GENERAL CONCEPT AND HISTORY

The word “TORT” is taken directly from the French word 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, which gives rise to an action for damages. It is an
act or omission producing an injury to another, without any previous existing lawful relation of which the said act or omission may be
said to be a natural outgrowth or incident.

It is also defined as a 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.

Tort may be characterized by the following:

1. It is a legal wrong
2. It is civil in nature
3. The wrong causes damage or injury
4. It provides remedy to the injured party against the party who caused the wrong.

Kind of Tort Liabilities

1. Negligence involves voluntary acts or omissions that result in injury to others, without intending to cause the same.

Article 1173 of the Civil Code 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.

Cases of negligence or imprudence:

1. Exhibiting a loaded revolver to a friend, who got killed by the accidental discharge arising from negligent handling.
2. Discharging a firearm from the window of one’s house and killing a neighbor who, at just that moment, leaned over a
balcony front; and
3. Firing a .45 caliber pistol twice in the air to stop a fistfight, and, as the fight continued, firing another shot at the ground
but, after the bullet ricocheted, hitting a bystander who died thereafter.

2. Intentional torts include 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.

This same definition appears in Section 8 of the Restatement of Torts which requires that the actor desires to cause
consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it. This definition represents
the common usage of the term intent with the following elements according to Prosser and Keeton:

1. It is a state of mind
2. About consequences of an act or omission and not about the act itself.
3. It extends not only to having in the mind a purpose or desire to bring about given consequences but also to having in
mind a belief or knowledge that given consequences are substantially certain to result from the act.

Willful has been defined as intention to do an act and desire to achieve the outcome which is considered by the plaintiff in tort
action as injurious.

The SC explained that malice or bad faith is at the core of Article 19 of the Civil Code. Good faith refers to the state of mind
which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and
unscrupulous advantage of another. It is presumed.

Bad faith does not connote bad judgment or simple negligence. It involves a dishonest purpose or some moral obloquy and
conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.

Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm.
Malice is bad faith or bad motive.

Elements of Bad faith:

1. That the actor knew or should have known that a 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.

In the case of National Power Corporation vs. Ibrahim, the SC defined bad faith as follows:

1. Bad faith is a breach of a known duty through some motive of interest or ill will
2. Bad faith is a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or will or for
ulterior purpose.
 3. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity
and conscious doing of wrong. It means breach of a known duty through some motive or interest of ill will; it partakes of the nature of
fraud.
4. Malice of bad faith implies 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 ordinarily prudent person into error after taking the circumstances into account.

Intent is in the form of malice involves a desire to cause unjustifiable harm. Generally, the harm intended is not necessarily a
specific type of harm. However, intent may be content specific in some tort cases. On the other hand, malice in the sense of ill will or
spite is not essential in interference with contract discussed in Chapter 15. If the persuasion is used for the indirect purpose of injuring
the plaintiff or benefitting the defendant at the expense of the plaintiff, it is a malicious act that in law and fact is a wrongful act for
purposes of applying the rules on interference with contract.

3. Strict Liability is where the person is made liable independent of fault or negligence upon submission of proof of certain facts.

When strict liability is imposed, the conduct is generally not wrongful in itself but the wrong consists in causing harm by engaging
in certain types of risky activities.

In strict liability, the defendant cannot escape liability by proving exercise of due care or lack of intent to cause damage or injury.
In fact, even if the defendant can prove that he exercised extraordinary diligence, the defendant may still be liable under a strict liability
provision if the circumstances specified by law are present.

THE CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT

- The intent to adopt the expanded common law concept of intentional and unintentional tort is more evident in Articles 19, 20,
and 21 of the New Civil Code which state:

Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his
due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the
same.
 Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

- Under such broad concept of Torts, Philippine laws include the following torts, some of which are also considered torts in
American law:

a. Defamation
b. Fraud
c. Physical Injuries
d. Violation of Constitutional Rights
e. Negligence
f. Interference with Contractual Relations
g. Violation of Privacy
h. Malicious Prosecution
i. Product liability
j. Strict liability for possession of animals
k. Abuse of right
l. Acts which violate good morals and customs.

- Articles 19-21 of the New Civil Code are likewise catch-all provisions that serve as basis of any imaginable tort action. These
provisions provide for general concepts that make persons liable for every conceivable wrongful act. These are provisions on human
relations that were intended to expand the concept of torts in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number
of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically provide in the statutes.

Purposes of Tort law

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 behavior
4. To restore injured parties to their original condition, insofar as the law can do this, by compensating them for their injury.

Balancing of Conflicting Interests

- When the law provides for compensation to another for personal injuries, the law is protecting the person’s interest over his
body. A person is entitled to the physical integrity of his or her body; if the integrity is violated or diminished, actual injury is suffered for
which actual or compensatory damages are due and assessable. 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.

Fundamental Principles: Equity, Justice, Democracy, and Respect for Human Dignity

Equity and Justice (Art. 21 & 26 of NCC)

- NCC upholds the “spirit that giveth life rather than the letter that killeth”

- Justice and Equity demand that persons who may have damaged by the wrongful or negligent act of another are compensated.

- Acting with justice involves the duty to indemnify for damages caused under Arts.20,21,28,27; to indemnify by reason of unjust
enrichment under Arts. 22 & 23; and to protect the weaker party under Art. 24.

- “The precepts of law are these, to live honestly, not to injure others, and to give each one his due.”
- “Justice is a steady and unceasing disposition to render every man his due.”

Two levels of Justice:

1. Social

a. distributive – address the allocation of social goods and bad concern of our democratic institutions
b. retributive – sanctions or penalties that are applied to those who engage in certain kinds of antisocial behavior

2. Individual

a. compensatory – a person who wrongfully inflicts harm on another or that person's property must repay or repair the
damage

b. commutative – fairness of a private bargain or exchange

Equity is defined as justice according to natural law and right.

- Justice outside legality; invoked in justifying the rule regarding mitigation of liability if the plaintiff was guilty of contributory
negligence.
Democracy

- Democracy being more than a mere form of government, affecting as it does, the very foundations of human life and
happiness, cannot be overlooked by an integral civil code.

- Art. 32 provides for independent civil actions for damages against any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who
directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates, or in any manner impedes or impairs the civil rights and liberties of another person.

Respect for Human Dignity

- Art. 26 and the provisions on moral damages are included in order to remedy defects in old CC in so far as it did not properly
exalt human personality.

- The touchstone of every system of laws, of the culture and civilization of every country, is how far it dignifies man.

- Justification of Tort Liability: in cases of non- contractual obligations, 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.

Moral perspective

- Tort liability may be justified because the conduct is considered moral wrong.

- The law of torts abounds in moral phraseology it has much to say of wrongs, malice, fraud, intent and negligence. Hence, it
may naturally be supposed that the risk of man's conduct is thrown upon him as a result of some moral shortcomings.

- Ubi jus ibi remedium (there is no wrong without remedy)

- Moral turpitude was considered the outstanding though not exclusive principle of tortious liability.

Social and Economic perspective

- Liability may be provided for certain tortious conduct because of the good that it will do to the society as a whole and its
function of encouraging socially responsible behavior.
 - Economic analysis of tort law focuses on the allocation of the risks of loss due to the destruction of property or injury to persons
created by those activities.

Persons who can sue and be sued for Tort:

1. Plaintiffs: Persons who are entitled to damages

- Any person who had been injured by reason of a tortious conduct can sue the tortfeasor. The injured party is the real party in
interest in an action for damages based on torts. Such plaintiff can be a natural or an artificial person like a corporation.

a. Parents and Persons Exercising Substitute Parental Authority.

- A minor may sue for damages with the assistance of his or her parents or guardian. If the minor dies, the parents
and other person exercising substitute parental authority are real parties in interest in an action for damages for the said death of a
child. The right to file an action remains even after the termination of parental authority if it can be established that the parents of the
person previously exercising substitute parental authority suffered damage or loss.

b. Unborn Child

- An unborn child is not entitled to damages. Although the bereaved parents may be entitled to damages, all such
damages must be those inflicted directly upon them as distinguished form the injury or violation of the rights of the unborn child, his
right to life and physical integrity.

- Birth determines the personality and for civil purposes, the fetus is only considered born if it is alive at the time it is
completely delivered from the mother’s womb.

- If the mother went to an abortionist without the consent of her husband, the action of the husband against the
abortionist for damages pertaining to the unborn child will not prosper. The personality of the child never existed because the child was
already dead when it was separated from the mother’s womb. The damages to which the husband may be entitled shall be limited to
those which he personally suffered and which he can prove during the trial.

c. Heirs

- The heirs of a person who died because of a tortious action may file an action for damages. They must prove that
they suffered damage because of the death of the victim.
2. Defendants: Persons who may be held liable

Defendants can either be natural or artificial beings. Thus, the SC explained that a corporation is civilly liable in the same manner
as natural persons. The employee or officer concerned is not free from liability but the corporation may be held directly and primarily
liable under the concept of vicarious liability or direct corporate responsibility.

a. Close Corporations and Corporation by Estoppel.

- The stockholders who are personally involved in the operation of the corporation may be personally liable for
corporate torts under Section 99 of the Revised Corporation Code.

- The Revised Corporation Code also specifies the rules on tort liability if what is involved is a corporation by
estoppel. A corporation by estoppel is not a real corporation but the members make it appear or represent themselves to be members
of a corporation knowing it to be without authority to do so shall be liable as general partners for all debts, liabilities, and damages
incurred or arising as a result thereof.

b. Liability of Partnerships

- Articles 1823-1824 of the New Civil Code provide that the partnership is solidarily liable with the partner if the
latter commits tortious acts while acting in the pursuit of partnership business. This principle is consistent with the mutual agency rule in
partnership.

c. Tort liability of the State

- Subject to the rules regarding waiver of immunity from suits, defendants may include the State, its political
subdivisions, and government-owned and controlled corporations. There are even statutory provisions that expressly provide for such
liability of the State and provinces, cities, and municipalities under certain circumstances.

Remedies

Legal remedies are either preventive or compensatory.

- Every remedy in a certain sense is preventive because it threatens certain undesirable consequences to those who
violate the rights of others.
 - The primary purpose of a tort action is to provide compensation to a person who was injured by the tortious conduct of
the defendant. The remedy of the injured person is therefore primarily an action for damages against the defendant.

- Alternative Compensation Schemes: Insurance and Worker’s Compensation

ELEMENTS OF TORTS OR QUASI-DELICT

1. Act or Omission
2. Damage or injury is caused to another
3. Fault or negligence is present
4. There is no pre-existing contractual relations between the parties.

ARTICLE 2176, CIVIL CODE

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, obliged to pay for the damage done.
Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by
the provisions of this Chapter.

CASES:

BARREDO vs. GARCIA

Facts: Head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxi cab driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis.
The carretela was overturned and its passenger, Faustino Garcia, a 16 year-old boy suffered injuries from which he died two days later.
Fontanilla’s negligence was the cause of the mishap and was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of 1 year and 1
day to 2 years of prision correccional. Fausto Barredo, as the sole proprietor of the Malate Taxi cab and employer of Fontanilla was
negligent in employing Fontanilla who has several Automobile Law and speeding violations, so an action was brought against him.

RTC: awarded damages for Php 2,000.00 plus legal interest (6%)

CA: reduced the damages to Php 1,000.00 with legal interest (6%)

SC: Affirmed CA’s decision.

Laws: Arts. 1089, 1092-1093, 1902- 1904 of the Civil Code; Arts. 100-103, 365 of the Revised Penal Code
Doctrines:

Quasi-delict or "Culpa Aquiliana" is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own, and
individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict or crime. Upon this principle and on the wording and spirit article 1903 of
the Civil Code, the primary and direct responsibility of employers may be safely anchored.

Some of the differences between crimes under the Penal Code and the culpa aquiliana or cuasi-delito under the Civil Code are:

1. That crimes affect the public interest, while cuasi-delitos are only of private concern.
2. That, consequently, the Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code, by means of
indemnification, merely repairs the damage.
3. That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because the former are punished only if there is a penal law clearly
covering them, while the latter, cuasi-delitos, include all acts in which "any king of fault or negligence intervenes." However, it should be
noted that not all violations of the penal law produce civil responsibility, such as begging in contravention of ordinances, violation of the
game laws, infraction of the rules of traffic when nobody is hurt.

Penal Code Civil Code

minors and incapacitated
other persons
persons

direct (article 19) subsidiary (articles 20 and 21) direct(Art. 1903)

- Same act may come under both the Revised Penal Code and the Civil Code.
- Interpretation of the words of Article 1093 “fault or negligence not punished by law”
- Consequence of which are regulated by Articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code.
> The acts to which these articles are applicable are understood to be those not growing out of pre-existing duties of the
parties to one another.

- But where relations already formed give rise to duties, whether springing from contract or quasi-contract, then breaches of
those duties are subject to Articles 1101, 1103-1104 of the same Code.
 - A typical application of this distinction may be found in the consequences of a railway accident due to defective machinery
supplied by the employer. His liability to his employee would arise out of the contract of employment, that to the passengers out of the
contract for passage, while that to the injured bystander would originate in the negligent act itself.

- Article 1903 of the Civil Code not only established liability in cases of negligence, but also provides when the liability shall
cease. It says: “The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons mentioned therein prove that they employed all the
diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage.”

- Exemption from civil liability established in Article 1903 of the Civil Code for all who have acted with the diligence of a good
father of a family is not applicable to the subsidiary civil liability provided in Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code.

- Distinction between civil liability arising from criminal negligence (governed by the Penal Code) and responsibility for fault or
negligence under Articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code, and that the same negligent act may produce either a civil liability arising from
a crime under the Penal Code, or a separate responsibility for fault or negligence under Articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code.

Rationales:

- Revised Penal Code in article 365 punishes not only reckless but also simple negligence. If we were to hold that articles 1902
to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only to fault or negligence not punished by law, according to the literal import of article 1093 of the Civil
Code, the legal institution of culpa aquiliana would have very little scope and application in actual life to find the accused guilty in a
criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make
the defendant pay in damages. There are numerous cases of criminal negligence which can not be shown beyond reasonable doubt,
but can be proved by a preponderance of evidence. In such cases, the defendant can and should be made responsible in a civil action
under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. Otherwise, there would be many instances of unvindicated civil wrongs. Ubi jus ibi
remedium.

- It is much more equitable and just that such responsibility should fall upon the principal or director who could have chosen a
careful and prudent employee, and not upon the injured person who could not exercise such selection and who used such employee
because of his confidence in the principal or director not depending on the issues, limitations and results of a criminal prosecution, and
entirely directed by the party wronged or his counsel, is more likely to secure adequate and efficacious redress.
ELCANO vs. HILL

Facts: Reginald Hill was prosecuted criminally at RTC Quezon City for killing Agapito Elcano. At the time of occurence, Reginald Hill is
still a minor and is already legally married. He is still living and gets subsistence with his father, Atty. Marvin Hill. Reginald was acquitted
on the ground that his acts were not criminal because of lack if intent to kill, coupled with mistake. Pedro Elcano filed a complaint for
recovery of damages from Reginald and his father, Marvin Hill. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The Lower court granted the
motion to dismiss. Hence, the present action.

Doctrine:

- The acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasi-delict, hence the acquittal is not a
bar to the instant action against him.

- Separate individuality of a cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana, under the Civil Code has been fully and clearly recognized, even with
regard to a negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have been prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case and for which, after
such a conviction, he could have been sued for this civil liability arising from his crime.

- If we were to hold that articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only to fault or negligence not punished by law, accordingly
to the literal import of article 1093 of the Civil Code, the legal institution of culpa aquiliana would have very little scope and application in
actual life

- To find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case,
preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. . Otherwise. there would be many instances of
unvindicated civil wrongs. "Ubi jus Idemnified remedium."

- ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil
liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of
the defendant.

- In reiteration of Garcia, that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law.
TAYAG vs. ALCANTARA
BAKSH vs. CA

Facts: Private respondent Gonzales filed with the trial court a complaint for damages against the petitioner for the alleged violation of
their agreement to get married.

Petitioner alleged in said complaint that she is lass of good moral character and reputation duly respected in her community and that
she was a virgin before she began living with him as she never had a boyfriend before; petitioner Baksh, on the other hand, is an
Iranian citizen, and is an exchange student taking a medical course at the Lyceum Northwestern Colleges in Dagupan City.

Respondent courted and proposed to marry her; she accepted his love on the condition that they would get married; they therefore
agreed to get married after the end of the school semester, which was in October of that year. Petitioner then visited the private
respondent's parents in Bañaga, Bugallon, Pangasinan to secure their approval to the marriage. Plaintiff's parents agreed to his
proposal for him to marry their daughter, and they likewise allowed him to stay in their house and sleep with plaintiff during the few days
that they were in Bugallon. By reason of that deceitful promise, private respondent and her parents — in accordance with Filipino
customs and traditions — made some preparations for the wedding that was to be held at the end of October 1987 by looking for pigs
and chickens, inviting friends and relatives and contracting sponsors.

Thereafter, the parties started to live together in defendant’s apartment. As a result of this live-in relationship, plaintiff became pregnant,
but defendant gave her some medicine to abort the fetus. Petitioner's attitude towards her started to change; he maltreated and
threatened to kill her; as a result of such maltreatment, she sustained injuries.

During a confrontation with a representative of the barangay captain of Guilig a day before the filing of the complaint, petitioner
repudiated their marriage agreement and asked her not to live with him anymore and; the petitioner is already married to someone
living in Bacolod City. Private respondent then prayed for judgment ordering the petitioner to pay her damages.

Respondent’s father, a tricycle driver, also claimed that after petitioner-defendant had informed them of his desire to marry Marilou, he
already looked for sponsors for the wedding, started preparing for the reception by looking for pigs and chickens, and even already
invited many relatives and friends to the forthcoming wedding.

The RTC, applying Article 21 of the Civil Code, ruled in favor of the private respondent.

Petitioner appealed the trial court's decision to the respondent Court of Appeals. Respondent Court promulgated the challenged
decision affirming in toto the trial court's ruling in favor of respondent Gonzales, holding that it was defendant-appellant's fraudulent and
deceptive protestations of love for and promise to marry plaintiff that made her surrender her virtue and womanhood to him and to live
with him on the honest and sincere belief that he would keep said promise, and it was likewise this fraud and deception on appellant's
part that made plaintiff's parents agree to their daughter's living-in with him preparatory to their supposed marriage. And as these acts
of appellant are palpably and undoubtedly against morals, good customs, and public policy, and are even gravely and deeply
derogatory and insulting to our women, coming as they do from a foreigner who has been enjoying the hospitality of our people and
taking advantage of the opportunity to study in one of our institutions of learning, defendant-appellant should indeed be made, under
Art. 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, to compensate for the moral damages and injury that he had caused plaintiff, as the lower
court ordered him to do in its decision in this case. Hence, this petition for certiorari under Rule 45.

Petitioner argues that Article 21 is not applicable because he had not committed any moral wrong or injury or violated any good custom
or public policy; he has not professed love or proposed marriage to the private respondent; and he has never maltreated her. He
criticizes the trial court for liberally invoking Filipino customs, traditions and culture, and ignoring the fact that since he is a foreigner, he
is not conversant with such Filipino customs, traditions and culture. Petitioner asseverates that even if it was to be assumed arguendo
that he had professed his love to the private respondent and had also promised to marry her, such acts would not be actionable in view
of the special circumstances of the case. The mere breach of promise is not actionable.

Doctrine:

- The court held that breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong; however, damages may be recovered based on
Article 21 due to respondent’s fraud and deceit and wilful injury to respondent’s honor and reputation. The existing rule is that a breach
of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. However, the Civil Code contains a provision, Article 21, which is designed to
expand the concept of torts or quasi-delict in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs
which is impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books.

- The Code Commission states that there are countless gaps in the statutes, which leave so many victims of moral wrongs
helpless, even though they have actually suffered material and moral injury, the Commission has deemed it necessary, in the interest of
justice, to incorporate in the proposed Civil Code the following rule:

- Art. 23. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

- Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which defines a quasi-delict thus:

“Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this Chapter.”

- It is limited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes the notion of willfulness or intent.
 - Quasi-delict, known in Spanish legal treatises as culpa aquiliana, is a civil law concept, while torts is an Anglo-American or
common law concept.

- Torts is much broader than culpa aquiliana because it includes not only negligence, but international criminal acts as well such
as assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit. In the general scheme of the Philippine legal system envisioned by the
Commission responsible for drafting the New Civil Code, intentional and malicious acts, with certain exceptions, are to be governed by
the Revised Penal Code while negligent acts or omissions are to be covered by Article 2176 of the Civil Code. In between these
opposite spectrums are injurious acts which, in the absence of Article 21, would have been beyond redress. Thus, Article 21 fills that
vacuum. It is even postulated that together with Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code, Article 21 has greatly broadened the scope of the
law on civil wrongs; it has become much more supple and adaptable than the Anglo-American law on torts.

- In the line with the purpose of Article 21, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that where a man's promise to marry is in fact the
proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the
proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that
the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the
sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud
and deceit behind it and the wilful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter.

- It is essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy. In the instant case, respondent Court found that it was the petitioner's "fraudulent and deceptive protestations of love for and
promise to marry plaintiff that made her surrender her virtue and womanhood to him and to live with him on the honest and sincere
belief that he would keep said promise, and it was likewise these fraud and deception on appellant's part that made plaintiff's parents
agree to their daughter's living-in with him preparatory to their supposed marriage.”

- In short, the private respondent surrendered her virginity, the cherished possession of every single Filipina, not because of lust
but because of moral seduction — the kind illustrated by the Code Commission.

DULAY vs. CA

Facts: On December 7, 1988, an altercation between Benigno Torzuela and Atty. Napoleon Dulay occurred at the "Big Bang Sa
Alabang," Alabang Village, Muntinlupa as a result of which Benigno Torzuela, the security guard on duty at the said carnival, shot and
killed Atty. Napoleon Dulay. Petitioners prayed for actual, compensatory, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. On March
2, 1989, private respondent SUPERGUARD filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the complaint does not state a valid cause of
action. SUPERGUARD claimed that Torzuela's act of shooting Dulay was beyond the scope of his duties, and that since the alleged act
of shooting was committed with deliberate intent (dolo), the civil liability therefor is governed by Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code.
Respondent SUPERGUARD further alleged that a complaint for damages based on negligence under Article 2176 of the New Civil
Code cannot lie since the civil liability under Article 2176 applies only to quasi-offenses under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. In
addition, the private respondent argued that petitioners' filing of the complaint is premature considering that the conviction of Torzuela in
a criminal case is a condition sine qua non for the employer's subsidiary liability. Respondent SAFEGUARD also filed a motion praying
that it be excluded as defendant on the ground that defendant Torzuela is not one of its employees.

On April 13, 1989, respondent Judge Regino issued an order granting SUPERGUARD'S motion to dismiss and SAFEGUARD'S motion
for exclusion as defendant. The respondent judge held that the complaint did not state facts necessary or sufficient to constitute a
quasi-delict since it does not mention any negligence on the part of Torzuela in shooting Napoleon Dulay or that the same was done in
the performance of his duties. Respondent judge ruled that mere allegations of the concurring negligence of the defendants (private
respondents herein) without stating the facts showing such negligence are mere conclusions of law.

Petitioners take exception to the assailed decision and insist that quasi-delicts are not limited to acts of negligence but also cover acts
that are intentional and voluntary. Thus, petitioners insist that Torzuela' s act of shooting Napoleon Dulay constitutes a quasi-delict
actionable under Article 2176 of the New Civil Code.

Petitioners further contend that under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, private respondents are primarily liable for their negligence
either in the selection or supervision of their employees. This liability is independent of the employee's own liability for fault or
negligence and is distinct from the subsidiary civil liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The civil action against the
employer may therefore proceed independently of the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111 Section 3 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners
submit that the question of whether Torzuela is an employee of respondent SUPERGUARD or SAFEGUARD would be better resolved
after trial.

It is well-settled that the filing of an independent civil action before the prosecution in the criminal action presents evidence is even far
better than a compliance with the requirement of express reservation. This is precisely what the petitioners opted to do in this case.
However, the private respondents opposed the civil action on the ground that the same is founded on a delict and not on a quasi-delict
as the shooting was not attended by negligence. What is in dispute therefore is the nature of the petitioner's cause of action.

Doctrine:

- An examination of the complaint in the present case would show that the plaintiffs, petitioners herein, are invoking their right to
recover damages against the private respondents for their vicarious responsibility for the injury caused by Benigno Torzuela's act of
shooting and killing Napoleon Dulay. Contrary to the theory of private respondents, there is no justification for limiting the scope of
Article 2176 of the Civil Code to acts or omissions resulting from negligence. Well-entrenched is the doctrine that article 2176 covers
not only acts committed with negligence, but also acts which are voluntary and intentional.

- Private respondents further aver that Article 33 of the New Civil Code applies only to injuries intentionally committed pursuant to
the ruling in Marcia v. CA (120 SCRA 193 [1983]), and that the actions for damages allowed thereunder are ex-delicto. However, the
term "physical injuries" in Article 33 has already been construed to include bodily injuries causing death. It is not the crime of physical
injuries defined in the Revised Penal Code. It includes not only physical injuries but also consummated, frustrated, and attempted
homicide (Madeja v. Caro, 126 SCRA 293 [1983]). Although in the Marcia case (supra), it was held that no independent civil action may
be filed under Article 33 where the crime is the result of criminal negligence, it must be noted however, that Torzuela, the accused in the
case at bar, is charged with homicide, not with reckless imprudence, whereas the defendant in Marcia was charged with reckless
imprudence. Therefore, in this case, a civil action based on Article 33 lies.

- Under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code as aforequoted, when an injury is caused by the negligence of the employee, there
instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the selection of the
servant or employee, or in supervision over him after selection or both.

- The liability of the employer under Article 2180 is direct and immediate; it is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the
negligent employee and a prior showing of the insolvency of such employee.

- Therefore, it is incumbent upon the private respondents to prove that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in
the selection and supervision of their employee.

GARCIA vs. FLORIDO

Facts: German C. Garcia, Chief of the Misamis Occidental Hospital, his wife, Luminosa L. Garcia, and Ester Francisco, bookkeeper of
the hospital, hired and boarded a PU car owned and operated by Marcelino Inesin, and driven by respondent, Ricardo Vayson, for a
round-trip from Oroquieta City to Zamboanga City for the purpose of attending a conference.

While the PU car was negotiating a slight curve on the national highway at 21 km, it collided with an oncoming passenger bus owned
and operated by the Mactan Transit Co., Inc. and driven by Pedro Tumala. Garcia et al. sustained various physical injuries which
necessitated their medical treatment and hospitalization. Garcia et al. filed an action for damages against both drivers and their owners
for driving in a reckless, grossly negligent and imprudent manner in gross violation of traffic rules and without due regard to the safety of
the passengers aboard the PU car. RTC dismissed the case because it is not quasi-delict because there is a violation of law or traffic
rules or regulations for excessive speeding.
Doctrine:

- Essential averments for a quasi-delictual action under Articles 2176-2194 of the New Civil Code are present, namely:

a) act or omission of the private respondents

b) presence of fault or negligence or the lack of due care in the operation of the passenger bus No. 25 by Pedro Tumala
resulting in the collision of the bus with the passenger car
c) physical injuries and other damages sustained by as a result of the collision
d) existence of direct causal connection between the damage or prejudice and the fault or negligence of private
respondents
e) the absence of pre-existing contractual relations between the parties

- Violation of traffic rules is merely descriptive of the failure of said driver to observe for the protection of the interests of others,
that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, which failure resulted in the injury on petitioners.

- Petitioners never intervened in the criminal action instituted by the Chief of Police against respondent Pedro Tumala, much less
has the said criminal action been terminated either by conviction or acquittal of said accused.

- It is, therefore, evident that by the institution of the present civil action for damages, petitioners have in effect abandoned their
right to press recovery for damages in the criminal case, and have opted instead to recover them in the present civil case.

- Petitioners have thereby foreclosed their right to intervene therein, or one where reservation to file the civil action need not be
made, for the reason that the law itself (Article 33 of the Civil Code) already makes the reservation and the failure of the offended party
to do so does not bar him from bringing the action, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, We find no legal justification for
respondent court's order of dismissal

DISTINCTIONS

QUASI-DELICT vs. DELICT; QUASI-DELICT vs. BREACH OF CONTRACT

Quasi-delict is used to designate negligence as a separate source of obligation because it is more nearly corresponds to the Roman
law classification of obligations and is in harmony with the nature of this kind of liability.

- Fault or negligence of a person who, by his acts or omission, connected or unconnected with, but independent from, any contractual
relation, causes damage to another person (Article 2176, New Civil Code).
- Covers not only those that are not punished by law but also those acts which are voluntary and negligent.

Requisites of Quasi-delict (Based on the Spanish Civil Code and the New Civil Code):

1. There must be an act or omission constituting fault or negligence

2. Damage caused by the said act or omission
3. Causal relation between the damage and the act or omission.
4. There is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties

- Although the 4th element is no longer being cited in majority of cases because it is now well-settled that an action based on
quasi-delict can be maintained even if there is an existing contractual relation between the parties. In all such cases, the elements of
quasi-delict are present and the existence of a contract is merely incidental.

Delict

- Criminal negligence, covered by Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code

Elements of the Crime

1. The offender does or fails to do an act.

2. The doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary.
3. It is without malice.
4. The material damage results from the reckless imprudence; and,
5. 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 is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to
render some service

- 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 performance of the obligation are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, are liable for damages.
- Negligence is therefore only one of the ways of breaching a contract and the presence of negligence is not indispensable for a
finding of breach of contract.
Comparison
Vinculum Juris
Culpa Contractual Culpa Criminal
Culpa Aquiliana
(contractual (criminal
(quasi-delict)
negligence) negligence)
Act/omission
committed by
Negligent act/
means of dolo
Contract omission (culpa,
(deliberate,
imprudence)
malicious, in bad
faith)
Only involves private Affect the public
concern interest
Governed by
Civil Code provisions
on Obligations and
Art. 365 of the
Contracts, Art. 2176 of the Civil
Revised Penal
particularly Arts. Code
Code
1170 to 1174 of the
Civil Code
The Civil Code by The Revised
means of Penal Code
indemnification punishes or
merely repairs the corrects criminal
damage act
Includes all acts in Punished only if
which any kind of there is a penal
fault or negligence law clearly
intervenes covering them
 However, it should be noted that not all
violations of the penal law produce civil
responsibility, such as begging in
contravention of ordinances, violation of
the game laws, infraction of the rules of
traffic when nobody is hurt.
Proof Needed
Proof beyond
Preponderance of evidence
reasonable doubt
Defense available
Exercise of Exercise of diligence
extraordinary of good father of a
diligence (in family in the
contracts of selection and
carriage), Force supervision of
Majeure employees
In breach of contract
committed through
the negligence of In quasi-delict the
employee, the presumptive
employer CANNOT responsibility for
erase his primary the negligence of his
and direct liability by servants can be
invoking exercise of rebutted by proof of
diligence of a good the exercise of due
father of a family in care in their selection
the selection and and supervision
supervision of the
employee
Pre-existing contract
There is pre-existing
No pre-existing contract
contract
Burden of Proof
Victim prove the ff.:
(NDC) Prosecution. Acc
Contractual party.
• Negligence used is
Prove the ff.:
• Damage presumed
• Existence of a
• Causal innocent until
contract
connection bet. the contrary is
• Breach
Negligence and proved
damage done

Difference in Civil
Quasi-delict Delict
Liability
Liability of
Solidary Subsidiary
Employer
impliedly instituted
w/ criminal action,
Reservation but under 2000
impliedly instituted
Requirement Crimpro Rules it is
independent and
separate

Effect of judgment
of acquittal in a
criminal case
involving the same
act/omission
GR: NOT a bar to
recover
EX: when judgment
NOT a bar to
pronounces that
recover
the negligence from
which damage arise
is non-existent

- A single act or omission can give rise to 2 or more causes of action.

- Whenever a contractual obligation can be breached by a tort, it is also possible that two persons are liable for such breach even of
there is only one act or omission that causes the injury.

- Art. 2194 applies when there are two persons involved.

- Limitation imposed by law is the proscription against double recovery provided under Art. 2177 of the NCC.

- Although an act can give rise to 2 causes of action, the plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.

ARTICLE 2177, CIVIL CODE

Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil
liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of
the defendant.

ARTICLE 365, REVISED PENAL CODE

Article 365.
CASES:

BARREDO vs. GARCIA

Facts: Head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxi cab driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis.
The carretela was overturned and its passenger, Faustino Garcia, a 16 year-old boy suffered injuries from which he died two days later.
Fontanilla’s negligence was the cause of the mishap and was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of 1 year and 1
day to 2 years of prision correccional. Fausto Barredo, as the sole proprietor of the Malate Taxi cab and employer of Fontanilla was
negligent in employing Fontanilla who has several Automobile Law and speeding violations, so an action was brought against him.

RTC: awarded damages for Php 2,000.00 plus legal interest (6%)

CA: reduced the damages to Php 1,000.00 with legal interest (6%)

SC: Affirmed CA’s decision.

Laws: Arts. 1089, 1092-1093, 1902- 1904 of the Civil Code; Arts. 100-103, 365 of the Revised Penal Code

Doctrines:

Quasi-delict or "Culpa Aquiliana" is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own, and
individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict or crime. Upon this principle and on the wording and spirit article 1903 of
the Civil Code, the primary and direct responsibility of employers may be safely anchored.

Some of the differences between crimes under the Penal Code and the culpa aquiliana or cuasi-delito under the Civil Code are:

1. That crimes affect the public interest, while cuasi-delitos are only of private concern.
2. That, consequently, the Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code, by means of
indemnification, merely repairs the damage.
3. That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because the former are punished only if there is a penal law clearly
covering them, while the latter, cuasi-delitos, include all acts in which "any king of fault or negligence intervenes." However, it should be
noted that not all violations of the penal law produce civil responsibility, such as begging in contravention of ordinances, violation of the
game laws, infraction of the rules of traffic when nobody is hurt.

Penal Code Civil Code

 minors and incapacitated
other persons
persons

direct (article 19) subsidiary (articles 20 and 21) direct(Art. 1903)

- Same act may come under both the Revised Penal Code and the Civil Code.
- Interpretation of the words of Article 1093 “fault or negligence not punished by law”
- Consequence of which are regulated by Articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code.
> The acts to which these articles are applicable are understood to be those not growing out of pre-existing duties of the
parties to one another.

- But where relations already formed give rise to duties, whether springing from contract or quasi-contract, then breaches of
those duties are subject to Articles 1101, 1103-1104 of the same Code.

- A typical application of this distinction may be found in the consequences of a railway accident due to defective machinery
supplied by the employer. His liability to his employee would arise out of the contract of employment, that to the passengers out of the
contract for passage, while that to the injured bystander would originate in the negligent act itself.

- Article 1903 of the Civil Code not only established liability in cases of negligence, but also provides when the liability shall
cease. It says: “The liability referred to in this article shall cease when the persons mentioned therein prove that they employed all the
diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage.”

- Exemption from civil liability established in Article 1903 of the Civil Code for all who have acted with the diligence of a good
father of a family is not applicable to the subsidiary civil liability provided in Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code.

- Distinction between civil liability arising from criminal negligence (governed by the Penal Code) and responsibility for fault or
negligence under Articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code, and that the same negligent act may produce either a civil liability arising from
a crime under the Penal Code, or a separate responsibility for fault or negligence under Articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code.

Rationales:
 - Revised Penal Code in article 365 punishes not only reckless but also simple negligence. If we were to hold that articles 1902
to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only to fault or negligence not punished by law, according to the literal import of article 1093 of the Civil
Code, the legal institution of culpa aquiliana would have very little scope and application in actual life to find the accused guilty in a
criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make
the defendant pay in damages. There are numerous cases of criminal negligence which can not be shown beyond reasonable doubt,
but can be proved by a preponderance of evidence. In such cases, the defendant can and should be made responsible in a civil action
under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. Otherwise, there would be many instances of unvindicated civil wrongs. Ubi jus ibi
remedium.

- It is much more equitable and just that such responsibility should fall upon the principal or director who could have chosen a
careful and prudent employee, and not upon the injured person who could not exercise such selection and who used such employee
because of his confidence in the principal or director not depending on the issues, limitations and results of a criminal prosecution, and
entirely directed by the party wronged or his counsel, is more likely to secure adequate and efficacious redress.

CRUZ vs. CA

Facts: On March 22, 1991, prosecution witness, Rowena Umali de Ocampo, accompanied her mother to the Perpetual Help Clinic and
General Hospital situated in Balagtas Street, San Pablo City, Laguna. They arrived at the said hospital at around 4:30 in the afternoon
of the same day. Prior to March 22, 1991, Lydia was examined by the petitioner who found a “Myoma” in her uterus, and scheduled her
for a hysterectomy operation on March 23, 1991. Rowena and her mother slept in the clinic on the evening of March 22, 1991 as the
latter was to be operated on the next day at 1pm. According to Rowena, she noticed that the clinic was untidy and the windows and the
floor were very dusty prompting her to ask the attendant fora rag to wipe the window and floor with. Prior to the operation, Rowena tried
to convince her mother to not proceed with the operation and even asked petitioner for it to be postponed, however it still pushed
through after the petitioner told Lydia that operation must be done as scheduled. During the operation, the assisting doctor of the
petitioner, Dr. Ercillo went out of the operating room and asked that tagmet ampules be bought which was followed by another
instruction to buy a bag of blood. After the operation, when Lydia came out of the OR, another bag of blood was requested to be
bought, however, the same was not bought due to unavailability of type A from the blood bank. Thereafter a person arrived to donate
blood which was later transferred to Lydia. Rowena then noticed her mother, who was attached to an oxygen tank, gasping for breathe
apparently, the oxygen tank is empty, so her husband and petitioner’s driver bought an oxygen. Later, without the knowledge of Lydia’s
relatives, she was decided by the doctors to be transferred to San Pablo District Hospital were she was supposed to be re-operated.
After Lydia experienced shocks, she died.

Doctrine:

Whether or not a physician has committed an “inexcusable lack of precaution” in the treatment of his patient to be determined according
to the standard of care observed by other members of the profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind the
advanced state of the profession at the time of treatment or the present state of medical science. A doctor in effect represents that,
having the needed training and skill possessed by physicians and surgeons practicing in the same field, he will employ such training,
care and skill in the treatment of his patients. He therefore has a duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably
competent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances. It is in this aspect of medical malpractice that expert
testimony is essential to establish not only the standard of care of the profession but also that the physician’s conduct in the treatment
and care falls below such standard. Further, in as much as the causes of the injuries involved in malpractice actions are determinable
only in the light of scientific knowledge, it has been recognized that expert testimony is usually necessary to the conclusion as to
causation.

In litigations involving medical negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing appellant’s negligence and for a reasonable
conclusion of negligence, there must be proof of breach of duty on the part of the surgeon as well as causal connection of such breach
and the resulting death of his patient.

In order that there may be recovery for an injury, however, it must be shown that the injury for which recovery is sought must be
legitimate consequence of the wrong done; the connection between the negligence and the injury must be a direct and natural
reference of events, unbroken by intervening efficient causes. In other words, the negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury.
For negligence, no matter what it consists, cannot create a right of action unless it is the proximate cause of the injury complained of
and the proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury and without which the result would have occurred.

The elements of reckless imprudence are:

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
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.

The possible causes of hemorrhage during an operation are: 1.) the failure of the surgeon to tie or suture a cut blood vessel; 2.)
allowing a cut blood vessel to get out of control; 3.) the subsequent loosening of the tie or suture applied to a cut blood vessel; and 4.)
and a clotting defect known as DIC.
PEOPLE vs. LIGON

Facts: An appeal from the judgment of the RTC convicting accused of the crime of robbery with homicide sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua. The victim was Jose Rosales, a 17-year-old working student who was earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. He was
allegedly robbed of his cigarette box, and the latter upon clinging to the window of the accused, lost his grip and fell down the pavement
as the car sped up. On appeal. The Court held that it was not convinced with moral certainty of the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, hence he was acquitted.

Doctrine:

It does not follow that a person who is not criminally liable is also free from civil liability. While the guilt must be established beyond
reasonable doubt in a criminal prosecution, only preponderance of evidence is required in a civil action.

On the basis of the trial court’s evaluation of the testimonies of both prosecution and defense witness at the trial and applying the
quantum of proof required in civil cases, We find that a preponderance of evidence establishes that Gabat by his act and omission with
fault and negligence caused damage to Rosales and should answer civilly for the damage done.

PHILIPPINE RABBIT vs. PEOPLE

Facts: This is a petition for review under rule 45 of the rules of court assailing resolutions of CA. Petitioner's appeal from the judgment
of the RTC of San Fernando, La Union in Criminal Case No. 2535 was dismissed.

On July 1994 accused Napoleon Roman y Macadangdang was found guilty and convicted of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting
to triple homicide, multiple physical injuries and damage to property and was sentenced to suffer the penalty. The court further ruled
that in the event of the insolvency of accused, petitioner shall be liable for the civil liabilities of the accused. Evidently, the judgment
against accused had become final and executory. Evidently, the judgment against the accused had become final and executory.Then
the accused jumped bail, worth mentioning that rule 8, rule 124 of the rules of court authorizes the dismissal of appeal when appellant
jumps bail. The counsel for accused hired by rabbit bus lines filed a notice of appeal which was denied by the trial court.The CA ruled
that the institution of a criminal case implied the institution also of the civil action arising from the offense. Thus, once determined in the
criminal case against the accused-employee, the employer’s subsidiary civil liability as set forth in Article 103 of the Revised Penal
Code becomes conclusive and enforceable.
Doctrine:

Petitioner argues that, as an employer, it is considered a party to the criminal case and is conclusively bound by the outcome thereof.
Consequently, petitioner must be accorded the right to pursue the case to its logical conclusion -- including the appeal.The argument
has no merit. Undisputedly, petitioner is not a direct party to the criminal case, which was filed solely against Napoleon M. Roman, its
employee.

Only the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime charged is deemed impliedly instituted in a criminal action; that is, unless the
offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes it prior to the criminal action. Hence, the
subsidiary civil liability of the employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code may be enforced by execution on the basis of the
judgment of conviction meted out to the employee.

It is clear that the 2000 Rules deleted the requirement of reserving independent civil actions and allowed these to proceed separately
from criminal actions. Thus, the civil actions referred to in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code shall remain "separate, distinct
and independent" of any criminal prosecution based on the same act.

What is deemed instituted in every criminal prosecution is the civil liability arising from the crime or delict per se (civil liability ex delicto),
but not those liabilities arising from quasi-delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts. In fact, even if a civil action is filed separately, the ex
delicto civil liability in the criminal prosecution remains, and the offended party may -- subject to the control of the prosecutor -- still
intervene in the criminal action, in order to protect the remaining civil interest therein.This discussion is completely in accord with the
Revised Penal Code, which states that "every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable."

ARTICLES 1170-1174, CIVIL CODE

Article 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any
manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.

Article 1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations. Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void.

Article 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such
liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances.

Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the
provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
 If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good
father of a family shall be required.

Article 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of
the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which, could not be foreseen, or which,
though foreseen, were inevitable.

ARTICLE 2178, CIVIL CODE

Article 2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict.

CASES:

CANGCO vs. MANILA RAILROAD

FAR EAST vs. CA

AIR FRANCE vs. CARRASCOSO

PSBA vs. CA

SYQUIA vs. CA

CALALAS vs. SUNGA

NEGLIGENCE

Article 1173 of the New Civil Code 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.

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate
the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not.

Negligence is the failure to observe 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.
 Negligence is want of care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not absolute term and its application
depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require. Where the
danger is great, a high degree of care is necessary, and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary care under the circumstances.

Negligence, as it is commonly understood is conduct which creates undue risk of harm to others.

CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE (Definition & Elements)

ARTICLE 20, CIVIL CODE

Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the
same.

ARTICLE 1173, CIVIL CODE

Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the
provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.

If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good
father of a family shall be required.

CASES:

PICART vs. SMITH

ABROGAR vs. COSMOS BOTTLING

STANDARD OF CONDUCT

ORDINARY PRUDENT MAN

CASES:
CACHO vs. MANAHAN
CORINTHIAN GARDENS vs. SPOUSES TANJANCO

CHILDREN

ARTICLE 12, REVISED PENAL CODE

COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE LAW

CASES:

TAYLOR vs. MANILA RAILROAD

JARCO MARKETING vs. CA
DEL ROSARIO vs. MANILA
YLARDE vs. AQUINO

EXPERTS/PROFESSIONALS

ARTICLE 2187, CIVIL CODE

Article 2187. Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or
injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used, although no contractual relation exists between them and the consumers.

CASES:

CULION vs, PHILIPPINES

US vs. PINEDA
BPI vs. CA

INTOXICATION

CASE:

WRIGHT vs. MANILA ELECTRIC

INSANITY

ARTICLE 2180, CIVIL CODE

ARTICLE 2182, CIVIL CODE

Article 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardians, the minor or insane person shall be
answerable with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed.

CASE:

US vs. BAGGAY

DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE

ARTICLE 2231, CIVIL CODE

Article 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.

CASE:

MARINDUQUE vs. WORKMEN’S

PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
BURDEN OF PROOF
RULE 131, REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE

PRESUMPTION
ARTICLES 2184-2185, CIVIL CODE
ARTICLE 2188, CIVIL CODE
ARTICLES 1734-1735, CIVIL CODE

RES IPSA LOQUITUR

CASES:

RAMOS vs. CA
BATIQUIN vs. CA
DM CONSUNJI vs. CA
CHILD LEARNING CENTER vs. TAGARIO
DEFENSES

PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE

ARTICLE 2179, CIVIL CODE

CASES:

MANILA ELECTRIC vs. REMONQUILLO

PLDT vs. CA

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

ARTICLE 2179, CIVIL CODE

ARTICLE 2214, CIVIL CODE

CASES:

GENOBIAGON vs. CA
RAKES vs. ATLANTIC
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE vs. CA

FORTUITOUS EVENT

ARTICLE 1174, CIVIL CODE

CASES:

JUNTILLA vs. FUNTANAR

HERNANDEZ vs. COA
GOTESCO INVESTMENT vs. CHATTO
NATIONAL POWER vs. CA
SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE vs. CA

ASSUMPTION OF RISK
CASES:

ILOCOS NORTE vs. CA

AFIALDA vs. HISOLE

DUE DILIGENCE

CASES:

RAMOS vs. PEPSI

METRO MANILA vs. CA

PRESCRIPTION

CASES:

KRAMER vs. CA
ALLIED BANKING vs. CA

DOUBLE RECOVERY

ARTICLE 2177, CIVIL CODE