Concept of Tort

-consists in the violation of a right given or the omission of a duty imposed by law
-tort is a breach of a legal duty

(Naguiat v. NLRC G.R. No. 116123, March 13, 1997)

- Unlawful violation of private right not created by contract

- Private or civil wrong or injury other than breach of contract
Characteristics of tort:
1. It is a legal wrong (not equivalent of moral wrong)
2. It is civil in nature
3. Wrong causes damage or injury
4. It provides remedy for injured party
Kinds of Tort liabilities
1. Negligence
2. Intentional Acts
3. Strict Liability

1. Negligence
- Voluntary acts or omissions that results in injury to others without intention
- Omission of that degree of diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation
2. Intentional Acts
- Desires to cause the consequences
3. Strict Liability
- Where the person is made liable independent of fault or negligent upon submission of
proof of certain facts. The conduct is generally not wrongful but the wrong consists in
causing harm by engaging in certain types of risky activities. (Article 2187 and Article
100 of Consumer Act)

-
PHILIPPINE TORT LAW

Sources
- New Civil Code (primary statute)
- Section 20 and 99 of Revised Corporation Code
- Article 68 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code
- Section 17 (a)(6) of the Ship Mortgage Decree
- Article 19, 20 & 21 (Catch All Provisions)
 General concepts that make person liable for every conceivable wrongful act

Elements of Tort (ROW)

1. Legal Right in favor of a person (plaintiff)
2. A correlative legal Obligation on the part of another to respect or not to violate such
right and
3. A wrong in the form of the act or omission in violation of the said legal right and duty
with consequent injury or damage
Purposes of Tort Law
1. To provide a peaceful means for adjusting the rights of parties who might otherwise take
the law into their own hands;
2. deter wrongful conduct;
3. encourage socially responsible behavior and
4. restore injured parties to their original condition
Quasi Delicts
(Barredo v. Garcia G.R. No. 48006, July 8, 1942)
1. quasi-delict or ‘culpa aquiliana’ is a separate legal institution under the Civil
Code, with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and
independent from a delict or crime.
2. Some of the differences between crimes under the Penal Code are:
“1. That crimes affect the public interest, while quasi-delitos are only of private
concern.
“2. That consequently, the Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act, while
the Civil Code, by means of indemnification, merely repairs the damage.
“3. That delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because for the former are
punished only if there is a penal law clearly covering them, while the latter, cuasi-
delitos, include all acts in which ‘ any kind of fault or negligence intervenes.

3. separate individuality of cuasi-delitos or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code

(Specifically they show that there is a distinction between civil liability arising from
criminal negligence (governed by the Penal Code) and responsibility for fault or
negligence)

Nature:

Art 1157 Obligations arise from a. Law b. Contracts c. Quasi-contracts d. Acts or omissions punished by
law e. Quasi-delicts
QUASI DELICTS or TORTS– When they arise from damages caused to another,there
being fault or negligence,giving rise to the obligation to pay for the damage done. There
must be no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.

 Example;

Mr. A bitten by my German dog, I as a possessor of that Dog has the obligation to the
injury of Mr. A caused by my Dog.

Coverage:

Article 1162

Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions of

Chapter 2 (Quasi-Delicts), Title XVII of this Book (Extra-Contractual), and by
special laws. (1093a)

Definition of Tort

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

SCOPE:

Contrary to the theory of private respondents, there is no justification for limiting the scope of Article
2176 of the Civil Code to acts or omissions resulting from negligence. Well-entrenched is the doctrine
that article 2176 covers not only acts committed with negligence, but also acts which are voluntary and
intentional.