Hardware Co. in the same owner of the vehicle present is likewise liable if he could’ve prevented the
Dec. 18, 1968 capacity for over 10 years. mishap by exercise of due diligence.
In the past 10 years – there was no record of TEST OF IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE

violation of traffic laws and regulations. It is subjective. Car owners not held to a uniform and inflexible standard of
diligence as are professional drivers. If the driver, by a SUDDEN ACT of
Bernardo was driving the Cadillac of Yu when a negligence, and without the owner having a REASONABLE
carratela approached him but such carratela was OPPORTUNITY TO PREVENT THE ACT/ITS CONTINUANCE, injures a
noticeable far away. Bernardo swerved to the other person, the owner of the automobile, although present therein, is not
lane even if there was another car. He beat the other responsible.
car to the point where it would be in line with the
carratela or else squeeze in between them in any
case. This resulted to the injuries of the Caedo
family.
The road was clear, it was early in the morning. The

car wasn’t running at an unreasonable speed.
Yu had reason to rely on the skill and experience of
his driver; and he only saw it when it was 12m
/YCP
behind it. He couldn’t anticipate the driver’s sudden
decision to pass the carratela on its left side in spite
of another car from the opposite direction.
There was no reason for Yu to be in any special

state of alert.
17 AFIALDA v. HISOLE Afialda, deceased, was employed by Hisole as Art. 1905 - The owner of an animal is not liable for injury caused by it to its
G.R. No. L-2075 caretaker of their carabaos. caretaker.
Nov. 29, 1949
While tending the animals, he was gored by one of EXCEPTION:
them and died as a consequence of his injuries. Art. 1902 - The fault/negligence on the part of defendants as owners of the
animal that caused the damage.
The mishap was not due to his own fault and force
majeure.
18 NGO SIN v. SENG GIAP
19 VALENZUELA v. CA Valenzuela had a flat tire so she had to park her car Contributory negligence - conduct on the part of the injured party,
G.R. No. 115024 on a lighted sidewalk where there were people. contributing as a legal cause to the harm he suffered, which falls below the
February 7, 1996 While she was standing on the back of her car, she standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection
was suddenly bumped by the defendant’s car that
was registered in the name of Alexander Emergency Rule - an actor who is confronted with an emergency is not to
Commercial, Inc. be held up to the standard of conduct normally applied to an individual who
is in no such situation.
Defendant Li was driving under the influence of
alcohol. ● It does not require the same standard of thoughtful and reflective
care from persons confronted by unusual and oftentimes
Valenzuela’s leg was severed and amputated. She threatening conditions.
was eventually fitted with an artificial leg. ● Gan v. CA - an individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation
of danger and is required to act without much time to consider the
Li- found to be negligent best means that they may be adopted to avoid the impending
Valenzuela- not negligent under Emergency Rule danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what
Alexander Commercial - jointly and solidarily liable subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a better
under bonus pater familias, no evidence adduced to solution, unless the emergency was brought by his own negligence.
prove that it took steps to ascertain driving ● Conduct required is dictated not exclusively by the suddenness of
/YCP
proficiency and history of Li the event which absolutely negates thoughtful care, but by the
overall nature of the circumstances.
Company car of Li used during meetings between Li Negligence - conduct which creates an undue risk of harm to others
and its clients and to put up the front of a highly ● Failure to observe that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance
successful entity, increasing the company’s goodwill which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other
before its clientele person suffers injury
● Want of care required by the circumstances
In providing for a company car for business use and/or for the furthering the
company’s image, a company owes a responsibility to the public to see to it
that the managerial/other EEs to whom it entrusts virtually unlimited use of
a company issued car are able to use the company issue capably and
responsibly.
20 SABIDO v. CUSTODIO 2 trucks met each other in a road curve. Custodio, a Where the concurrent/successive negligent acts or omission of 2 or
GR L-21512 passenger who was hanging on the left side was more persons, although acting independently of each other, are, in
August 31,1996 sideswiped by the truck driven by petitioner. This led combination, the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a 3rd
to the death of Custodio. person and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed
to the injury, either is responsible for the whole injury, even though his
Petitioner’s truck was driving at a high speed even in act alone might not have caused the entire injury, or the same damage
a sharp curve; it was on its middle portion and so might have resulted from the acts of the other tort-feasor.
near the passenger bus. (Liable, last clear chance)
Respondent is also at fault for allowing Custodio to

hang on the truck. (Liable, proximate cause)
21 RP v. STEVEDORING A barge of Luzon Stevedoring Corp was being towed FORCE MAJEURE/CASE FORTUITO
down the river by tugboats when the barge rammed Not enough that the event should have been foreseen/anticipated. It must
against one of the wooden piles of Nagtahan balley be one impossible to foresee/to avoid.
bridge, smashing the posts, and causing the bridge
to list. Mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the
same.
Situation of the river: Swollen; Current was swift due
to the heavy downpour at the time of the incident In the case: The very measures adopted by it prove that the possibility of
danger was not only foreseeable but actually foreseen and was not
Used the most powerful tugboats, assigned the task fortuitous
/YCP
to the more competent and experienced patrons,
double-checked engines, instructed patrons to take RES IPSA LOQUITUR IN THE CASE
extra precautions Exclusively controlled by EEs of Stevedoring Corp.
Rammed the bridge
Held: not force majeure, therefore, liable, res ipsa Such a thing does not happen if proper care is used
loquitur
20 MCKEE v. IAC Husband (deceased) of the petitioner swerved to the NEGLIGENCE

other lane due to 2 kids who suddenly crossed. Want of care required by the circumstances; relative not comparative;
When he swerved, a collision took place with the depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and
respondent’s truck, driven by its EE. vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require
This led to the death of the petitioner's husband, EMERGENCY RULE

yaya, and child. One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger and is required to act
without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better
method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about
by his own negligence.
PROXIMATE CAUSE
That cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE

Negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence
of the defendant where it appears that the defendant, by exercising
reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences
to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff’s negligence.
A person who has the last clear chance of opportunity of avoiding an

accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent/that of a 3rd
person imputed to the opponent is considered in law solely responsible for
the consequences of the accident.
21 CRISTINO v. CA Mabasa owned an apartment (rented by tenants) Act of constructing a fence within their lot is a valid exercise of their right as
/YCP
GR 116100 that has 2 possible passageways. First passageway owners; hence, not contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.
February 9, 1996 is 20m distant from Mabasa’s residence to P. Burgos Whatever damages sustained by Mabasa by reason of rightful use of the
St. The 2nd passageway is about 26m. said land by Santos and Morato is damnum absque injuria.
A fence was constructed by Santos along their DAMNUN ABSQUE INJURIA

property which is along the first passageway. Morato To warrant the recovery of damages, there must be:
also constructed her fence and even extended it in 1. a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant, and
such a way that the entire passageway was 2. the damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom.
enclosed.
Wrong without damage, or damage without wrong, does not constitute a
The remaining tenants of said apartment vacated the cause of action, since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for
area. the injury caused by a breach or wrong.
Proper exercise of a lawful right cannot constitute a legal wrong for which
an action will lie.
The court can give no redress for hardship to an individual resulting from
action reasonably calculated to achieve a lawful end by lawful means.
INJURY – illegal invasion of a legal right

DAMAGE – loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury;
recompense/compensation awarded for the damage suffered
There can be damage without injury in those instances in which the

loss/harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty.
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA – person sustains actual damage (harm/loss

to his person or property), without sustaining any legal injury (act/omission
which the law does not deem an injury)
In order that the law will give redress for an act causing damage, that act
must be not only hurtful, but wrongful.
BASIS OF TORT DAMAGES: an individual was injured in contemplation of

law
Not sufficient to state that there should be tort liability merely because the
plaintiff suffered some pain and suffering
/YCP
22
23
24
25
/YCP
26
/YCP

Matrix: Torts and Damages Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matrix: Torts and Damages Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MATRIX: TORTS AND DAMAGES CASES

Art. 1173 and Arts. 2176-2194, Civil Code

CASES FACTS PRINCIPLES

Or Quasi-delict may still exist despite the presence of contractual relations.

Quasi-delict – 4 yrs prescriptive period, Art. 1146, Quasi-Delict 4y prescriptive period

Cimarron was guilty of overloading and driving with

Horse was stuck, limb was broken, and fell. Rider

The premises, descriptive of location and objective circumstances

Basis of Art. 2180 – fault/negligence presumed from that which

Burden of Proof – on defendant

DILIGENCE; HOW IT IS MEASURED

Only obligation of defendant father was to compensate suffering but no

Protective custody of the school heads and teachers is MANDATORILY

Basis of Presumption of Negligence:

CULPA IN VIGILANDO (fault in supervising)

“so long as (the students) remain in their custody” – protective and

The authority and custodial supervision over pupils exist REGARDLESS

The action for responsibility of the ER is in itself a PRINCIPAL action.

Art. 2180(5) – an expansion of (4) in both ER coverage and acts included.

1. Necessary to establish ER-EE relationship.

Even when ER contemplates that a

In the past 10 years – there was no record of TEST OF IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE

The road was clear, it was early in the morning. The

There was no reason for Yu to be in any special

18 NGO SIN v. SENG GIAP

Respondent is also at fault for allowing Custodio to

20 MCKEE v. IAC Husband (deceased) of the petitioner swerved to the NEGLIGENCE

This led to the death of the petitioner's husband, EMERGENCY RULE

DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE

A person who has the last clear chance of opportunity of avoiding an

A fence was constructed by Santos along their DAMNUN ABSQUE INJURIA

INJURY – illegal invasion of a legal right

There can be damage without injury in those instances in which the

DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA – person sustains actual damage (harm/loss

BASIS OF TORT DAMAGES: an individual was injured in contemplation of

You might also like