Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HELD: Under the Corporation Code, Naguait is liable *Negligence: involves voluntary acts or omissions
CLASS NOTES
bec: (1) he actively managed the business; (2) there
was evidence that CFTI obtained reasonably adequate
insurance; and (3) there was a corporate tort in this
which result in injury to others, without intending to
cause the same
-actor fails to exercise due care in performing such acts
Torts: not defined in the NCC nor in any Philippine Law
BUT many scattered provisions on tortuous acts case. or omissions
-usually defines as: (1) what it is not; (2) remedies *Strict Liability: where the person is made liable
granted; (3) social/public policy protected Our jurisprudence is wanting to the definite scope of independent of fault or negligence upon submission of
“corporate tort.” Essentially, “tort” consists in the proof of certain facts
Damages: much longer treatment in the NCC; more violation of a right given or the omission of a duty
practical importance on damages imposed by law. Simply stated, it is a breach of legal DE LEON (pp. 1-3)
duty. Tort: common law expression
Practical Legal Relevance: vehicular accidents -used in French to mean “wrong”, derived from Latin
RPC or create an action for quasi-delict under the -why make intentional acts under QD? To make father HELD: Art. 21 may be applied in a breach of promise to
CC. Thus, there were 2 liabilities of Barredo: a and son liable marry where the woman is a victim of moral seduction.
subsidiary one arising from the driver’s crim negligence -A 2177, NCC expressly points out that there’s a Art. 21 is designed to expand the concept of torts or QD
nd a primary one as employer under the CC. The separate civil liability from criminal negligence BUT it in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for
plaintiffs were free to choose which course to take, and seems to apply to QD only so court dealt with this the untold no. of moral wrongs which is impossible for
they preferred the second remedy. They were acting limitation by upholding the construction that upholds human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in
within their rights in doing so. “the spirit that giveth life rather than that which is the statute books.
literal that killeth the intent of the lawmaker” (A2176
CLASS NOTES
is not just QD, so A2177 really has no problem)
Cinco v Canonoy
Art. 2176 which defined a QD is limited to negligent
acts or omissions and excludes the notion of
willingness or intent. Torts is much broader than
-during that time, culpa aquiliana (QD) doesn’t cover
acts against law? A1903, old CC expressly exclude culpa aquiliana bec. it includes not only negligence,
acts not punishable by law FACTS: Cinco’s car and a eepney collided. Cinco filed a but intentional criminal acts as well.
-SC needed to have very strong reason not to follow civil action for damage to property against the eepney’s
what the old law says because if A1903 applied literally
there would be no culpa aquiliana, if read together with
driver and operators. Thereafter, he also filed a crim
case against the eepney driver. CFI upheld the
suspension of the civil case pending the determination
CLASS NOTES
RPC (all acts would be under criminal negligence and so what’s correct? Include or not to include intentional
imprudence) of the crim case. acts? In Baksh, Davide showed role of A21, so he
-so in this case, emphasize scope of culpa aquiliana limited A2176 to negligent acts or omissions. A2176
and delict; why needed? Barredo was arguing that he ISSUE: WON there can be an independent civil action discussion is not necessary for the disposition of
was not solidarily liable and should only be subsidiarily for damage to property during the pendency of the the case (OBITER) THEREFORE, QD still includes
liable criminal action. YES. intentional acts!
-if applied today, would the result be the same? YES
through stare decisis + QD definition changed, removed HELD: Liability being predicated on a QD, the civil case ***Issue: WON QD covers intentional acts or not? If it
phrase “not punishable by law” may proceed as a separate and independent civil action covers intentional acts..
as specifically provided for in Art. 2177 of the CC. Fr litigation pt of view: it doesn’t matter
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 3
Fr academic pt of view: it matters! Kinds: compensatory, punitie, liquidated damages FACTS: Custodio et al built an adobe fence making the
(damages recoverable upon breach of a contract, as passageway to Mabasa’s apartment narrower. Mabasa
2. Damages stipulated by the parties), nominal damages (given in filed a civil action for the grant of easement of right of
AQUINO (pp. 842-843) vindication of a breach of duty which does not result in way against them. CA, aside from granting right of way,
-Reason behind the NCC Title on Damages: to see to it any actual or pecuniary damages) awarded damages to Mabasa.
that whenever a right is transgressed, every manner of
loss or injury is compensated for in some way or Damage, damages, injury: material distinctions ISSUE: WON award of damages was proper. NO
another. Injury: Illegal invasion of a legal right
-A2195, NCC: provisions on damages are applicable to Damage: loss, hurt, or harm which results from an HELD: In the case at bar, although there was damage,
all obligations regardless of source (delict, QD, contract, injury; in a popular sense, it is the depreciation in value, there was no legal injury. Custodio et al’s act of
or quasi-contract). regardless if caused by a wrongful or legal act; as constructing a fence within their lot is a valid exercise of
-A2196: rules under title of damages are w/o prejudice defined by statutes providing for damages: actionable their right as owners.
to special provisions on damages provided elsewhere in loss, injury or harm which results from unlawful act,
the Code. omission or negligence of another Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right. Damage is
-A2198: principles of general law on damages are -not synonymous to example, fine, penalty, punishment, the loss, hurt or harm, which results from the injury.
adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with the revenge, discipline, chastisement
NCC. Damages: recompense or compensation awarded for Damages are the recompense or compensation
-Indemnity has to be proportionate to the fault and to the damages suffered. awarded fro the damage suffered. Thus, there can be
loss caused thereby. Pecuniary loss: loss of money or something by which damage without injury in those instances in which the
-In actions for damages, courts should award an amount money or something of money value may be acquired loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal
(money value) to the winning party and not its equivalent duty. These situations are often called damnum
in property. People v Ballesteros absque injuria. In such cases, the consequences must
be borne by the injured person alone.
SANCO, (pp. 940-941) FACTS: Ballesteros et al were convicted of murder.
Basis of Law: introduced in NCC mostly from American They were ordered to pay actual, compensatory, and b. Damnum absque injuria
Law since they were either not expressly recognized or moral damages to the heirs of the deceased.
rarely allowed under old code, particularly on subject of AQUINO (pp. 843-845)
moral damages ISSUE: WON damages were correctly awarded. YES -“There is no liability even if there is damage because
there was no injury.” Mere damage without injury does
Scope of applicability of provisions on damages: HELD: Damages may be defined as the pecuniary not result in liability.
applicable to all obligations arising from sources compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury -A related maxim is qui jure suo utitir nullum damnum
enumerated in A1157, NCC, without prejudice to special sustained, or as otherwise expressed, the pecuniary facit – one who exercises a right does no injury.
provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in said consequences which the law imposes for the breach of
code. some duty or the violation of some right. Custodio v CA, supra
-don’t apply to compensation of workmen and other
employees in cases of death, injury or illness Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded “Thus, there can be damage without injury in those
-in other special laws: same rules observed insofar as in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of
not in conflict with Civil Code sustained. The party claiming such must present the a violation of a legal duty. These situations are often
best evidence available such as receipts. called damnum absque injuria.”
Concept of damages:
Damages: the sum of money which the law awards or Moral damages may be invoked when the complainant B. History and Development
imposes as pecuniary compensation, recompense, or has experienced mental anguish, serious anxiety,
satisfaction for an injury done or a wrong sustained as a physical suffering, moral shock and so forth, and had AQUINO (pp.1-5)
consequence of a breach of a contractual obligation or a furthermore shown that these were the proximate result
“Tort” provisions in our NCC were derived from Spanish,
tortious act of the offender’s wrongful act or omission.
French and Anglo-American Law. Therefore, RP SC
-pecuniary consequences which law imposes for breach
borrows heavily from decisions of the Court in other
of some duty or violation of some right. Custodio v CA countries especially Spain and US and relies from
annotation of foreign author.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 4
Roman Law served as main inspiration of NCC, as quite damages using only preponderance of evidence. It gives
evident in the field of QD: it added 4 new category of 1889 Civil Code rise only to civil liability. Here, the employer’s liability for
obligations that arise quasi ex delicto (a. liability of a 1. Civil Liability Arising From Criminal Offenses his employee’s NONCRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE is direct
judge who misconducts a case or gives a wrong A1089: Civil obligations arise only from law, contracts, and primary and not subsidiary, and he could be directly
decision; b. liability of an occupier of a building for quasi-contracts, acts or omissions punished by law and imputed in an action for recovery of damages.
double the damage caused by anything thrown or forced quasi-delicts. -an act or omission will give rise to civil liability only if it
out of the building, no matter by whom, on to a public -civil obligations from crime or misdemeanor was causes damage or injury to another or others.
place[A2193]; c. liability of the occupier if he keeps any governed only by Penal Code (A1092) so when criminal
object suspended from the building which would do action was instituted, the civil action arising from the DE LEON (pp.4-8)
damage if it fell; and d. the liability of the shop keeper, crime is impliedly instituted with the criminal action Tort law emerged out of criminal law; originally
innkeeper, or keeper of a stable for any theft or damage unless the offended party expressly waives the civil concerned principally with violent breaches of the place.
caused by slaves or employees, or in case of the action or reserves his right to institute it separately (1) Common law tort – judges usually define what
innkeepers, of permanent residents [A2000].) (A122, Law of CrimPro) counts as torts and how compensation is to be
-Code Commission initially wanted to adopt the word -right to recover damages arising from crime is measured. Still, a statute or even Consti may
“tort” in our NCC but decided later against it because completely dependent on the result of the criminal case. make certain conduct legally wrongful and may
“tort” in Anglo-American law “is much broader If an earlier civil action is instituted, upon start of criminal permit recovery of damages for such conduct.
(includes negligence, intentional criminal acts, false case, the civil action is suspended and would be (2) No clear distinction between tort and crime –
imprisonment, deceit) than the Spanish-Philippine determined by the result of the criminal case. If criminal initially, this was the case sine the development
concept of obligations arising from non-contractual action is dismissed, civil action is also deemed of anything like a clearly formulated conception
negligence. Intentional acts would be governed by dismissed, regardless if instituted with the criminal of a tort is comparatively recent.
RPC. However, some provisions used “tort” and action or separately. Civil liability is treated as purely (3) Notion of tort as a specific wrong – there was
therefore recognize it as a source of liability [Sec22 incidental to the criminal liability of the offender. The an attempt in 1720 to consider several specific
& 100, Corporation Code; Art.68 Child and Youth cases of Springer vs. Odin, Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and wrongs in a work consolidating them under the
Welfare Code; Sec. 17(a)(6) of the Ship Mortgage Pacific Co., US vs. Guy Sayco, US vs. Bernardo, and general heading of torts. Torts of a specific
Decree]. Even SC used the term tort in deciding Wise & Co. vs. Larion were ruled using this principle. As character have been increasing.
cases involving negligent acts or omissions as well ruled in rakes, any civil action not predicated on offense (4) Place of torts in the Philippine law – even if RP
as involving intentional acts. They defined it in committed or charged (based on law, contract, quasi- was a civil law country, some of the provisions
Naguiat vs. NLRC. contract, or QD) cannot be instituted with the criminal in the 1889 CC dealth with cases of the nature
-There is an evident intent to adopt the common law action. of torts + with US occupation, a number of laws
concept of tort and to incorporate the different, -When Penal Code revised, RPC retained what is now patterned after Anglo-American models have
intentional and unintentional common law torts in the contained in A100; Rules on CRimPro retained what is been passed amplifying the field of torts in
NCC. Tortious conduct for which civil remedies are contained in Rule 107 (check if still correct) Philippine legal system.
available are embodied in different provisions of the
code. E.g. Arts. 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36; A2199 on 2. Civil Liability arising from QD Functions or goals of tort law
contributory negligence and proximate cause (however, A1902: Any person who by an act or omission causes Medieval England: discourage violence and revenge
a blending of American and Spanish-Philippine Law) damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be Today: compensation of injured persons and deterrence
NCC liable fro the damage done of undesirable behavior:
In re: A1903: punish wrongful acts or omissions not System of thoughts (sorry, no parallelism in the
SANGCO (pp. xxxi-xl) punishable by law enumeration of de leon):
Civil Code of the Philippines: based on Civil Code of -said articles are not applicable to acts of negligence (1) Morality or corrective justice – defendants should
1889 (Spanish and French in origin); but many which constitute either punishable offenses(delicts) or be liable fro harms they wrongfully caused and no
provisions from codes of other countries were adopted. breach of contract. others; liability imposed when and only when it is “right”
Rules from Anglo-American law were adopted because -thus, the liability of employers, et. al. under now A2180 to do so
of element of American culture that has been are only subsidiary (in accordance with penal laws) (2) Social utility or policy – a good-for-all-of-us view:
incorporated into Fil life during US occupation; because -QD or culpa aquiliana or extra-contractual culpa: provide a system of rules that works toward the good of
economic relations that continue between US and RP; causative act or omission not punished by law and is society
and because US and English Courts have developed done ONLY negligently, where civil liability could arise (3) Legal process – litigation process is a good to be
certain equitable rules that are not recognized in the as governed by the Civil Code (not by penal laws), and preserved rather than abstract ideal of justice or social
1889 Civil Code the party aggrieved could file an ordinary civil action for utility
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 5
(4) potential conflicts – between justice and policy (4) existence of direct causal connection between the Important: Take note of 3 elements of QD: (1)
outlook and legal process outlook damage or prejudice and the fault or negligence of damages suffered by plaintiff; (2) fault or
(5) distribution of loss – the cost of loss suffered by private respondents; and negligence of defendant; (3) fault of defendant
plaintiff is not simply transferred to the defendant but is (5) the absence of preexisting contractual relations caused damages suffered by plaintiff
distributed through the defendant to a large number of between the parties.
individuals Taylor v MERALCO
(6) redress of social grievances – tort law a popular The allegation that private respondents violated traffic
mechanism that permits ordinary people to put authority rules does not detract from the nature and the character FACTS: 15-year old David Taylor with 2 others (Manuel
on trial of the actions as one based on culpa aquiliana. and Jessie) experimented with detonating caps were
(7) a mixed system – tort law a “mixed” set of functions Excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear taken from the premises of MERALCO. David and
indication of negligence. Manuel ignited the contents of the cap, resulting in an
CLASSES OF TORTS: Property torts and Personal torts explosion which led to David’s loss of his right eye.
CLASS NOT E
the acquittal of the driver in the crim case is not a bar to
the civil case for damages based on QD.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 6
All the essential averments for a QD action are - Negligence is the “failure to observe, for the physical condition and other circumstance regarding
present, namely: protection of the interest of another person, that persons, time and place.
1) Act or omission constituting fault or negligence degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the Simple imprudence consists in the lack of
on the part of private respondent; circumstances reasonably impose. When the precaution displayed in those cases in which the
2) Damage caused by the said act or omission; danger is great a high degree of care is necessary, damage impending to be caused is not immediate not
3) Direct causal relation between the damage and and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary he danger clearly manifest.
the act or omission; and care.”
4) No pre-existing contractual relation between - Negligence is conduct, not a state of mind or the Barredo v Garcia, supra
the parties. use of sound judgment.
- Negligence is a matter of risk – that is to say, of RULE: A QD or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal
CLASS NOT E
cognizable danger of injury. The actor does not
desire to bring about the consequences which
follow, nor does he know that they are substantially
institution under the CC, with a substantially all its own,
and individuality that is entirely apart and independent
Important: There must exist a direct causal connection from crime.
to occur, or believe they will. There is merely a risk
1. act or omission of such consequences sufficiently great to lead a
reasonable man in his position to anticipate them, CLASS NOT ES
I SANGCO (pp. 1-4) and to guard against them.
- The culpability of the actor’s conduct must be Delict Quasi-Delict
- Conduct may be legally described in terms of action
judged in the light of the possibilities apparent to Public interest Private interest
and inaction or “misfeasance” or “nonfeasance.”
him at the time and not by looking backward “with Penal Code Civil Code
Misfeasance is active misconduct working positive
injury to others; while nonfeasance is passive the wisdom born of the event.” The standard must Punished only by penal Any kind of fault of
inaction or failure to take steps to protect them from be one of conduct, rather than consequences. At law negligence
harm the same time, the standard imposed must be an Guilt beyond reasonable Preponderance of
- Liability in tort may be predicated upon an injury external one, based upon what society demands of doubt evidence
resulting from an unlawful or illegal act or omission, the individual rather than upon his own notion of
whether injury is on property or person what is proper. People v Ligon
- Intentional omissions must not be treated as cases
2. cause damage of negligence. These are not cases of omissions; FACTS: Based on the testimony of a taxi driver, Gabat
they are cases of positive action. was convicted of Robbery with Homicide committed
I SANGCO (pp. 87-90) against a 17-yo student working as a cigarette vendor.
- QD liability presupposes 2 conditions: (1) a B. Distinguished
connection of cause and effect between the person A. Quasi-delict v Delict ISSUE: WON Gabat’s guilt was proven BRD.
liable and the fact from which damage results; (2) a
fault of this person, which implies at once an act of Art 2177, NCC HELD: NO. Gabat’s guilt has not been established
intelligent volition that is illicit, or contrary to law Responsibility for fault or negligence under the beyond reasonable doubt, but preponderance of
- It must be shown that the damage to the plaintiff, preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from evidence establishes that by his ct or omission, with
who must prove it, was the natural and probable, or the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal fault and negligence, he caused damage to the victim
direct and immediate consequence of defendant’s Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for and should answer civilly for the damage done.
culpable act or omission the same act or omission of the defendant.
- Proximate cause is determined on the facts of each It does not follow that a person who is not criminally
case upon mixed considerations of logic, common liable is also free from civil liability. While the guilt of the
Art 365, RPC. Imprudence and Negligence.
sense, policy and precedent. accused in a criminal case must be established BRD,
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but
only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil
without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which
action for damages. The judgment of acquittal
material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack
extinguishes civil liability only when it includes a
of precaution on the part of the person performing or
declaration that the facts from which the civil liability
failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his
3. fault or negligence might arise did not exist.
employment or occupation, degree of intelligence,
I SANGCO (p5-7)
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 7
34 & 2176 of the CC shall remain separate, distinct and
CLASS NOT E
Defendants argue that they are not covered by 2180 as
they are an academic institution. RTC and CA denied
motion to dismiss.
HELD: Action is based on BoC. The Deed of Sale and
Certificate of Perpetual Care govern the relation of the
parties and defined their rights and obligations. There is
Qualifies Air France case: QD should be
independent of BoC no stipulation that the vault would be waterproof. Plus,
HELD: The school is not liable under QD because [1] Memorial exercise the diligence of a good father of a
A2180 applies only if damage was caused by students family in preventing the accumulation of the water inside
Notes: Differences between QD and BoC in this case: or pupils [2] a 2176 applies only if there isno contractual the vault which would have resulted in the caving in of
Unde QD Under BoC relation. However, the SC ordered the remand of the earth around the grave filling the same with earth.
1. award for Injury If there was bad case because there was a contractual obligation to
moral damages faith or gross provide both education and security. Trial must proceed Doctrines:[1] If there is a pre-existing contractual
negligence to determine if the breach was due to negligence. relation, then any negligence would be actionable under
2. award for Gross negligence Act that is BoC, not QD. [2] If there is no stipulation or legal
exemplary as to wanton, Doctrine: Qualified Air France v Carrasco’s provision to the contrary, the diligence to be observed in
damages approximate fraudulent, pronouncement by saying the phrase, “the act that the performance of a contractual obligation is that which
malice (Art 2231) reckless, breaks the contract may also bea tort” only applies if the is expected of a good father of a family.
oppressive or BoC was done in [1] bad faith and [2] in violation of Art
malevolent (Art. 21 (willfully causing loss or injury to another in a manner
2232) that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy)
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 10
Governed by Art. Governed by Arts.
CLASS NOT ES
De Leon (pp.157-160)
1. Requisites of QD:
a. An act or omission by defendant
2176;
governed
and
by
also 1170- 1174
Art.
1172-1174 under Art.
The notes in this case are rather confusing.
Prof. Casis asks how putting a hole in the vault b. Fault or negligence by defendant 2178
would prevent water from entering it. c. Damage or injury to plaintiff Based on voluntary act or omission which has
d. Direct relation of cause and effect caused damage to another
between act or omission and the Requires only preponderance of evidence
damage
AQUINO (pp. 25-26) e. No pre-existing contractual
relationship
1. Culpa Aquiliana Distinguished from Culpa
Contractual
Culpa Aquiliana (QD) Culpa Contractual (BoC)
2. Burden of Proof
a. Falls on the person claiming damages
CLASS NOT ES
b. To be established with satisfactory Note from discussion: (hindi ko alam kung
Independent contract Foundation of liability is
evidence saang case to related) if there is a pre-existing
the contract and its breach contractual relation, base action on Art. 21.
c. Negligence is not presumed. Only
Defense is available No defense of diligence of
under Arts. 2180, 2183, and 2191 is
a good father of a family in
the selection and
presumed and burden of proof shifts III. NEGLIGENCE
to defendant A. Concept of Negligence
supervision of employees
3. QD arising from BoC
1. Definition; Elements
a. “the existence of a contract does not
Employer’s employer’s liability is Art. 1173 The fault or negligence of the obligor
preclude the commission of a QD..”
responsibility is direct and immediate consists in the omission of that diligence which
b. Contractual responsibility and extra-
presumptive is required by the nature of the obligation and
contractual liability exclude each other
corresponds with the circumstances of the
and cannot be cumulated.
2. Culpa Aquiliana Distinguished from Crimes persons, of the time and of the place. When
Culpa Aquiliana (QD) Crimes negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of
Tort liability arises from BoC when the is
Affect Private Public Interest articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2 shall apply.
act or omission is in itself wrongful
Concerns If the law or contact does not state
independent of the contract, the breach of
Indemnification Penal Code Punishes the diligence which is to be observed in the
which being merely incidental to the
Repairs Damage or Corrects performance, that which is expected of a good
commission of the tort.
Broad- include all acts Narrow – punished father of a father of a family shall be required.
where any fault or only if there is a penal 4. Culpa Aquiliana and Culpa Contractual
negligence intervenes law punishing it Distinguished
Employer’s liability is Employer’s liability is
direct and primary subsidiary
Culpa Aquiliana (QD) Culpa
(BoC)
Contractual
CLASS NOT ES
Wrongful or negligent The act or omission is
3. Concurrence of Causes of Action act or omission itself merely an incident in AQUINO on negligence (pp. 23-27)
- Far East Banc v. CA – a single act or the source of the the performance of an
omission may give rise to two or more causes obligation obligation Actionable negligence may either be culpa contractual,
of action (i.e. delict, QD, or BoC) Plaintiff has burden to Plaintiff need not culpa aquiliana and criminal negligence. Thus, an action
- liability for a tort may arise even under a prove the defendant plead or prove it was for damages for the negligent acts of the defendant may
contract, where tirt us that which breaks the was at fault or defendants fault or be based on contract, quasi-delict or delict. The bases
contract, where an act which constitutes a negligent negligence of liability are separate and distinct from each other
breach would have itself constituted the source No presumption that Mere proof of even if only one act or omission is involved.
of a quasi-delictual liability has the contract not defendant was at fault existence of a contract
existed. or negligent and its breach raises
presumption of fault or
negligence
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 11
CLASS NOTES
condition of liability, either criminal or civil, a child under
9 years of age is, by analogy, conclusively presumed to
be incapable of negligence; and that the presumption of
none.
Magtibay v Tiangco
when children trespass lack of discernment or incapacity for negligence in the
case of a child over 9 but under 15 years of age is FACTS: Rowel Tiangco, under 18, was found guilty of
child & adult: not same appreciation with
rebuttable, under our law. The rule, therefore, is that the homicide through reckless imprudence. Being under 18,
regard to contributory negligence
child under 9 years of age must be conclusively his sentence was suspended until he reached majority.
for children, you don’t stop at age, you look at presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a Later, in view of his conduct, his lawyer recommended
circumstances as well
matter of law. the dismissal of his case. CFI dismissed but reversed
2 cases: “Torpedo (flare gun cases)” and
the right of the heirs to recover damages in a civil action.
“Turntable” (DJ stuff) cases: the question RULE: A child under 9 years of age must be
involved has been whether a railroad company conclusively presumed incapable of contributory HELD: The suspension of sentence did not wipe out his
is liable for an injury received by an infant of negligence as a matter of law. guilt, but merely put off the imposition of the
tender years, who from mere idle curiosity, or
corresponding penalty in order to give the delinquent
for purposes of amusement, enters upon the Casis: Does this mean that Sangco did not set a minor a chance to be reformed. When, therefore, after
railroad company's premises, at a place where standard of conduct for children but merely a formula? he had observed good conduct, the criminal case was
the railroad company's premises, at a place No. The court did not cite him correctly. Sangco had the dismissed, this does not mean that he was exonerated
where the railroad company knew, or had a standard of an ordinary prudent child. from the crime charged, but simply that he would suffer
good reason to suppose, children who would
no penalty. Nor did such dismissal of the case obliterate
likely to come, and there found explosive signal
torpedoes left exposed by the railroad
company's employees, one of which when
CLASS NOTES
is civil liability for damages.
CLASS NOTES
OVER 9 BUT UNDER 15 may or may not be guilty
of contributory negligence, depending upon his mental
development and other circumstances (rebuttable
not be followed by any disaster, but here the leak
along the pipeline and the flooding of the
carburetor created a dangerous situation, which a
presumption)
Different from Taylor: prudent mechanic, versed in repairs of boat
OVER 15 YEARS presumed to have sufficient
o Taylor – contributory negligence, child engines, would have taken precaution to avoid.
capacity and understanding to be sensible of danger
as tortfeasor When a person holds himself out as being
with the power to avoid it
o Del Rosario – victim only competent to do things requiring professional skill,
(STANDARD is still that of a child his age and capacity,
Immaturity and natural curiosity taken into he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to
and not that of an adult.)
account exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in
STANDARD: ORDINARILY PRUDENT CHILD
the particular work which he attempts to do. Quest
The standard of conduct which a child must is experienced in fixing car and tractor engines, but
Ylarde v Aquino conform for his own protection is that of a not that of boats. A person skilled in dealing with
reasonable person of like age, intelligence and boats would have been sufficiently warned by the
FACTS: Edgardo Aquino ordered his students to dig experience under like or similar circumstances circumstances to cause him to take precaution
beside a 1 ton concrete block in order to make a whole or that degree of care ordinarily exercised by against the danger. Quest did not use the skill that
to bury huge stones. He left four of them to level the children of the same age, capacity, discretion, would have been exhibited by one ordinarily expert
loose soil around the open hole but allegedly telling knowledge and experience under the same or in repairing gasoline engine on boats.
them “not to touch the stone”. They, however, playfully similar circumstances.
jumped into the pit and caused the top of the concrete TEST as to whether an infant can be subjected to the RULE: When a person holds himself out as being
block to fall towards the opening. Ylarde wasn’t able to same standard of care as an adult: competent to do things requiring professional skill,
climb out and he died because of the injuries sustained. 1. type of activity involved is one that is usually he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to
engaged in by children exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in
HELD: The child Ylarde cannot be charged with 2. one involving the use of “potentially the particular work which he attempts to do.
reckless imprudence. (citing Sangco) The degree of dangerous, adult-oriented” instrument, like a car.
care required to be exercised must vary with the
capacity of the person engendered to care for himself. A
minor should not be held to the same degree of care as
WHERE CHILD IS HELD TO THE STANDARD OF
CARE OF AN ADULT, his violation of a statute or
CLASS NOTES
an adult, but his conduct should be judged according to other enactment entails the same consequences as
the average conduct of persons of his own age and those of an adult. Johnny Quest
experience. The standard of conduct to which a child when a person who holds himself out as being
must conform for his own protection is that degree competent to do things, he will be held liable
of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 15
for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care & FACTS: Lydia Umali underwent a surgery under Dr. employees. No matter how many justifications both
skill of an expert Ninevetch Cruz wherein the untidy clinic ran out of banks present to avoid responsibility, they cannot erase
high degree of care medicine, blood and oxygen that the patient had to be the fact that they were both guilty in not exercising
transferred to another hospital, where she died. extraordinary diligence in the selection and supervisions
of employees.
US v Pineda HELD: While it may be true that the circumstances RULE: The banks are expected to exercise the highest
seemed beyond cavil to constitute reckless imprudence degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of
FACTS: Pineda, a pharmacist, sold barium on the part of the surgeon, this conclusion is best employees (stems from the nature of their industry)
chlorate(poisonous) instead of potassium chlorate arrived at not through the educated surmises nor
which killed 2 horses.
care and skill. The responsibility to use care has requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his Nature of banks: imbued with public interest so
been variously qualified as “ordinary care”, “care of patient is, in the generality of cases, a matter of expert there is a higher degree of diligence required
a specially high degree”, “the highest degree of opinion. The deference of courts to the expert opinion
care known to practical men”, which is “the highest of qualified physicians stems from its realization that the
practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness, latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in
4. Intoxication
vigilance, and the most exact and reliable most instances are capable of intelligently evaluating.
Expert testimony should have been offered to prove that
safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct
of business, in order that human life may not
constantly be exposed to danger flowing from the
the circumstances cited are constitutive of conduct
falling below the standard of care employed by other
CLASS NOTES
substitution of deadly poison for harmless medicine”. physicians in good standing when performing the same
The care required must be commensurate with the operation. Not negligence in itself but it can be a factor
danger involved, and the skill employed must *questions to ask: (1) how do you know if a
correspond with the superior knowledge of the RULE: The deference of courts to the expert opinion of person is intoxicated or not? (2) when is it a
business which the law demands. The question of qualified physicians stems from its realization that the factor enough that it impairs your judgment?*
negligence or ignorance is irrelevant. The druggist is latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in
responsible as an absolute guarantor of what he most instances are capable of intelligently evaluating. Wright v Manila Electric
sells.
CLASS NOTES
CLASS NOTES
C. Proof of Negligence
1. Burden of Proof
RULE 131: BURDEN OF PROOF AND
What determines if an act if negligent is the PRESUMPTIONS
danger of an act. There’s only an alleged prohibition on part of BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS
The nature of the act of jumping into the sea employer
involves danger per se. Even if there was indeed a prohibition, violation Sec. 1. Burden of proof in civil cases. - Each party must
Why notorious negligence? Because of policy is not necessarily negligence per se prove his own affirmative allegations. Evidence need not
compared with other cases, the danger is but it may be an evidence of negligence be given in support of a negative allegation except when
apparent and imminent because the shore is such negative allegation is an essential part of the
1½ miles away from the location of the ship. It statement of the right or title on which the cause of
was not a case of the money falling off SANGCO (10-12) action or defense is founded, nor even in such case
someone’s pocket to the floor. He is not said when the allegation is a denial of the existence of a
to be a good swimmer but he jumped into the The amount of care demanded by the standard of document the custody of which belongs to the opposite
water as opposed to Cuervo vs. Barretto reasonable conduct must be proportionate to the party. The burden of proof lies on the party who would
wherein the emoloyer ordered him to jump into apparent risk. be defeated if no evidence were given on either side.
the water to protect the property of the
company. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE: Sec. 2. Burden of proof in criminal cases.
What determines the grossness of negligence?
The degree of danger and other factors which SLIGHT NEGLIGENCE - an absence of that degree of Sec. 3. Conclusive presumptions.
would justify the dangerous act. vigilance which persons of extraordinary prudence and
foresight are accustomed to use. (failure to exercise Sec. 4. Quasi-conclusive presumptions of legitimacy. -
Marinduque Iron Mines v Workmen's care)
Sec. 5. Disputable presumptions. - The following
Compensation
GROSS NEGLIGENCE – described as failure to presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may
exercise even that care which a careless person would be contradicted and overcome by other evidence;
FACTS: Mamador hitched a ride together with other
laborers on a company-owned truck. When the truck use. There is no generally accepted meaning, but the
probability is that it signifies more than ordinary (a) That a person is innocent of crime or wrong;
tried to overtake another truck, it collided with a coconut
tree, which resulted in his death. There was a company inadvertence or inattention, but less than conscious
indifference to consequences. (extreme departure from (b) That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful
prohibition against laborers riding the haulage trucks.
the ordinary standard of care) intent;
Petitioner claims that such violation was the laborer's
“notorious negligence” which, under the law, precludes
WILFUL, WANTON, AND RECKLESS – “quasi-intent”, (c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of
recovery.
lying between intent to do harm and the mere his voluntary act;
HELD: Mere riding on a haulage truck or stealing a ride reasonable risk of harm to another. They apply to
conduct which is still merely negligent but which is so far (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;
thereon is not negligence, ordinarily. Violation of a rule
promulgated by a commission or board is not from a proper state of mind that it is treated in many
respects as if it were intended (actor has intentionally (m) That official duty has been regularly performed;
negligence per se; but it may be evidence of negligence.
Under the circumstances, the laborer could not be done an act of unreasonable character in disregard of a
risk known to him or so obvious that he must be taken to
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 18
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such , whether in the o injury results from possession of
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful Art. 1734 dangerous weapons/ substances,
exercise of his jurisdiction; Common carriers are responsible for the loss, except when the possession or use
destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the thereof is indispensable in his
(p) That private transactions have been fair and regular; same is due to any of the following causes only: occupation/business
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural
(q) That the ordinary course of business has been disaster or calamity; Arts 1734 & 1735
followed; (2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international common carriers
or civil; loss, destroyed, deteriorate
ee) That a thing once proved to exist continues as long (3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; presume negligence common carrier
as is usual with things of that nature; (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing o UNLESS prove extraordinary
or in the containers; diligence
(ff) That the law has been obeyed; (5) Order or act of competent public authority. SANGCO (18-27)
Ramos v CA
along the right side of the highway. He sustained RIL applicable:
injuries. Defendant contends that the proximate cause No expert testimony
FACTS: Ramos, undergoing a gall bladder operation,
was the failure of the driver of the parked truck to install Court adjudicated based on common
went comatose because she was incorrectly intubated.
an early warning device. IAC concluded that under the knowledge fund
doctrine, the plaintiff was negligent. The question is The foundation of RIL is common knowledge
HELD: Res ipsa (The thing or transaction speaks for
whether the doctrine was applicable.
itself) – the fact of the occurrence of the injury, taken evidentiary rule: doesn’t do away with
with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an presenting evidence
HELD: Res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself) –
inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make must prove these elements:
Where the thing which causes the injury is shown to be
out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a question
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 20
accident doesn’t occur w/o person’s negligence (2) The patient underwent no other operation which Rule: The theoretical basis for the doctrine is its
defendant has exclusive control over the could habe caused the offending piece of rubber to necessity.
instrumentality appear in her uterus, it stands to reason that it could
no contributory negligence on plaintiff’s part
RIL & malpractice suits:
o Gen rule: expert testimony needed
habe only been a by-product of the caesarian section.
F. DEFENSES
CLASS NOTES
right to be on that street. There was nothing abnormal
in letting a child run along a few paces ahead of the
mother. Contributory negligence of the child and her
proximate cause: negligence of repairman in
1. Plaintiff’s negligence turning with GI sheet mother, if any, does not operate as a bar to recovery but
2. Contributory negligence could only result in reduction of damages.
difference between this & Astudillo v. Manila
3. Fortuitous event Electric Co.:
4.
5.
6.
Assumption of risk
Due diligence
Damnum absque injuria
o Meralco would’ve had to have been
more careful if public place
CLASS NOTES
* The son could have sued stepbrother of his
7. Prescription No contributory negligence of mother & kid
father for building the house so close to the
8. Double recovery Even if they did have contributory negligence, it
wire*
is not a bar to recovery; only mitigates
1. Plaintiff’s Negligence
HELD: Court said Meralco was not negligent. But 2. Contributory Negligence
assuming it was Magno’s heirs still can’t recover Bernal v House
because the proximate cause of the electrocution was Art. 2179, NCC
not the electric wire but the reckless and negligent act of FACTS: Mother and child were walking along a street, When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate
Magno in turning around and swinging the galvanized with the child a few steps ahead. She got startled by an and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover
iron sheet without precaution. It is assumed that due to automobile and ran back to her mother. She fell into a damages. But if his negligence was only contributory,
his age and experience, he was qualified to do the job. ditch with hot water and later died. CFI denied damages the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being
to parents because they were negligent. the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 22
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the second, Court found that there was a general prohibition Both negligent but proximate cause is the teller
damages to be awarded. (n) against walking by the side of the car. The disobedience allowing the practice of validating incomplete
of the plaintiff in placing himself in danger contributed in form
some degree to the injury as a proximate, although not Solution to proximate cause issue: 60-40
Art. 2214, NCC
its primary cause. The Court made a distinction between
In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the
the accident and the injury. If the plaintiff’s negligence *Sir has doubts as to the use of the Doctrine of
plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover.
contributed to the accident, he cannot recover. But if his Last Clear Chance in this case*
negligence only contributed to his injury, he may recover
CLASS NOTE
the amount that the defendant responsible for the
accident should pay fpr the injury, less a sum deemed 3. Fortuitous Event
Contributory negligence is a mitigating factor in an equitable equivalent for his own imprudence.
awarding damages.
Art. 1174, NCC
CLASS NOTES
Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when
it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the
accident v. injury nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk,
o accident: can’t recover no person shall be responsible for those events which
contrib. to primary event could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were
o injury: may recover inevitable.
Defendant’s contrib. –
Genobiagon v CA Plaintiff’s contrib. = Recovery
2 kinds of contribution: (1) contribution to the
FACTS: Rig driven by appellant bumped an 81 y.o. lady principal event; (2) contribution to his own
injury
who was crossing the street. His defense was that it was
the old lady who bumped his car. TC and CA found him
guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. Phil. Bank of Commerce v CA
CLASS NOTES
HELD: Court said that the alleged contributory FACTS: For over a year, RMC’s secretary had been ** Is this really a defense? **
negligence of the victim, if any, does not exonerate depositing the company’s money to her husband’s bank there’s only one case cited because in Transpo
accused. The defense of contributory negligence does account, without the company noticing it. RMC sued course, Court was not always consistent
not apply in criminal cases committed through reckless PBC to collect the money. whether a tire blowout is a fortuitous event or
imprudence since one cannot allege the negligence of not
another to evade the effects of his own negligence. HELD: Court held that the proximate cause was the *how different is a tire blowout from a fire?*
negligence of the bank. The bank teller was negligent in *memorize elements of Fortuitous Event*
Rakes v Atlantic validating the duplicate copy of the deposit slip even if
ccount name was left blank, contrary to the bank’s self- NOTES: Sir said force majeure is not the same as Acts
FACTS: The truck plaintiff was riding fell because the imposed procedure; and PBC was negligent in the of God.
track sagged. The rails that they were transporting slid selection and supervision of employees. However, Court
off the truck and caught his lag. Later, his leg was found that RMC was also negligent in not checking its Juntilla v Funtanar
amputated. Company said Rakes was negligent monthly statements of account for more than one year.
because: (1) he continued his work despite having This omission by RMC amounts to contributory FACTS: Plaintiff was seated in the front passenger seat
noticed the depression in the track, and (2) he walked negligence which shall mitigate the damages that may of a public utility jeepney when the right tire blew up. He
on the ends of the ties at the side of the car instead of be awarded to it. Therefore: 60 - 40 ratio in damages. was thrown out of the jeep and suffered injuries. He
along the boards. also lost his omega watch.
CLASS NOT ES
for further treatment.
majeure.
Gotesco’s defense: force NOTE: This case established that fire is a fortuitous
event.
Many possibilities were pposed by the Court to HELD: (1) Having interposed force majeure as a
justify that the tire blowing up was not a defense, Gotesco had the burden to prove that the
fortuitous event.
Important: memorize characteristics of caso
fortuito
collapse was indeed caused by force majeure. This
Gotesco did not do. Its own witness admitted that he
could not give any reason why the ceiling collapsed.
CLASS NOTES
(2) Force majeure – inevitable accident or casualty;
Hernandez v COA even which we could neither foresee nor resist; any fire was FE
accident due to natural causes, directly, exclusively *it was taken for granted that a fire is a
FACTS: Hernandez encashed 2 checks – salaries of without human intervention, such as could not have fortuitous event (there was no explanation
employees and operating expenses of the project. He been prevented by any kind of oversight, pains and care given why fire was a fortuitous event)*
chose to bring the money with him to his house in reasonably to have been expected.
Bulacan instead of returning to the office in Cavite. On (3) Assuming that the cause was force majeure, National Power v CA
his way home, 2 robbers boarded the jeep and took the Gotesco could still be held liable because it was guilty of
money. He ran after them, but was only able to negligence. FACTS: Respondents filed a complaint for damages
apprehend one. He filed a request for relief from money against NPC for loss of lives and property caused by the
accountability. COA denied the request. NOTE: Res ipsa loquitur applies in this case. flooding of Norzagaray, Bulacan. They claimed that
despite knowledge of the impending entry of the
HELD: SC held in favor of Hernandez. The decision he
made seemed logical at that time and one that could be
expected of a reasonable and prudent person. And if,
CLASS NOTES
typhoon Kading, NPC failed to exercise due diligence in
monitoring the water level so when the water level went
beyond the maximum allowable limit, NPC suddenly,
Ong’s incompetence is not equal to Act of God
as it happened, the 2 robbers attacked him in broad negligently and recklessly opened 3 of the dam’s
daylight in the jeep, while it was on a busy highway, and not necessarily Act of God just because there
spillways.
in the presence of other passengers, it cannot be said are no / unknown explanations
that all this was a result of his imprudence and even assuming that there’s FE, Gotesco is still HELD: SC did not accept defense of force majeure.
negligence. It was a fortuitous event, something that liable because there’s implied warranty in PRINCIPLE OF ACT OF GOD strictly requires that the
could not have reasonably be foreseen though it could public places act must be one occasioned exclusively by the violence
have happened, and it did. o still negligent of nature and all human agencies are to be excluded
Just because you cannot explain it, it does not from creating or entering inot the cause of the mischief.
NOTES: This case doesn’t say that robberies are necessarily mean that it is fortuitous. When the effect, the cause of which is to be considered,
fortuitous events. It just said that this particular robbery is found to be in part the result of the participation of
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 24
man, whether to be from active intervention or neglect, deep flood and got electrocuted. According to the NPC
or failure to act, the whole occurrence is thereby Engr, there were no INELCO linemen who were going
humanized.
CLASS NOTES
around.
2 GENERAL CAUSES: Ilocos Norte v CA FACTS: Ramos’ car collided with Pepsi truck driven by
1. By nature- earthquakes, storms, floods, etc. Andres Bonifacio.
2. By the act of man- armed invasion, attack by bandits, FACTS: After a 2-day typhoon, Isabel went out of her
governmental prohibition, etc. house to check on her grocer store. She waded in waist-
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 25
HELD: SC found Bonifacio negligent, but absolved it is not enough that the company provides - Respondent relies on the Doctrine of Relations or
Pepsi for having sufficiently proven that it exercised due manuals Relations Bank Doctrine to support his claim that the
diligence in the selection of its driver (background there has to be proof of enforcement and cause of action as against the proposed 3 rd party
check, clearance, previous experience, physical exam, actual application defendant accrued only on Dec 12, 1986 when the
driver’s exam- theoretical and practical driving exams). decision became final and executory. Thus, it is
In order that defendant may be considered as having 6. DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA contended that while the 3rd party complaint was filed
exercised all diligence of a good father of a family, he only on Jun 17, 1987, it must be deemed to have been
should not be satisfied with the mere possession of a instituted on Feb 7, 1979, when the complain in the case
7. PRESCRIPTION
professional driver’s license; he should have carefully was filed.
examined the applicant for employment as to his
qualifications, his experience and record of service. The Kramer v CA HELD: Action for damages arising from QD should be
presumption of negligence on the part of the master or filed within 4 yrs from the day cause of action accrued.
employer, either in the selection of servant/ employee or FACTS: 1976: 2 vessels collided The cause of action in this case accrued on Mar 25,
in their supervision, when an injury is caused by the - 1981: Phil Coast Guard concluded that the collision 1980 when the Monetary Board ordered the GenBank to
negligence of a servant/employee may be rebutted if the was due to M/V Asia’s negligence desist fr doing biz in the Phils, while 3 rd party complaint
employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in -1982: Coast Guard suspended 2nd mate of M/V Asia. was filed only on Jun 17, 1987 the action has
the selection and supervision, he has exercised the care -1985: Petitioners instituted complaint for damages prescribed.
and diligence of a good father of a family. against respondent. Motion to dismiss was filed on the
basis of prescription. NOTE, MEMORIZE ME (in footnote so not doctrine)!
“Relations Bank Doctrine” – principle of law by which
HELD: SC dismissed the case, saying that according to an act done at one time is considered by a fiction of law
Art. 1146, action based on quasi-delict must be to have been done at some antecedent period. It is a
instituted within 4 yrs. Prescriptive period begins from doctrine which, although of equitable origin, has a well
Metro Manila v CA the day the quasi-delict was committed. recognized application to proceedings at law; a legal
Allied Banking v CA fiction invented to promote the ends of justice or to
FACTS: A jeep and a bus collided. Their owners prevent injustice and the occurrence of injuries where
refused to pay damages to the injured passenger. FACTS: Apr 1, 1976 – Yujuico obtained loan fr otherwise there would be no remedy.
GenBank payable on or before Apr 1, 1977
HELD: SC held that testimonial evidence of due - Mar 25, 1977 – Monetary Board issued resolution
diligence, in order to hold sway, must be corroborated
by documentary evidence. Mere formulation of various
company policies on safety (as testified by Christian
forbidding GenBank from doing business in Phils.
- Allied acquired all assets and assumed all liabilities of
GenBank
CLASS NOTES
- Feb 7, 1979 – Allied filed complaint against resp Take note of Relations Bank Doctrine
Bautista), without showing documentary proof that they *Not sure if Relations Bank Doctrine is ratio in
were being followed or complied with is not sufficient to Joselita for collection of a sum of money
- 1987 – in the course of the proceedings, resp sought this case*
exempt petitioner from liability arising from negligence of
its employees. to implead Central Bank and Aurellano as 3rd party
defendants. It was alleged that by reason of the tortous 8. DOUBLE RECOVERY
NOTES: defense of due diligence is plausible when interference by the CB with affairs of GenBank, resp
defendant has presented enough evidence to overcome was prevented from performing his obligation under the Art. 2177, NCC
the presumption of negligence. It is not enough that it is loan. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the
alleged. - RTC denied admission of 3rd party complainant. preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from
- Petitioner claims that cause of action has already the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal
(Sir: MMTC said that it was not enough to issue prescribed. Since it was founded on tortuous Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice
manuals etc, but implementation or actual enforcement interference, it prescribes in 4 yrs. Petitioner believes for the same act or omission of the defendant.
is more important.) that the cause of action accrued on Mar 25, 1977, the
date when Monetary Board ordered GenBank to desist
IV. CAUSATION
CLASS NOTES
from doing business in the Philippines. Complainant
should have filed before Mar 25, 1981.
A. Proximate cause
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 26
More comprehensively, the proximate legal Prof. Casis included the case to show that it is
CLASS NOTES
cause is that acting first and producing the
injury either immediately or by setting other
events in motion, all constituting a natural and
not necessary to attend school to be an expert.
Quoted Taylor, but it should have been Rakes
Usually it’s the shorter definition that’s being cited in the
other cases. So for our purpose-shorter version continuous chain of events, each having a Urbano v IAC
The longer version can be shortened by removing close causal connection with its immediate
“sufficient intervening cause” predecessor, the final event in the chain FACTS: On October 23, 1980, Urbano hacked Javier in
*memorize definition of proximate cause* immediately effecting the injury as a natural his right palm. Javier was brought to a doctor who
and probable result of the cause which first issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9
acted, under such circumstances that the days. On November 5, Javier was seen catching fish in
1. Definition person responsible for the first event should, as dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. On
an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, November 14, he died of tetanus.
Bataclan v Medina have reasonable ground to expect at the
moment of his act or default that an in jury to ISSUE: WON the hacking by Urbano of Javier was the
FACTS: A bus speeding on its way to Pasay City at some person might probably result therefrom.
2am when one of its front tires burst, as a result of which proximate cause of Javier’s death. ---NO.
the vehicle zigzagged, fell into a canal or ditch, and Fernando v CA
turned turtle. 4 passengers were unable to get out of HELD: The tetanus, not the hacking, was the proximate
the bus. Calls and shouts for help were made in the cause of Javier’s death. The death of the victim must be
FACTS: Bertulano was invited to bid for the re- the direct, natural and logical consequence of the
neighborhood. At 2:30am, 10 men came, one of them
emptying of a septic tank, which had not been cleaned wounds inflicted upon him by the accused (People v
carrying a lighted torch made of bamboo with a wick
for 19 years. Before the award was made (he lost), he Cardenas). Medical findings lead to a distinct possibility
fueled with petroleum. When they approached the bus,
and 4 companions surreptitiously entered the septic that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an
a fierce fire started, burning the bus and the 4
tank, without clearance from the market master. They efficient intervening cause later or between the time
passengers. It appears that as the bus overturned, the
died in the septic tank due to the intake of toxic gas Javier was wounded to the time of his death. The
gasoline began to leak and escape from the gasoline
produced from the waste matter therein. infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the
tank, spreading over the bus and the ground under it,
ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the death of crime.
and that the lighted torch set it on fire.
the victims? Note: The court adopted the Bataclan definition of
ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident? proximate cause.
HELD: The proximate cause of the death of the victims
was their failure to take precautionary measures for their Phoenix Construction Inc. v IAC
HELD: The overturning of the bus, and not the fire that
safety. Considering the nature of the task of emptying a
burned the bus, is the proximate cause. The coming of
septic tank, especially one which has not been cleaned FACTS: A dump truck, owned by Phoenix, was parked
the men with the torch was to be expected and was a
for years, an ordinarily prudent person would askew on the right hand side of the street in such a
natural sequence of the overturning of the bus, the
undoubtedly be aware of the attendant risks. More so manner as to stick out onto General Lacuna St., partly
trapping of the passengers and the call for outside help.
with Bertulano, an old hand in this kind of service, who blocking the way of oncoming traffic. There were no
is presumed to know the hazards of the job.
CLASS NOTES
Note: The court adopted the Bataclan definition of
early warning devices placed near the truck. At 1:30AM,
Dionisio was on his way home when his car headlights
allegedly suddenly failed. He switched his headlights on
Definition #1 of proximate cause according to proximate cause. “bright” and saw the truck looming 2 ½ meters away
Bataclan v. Medina: from his car. His car smashed into the dump truck.
Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury,
CLASS NOT ES ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the accident?
Government negligence was not the proximate
and without which the result would not have HELD: The wrongful and negligent parking of the truck,
cause because it was not continuing.
occurred. and not the negligence of Dionisio, was the proximate
The claimant must establish that he had no
negligence. cause of the accident.
Definition #2 of proximate cause according to The truck driver’s negligence was far from being a
A higher degree of diligence is expected from
Bataclan vs. Medina: passive and static condition and was rather an
an expert.
indispensable and efficient cause.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 27
The collision of Dionisio’s car with the dump truck was a Proximate cause is any cause which, in natural
natural and foreseeable consequence of the truck
driver’s negligence. The improper parking of the truck
created an unreasonable risk of injury for anyone driving
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the result complained of
and without which would not have occurred and from
CLASS NOT ES
An admission by the court that proximate
down General Lacuna St. and for having so created this which it ought to have been foreseen or reasonably cause is what they think is fair in each case.
risk, the truck driver must be held liable. anticipated by a person of ordinary care that the injury
What the petitioners describe as an “intervening cause” complained of or some similar injury, would result
2. Distinguished from other kinds
was no more than a foreseeable consequence of the therefrom as a natural and probable cause.
risk created by the negligent manner in which the truck a. Remote
driver had parked the dump truck. Note: Different definition of PC from Bataclan case. This
Quoting Posser and Keeton on “Foreseeable case adds the element of foreseeability. Gabeto v Araneta
intervening causes”: If the intervening cause is one
which in ordinary human experience is reasonable to be Prof. Casis’s opinion: There’s no basis for this additional FACTS: Gayetano (husband of plaintiff) and Ilano took a
anticipated, or one which the defendant has reason to element. Under Art. 2202, foreseeability should not be a carromata to go to a cockpit. When the carromata was
anticipate under the particular circumstances, the factor. about to move, Araneta held the reins of the horse,
defendant may be negligent xxx because of failure to saying he hailed the carromata first. Driver Pagnaya
guard against it; or the defendant may e negligent only pulled the reins to take it away from Araneta’s control,
for that reason. Foreseeable intervening forces are
within the scope of the original risk, and hence of the
defendant’s negligence.
CLASS NOT ES
as a result of which, the bit came off the horse’s mouth.
Pagnaya fixed the bridle on the curb. The horse, free
form the control of the bit, moved away, causing the
carromata to hit a telephone booth and caused it to
*Sir said that there is a problem with foreseeability as an crash. This frightened the horse and caused it to run up
Note: Court mentioned foreseeability. element. So as a solution, if there’s a case similar to the street with Gayetano still inside the carromata.
Pilipinas Bank, apply Pilipinas Bank definition* Gayetano jumped or fell from the rig, causing injuries
from which he soon died.
negligence of Pilipinas Bank’s employee in erroneously case, upon a combined consideration of logic, common Classical description of remote cause with
positing the cash deposit of Reyes in the name of sense, policy and precedent. series of events.
another depositor who had a similar first name. The It is not the counting of the time but the
employee should have continuously gone beyond mere Note: Followed Bataclan’s definition. SERIES
assumption.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 28
Gavino was negligent for failing to react on time; truck driver and its owner, both acts of negligence are
Urbano v IAC Kavankov was negligent in leaving the entire docking the proximate cause of Custodio’s death.
procedure up to Gavino instead of being vigilant. Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or
FACTS: On October 23, 1980, Urbano hacked Javier in Negligence, in order to render a person liable need not omission of two or more persons, although acting
his right palm. Javier was brought to a doctor who be the sole cause of an injury. Where several causes independently of each other, are, in combination, the
issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9 combine to produce injuries, a person is not relieved direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third
days. On November 5, Javier was seen catching fish in from liability because he is responsible for only one of person, and it is impossible to determine in what
dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. On them, it being sufficient that the negligence of the proportion each contributed to the injury, either is
November 14, he died of tetanus. person charged with injury is an efficient cause without responsible for the whole injury, even though his act
which the injury would not have resulted to as great an alone might not have caused the entire injury, or the
ISSUE: WON the hacking was the proximate cause of extent, and that such cause is not attributable to the same damage might have resulted from the acts of the
Javier’s death. ---NO. person injured. other tortfeasor.
Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and
HELD: There is a likelihood that the wound was but the
remote cause and its subsequent infection, for failure to
take necessary precautions, with tetanus may have
is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the
injury. There is no contribution between joint tortfeasors
whose liability is solidary since both of them are liable
CL ASS NOTE
Prof. Casis thinks that this is a problematic
been the proximate cause of Javier’s death with which for the whole damage. case because the facts would indicate that the
Urbano had nothing to do. Reason: It is impossible to determine in what proportion victim was at fault because he was negligent.
each contributed to the injury and either of them is
3. Tests
Citing Manila Electric v. Remoquillo: A prior responsible for the whole injury.
a. “But for”
and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an
action if such remote cause did nothing more than Note: Liability of concurrent negligence = solidary.
furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by Bataclan v Medina
which the injury was made possible, if there intervened
between such prior or remote cause and the injury a
distinct, successive, unrelated and efficient cause of the
CL ASS NOTE Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
If the concurrent act was the proximate cause, the
injury, even though such injury would not have degree of participation does not matter. intervening cause, produces the injury, and without
happened except but for such condition or occasion. which the result would not have occurred.
What is the rule on liability? –liability is
Note: Italicized phrase=”but for” test
impossible to determine in what proportion
each contributed to the injury
This was intended to be a test of duty and not a
test of proximate cause.
If the foreseeable risk to plaintiff created a duty
CLASS NOTES
cannot be imputed as contributory negligence because:
(1) that condition was not created by himself; (2) his
house remained on this ground by the tolerance, and
The cause is the active aspect whereas the
which the defendant breached, liability is condition is the passive action that may thus consent of the train company; (3) even supposing
imposed for any resulting injury within the orbit produce the injury. the house to be improperly there, this fact would not
or scope of such injury, it is not the unusual justify the defendant in negligently destroying it.
It is difficult to distinguish between a cause
nature of the of the act resulting in injury to Rodrigueza’s house was built on the same spot before
and a condition because of the time element.
plaintiff that is the test of foreseeability but the defendant laid its tracks over the land.
A condition was a cause at some point in
whether the result of the act is within the ambit time.
of the hazards covered by the duty imposed Note: Condition = plaintiff’s house was partly within the
It cannot be cited in saying that cause and
upon the defendant. defendant’s property. Cause = the sparks on the train
condition are no longer applicable in our
which was the negligent act of the defendant.
jurisdiction because it only said that it is
CL ASS NOTE
discredited.
CLASS NOT ES
Bataclan v Medina
evidence of negligence.
It is not an efficient intervening cause when it is
already in existence during the happening of
ISSUE: WON there was an efficient intervening cause –
NO.
CLASS NOT ES
RATIO: The Last Clear Chance doctrine of the negligence is difficult to attribute
Glan People’s Lumber & Hardware v IAC
Common Law was imported into our jurisdiction by
Picart vs. Smith but it is still a matter of debate whether, FACTS: RMC had an account in PBC and Secretary of
RMC was tasked to deposit its money. However, it - may be used as basis against the ruling made on Last
or to what extent, it has found its way into the Civil Code Clear Chance Doctrine in the case of Phoenix
of the Philippines. The doctrine was applied by turns out that the Secretary would leave blank the
Common Law because they had a rule that contributory duplicate copy of the deposit slip where the bank’s teller
would validate it. Instead of writing the account number FACTS
negligence prevented any recovery at all by a negligent • jeep and cargo truck collided
plaintiff. BUT in the Philippines we have Article 2179 of of the company in the original copy retained by the
bank, Secretary would write the account number of • jeepney driver came from a beach party
the Civil Code which rejects the Common Law doctrine
of contributory negligence. Thus, the court in this case husband. Thus, RMC’s funds were now in Secretary’s • jeep was zigzagging
stated that it does not believe so that the general husband’s account. RMC discovered this after 7 yers • cargo truck was staying on his lane because the line
concept of Last Clear Chance has been utilized in our and then filed a case against PBC to return its money in the road was wrongly painted
jurisdiction. Article 2179 on contributory negligence is • case filed by heirs of the driver of the jeep who died
not an exercise in chronology or physics but what is RATIO: PBC was negligent when its employee, teller, as a result of the collision
important is the negligent act or omission of each party validated a blank duplicate copy of the deposit slip.
and the character and gravity of the risks created by PBC was also lackadaisical in its selection and RATIO:
such act or omission for the rest of the community. To supervision on the teller since it never knew that blank - The truck driver was not negligent and so cannot be
say that Phoenix should be absolved from liability would deposit slips were validated until this incident . Court held liable. Furthermore, the doctrine of Last Clear
come close to wiping out the fundamental law that a also applied Last Clear Chance Doctrine in saying that Chance also cannot apply because there is no
man must respond for the foreseeable consequences of PBC was really negligent. negligence of the other party
his own negligent act or omission. LAST CLEAR CHANCE - Even assuming that the truck driver was negligent, the
• Aka supervening negligence or discovered peril doctrine of Last Clear Chance would still absolve him
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 34
from any actionable responsibility for the accident -Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied in this
because both drivers had full view of each other’s RATIO: case because there was no negligence on the part of
vehicle. - Generally, the last clear chance doctrine is invoked for the Metropolitan Water District
• The truck stopped 30 m away from the jeep and so by the purpose of making a defendant liable to a plaintiff
this time, the jeep should have stopped or swerved who was guilty of prior or antecedent negligence, FACTS
• Jeep driver had the last clear chance to avoid the although it may also be raised as a defense to defeat • Kid drowned in one of the pools of Metropolitan Water
accident claim for damages District
• It was the jeep’s driver who had the duty to seize the - Thus, Pantranco raises the doctrine in order to • Reason why the kid drowned is unknown
opportunity of avoidance and not merely rely on a escape liability • Employees of the Metropolitan Water District acted as
supposed right to expect that the truck would swerve - However, the court said that the doctrine of last clear soon as calls for help were heard and tried to revive
and leave him a clear path chance cannot be applied in this case! the kid but he still died
- For the doctrine to be applicable, it is necessary to
- The doctrine of Last Clear Chance provides a valid • Case filed by parents of kid who drowned claiming
and complete defense to accident liability today as it show that the person who allegedlty had the last
damages against Metropolitan Water District
did when invoked and applied in the 1918 case of opportunity to avert the accident was aware of the
existence of the peril or should, with exercise of due • Parents of kid claim that Metropolitan Water District
Picart vs. Smith, which involved a similar state of facts may still be held liable for the doctrine of Last Clear
- Thus, this ruling would clearly apply to exonerate care, have been aware of it
• In this case, jeepney driver did not know of the Chance because it had the last opportunity to save
truck driver the kid
- did not apply the doctrine of last clear chance impending danger because he must have assumed
because the other party was not negligent that the bus driver will return to its own lane upon
RATIO:
seeing the jeepney approaching from the opposite
• There is sufficient evidence to show that Metropolitan
CLASS NOT ES
direction
- Court said that the doctrine can never apply where the
party charged is required to act instantaneously and if
Water District had taken all necessary precautions to
avoid danger to the lives of its patron or prevent
How did the case of Glan People’s Lumber the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all accidents which may cause their deaths
affect the case of Phoeix? In the case of Glan, means at hand after the peril is or should have been • Doctrine of Last Clear Chance: negligence of a
last clear chance was deemed to be a valid discovered claimant does not preclude recovery for the
defense. • In this case, Pantranco bus was speeding and at negligence of the defendant where it appears that the
the speed of the approaching bus prevented latter, by exercising reasonable care and prudence,
jeepney driver from swerving to avoid collision might have avoided injurious consequences to
• Jeepney driver had NO opportunity to avoid it claimant notwithstanding his negligence
- Sole and proximate cause of the accident: • The Last Clear Chance doctrine can never apply
Pantranco’s driver in encroaching into the lane of the where the party charged is required to act
incoming jeepney and in failing to return the bus to its instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided
own lane immediately upon seeing the jeepney by the application of all means at hand after the peril
coming from the opposite direction is or should have been discovered.
• In this case, it was unknown how the kid got into the
Pantranco North express Inc v Baesa pool and whether the kid violated one of the
- did not apply LCCD because there was no
opportunity to avoid the accident and the jeepney regulations of Metropolitan Water District because he
- awareness and opportunity went unaccompanied. It also appears that the
driver was not aware of the peril.
lifeguard responded to the call for held and
FACTS:
• Passenger jeepney and Pantranco bus collided when
Pantranco bus encroached on the jeepney’s lane
CLASS NOT E
immediately made all efforts to resuscitate the kid
• There is no room in this case for the application of the
doctrine!
• Heirs of passengers in jeepney who died filed this Do not apply last clear chance under the
case against Pantranco emergency rule
LCCD not applied because no negligence on the
• Pantranco wants the court to apply the doctrine of Important: memorize emergency rule part of Metropolitan Water District was proven
Last Clear Chance against the jeepney driver saying
that the jeepney driver had the last clear chance in Ong v Metropolitan Water District Anuran v Buno
avoiding the collision.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 35
FACTS: • Manosca was then granted a loan by Asian Savings Was there really negligence on the part of the
• A passenger jeepney was parked at the side of the Bank with the 2 parcels of land as security bank even if Manosca had an SPA and the
road since one of the passengers alighted • 2 impostors used who introduced themselves as the land title?
• A motor truck, speeding, then bumped into the spouses Canlas In Canlas, the Court talked about 2 definitions-
jeepney from behind with such violence that 3 • mortgage was foreclosed short and long: take note of these
passengers died • Canlas wrote to Asian Savings Bank regarding the
• Thus, this case was filed by the heirs of the deceased mortgage of Manosca of the 2 properties without their Consolidated Bank & Trust Corporation v CA
and of the injured to recover damages from the driver consent
and owner of the truck and the owner of the jeepney • Canlas filed this case for annulment of the deed of - Last Clear Chance Doctrine is NOT applicable in
• CA: applied the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance and real estate mortgage against ASB culpa contractual
held that only the truck was liable because although
the jeepney was guilty of antecedent negligence, the RATIO: FACTS:
truck was guilty of greater negligence which was the • ASB was negligent in not exerting more effort to verify • LC Diaz had a savings account with Solidbank.
efficient cause of the collision the identity of the sps Canlas • After messenger of LC Diaz deposited amount, it took
• The Bank should have required additional proof of the so long so he had to leave the passbook
RATIO: true identity of the impostor aside from their residence • Turns out that the passbook was given to somebody
• Disagreed with the CA and held that both the truck certificate else (not the messenger or any employee of LC Diaz)
and jeepney were liable • Applied the doctrine of Last Clear Chance which and was able to withdraw P300,000.00 from its
• The principle of Last Clear Chance would call for the states that: account.
application in a suit between the owners and drivers • Where both parties are negligent but the negligent • Thus, LC Diaz filed this case for the recovery of sum
of the 2 colliding vehicles. It does NOT arise where a act of one is appreciable later in a point of time that of money against Solidbank
passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to that of the other, or where it is impossible to • CA: found that Solidbank was negligent and it had the
enforce its contractual obligations. determine whose fault or negligence brought about last clear chance to avoid the injury if it had only
• For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the called up LC Diaz to verify the withdrawal
driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm
that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence but failed to do so, is chargeable with the RATIO:
- did not apply LCCD because there was a consequences arising therefrom • In this case, Solidbank is liable for breach of contract
contractual obligation on the part of the carrier to • In this case, ASB had the last clear chance to prevent due to negligence or culpa contractual
transport its passengers safely fraud, by simple expedient of faithfully complying with • The bank is under the obligation to treat the accounts
the requirements of banks to ascertain the identity of of its depositors with meticulous care, always having
the persons transacting with them in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.
• For not observing the degree of diligence required of However, in this case, they failed to do this.
banking institutions, ASB has to bear the loss sued • Solidbank was supposed to return the passbook only
upon to the depositor or his authorized representative, but
here, Solidbank through teller gave it to someone else
-applied the LCCD • Solidbank breached its contractual obligation to return
the passbook only to the authorized representative of
LC Diaz
Canlas v CA
• Thus, Solidbank was negligent in not returning the
-Last Clear Chance Doctrine can apply in commercial
transactions
CLASS NOT ES
passbook to messenger of LC Diaz proximate
cause
• CA wrongly applied the doctrine of last clear chance…
The Canlas sps. were negligent in giving their
FACTS: title to the property to Mañosca. • Last Clear Chance Doctrine is not applied in this case
• 2 parcels of land owned by Canlas were sold to With regard to the special power of attorney: because Solidbank is liable for breach of contract due
Manosca the SPA given to Mañosca was to mortgage so to negligence in the performance of contractual
• Manosca issued 2 check that bounced the presence of the Canlas sps. was actually obligation to LC Diaz
not a requirement.
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 36
• This case of culpa contractual, where neither the - Isuzu abandoned his lane and did not first see to it the plaintiff’s peril, or according to some authorities,
contributory negligence of plaintiff nor his last clear that the opposite lane was free from on-coming should have been aware of it in the reasonable
chance to avoid the loss, would exonerate the traffic and was available for safe passage. exercise of due care, had in fact an opportunity later
defendant from liability - After seeing the tamaraw, Isuzu did not slow down than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident.
• Such contributory negligence or last clear chance by • Iran, tamaraw driver, could not be faulted when he 1. As a phase of proximate cause principle
the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery of swerved to the lane of Isuzu to the lane of Isuzu to The doctrine of last clear chance negatives an
damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the avoid collision essential element of the defense of contributory
defendant from his breach of contract • Isuzu driver’s acts had put tamaraw driver in an negligence by rendering plaintiff’s negligence a
emergency situation which forced him to act quickly mere condition or remote cause of the accident.
LC Diaz guilty of contributory negligence in allowing • EMERGENCY RULE: an individual who suddenly The failure to avoid injuring a person occupying a
withdrawal slip signed by its authorized signatories to finds himself in a situation of danger and is required to position of peril may be a supervening cause.
fall into the hands of an impostor and so liability of act without much time to consider the best means that 2. Elements and conditions of doctrine
Solidbank should be reduced.—40-60 may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, it not Facts required:
guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what o That the plaintiff was in a position of danger
- LCCD not applied subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a and by his own negligence became unable to
better solution, unless the emergency was brought by escape from such position by the use of
CLASS NOT E
his own negligence
• Defense of Isuzu: invoked Last Clear Chance
Doctrine
ordinary care, either because it became
physically impossible for him to do so or
because he was totally unaware of the danger.
Implied that the last clear chance doctrine is
• SC: The doctrine of last clear chance states that a o The defendant knew that the plaintiff was in a
not applicable to culpa contractual
person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of position of danger and further knew, or in the
avoiding the accident, notwithstanding the negligent exercise of ordinary care should have known
acts of his opponent, is considered in law solely that the plaintiff was unable to escape
Engada v CA
responsible for the consequences of the accident therefrom
- However, no convincing evidence was adduced to o That thereafter the defendant had the last clear
- Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied; instead
applied the emergency rule. support this defense chance to avoid the accident by the exercise of
- Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied because - Furthermore, the doctrine cannot be applied ordinary care but failed to exercise such last
there was no clear chance –emergency situation. because there was no time or opportunity to ponder clear chance and the accident occurred as a
the situation at all. There was no clear chance to proximate result of such failure
FACTS speak of To state a cause of action, the pleader must
• Iran driving a tamaraw jeepney • Thus, driver of Isuzu guilty! disclose:
- did not apply LCCD because no clear chance o The exposed condition brought about by the
• In the other lane was an isuzu pick-up that was
negligence of plaintiff or the injured party
speeding.
1 Sangco, (pp. 74-81) o The actual discovery by the defendant of the
• Right signal light was flashing but swerved to the left
perilous situation of the person or property
and encroached on the lane of tamaraw jeepney injured in time to avert injury
• Tamaraw jeepney tried to avoid the Isuzu pick-up but The Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
o Defendant’s failure thereafter to exercise
Isuzu pick-ip swerved to where tamaraw jeepney was Also known as the doctrine of discovered peril,
doctrine of supervening negligence, humanitarian ordinary care to avert the injury
going and so they collided
• Information was then filed against the driver of the doctrine, doctrine of gross negligence
3. Parties who invoke doctrine
Isuzu pick-up charging him with serious physical The negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a
recovery for the negligence of the defendant where Many courts take the view that the doctrine of last
injuries and damage to property through reckless clear chance is not available to defendant. LCC
imprudence it appears that the defendant, by exercising
reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided can only be invoked in favor of the person injured,
injurious consequences to the plaintiff since it implies contributory negligence on his part,
RATIO: and is, generally speaking, only operative in those
• It was the Isuzu pick-up truck’s negligence that was notwithstanding the plaintiff’s negligence.
cases where, notwithstanding the injured person’s
the proximate cause of the collision A negligent defendant is held liable to a negligent
want of care, another person wantonly, or with
plaintiff or even to a plaintiff who has been grossly
negligent in placing himself in peril, if he, aware of
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 37
knowledge of the perilous situation of the person because the of the deed was no
injured carelessly or recklessly injured him. plaintiff in contractual
The doctrine embraces successive acts of the case are relation
negligence: primary negligence on the part of the the between
defendant then contributory negligence on the part passengers Canlas and
of the plaintiff which creates a situation of of the bus the bank
inextricable peril to him and then becomes passive who are Consolidated LC Diaz – No Liability of
or static followed by the subsequent negligence of asking for Bank v CA for the bank arose
the defendant in failing to avoid injury to the plaintiff. damages recovery of from culpa
Although the defendant may not invoke the Phoenix v Phoenix No Doctrine the sum of contractual
doctrine, it does not preclude him from proving that IAC (one of the was not money and so
the plaintiff had the last clear opportunity to avert parties who carried over doctrine
the injury complained of and thus establish that the caused the to the CC cannot be
plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence which collision) applied
proximately caused the accident and consequently Philippine RMC (one of Yes Just to know Engada v CA Inured party No There was
bars plaintiff’s recovery. Bank of the parties if PBC was (owner of no clear
Between the defendants, the doctrine cannot be Commerce v who caused negligent the chance in
extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a test CA the accident) but Tamaraw) avoiding the
of whether only one of them should be held liable to damages accident
the injured person by reason of his discovery of the were divided because it
latter’s peril and it cannot be invoked as between 40-60 was an
defendants concurrently negligent. Glan v IAC Heirs of the No Truck driver emergency
LCC applies in a suit between the owners and driver of the (other party situation
drivers of colliding vehicles. It does not arise where jeep (one of in the
a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier
to enforce its contractual obligations.
the parties
who caused
the collision)
collision)
was
negligent
not CLASS NOT ES
According to Sangco, the last clear chance
Summary on Last Clear Chance Pantranco v Heirs of the No There was doctrine is a phase of contributory negligence.
- The Last Clear Chance Doctrine renders plaintiff’s Baesa passengers no It is considered in determining proximate cause
contributory negligence as a mere condition of jeepney opportunity and should only apply when there is a time
- Invoked by the plaintiff (no contract) to avoid the sequence.
- Cannot be invoked by joint tortfeasors accident and Other names: doctrine of discovered peril,
Case Plaintiff WON Why? driver was doctrine of supervening negligence, doctrine of
applied not aware of gross negligence, humanitarian doctrine.
the the peril
Last clear chance doctrine considered to
LCCD Ong v Parents of No Defendant
determine the proximate cause.
Picart vs. Picart (one YES Smith had a Metropolitan the was not
Last clear chance doctrine should not apply
Smith of the parties clear deceased negligent
when there is a time sequence.
who caused opportunity Anuran v Heirs of the No There was
Buno passengers contractual The elements of the doctrine of last clear
the collision) to avoid the chance:
accident of jeep (with relation
contract) a) the plaintiff is in danger
Bustamante Passengers NO No b) the defendant knew of plaintiff’s state
Picart v Picart (one Yes Smith had Canlas v CA Canals (one Yes Defendant
c) the defendant had the last clear chance to
Smith of the clear of the bank had
avoid the accident
parties who opportunity parties who the last clear
caused the chance to Who may invoke? Solely for plaintiff’s benefit
caused the to avoid the
collision) accident incident) – prevent the
Bustamante v Passengers No No negligent for the fraud V. STRICT LIABILITY
CA of the bus plaintiff annulment Note: there
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 38
Black’s Law Dictionary definition: there is no doubt that she and her husband were its
Liability does not depend on actual negligence or intent possessors at the time of the incident in question. HELD:
to harm, but that is based on the breach of an absolute - It does not matter that the dog was tame and was -Echevarria is liable for being the one who directly, by
duty to make something safe. It most often applies merely provoked by the child into biting her. The law his negligence in leaving open the faucet, caused the
either to ultra hazardous activities or in product liability does not speak only of vicious animals but covers even water to spill to the ground and wet the articles and
cases. It is also known as “absolute liability” or “liability tame ones as long as they cause injury. As for the merchandise of the plaintiffs.
without fault.” alleged provocation, the petitioners forget that Theness -Dingcong, being a co-tenant and manager of the hotel,
was only three years old at the time she was attacked with complete possession of the house, must also be
CLASS NOT E
and can hardly be faulted for whatever she might have
done to the animal.
responsible for the damages caused. He failed to
exercise the diligence of a good father of the family to
prevent these damages, despite his power and authority
Test: when the conditions provided in the law
to cause the repair of the pipes.
exist, you are already liable
CLASS NOT ES
A. Possessor of animals Remote control argument does not lie. This is a
strict liability case. CLASS NOT E
Art. 2183, NCC Does it matter if the dog is tame? No. Law Is A2193,CC applicable in this case? Prof.
The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use covers even tame animals as long as they Casis seems to believe otherwise since A2193
of the same is responsible for the damage which it may produce injury speaks of the liability of a head of family when
cause, although it may escape or be lost. This Dog follows the house: accessory follows the a structure or similar object falls off the balcony
responsibility shall cease only in case the damage principal (so would a rat living in the house or second storey of his building. Dingcong is
should come from force majeure or from the fault of the make the house owners liable if the rat bites a not the head of a family.
person who has suffered damage. guest and causes the latter’s death?) Can water be considered as a thing thrown or
falling?
B. Things thrown or falling from a building
Vestil v IAC C. Death/Injuries in the course of employment
Art. 2193 The head of a family that lives in a building or
FACTS: Theness Uy was bitten by Andoy, the dog of a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by
Art. 1711 Owners of enterprises and other employers
Vestil’s father, when the victim was playing with Vestil’s things thrown or falling from the same.
are obliged to pay compensation for the death of or
child in their compound. Theness, who was only 3 yrs injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or other
old, was brought to the hospital and was later employees, even though the event may have been
discharged, but after 9 days she was readmitted for
exhibiting signs of hydrophobia and vomiting of saliva.
The next day she died of broncho-pneumonia.
CLASS NOT ES
purely accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause, if
the death or personal injury arose out of and in the
course of the employment. The employer is also liable
-Uys sued Vestil for being the possessor of Andoy. This provision applies regardless of
how things fell from the house. for compensation if the employee contracts any illness
Vestils claimed that they don’t own the dog, that it was a or disease caused by such employment or as the result
tame animal, and that Theness provoked the dog so it of the nature of the employment. If the mishap was due
bit her. Dingcong v Kanaan to the employee's own notorious negligence, or
voluntary act, or drunkenness, the employer shall not be
HELD: The obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the FACTS: liable for compensation. When the employee's lack of
Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on the -The Dingcongs rented a house and established Central due care contributed to his death or injury, the
presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of Hotel. Kanaan, et.al. rented the ground floor of house compensation shall be equitably reduced.
the animal causing the damage. It is based on natural where they established the “American Bazaar”.
equity and on the principle of social interest that he who Echeverria rented room in the hotel.
possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service -One night, Echevarria, carelessly left the faucet open
must answer for the damage which such animal may when retiring to bed, causing the water to run off and
cause. spill to the ground, wetting the articles and merchandise
- While it is true that she is not really the owner of the
house, which was still part of Vicente Miranda's estate,
of the Kanaan's "American Bazaar" in the ground floor.
Kanaans filed complaint for damages against Echevarria
and Dingcongs.
CLASS NOT ES
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 39
Who is liable? Employers, owners of exposed and not traceable in some special degree to Art. 97. Liability for the Defective Products. - Any
establishment the particular employment are excluded. Filipino or foreign manufacturer, producer, and any
Who are they liable to? Laborers, employees -As a general rule an employee is not entitled to recover importer, shall be liable for redress, independently of
Under what conditions? Death or illness arising from personal injuries resulting from an accident that fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects
out of the course of employment befalls him while going to or returning from his place of resulting from design, manufacture, construction,
employment, because such an accident does no arise assembly and erection, formulas and handling and
Art. 1712 If the death or injury is due to the negligence out of and in the course of his employment. making up, presentation or packing of their products, as
of a fellow worker, the latter and the employer shall be -If the deceased saw fit to change his residence from well as for the insufficient or inadequate information on
solidarily liable for compensation. If a fellow worker's San Francisco del Monte to Manila and to make use a the use and hazards thereof.
intentional malicious act is the only cause of the death bicycle in going back and forth, he did so at his own risk,
or injury, the employer shall not be answerable, unless it as the defendant company did not furnish him a bicycle A product is defective when it does not offer the safety
should be shown that the latter did not exercise due or require him to use one; and if he made collections on rightfully expected of it, taking relevant circumstances
diligence in the selection or supervision of the plaintiff's Sunday, he did not do so in pursuance of his into consideration, including but not limited to:
fellow worker. employment, and his employer is not liable for any injury (a) presentation of product;
sustained by him. (b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it;
(c) the time it was put into circulation.
Afable v Singer Sewing Machine
CLASS NOT E A product is not considered defective because another
better quality product has been placed in the market.
FACTS: Defenses available to an employer: a)
-One Sunday afternoon, Leopoldo Madlangbayan, a notorious negligence, b) voluntary act of the
collector for the Singer Sewing Machine Company, while employee and c) drunkenness. The manufacturer, builder, producer or importer shall
riding his bicycle was run over and killed by a truck. At Case distinguishes “arising out of” and “in the not be held liable when it evidences:
the time of his death he was returning home after course of.” The first refers to the origin or
making some collections. cause of the accident. The latter refers to the (a) that it did not place the product on the market;
-The widow and children of Madlangbayan brought an time, place, and circumstances under which (b) that although it did place the product on the
action to recover from the defendant corporation under the accident takes place. market such product has no defect;
Act No. 3428, as amended by Act. No. 3812. The (c) that the consumer or a third party is solely at
complaint was subsequently amended, and they sought fault.
D. Product liability
to recover under sections 8 and 10 of Act No. 3428.
Art. 99. Liability for Defective Services. - The service
Art. 2187 Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, supplier is liable for redress, independently of fault, for
RATIO:
drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for damages caused to consumers by defects relating to
-The phrase "due to and in the pursuance of" used in
death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful the rendering of the services, as well as for insufficient
section 2 of Act No. 3428 was changed in Act No. 3812
substances used, although no contractual relation exists or inadequate information on the fruition and hazards
to "arising out of and in the course of".
between them and the consumers. thereof.
-The words "arising out of" refer to the origin or cause of
the accident, and are descriptive of its character, while
The service is defective when it does not provide the
the words "in the course of" refer to the time, place, and
circumstances under which the accident takes place. By
the use of these words it was not the intention of the
CLASS NOT ES
safety the consumer may rightfully expect of it, taking
the relevant circumstances into consideration, including
legislature to make the employer an insurer against all Who is liable? Manufacturers and processors but not limited to:
accidental injuries which might happen to an employee of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles (a) the manner in which it is provided;
while in the course of the employment, but only for such Under what circumstances? Death or injuries (b) the result of hazards which may reasonably be
injuries arising from or growing out of the risks peculiar caused by noxious or harmful substances expected of it;
to the nature of the work in the scope of the workman's Who are they liable to? Anyone who consumed (c) the time when it was provided.
employment of incidental to such employment, and goods (even if goods were stolen)
accidents in which it is possible to trace the injury to A service is not considered defective because of the use
some risk or hazard to which the employee is exposed or introduction of new techniques.
in a special degree by reason of such employment. Consumer Act The supplier of the services shall not be held liable
Risks to which all persons similarly situated are equally when it is proven:
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 40
(a) that there is no defect in the service rendered; good faith the food, drug, device, or cosmetic or the
(b) that the consumer or third party is solely at fault. giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to in Section Coca-Cola v CA
twelve (b) which guaranty or undertaking is false.
Art. 106. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation.
(e) Forging, counterfeiting, simulating, or falsely FACTS: Geronimo sold food and softdrinks in a school
The stipulation in a contract of a clause preventing,
representing or without proper authority using any mark, canteen. A group of parents complained that fibrous
exonerating or reducing the obligation to indemnify for
stamp, tag label, or other identification device authorized materials were found in the softdrink bottles bought by
damages effected, as provided for in this and in the
or required by regulations promulgated under the their children. Upon inspection by the DOH, the bottles
preceding Articles, is hereby prohibited, if there is more
provisions of this Act. were found to be adulterated. The sales of Geronimo
than one person responsible for the cause of the
( f ) The using by any person to his own advantage, or drastically dropped and she was forced to close shop.
damage, they shall be jointly liable for the redress
revealing, other than to the Secretary or officers or She brought an action for damages against Coca-cola
established in the pertinent provisions of this Act.
employees of the Department or to the courts when and the trial court ruled that the complaint was based on
However, if the damage is caused by a component or
relevant in any judicial proceeding under this Act, any a contract, not quasi-delict and should have been filed
part incorporated in the product or service, its
information acquired under authority of Section nine, or within 6 months from the delivery of the softdrinks.
manufacturer, builder or importer and the person who
concerning any method or process which as a trade Geronimo argues that her case is based on quasi-delict
incorporated the component or part are jointly liable.
secret is entitled to protection. and should prescribe in 4 years.
(g) The alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration,
Art. 107. Penalties.
or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of, or HELD: The Court sided with Geronimo. The vendee’s
Any person who shall violate any provision of this
the doing of any other act with respect to, a food, drug, remedies against a vendor with respect to the
Chapter or its implementing rules and regulations with
device, or cosmetic, if such act is done while such article warranties against hidden defects or encumbrances
respect to any consumer product which is not food,
is held for sale (whether or not the first sale) and results upon the thing sold are not limited to those prescribed in
cosmetic, or hazardous substance shall upon conviction,
in such article being adulterated or misbranded. A1567. The vendee may also ask for the annulment of
be subject to a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos
(h) The use, on the labeling of any drug or in any the contract upon proof of error or fraud in which case
(P5,000.00) and by imprisonment of not more that one
advertising relating to such drug, of any representation the ordinary rule on obligations shall be applicable.
(1) year or both upon the discretion of the court.
or suggestion that an application with respect to such
drug is effective under Section twenty-one hereof, or
In case of judicial persons, the penalty shall be imposed
upon its president, manager or head. If the offender is
an alien, he shall, after payment of fine and service of
that such drug complies with the provisions of such
section.
(i) The use, in labeling, advertising or other sales
CLASS NOT ES
sentence, be deported without further deportation Requisites of 2187: 1) death or injury caused
promotion of any reference to any report or analysis
proceedings. by noxious substance and 2) by manufacturer
furnished in compliance with Section twenty-six hereof.
or processor
What is “similar goods?” – Anything intended to
CHAPTER VI. Prohibited Acts and Penalties (RA3720
– Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Sec. 11. The following acts and the causing thereof are
CLASS NOT ES
be consumed by humans.
What if the person who consumed the goods
did not buy them but stole them? – The
hereby prohibited: Is a restaurant owner a seller or a processor?
manufacturer/processor may still be held liable.
(a) The manufacture, sale, offering for sale or transfer of Could the company stipulate limited liability?
any food, drug, device or cosmetic that is adulterated or No. A106 of the Consumer Act. If basis is not
Consumer Act, you can use 2187 on strict II SANGCO (p. 714-734)
misbranded.
(b) The adulteration or misbranding of any food, drug, liability which is a powerful provision except
against sellers (law on SALES will be the basis Product Liability
device, or cosmetic.
in this case) 1. Governing law: Art. 2187, NCC
(c) The refusal to permit entry or inspection as
Elements of 2187: 1) causal link 2) • The elimination in this article of both fault or
authorized by Section twenty-seven hereof or to allow
samples to be collected. manufacturers, processors negligence and contract as the basis of liability
(d) The giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred to What do you mean by similar goods?-Sangco- thereunder are the essence of strict liability. The
in Section twelve (b) hereof which guaranty or consumed by humans. Question: What about consumer’s cause of action does not depend upon
undertaking is false, except by a person who relied upon those consumed by animals? the validity of his contract with the person from
a guaranty or undertaking to the same effect signed by, Do you apply strict liability even if defendant whom he acquires the product, and it is not affected
and containing the name and address of, the person exercised due diligence? Yes. Precisely why it by any disclaimer or other agreement.
residing in the Philippines from whom he received in is called strict liability
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 41
• However, Art. 2187 does not preclude an action • It must appear that the unwholesome or unsound • Whether recovery is sought under strict liability
based on negligence for the same act of using quality of the food product in question existed at the or on fault or negligence, it would seem
noxious or harmful substance in the manufacture or time the defendant sold it, and did not come into contributory negligence would diminish
processing of the foodstuff, drinks, toilet articles, or existence thereafter. recovery.
similar goods which caused the death or injury
complained of, if the injured party opts to recover on 5. Proof of causation a. Duty of care of manufacturer or processor of
that theory. Neither does this article preclude an • One seeking recovery has the burden of proof that food.
action for breach of contract and warranty. the resulting illness was caused by the deleterious The duty owed to the consumer by the manufacturer of
food. food products intended for human consumption is
2. Requisites of liability under Art. 2187, Civil Code • A manufacturer’s strict liability in tort should be commensurate with the danger and the possible and
(1) Defendant is a manufacturer or processor of defined in terms of the safety of the product “in probable result of a lack of care.
foodstuff, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods; normal and proper use.” The plaintiff must allege
(2) He use noxious or harmful substances in the and prove that he was using the product in the way A high degree of care is required of the producer of
manufacture or processing of the foodstuff, drinks, it was intended to be used. foods (in the production of such product, advertising,
toilet articles consumed or used by the plaintiff; inspecting the ingredients and warning the consumers of
(3) Plaintiff’s death or injury was caused by the product 6. Who may recover possible injury from consumption of a food).
so consumed or used; and • A purchasing and non-purchasing consumer or
(4) The damages sustained and claimed by the plaintiff user of a defective food product or toilet article is b. Duty of care of restaurant operator
and the amount thereof. entitled to recover damages for physical injuries
caused thereby. A restaurateur has no duty to serve “perfect” products.
• The burden of proof that the product was in a But the law of negligence requires him to exercise a
defective condition at the time it left the hands of 7. Compensable Damages care proportionate to the serious consequences that
the manufacturer and particular seller is upon the may follow from a want of care.
• Expressly limited to “death or injuries caused by
injured plaintiff. any noxious or harmful substance used” by
c. Duty of seller other than restaurant operator.
“manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs,
3. Persons who may be held liable, and for what drinks, toilet articles and similar goods.”
products A vendor of provisions selected, sold, and delivered to
• Applicable only to personal injuries, which includes the purchaser for his immediate use is bound to know
• Manufacturers and processors who used noxious
death, and only damages arising therefrom. This the peril that the provisions are sound and wholesome
or harmful substances may be held liable. precludes claims for purely pecuniary or
-sellers of the enumerated goods which turn out to be and fit for immediate use, and if they turn out to be
commercial losses in absence of personal injuries. unsound and not wholesome, and the purchaser is
injuriously defective CANNOT be held liable for the
obvious reason that they have nothing to do either with injured thereby, the vendor is liable to him.
8. Unavoidably unsafe product
the defect or with the manufacture of such product
• Products: limited to “foodstuffs, drinks, toilet d. Duty of warning; inspecting; testing.
• The seller of unavoidably unsafe products, with
articles and similar goods” qualification that they are properly prepared and A manufacturer or seller of a product which, to his actual
marketed, and proper warning is given, where the or constructive knowledge, involves danger to users has
4. Proof that food product was defective or situation calls for it, is not to be held to strict liability
unwholesome a duty to give warning of such danger. As a matter of
for unfortunate consequences attending their use, elementary logic, no duty to warn arises with respect to
• The one seeking to recover is under the duty of merely because he has undertaken to supply the a product which is not in fact dangerous.
proving with reasonable certainty that the food public with apparently reasonable risk.
eaten was in fact deleterious.
The vendor of food should indemnify his vendee against
• Proof of a defect in the product may not be supplied Liability for negligence in food products. latent defects contained in the product which the
by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, unless the • To constitute negligence an act must be one vendee, by inspection or taste, could not have
product is one whose character and content must from which a reasonably careful person would discovered himself.
necessarily have remained unchanged since it left foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to
the manufacturer’s possession. others as to cause him to forego the act or to The test of commodities required is no more than that
• Expert testimony is generally necessary to prove do it in a more careful manner. commonly or usually practised by careful dealers under
the defect in the product. the same conditions and circumstances, which is at
TORTS AND DAMAGES - CASIS A2010 REVISED MAGIC NOTES c(~_∗)o PAGE 42
least as high a duty of care as the consumer expects or -ART 1902 CC provides that a person who, by act or in its favor, and as a result petitioner deprived
has the right to expect of his groceryman or food dealer. omission causes damage to another when there is fault respondent of the latter’s property right.
or negligence, shall be obliged to pay for the damage - Damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results from
Note: done. There is nothing in this article which requires as a injury, and damages are the recompense or
The seller is not liable when he delivers the product in a condition precedent to the liability of the tortfeasor that compensation awarded for the damage suffered.
safe condition and subsequent mishandling or other he must know the identity of a person to whom he - One becomes liable in an action for damages for a
causes makes it harmful by the time it is consumed. causes damage. No such knowledge is required in order nontrespassory invasion of another’s interest in the
that the injured party may recover for the damages private use and enjoyment of asset if: a) the other has
CLASS NOT ES
suffered. property rights and privileges with respect to the use or
enjoyment interfered with; b) the invasion is substantial;
Important: Requisites of 2187 in Sangco
If it falls under A2187, can you still sue for
CLASS NOT ES
c) the defendant’s conduct is a legal cause of the
invasion; d) the invasion is either intentional and
unreasonable or unintentional and actionable under the
breach of contract? Sangco says, yes. Had legal liability but not under A1314.
general negligence rules.
Is malice required to apply A1314?
- elements of tort interference:
No damages were due from Espejo because
E. Interference with contractual relations a) existence of a valid contract
no malice was proven (the motive was only to
b) knowledge on the part of the third party of its
make profit).
Art. 1314 Any third person who induces another to existence
Is malice an element of tortuous interference? c) interference of the third party is without legal
violate his contract shall be liable for damages to the Court does not say that it is.
other contracting party. justification or excuse
- Since there were existing lease contracts between Tek
So Ping Bun v CA Hua and DC Chuan, Tek Hua in fact had property rights
Gilchrist v Cuddy over the leased stalls. The action of Trendsetter in
FACTS: Tek Hua Trading originally entered into a lease asking DC Chuan to execute the contracts in their favor
FACTS: Cuddy was the owner of the film “Zigomar”. agreement with DC Chuan covering stalls in Binondo. was unlawful interference.
Gilchrist was the owner of a theatre in Iloilo. They The contracts were initially for 1 year but were continued - The SC handled the question of whether the
entered into a contract whereby Cuddy leased to on month to month basis upon expiration of the 1 yr. Tek interference may be justified considering that So acted
Gilchrist the “Zigomar” for exhibition in his theatre for a Hua was dissolved, original members of Tek Hua solely for the purpose of furthering his own
week for P125. formed Tek Hua Enterprises (THE) with Manuel Tiong financial or economic interest. It stated that it is
-Days before the delivery date, Cuddy returned the as one of the incorporators. However, the stalls were sufficient that the impetus of his conduct lies in a proper
money already paid by Gilchrist so that he can lease the occupied by the grandson (So Ping Bun) of one of the business interest rather than in wrongful motives to
film to Espejo and Zaldarriaga instead and receive P350 original incorporators of Tek Hua under business name conclude that So was not a malicious interferer. Nothing
for the film for the same period. Trendsetter Marketing. on the record imputes deliberate wrongful motives or
-Gilchrist filed a case for specific performance against -new lease contracts with increase in rent were sent to malice on the part of So. Hence the lack of malice
Cuddy, Espejo and Zaldarriaga. He also prayed for THE, although not signed. precludes the award of damages.
damages against Espejo and Zaldarriaga for interfering -THE through Tiong asked So Ping Bun to vacate the - The provision in the Civil Code with regard tortuous
with the contract between Gilchrist and Cuddy. stalls so THE would be able to go back to business BUT interference is Article 1314.
instead, SO PING BUN SECURED A NEW LEASE
ISSUE: WON Espejo and Zaldarriaga are liable for
interfering with the contract between Gilchrist and
AGEEMENT WITH DC CHUAN.