Culpa criminal

Legal basis There can be no crime unless a law clearly punishes the act.

Source of
obligation Criminal act

Nature of
Direct, substantive and independent.
negligence

Criminal
Essential
intent

Proof needed Proof beyond reasonable doubt

Existence of a
pre-existing None.
contractual
obligation

Defense of Ordinary diligence or defense of “good father of a family” cannot be interposed. If the employee is insolvent, the employer is
diligence subsidiarily liable.
Presumption
of Innocents of accused is presumed until contrary is proven.
negligence.

Nature of
right violated Public right. It is a wrong against the State.

Governing
law Art 365 RPC

Notes:
1.        Crimes affect public interest while quasi-delicts are of private concern.
2.        RPC punishes or corrects the criminal act while NCC merely repairs the damages incurred through
Quasi-delict indemnification.
vs. Criminal 3.        Crimes are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because crime are punished only if there is a law clearly covering
offense them. Quasi-delicts include all acts inw hcih any kind of fault or negligence intervenes.

·          Is it necessary for P to reserve his right to institute a civil action separately?
NO. Although Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure declares that a reservation should be made, this reservation is not necessary
because the negligence of two drivers gives rise to at least two separate and independent liabilities:
1.        Civil liability arising from crime or culpa criminal
2.        Civil liability arising from civil negligence (culpa contractual and culpa aquiliana)
These concepts of fault or negligence are so different from each other that exoneration from one does not result from exoneration
from the other.

·          As far as P’s right of action for damages against both operators, is it necessary that he must choose
between provisions of NCC on culpa contractual and culpa acquiliana and provisions in RPC on liabilities of
employers for crimes committed by employees?
NO, it is not necessary that P must choose or select his remedies. What is barred or proscribed by law is double recovery, not double
remedies.
A negligent act, such as that committed in this case, gives rise at least two separate and independent liabilities:
1.        Civil liability arising from crime or culpa criminal
There was a 2.        Civil liability arising from civil negligence (culpa contractual and culpa aquiliana)
collision
between two They can be prosecuted separately and independently, although Art 2177 precludes recovery of damages twice for the same
operated negligent act or omission.
taxis. P, a
passenger
from the first
taxicab was
injured. A
criminal
action was
commenced
against both
drivers.
There was a
collision
between two
operated
taxis. P, a
passenger Consequently, P may select his remedies or remedy, or if he so desires, he may use both remedies either simultaneously or
from the first successively. Thus, if P institutes the two actions simultaneously, and varying amounts are awarded in the two cases, he may recover
taxicab was only the bigger amount. If there has already been a recovery in one case and in the other case the amount adjudged is bigger, he
injured. A shall be entitled in the second case only to the excess. But if he had already been paid a bigger amount in the first case, he may not
criminal recover anymore from the second case.
action was
commenced
against both
drivers.
·          Suppose that in both criminal and civil cases, both operators were able to prove due diligence in
selection and supervision of drivers, will this defense relieve them of liability for damages?
NO. They are still subsidiarily liable under Art 103 RPC because of the very nature of their obligation. However, if they are able to
prove due diligence in the action based no both culpa contractual and culpa aquiliana, there is a distinction:

1.        In the case of A Taxicab Co., the defense will not relieve the company of liability because P was a
passenger in the taxicab operated by the company. Under Art 1759, the company is still liable but the company
may prove GF to mitigate the recoverable damages.

2.        In the case of B Taxicab Co., since the action against the company is based on Quasi-Delict or Culpa
Aquiliana, the defense will relieve the company of liability as expressly recognized under Art 2180.

In the case of A Taxicab Co., we apply the law on common carriers. In the said law, we do not adhere to the Theory of Respondeat
Superior. We adhere to the theory that there is always an implied duty of the carrier to bring its passenger safely to his place of
destination. On the other hand, in the case of B Taxicab Co., we apply the law on Quasi-Delicts. In the said law, we adhere to the
theory that if the driver is negligent, there is a disputable presumption of negligence on the employer or operator, a presumption
which can be overcome by proof of due diligence in the selection and supervision of his employees or drivers.

A killed Y. A
criminal
action was ·          A filed an MD on the ground that heirs waived their right to file a separate civil action when a private
filed by the prosecutor appeared. Decide.
investigating
fiscal. During
arraignment,
heirs sent a
private
prosecutor to
court. A
pleaded
guilty, hence,
he was While sending a private prosecutor implies the waiver to file a separate civil action, plaintiffs can still prosecute a separate civil action
sentenced. because they were not able to present evidence on the civil aspect of A’s liability since he pleaded guilty.
Thereafter,
heirs filed a
civil action
for damages.
·          Suppose there was a full-blown trial but it resulted in the acquittal of A beyond reasonable doubt, can
an MD be filed on the ground of res judicata if the heirs of B filed a separate civil action?

YES, extinction of criminal carries with it the extinction of civil liability, especially since the plaintiffs sent a private prosecutor.

A car is
owned and As far as C (truck owner) is concerned, the order of dismissal is not correct for the following reasons:
driven by A.

A jeep is
owned and 1.        For a prior judgment to bar the subsequent case, the following requisites must concur:
driven by B.

A truck is
owned by C
and driven by a.        It must be a final judgment.
D.
b.        It must have been rendered by court having jurisdiction over subject matter and over
parties.
The car and
the jeep were
badly
damaged. A
instituted a
criminal
action for
c.         It must be a judgment on the merits.
damage to
property
through
reckless
imprudence
against B and
D.

d.        There must be, between first and second actions, identity of parties, identity of
subject matter and identity of cause of action.

The court
acquitted B
and declared
D as guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt. The
collision 2.        In the criminal case, D (truck driver) was not prosecuted for damage to A’s car but to B’s jeep.
between A’s
car and B’s
jeep was the
result of the
jeep being
bumped by
D’s truck.

3.        C was not also a party to the case.

A also
instituted a
civil action
for damages 4.        In a criminal case, the cause of action was enforcement of civil liability arising from criminal negligence
against B and under Art 100 RPC, whereas the instant civil case is baesd on Quasi-Delict under Art 2180.
C either in
alternative or
in solidum.
 The court
dismissed the
action on the
ground that it
is barred by
final
judgment
and by
plaintiff’s As far as B (jeepney driver) is concerned, order of dismissal s correct.
failure to
reserve his
right to
institute a
civil action
separate. Is
the order of
dismissal
correct?

1.        A opted to base his cause of action against B on culpa criminal and not on culpa aquiliana. Therefore,
there is no need for him to reserve his right to file a separate civil action because the action for civil liability is
impliedly instituted in the criminal case.

2.        An independent civil action would also not lie because the court held that, “the fact from which the civil
liability might arise did not exist”.

3.        Civil action ex delicto has already been extinguished in consonance with Criminal Procedure. Even if A’s
cause of action against B is not ex delicto but an independent civil action, the result would still be the same
because the judgment in the criminal case showed that B’s acquittal was not based on reasonable doubt.

My notes: Can be inferred from this case then that there will be no independent civil action if the court says that the fact from
which civil liability might arise did not exist? Or does this only refer to civil ex delicto?

Suppose the
injured
parties had
instituted an
action to
recover
damages
against both
operator and
driver of Previous dismissal of the action based on culpa aquiliana cannot stop the enforcement of subsidiary liability of employer under Art
jeepney 103.
based on
culpa
aquiliana.
The case is
dismissed on
the ground
that the
driver is not
negligent.

The principle of Res Judicata is not applicable because the previous action is based on culpa aquiliana, while the second action is
based on subsidiary liability of employers for criminal offenses committed by their employees while performing their duties. Hence,
Kinds of there is no identity of reliefs,
Liabilities
based on
Negligence
Kinds of
Liabilities
based on
Negligence

During the
pendency of
the civil case,
a criminal
case is filed
against the
driver and
the judgment
is one of
conviction.

What is evident in this situation is the principle that once there is a final conviction for a felony, employer is subsidiarily liable if
shown that commission was in the discharge of duties of the employee.

Would
previous
dismissal of
civil action
based on
culpa
aquiliana
prevent the
application of
Art 103 RPC?

A freight
truck is
owned by X NO. The requisites of res judicata are:
and driven by
Y.

A bus is
owned by A
and driven by 1.        Former judgment must be final.
B.

2.        It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction on the merits.

Both collided
resulting to
heavy
damage. A
criminal case
for damage
to property
through 3.        It must be a judgment on the merits.
reckless
imprudence
was brought
against B. B
was
convicted.

4.        There must be:

X expressly
reserved his
right to
institute a
civil case
separately.
a.        Identity of parties
When he
instituted it,
it was finally
dismissed
due to
Prescription.

b.        Identity of subject matter

Later, X
brought an
action based
on subsidiary
liability of A
under RPC. c.         Identity of cause of action
Will res
judicata
apply to the
present
action?

To know if there is an identity of cause of action, the test is: whether the same evidence support both the former and present cause
of action?

In this case, the first action was based on a Quasi-Delict. The second action is based on criminal liability. Applying the test, it is
evident that res judicata cannot be a defense. Defendant can thwart an adverse decision by raising due diligence of selection and
supervision of his driver, while this defense cannot be used in the criminal action because liability of the employer is inseparable
from his driver once the driver is convicted.

C, a 14-year
old son of AB
was struck by
taxicab driver YES. Civil liability co-exists with criminal responsibility. In negligence cases, offended party or his heirs has the option to either
by X and enforce Culpa Criminal based on Art 100 RPC or Culpa Aquiliana based on Art 2177 NCC.
operated by
Y causing C’s
death.
AB instituted
a civil action
based on
Culpa
Aquiliana
against XY. The action for enforcement of civil liability based on culpa criminal is deemed simultaneously instituted with criminal action under
Trial court Rule 111 RC, unless expressly waived or reserved for a separate application by offended party. Art 2177 NCC, however, prevents
held X liable recovery of damages twice for the same negligent act or omission.
for damages
amounting to
27,000 but
absolved Y
from liability.

A year later,
X was
convicted in
the criminal
case of
homicide
through
reckless
imprudence.
In the
decretal
portion of In the case at bar, A and B chose Culpa Aquiliana which was ineffectual. There is no inconsistency between Culpa Aquiliana and their
decision, the subsequent application for enforcement of Culpa Criminal, and consequently Y’s subsidiary responsibility under Art 100 RPC.
court
declared that
the civil
liability of X
had already
been
determined
based on the
Culpa
Aquiliana
case.

Because of
failure of AB
to collect the
27,000 award
from X, they
brought an
action The subsequent application for Culpa Criminal does not involve any violation of the proscription of double recovery of damages for
against Y to the same negligent act or omission.
enforce his
subsidiary
liability
under Art
103. Will the
action
prosper?
 Although the court’s decision declaring that, “civil liability of X had already been determined in the Culpa Aquiliana case”, was
ambiguous, it should be interpreted to mean that the amount of 27,000 assessed in the civil case should also be the amount
assessed in the criminal case.

In a criminal
action filed
against the NO, because of the Rule against Double Recovery. The law prohibits recover of damages twice by the same injured party.
truck driver,
can the
employer-
owner of the
truck be held
subsidiarily
liable for
damages
awarded to
the offended
party even if In negligence cases, aggrieved party has the choice between:
a separate
civil action a.        An action to enforce civil liability arising from crime under Art 100 RPC.
was already
filed against b.        Separate action for quasi-delict under Art 2176 NCC.
him?

Once the choice has been made, the injured party cannot avail of other remedies because he cannot recover damages twice for the
same negligent act or omission.

1.        Art 2176 in relation to Art 2180 for an action based on Quasi-Delict against the employer for his act or
omission.
a.        It only needs preponderance of evidence to prevail.
b.        Employer’s liability for his employee is direct and primary, subject to the defense of
due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.
c.         Enforcement of judgment does not require that the employee is insolvent in order
for the employer to be liable. This is because the nature of liability with the employer is
Cite two solidary, with the two of them seen as joint tortfeasors.
provisions
under
Philippine 2.        Art 103 RPC provides that the employer shall be subsidiarily civilly liable for a felony committed by his
law providing employee in the discharge of his duty.
for
employer’s a.        This liability attaches when the employee is convicted of a crime done in the
liability with performance of his work and is found to be insolvent with respect to the civil liability.
respect to
damages b.        There must be a hearing set for the purpose of determining:
caused by the                                                                 i.      Employer-employee
employee. relationship
                                                              ii.      Employer is engaged in some
kind of industry
                                                             iii.      Employee is declared to be
guilty and is found to have committed the offense in the discharge of
his duties (not necessarily any offense he commits is done while in the
discharge of his duties)
                                                             iv.      Employee is insolvent.

In a criminal
case for
homicide
through
reckless
imprudence, NO. Art 103 states that an employer may be subsidiarily liable when:
the
defendant
driver D
pleaded
guilty.

1.        Employer is engaged in any kind of industry

The trial
court
sentenced
him to pay
the heirs of
the deceased
12,000.
When the 2.        Employee committed the offense in discharge of his duties
writ of
execution
was issued, it
was returned
unsatisfied
because was
insolvent.

3.        He is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability

The heirs
filed a
motion for
issuance of
subsidiary
writ of
execution
against E, D’s
employer.

Subsidiary liability of employer only arises after the employee is convicted. Conviction is binding and conclusive upon the employer
not only with regard to his subsidiary liability but also with regard to the amount of liability.

E contends
that since he
is not
impleaded in
the criminal
case, the
proper
remedy is to
bring a
separate civil
action to
enforce Art
103. Is he
correct?

The validity of any claim or defense of employer can be litigated and resolved in the same criminal case. Employer may adduce all
evidence necessary. Thus, enforcement of his subsidiary liability may be conveniently litigated in the same proceeding because the
execution of judgment is a local and integral part of the case.

A tort is a wrong, a commission or omission of a person who has no right and inflicts direct or indirect injury to another’s person,
property or reputation.
Under Art 2197, a quasi-delict is an act or omission which causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence and there being
no pre-existing contractual relationship between parties.

Notes on Torts:
1.       Art 2176 is inapplicable in the following:
 a.        Where there was a pre-existing contractual relationship of employer and
employee between parties, and there was only a breach of contract, except when the
act of breaching the contract is also tortious.
b.        When fault or negligence is punished by law as a crime where Art 100 will be
applicable.
c.         Bar by prescription if the action for Quasi-Delict is instituted after 4 years.
d.        Injury suffered by a person is a result of a fortuitous event without human
intervention.
e.        If there is no damage or injury caused to another party
f.         Where there is no breach of contract nor proof that an airline acted in wanton,
fraudulent or malevolent manner, ther eis no basis for award of any form of damages.

2.       It covers not only acts punishable by law but also those criminal in nature whether intentional,
voluntary or negligent.
a.        Under Art 2177, Responsibility for fault or negligence under Art 2176 is entirely
separate and distinct from civil liability arising from negligence under RPC (thus a
subject of an independent civil action). However, the plaintiff cannot redover damages
twice for the same act or omission.
b.        Under Art 2178, provisions of Art 1172 to 1174 apply also to a Quasi Delict:
                                                                 i.      Responsibility arising from
negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also
demandable. However, this liability may be regulated by courts,
according to circumstances.
                                                                ii.      Fault or negligence of obligor
consists of omission of that diligence required. If negligence shows bad
faith, Art 1171 and Par 2, Art 2201 apply.
1.        Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations.
Any waiver for future fraud is void.
2.        In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, obligor
shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably
attributed to non-performance of the obligation.
3.        If the law or contract does not state the diligence required,
ordinary diligence or diligence of good father of family shall be
required.
                                                              iii.      No person shall be responsible
for events which could not be foreseen, or inevitable even if
foreseeable.
1.        EXCEPTIONS:
a.        In cases expressly specified by law
b.        When it is otherwise declared by stipulation
c.         When nature of obligation requires the assumption of risk
c.         A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not
he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended
party is not allowed to recover damages on both scores if the offender is actually
charged criminally.

3.       A person may be liable for damages based on a quasi-delict even if there is a contract.
a.        Even if there must be no pre-existing contractual relationship between the
parties, an act can give rise to a Quasi-Delict if there is an act that violates the contract
independently of the contract.
b.        The fact that a pre-existing contractual relation exists is not a bar to the
institution for recovery of damages based on a Quasi-Delict or Tort. As a matter of fact,
action for recovery of damages may even be predicated on both breach of contract
(culpa contractual) and a tort at the same time.

Definition of
Quasi-Delict
Definition of
Quasi-Delict

The car
dealer
allowed A to
immediately
drive the car
home merely
on the A’s
assurance
that his check
is sufficiently YES. A may file an action against the bank for damages under Art 2176. Even if there is a contractual relationship
funded. between A and the bank, an action or Quasi-Delict may prosper.
When the car
dealer
deposited the
check, it was
dishonored
on the
ground of
“Account
Closed”.

It was found
out that the
bank
employee
misplaced A’s
account
ledger. Thus, SC held that an act that breaks the contract may also be a tort.
the bank
erroneously
assumed that
A’s account
no longer
exists.

The dealer,
however,
immediately
filed an
action for
recovery of
possession of
vehicle
against A for
which A was
humiliated.
Does A have
a cause of
action
(2006)?

1.        A person’s legal right by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created.
 2.        Another person’s legal obligation to respect or at least not violate the legal right.
3.        A wrong in the form of an act or omission which violates the legal right and duty resulting to injuries or
damage.

Notes on Requisites:
Elements The following are requisites that must be proved in order to hold the defendant liable for damages:
1.        Fault or negligence of defendant
2.        Damage suffered or incurred by the plaintiff
3.        Relation of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damage incurred
by the plaintiff.

Negligent Involuntary acts or omissions resulting to injury but without the intent to cause harm.
Torts The act merely fails to exercise due care.
Intentional It involves conduct where the act has the intent to cause the consequences of his act or believe the consequences as
Torts substantially certain to result from it.

The person is liable independently for the fault or negligence once there was proof of certain facts. When strict
liability is imposed, the conduct itself is not generally wrongful but the resulting wrong consists in causing harm
because there was an engagement in certain types of risky activities.

Applications of Strict Liability:

GR: Possessor or user of animal shall be responsible for damages the

animal causes, even if the animal escaped or is lost. This responsibility
ceases only if the damage is caused by a force majeure or by a fault of
the injured person.

EXCEPTIONS (when damage was caused):

1.        Force majeure
2.        Person who suffered the damage

Notes on Possession of Animals:

1.        Doctrine of Strict Liablity applies in this case.

a.        Tort cannot be avoided even if there was no fault or negligence on

the par tof the defendant because liability contemplated here is based on
public policy.

2.        Caretakers cannot sue the owner because there is an assumption

of risk when paid for this work.
Liability of
possessor of 3.        The owner is only liable for damage produced from the special
animal danger caused by the animal resulting from its nature as a living them
with impulses of its own.

a.        Hence, owner is not liable if the animal was bodily moved by
others and follows the will of persons guiding it.
b.        He will be liable if the animal runs wild because it is frightened by
some noise or object.
4.        It makes no distinction as to what kind of animal.
a.        Birds are included.

b.        It does not matter that the dog was tame and merely provided by
the child into biting her. The law does not speak of vicious animals but
covers even tames ones as long as they cause injury. This applies, even
more if the child is only 3 years old.

5.        Possessor or user is still liable even if damage is caused by

negligence or fault of third person, unless equated with force majeure.
 They shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or
harmful substances used, although no contractual relation exists
between them and consumers (Art 2187).

Notes on Manufacturers and Processors:

1.        It imposes liability for death or injuries of
consumers even if manufacturer or processor did
not act in fault or negligence and even if there was
no privity of contracta.with consumers. liability
        Manufacture’s
should be defined in terms of
the product’s safety in its
normal and proper use. It does
not extend to injuries which
b.         Defense
cannot be tracedof to
lack
the
ofproduct.
privity
and waiver of implied warranties
cannot be invoked.
c.         Liability of manufacturer
is a matter of public policy.
2.        Consumer’s cause of action shall be based on
the fact of use of any harmful substances in the said
products. a.        Fact that product was not
used in the manner it was
Manufacture entered is a defense
b.        Misuse against
or improper use is
s and defectiveness.
a complete defense only if
processors of concurred (coincided) with the
food-stuff defective condition of the
drinks, toilet c.         Contributory negligence is
product.
not a defense if the negligence is
and articles
and similar only failure to discover the
goods defect or guard against its
possible existence.
3.        Liability shall not be affected by
intermediaries.
4.        Requisites:
a.        Defendant is a
manufacturer or processor.
b.        Products are foodstuffs,
drinks, toilet articles and similar
goods.
c.         Defendant used harmful
Classification substances in the manufacturing
of Torts or processing.
d.        Death or injury was
caused by the product.
e.        Victim is a consumer, user
Strict Liability or purchaser.
5.        There will be an assumption of risk if the
consumer discovers the defect and nevertheless
proceeds to use the product.
6.        Damages are expressly limited to “death or
injuries”. This does not include purely pecuniary
damages. a.        Nevertheless, pecuniary
damages may be recovered if
incurred as a result of death or
injuries such as medical
expenses.

Head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof, is responsible

for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same (Art
2193).

Notes on Falling Objects:

1.        This is another provision which imposes
liability without fault or negligence.
2.        Head of the family does not have to be the
owner of the building. It may include a lessee who
Liabilities of lives in it.
head of 3.        He may be obliged to pay indemnity to injured
family party but can also recover from person responsible
for damage (liability is solidary)
a.        Manager of a hotel was
held liable for damages caused
by goods of owners of a store
located on the ground floor, by
his failure to provide a hotel
guest with a drainage receptacle
for defective faucet, whose
water damaged the goods and
articles of said owners.
 4.        It does not exempt cases involving force
majeure.

GR: Owners of enterprises and other employers are liable to pay for
death or injuries to their employees, even if the cause is purely
accidental.

S: If the misshape was due to the employee’s own notorious negligence,

or voluntary act, or drunkenness.

SS: When employee’s lack of due care only contributed to his death or
injury, employer shall be liable for compensation but it shall be reduced.

Liablity of
Employers
(Art 1711) Rules on Employer’s Liability for Injuries caused by Fellow-Worker:

1.        If the death or injury is due to negligence of a

fellow-workman, the latter and the employer shall
be solidarily liable for compensation.
2.        If a fellow-worker’s intentional or malicious act
is the only cause of death or injury, the employer
shall not be answerable unless it should be shown
that the latter did not exercise due diligence in the
selection or supervision of plaintiff’s fellow-worker.

GR: Everyone is bound to bear the habitual or customary

inconveniences that result from proximity of others, as long as this
level is not surpassed, he may not complain.

S: If prejudice exceeds inconveniences that proximity habitually brings,

neighbor who causes such is held responsible for the resulting damage,
being guilty of causing the nuisance.

Notes on Nuisance:
1.        It is any act, omission, establishment,
business, condition of property or anything else
which:
a.        Injures or endangers the
Nuisance (Art health or safety of others
b.        Shocks, defies or
694) disregards decency or morality
c.         Annoys or offends the
senses
d.        Hinders or impairs the
user
e.       ofObstructs
property or interferes
with free passage of any public
highway or street, or any body
of water
2.        Every successive owner or possessor of
property who fails or refuses to abate a nuisance in
that property started by a former owner or
possessor is liable in the same manner as the one
who created it.
3.        An action to abate nuisance is
imprescriptible.

1.        Any natural or artificial person can sue the tortfeasor once he has been injured because of
the tortious act.
2.        Defendant can either be natural or artificial beings.
a.        Thus, a corporation can be civilly liable in the same manner as natural
Direct persons. A corporation may be held directly and primarily liable under
tortfeasor Vicarious Liability or direct corporate responsibility.
b.        With respect to close corporations, stockholders are personally who
are involved in the operation of the corporation may be personally liable for
corporate torts.

They are solidary liable for the resulting damage. Each of them are liable
as principals in the same extend and in the same manner:

Joint
Tortfeasors
 1.        Those who command, instigate, promote,
encourage, cooperate in, aid or abet in the
Joint commission of a tort or approve of it if done for their
Tortfeasors benefit.
2.        Those who act together to commit wrongs or
acts which cause injury.

Obligations under Art 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts
but also for persons for whom he is responsible for. However, to stop the
responsibility for damages, they must prove that they observed good
diligence of a father of the family to prevent the damage:

1.        Father or mother, in case the father is dead or

incapacitated, is responsible for damages caused by
the minor children living in their company.

2.        Guardians are liable for damages caused by

minors or incapacitated persons who are under their
authority and live in their company.
Persons
3.        Owners and managers of establishments are
made responsible for their employees during their service
responsible of branches or on occasion of their functions.
for others
(Art 2180) 4.        Employers are liable for damages caused by
their employees and household helpers within the
scope of their assigned tasks, even if the employers
are not engaged in any business or industry.
5.        State is responsible when it acts through a
special agent. a.        However, it is not
responsible when it is an official
to whom the task properly
pertains, who has caused the
damage. In this case, Art 2176
shall of
6.        Teachers or heads apply.
art and trades
establishments shall be liable for damages caused by
their pupils, students or apprentices as long as they
are in their custody.

The responsibility is solidary and the sharing between solidary debtors is

pro rata.

Note on Solidarily Liability:

1.        As long as the accident causing the injury was

due to concurrent acts of two or more persons,
their responsibility isa.solidarily.
        This also applies whether
the acts constitute a Quasi-
Delict, an intentional tort, a
Nature of strict liability tort, or even a
liability of criminal offense. This is because
joint of the very nature of the
tortfeasors obligation. As a matter of fact,
(Art 2194) the principal is even extended to
cases where there is a pre-
2.        When there isexisting
solidarily obligation,
contractual each
relation.
debtor is liable for the entire obligation. There is no
merger or renunciation of Neither
a.        rights but
of only mutualare
the parties
representation. indispensable, and the other is
not even a necessary party
because complete relief is
available from either. Therefore,
jurisdiction over one of them is
not necessary as the victim may
collect damages from the other
alone.
Right of Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees
reimburseme may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction
nt of the claim (Art 2181).

There is vicarious liability or “imputed negligence” where a person is

not only liable for torts he committed, but also for torts committed by
others whom he has a certain relationship and for whom he is
responsible.
 It merely refers to the rule whereby the negligence of a certain person
in a transaction or act gave rise to the injury complained of is imputable
or chargeable against the person for whom he was acting or against his
associates.

Notes:
1.        An employer is liable for the negligence of his
employers, whether the employees are solvent or
Vicarious not.
Liability 2.        Schools, teachers and administrators are liable
for damages caused by pupils, students or
apprentices in their custody, instruction or
supervision, whether academic or non-academic.
They also have substituted parental authority over
minor children as long as they are under their
supervision, control and instruction, The law does
not make any distinction as to the kind of school.

3.        (See Imputed Contributory Negligence under

Contributory Negligence) If the master is injured by
the negligence of a third person and concurring
negligence of his own servant or agent, the latter’s
negligence is imputed to the superior and will defeat
the superior’s action against the third person if the
contributory negligence was the proximate cause of
injury. If not, it will mitigate damages.

Notes on Joint Tortfeasors:

1.        Imputed negligence of parents for acts or omissions of minor children living with them
concerns a situation where a parent is not only liable for torts he committed but also for torts
committed by others with who he has a certain relationship and for whom he is responsible.

a.        Those responsible under Art 2180 are in the position to exercise an
absolute or limited control over others.
b.        If minor has no parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall
be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a
guardian ad litem shall be appointed (Art 2182).

2.        When there is an injury caused by employee’s negligence, there is a presumption that
there was negligence on part of the employer in the selection of servant or employee, or in
supervision of both.
a.        This is rebuttable only by proof of observance of good father of the
family.
b.        If an employee is required to go to a place outside of his place of work,
the “Special Errand” or “Roving Commission” Rule is applicable. Under this
Persons rule, employee continues to be in the service of his employer even outside of
made place of work as long as he is performing some errand for the company
responsible outside of his working time. Thus, if he meets an accident on the way to the
for others place, the company is liable.

3.        The meaning of the word “manager” in “employers, owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise” does not include the manager of a corporation.
a.        It may be gathered from Art 2180 that the term manager is used in the
sense of an employer. No tortious or quasi-delictual liability can be fastened
on the manager of the corporation owning the truck in connection with the
vehicular accident because he himself may be regarded as an employee of
his employer.

4.        If an employee causes damage to another, there is still a presumption of the employer’s
negligence.
a.        The presumption is not absolute, because it can be rebutted by proof
of observance of the diligence of good father of a family.
b.        Failure to rebut the presumption would cause liability based on Pater
Familias or on the employer’s own negligence.
 5.        In motor vehicle mishaps where the proximate cause is the fault or negligence of the
driver, there is a difference between the liability of the owner who was in the vehicle and the
owner who was not in the vehicle at the time of the mishap.
a.        In Art 2184, NCC declares that “in motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is
solidarily liable with his driver if the owner was in the vehicle and could have
prevented the misfortune by use of due diligence… if the owner was not in
the motor vehicle, Art 2180 applies”. From this provision, it is clear that the
liability of an owner who was in the vehicle is different from one who is not:

Owner who was in the vehicle Owner who

was not

He can avail
the defense.
The law
presumes
Defense of
due diligence He cannot avail the defense of due diligence in selection and supervision that he has
not exercised
in selection of his employees. due diligence
of employees in selection
and
supervision of
his employee.

He is not
solidarily
liable because
he did not
participate
directly in the
bringing
about the
injury.
He is solidarily liable with his driver. Thus, after payment of claim, he can
Type of
demand reimbursement from the driver of ½ of the entire amount he
liability
paid.

After
payment of
claim, he can
demand
reimburseme
nt of the
entire
amount.

b.        In one case, SC held that owner cannot be held liable if he himself did
not know how to drive, even if he is inside the vehicle at the time of mishap.
c.         In case the owner was in the vehicle, the basis of his liability is not
Respondeat Superior but relationship of Pater Familias. In this theory, the
negligence of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of his
timely correction, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order
to prevent injury or damage.
d.        However, the test of Imputed Negligence under Art 2184 must
necessarily be subjective. It must first be determined if the driver was
negligent, only if found negligent will the owner be imputed of negligence.

6.        Schloendorff Doctrine, regards liability of physicians no longer stands.

a.        Under Schloendorff Doctrine, a physician is considered an independent
contractor because of the skill he exercised and lack of control exerted over
his work, even if he is employer by the hospital. Hospital are then exempt
from application of Respondeat Superior Principle for any fault or negligence
they commit in the discharge of their profession.
 b.        However, this Doctrine is no longer has efficacy has before. In Ramos
vs. CA, SC held that there is an. employer-employee relationship between the
hospital and their physicians. Thus, liability of hospitals is based on Principle
of Apparent Authority or Agency by Estoppel, and Doctrine of Corporate
Negligence.                                                                 i.      Principle of
Apparent Authority or Agency by Estoppel, because
hospital’s actions as principal or as employer somehow
misleads the public into believe that such authority
exists. Thus, the hospital is now estopped from passing
                                                             
the blame to physicians. ii.      Under Doctrine
of Corporate Negligence, hospitals now have the duty to
make the reasonable effort to monitor and oversee the
treatment prescribed and administered by physicians
practicing in its premises. Thus, physicians guilty of
malpractice are solidarily liable for damages.

7.        Under “Captain of the Ship Rule” in connection to an operation of a patient by a doctor,
operating surgeon is the person in complete charge of the surgery room and all personnel
connected with the operation.
a.        Their duty is to obey his orders.
b.        If the control and management of the thing which caused the injury to
the patient was in the hands of the doctor although the act was done by
another under his control, he shall be liable.

8.        State is liable for Quasi-Delict only when it acts through a special agent, but not when
the quasi-delict is committed by an official to whom the task done property pertains.
a.        “Special agent refers to a government employee who is performing a
job or act foreign to his usual duties. They are those specifically
commissioned to carry out the acts complained of outside the agent’s regular
duties.
                                                                i.      Thus, if the
accident was due to negligence of ambulance driver
belonging to PGH or of the driver of vehicle belonging to
a certain provincial government, and at the time of
accident, such driver was performing his usual duties,
only such driver and not his employer can be held liable.

X is a married
minor but
living and
depending on ·          AB, the parents of C, brought an action or damages against both X and F based on Quasi-
his father, F, Delict. Considering that X is a married minor, may the father be held liable?
for
subsistence.
He killed C
but he was
acquitted in
the criminal
case on the
ground that
his act lacked
intent to kill,
coupled with
mistake. YES. Under Art 236 FC, emancipation of minor by marriage is full and absolute even if he is below 21 years of age.
Parents or guardians are no longer held liable for torts under Art 2180.

However, RA 6890 has excepted marriage and torts from complete emancipation of one ho has reached 18 years of
age. It returned the responsibility of torts to the parents for those between 18 and 21 years of age and are still living
with the.
 A, a 10-year
old minor,
shot B with
an air rifle
causing her
death. B’s
parents,
together with
her adopting NO. Natural parents should be liable since parental authority was still lodged in them at the time of the incident. Art
parents filed
36 Child and Youth Welfare Code which provides that, “a decree of adoption shall be effective as of the date of the
a civil
complaint for original petition was filed” is contemplated to apply to accuring benefits in which effect should be retroactive.
damages
against the
natural
parents of A
with whom
he was living
at the time of
the accident.

The
Tortfeasor
Prior to the
incident,
Spouses C
filed a
petition for However, if there are liabilities, these should devolve upon the natural parents. It would be unfair if liabilities would
adoption of be given retroactive effect considering that adopters have no parental control over the minor at the time of the
A. This incident.
petition was
granted after
the shooting
incident.

The natural
parents of A
claimed that
it is not
them, but
Spouses C
(now
adoptive
parents of A)
who are
indispensable
parties since
parental
authority
shifted to
them from
the time the
petition or
adoption was
filed.
Are the
adoptive
parents lien
due to the
apparent
retroactive
effects of
Adoption?

GSIS failed to
return the
title
mortgaged to
them after
the
obligation
was satisfied. There was a pre-existing contract between parties. GSIS and Spouses Deang had a loan agreement secured by a real
It said that it
is not liable estate mortgage. The duty to return the owner’s duplicate copy could not be fulfilled.
for the acts of
its employees
because it is
a GOCC
performing
governmenta
l functions.

It avers that
it falls within
the term
“State” under
Art 2180(6)
and cannot Art 2180(6) which states, “the State is not responsible when it is an official to whom the task properly pertains, who
be held has caused the damage. In this case, Art 2176 shall apply”, does not apply. The more applicable provisions are Art
vicariously 1170 and 2201:
liable for
negligence
committed by
its
employees.
Decide.

1.        Art 1170 states, “those who are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay in the performance of
their obligations, and those who contravene its tenor are liable for damages”.
2.        Art 2210 states, “in contracts and quasi-contracts, damages for which the obligor who
acted in GF is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable consequences of breach of
obligation, and which the parties have foreseen and could have foreseen at the time the
obligation was constituted”.

Art 2210 applies to obligors who acted in GF. Since GF is presumed and BF is a matter of fact to be proven, GSIS can
be treated as a party who default in its obligation to return the owner’s duplicate copy of title. As an obligor in GF,
GSIS is liable for “those that are the natural and probable consequences of breach of obligation”.

The inability of Spouses Deang to secure another loan and damages they suffered was due to GSIS’s failure to return
their owner’s duplicate copy of title.
A sold his
Pajero to a B
for 1M,
although the ·          Can D file an independent civil action against C and his father, B?
sale was not
registered
with LTO.

YES, D can file an independent civil action against C and his father, B for damages based on Quasi-Delict because there
was an act or omission which caused damage without a contractual obligation. Under Sec 1 Rule 111 RC, what is
deemed instituted with a criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from a delict. Thus, an action
based on a Quasi-Delict is not instituted with the criminal action and may be filed separately.

B allowed his
son C, a
minor who
did not have
a driver’s
license, to
drive the car
to bakery. On
the way, C
sideswiped D
who suffered
serious
physical
injuries.

·          Can B raise the defense that he is not liable because the vehicle is not registered in his
name, but still in the name of A?
NO, B cannot raise the defense that the vehicle is still registered to A. His liability is based, not on the fact of
ownership of vehicle, but based on Vicarious Liability under Art 2180 because he is the father of a minor who caused
damage due to negligence.

While the suit will prosper against the registered owner, it is the actual owner of the private vehicle who will be
ultimately liable.
The purpose of car registration is only to reduce difficulty in identifying the party liable in case of accidents.

Notes:

1.        In an action based on Quasi-Delict, registered owner of a motor vehicle is solidarily liable
for injuries and damages caused by the negligence of the driver, inspite of the fact that the
vehicle may have already been the subject of an unregistered sale in favor of another person.
2.        Unless registered with LTO, the sale does not affect third parties, especially victims of
accidents.
a.        Regardless of sales made, the registered owner is the lawful operator
as far as the public and third persons are concerned. It is directly and
primarily responsible for the consequences of its operation.
b.        The owner/operator of record is the employer of the driver, the actual
operator and employer, is its agent.
c.         Whether the driver is authorized or not by the actual owner is
irrelevant to determining the liability of the registered owner because the
law primarily holds him responsible.

A is the
registered ·          Is the court’s action in not allowing A to show evidence that he was not actually the
owner of car owner justified?
driven by B.

YES, it was justified. Registered owner of a motor vehicle is not allowed to show proof of ownership in order to escape
B hit C, who liability. Otherwise, it would be easy for him to escape responsibility by transferring the vehicle to one who does not
died. possess any property. A victim of recklessness on public highways is usually without means to discover or identity the
person actually causing it other than recourse to registration to LTO.
B was
prosecuted
for homicide
through
reckless ·          Can A be held liable for damages?
imprudence
and was
convicted.

A is liable for damages. A registered owner is primarily responsible under Art 2180 to the public or to third persons for
injuries, even if the vehicle is not used for a public service.

X, C’s father,
brought an
action for
damages
against A,
without
including B as
party
defendant. A
tried to
present
evidence to
show that he
was not
actually the
owner, but
he was not
allowed by
court.

A, a law
student of
FEU engaged
B, his
classmate in
a fistfight
resulting to
B’s injuries.
The incident
happened In both cases, professor C is not liable because A is already of age. Liability of teacher comes into play only if the
student is a minor. A cannot claim to be a minor since he is now in law school.
when C, the
professor
was teaching.
B sued A and
C for
damages. C
filed an MD
on the
grounds that:
While the contention of C is correct that he cannot be liable, the theory that FEU is an academic school no longer
applies because the present rule is that, “the teacher shall be liable for acts or omissions of his minor students
without prejudice to the right of the teacher to interpose the defense of due diligence regardless of nature of school”.
 Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file with the proper government office a bond executed by a government-
controlled corporation or office, to answer for damages to 3 rd persons. Among of bond and other terms shall be
fixed by the competent public official (Art 2186).

Notes on insurance:
1.        Motor vehicle owners/operators are required to have third party liability insurance.

Motor 2.        Insurer’s liability is primary and accrues immediately upon occurrence of injury or event. It
vehicle bonds does not depend on recovery of judgment by injured party against insured.
to answer for
damages to 3.        Injured or heirs of victim may sue directly the insurer.
third persons 4.        Sale of motor vehicle is valid and binding only with parties and does not affect third
persons, especially victims of accidents involving said motor vehicle.
5.        Registered owner subject to unregistered deed of sale is one solidarily liable for damages
or injuries caused by negligence of driver employed by the new owner.

6.        Whether driver is authorized or not by the actual owner is irrelevant to determining the
liability of the registered owner who the law holds primarily and directly responsible for any
accident, death or injury caused by operation of vehicle.

Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person
by reason of defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings and other public works under their
control or supervision (Art 2189).

Notes on defective roads:

1.        Defective road, street etc. do not need to belong to the province, city or municipality for
Liabilities of liability to attach. The fact that the street is a national road is untenable. It only requires that
provinces, either control or supervision is exercised.
cities and
municipalitie a.        Although Sec 4, RA 409 states that, “City of Manila shall not be liable
s for
for damages or injuries to persons or property arising from failure of any city
defective
officer to enforce its provisions or from their negligence while enforcing their
roads
provisions”, it does not affect Art 2189. Art 2189 us a specific provision which
governs liability for defective streets while Sec 4 Ra 409 is a general provision
referring to negligence in general, regardless of object.

2.        City is guilty when by carrying on road diggings without any warning device or barricade
at the excavation site located in a street that was dimly lit and a vehicle rammed into a pile of
earth resulting to bodily injuries and and damage.

Proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages

resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack
of necessary repairs (Art 2190).

Notes on Collapsing Buildings:

1.        Proprietor or owner is prima facie deemed
negligent and is made liable, if it should be due to
lack of necessary repairs, because it is his duty to
maintain his property a.       
in goodTo relieve himself
condition from
at all times.
liability, he must prove that
property was in good state of
repair or collapse was due to a
defect in its construction in
which case the engineer or
architect
2.        Fact that property and/or
is leased or contract may
in usufruct will
not exempt the owner be held
fromresponsible
liability for his duty to
make necessary repairs remains although the
property is legally in possession and control of
For collapsing another. a.        Lessee or usufructuary is
buildings and obliged to notify or advise the
structures owner of the need for urgent or
b.         Failure of
extraordinary repairs.
usufructuary to
give notice will entitle owner to
reimbursement for damage he
may be required to pay third
parties.
3.        Doctrine of Last Clear Chance does not apply
in cases covered by Art 2190.
 4.        If a building collapsed because of an
earthquake, liability will depend if the cause of the
collapse was due to the earthquake as a fortuitous
event or if it was coupled with a certain form of
negligence. a.        If there was negligence,
liability will attach to the
engineer or architect who drew
up the plans and specifications
for the building if it should fall
within 15 years from completion
of the structure by reason of
defect in those plans and
specifications, or due to defects
in the ground.

Other Duties Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused:

under Quasi
Delict 1.        Explosion of machinery not been taken care
of, and with inflammation of explosive substances
not kept in a safe and adequate place
2.        Excessive smoke, harmful to persons or
property
3.        Falling of trees situated at or near highways
or lanes, if not caused by force majeure

4.        Emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or

deposits of infectious matter, constructed without
precautions suitable to the place (Art 2191).

Principle of Principle of presumed

created risks negligence

When a
person
Liabilities of introduces in
proprietor society a
dangerous
object from
For other necessity or
damages profit, he
exposes
others to
danger.

When an inanimate object

causes damage to another
the owner becomes liable;
proof o fault or negligence is
unnecessary because this is
presumed.
If it injures
another even
without
negligence on
the part of
the owner or
proprietor, he
should be
liable for
damage
caused.

If damage referred to in the 2 preceding articles should be the result of

any defect in the construction mentioned in ART 1723, third persons
suffering damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect
or contractor in accordance with said article, without the period fixed
(Art 2192).
 Notes if Cause Due to Defect in Construction:

1.        Proprietor or owner is not liable if the

damages referred to in Art 2190-2191 were due to
any defect in construction mentioned in Art 1723.
2.        Third person suffering damages may proceed
only against engineer or architect or contractor or
against all of them.
Defects in 3.        Under Art 1723:
construction a.        Collapse must happen
within 15 years from completion
of the Contractor                       
structure. shall
b.        also be
                      
liable for damages if                    
the edifice
falls, within the samei.     
period
Defectsdue
to: in
construction
or use of
                 
materials
ii.      Any of
inferior
c.         Engineer or architect
violationshall of
quality he
be solidarily liable with
furnished
contractor if he supervises the
d.         Acceptance of building
construction.
does not imply waiver of any
causes of action by reason of
any defect.
e.        Action must be brought
within 10 years following
collapse of the building.

It is the failure to observe for the protection of interest of another the

degree of care, precaution and vigilance, which circumstances justly
demands, whereby such other person suffers injury.

Notes:
Negligence 1.        Existence of negligence in a given case is not
determined by reference to personal judgment but
by the behavior of the actor in the situation before
him.
2.        Motive is not material in negligence cases. A
defendant may still be liable even if the act was
meant to be a practical joke.

What should be determined in negligence cases is what is foreseeable

to a good father of the family.
Notes:
1.        The law requires a man to possess ordinary
capacity to avoid harming his neighbors unless there
is a clear and manifest incapacity to avoid it.
However, it does not generally hold him liable for
unintentional injury unless he might have or ought to
Standard of have foreseen he danger because he possesses that
care capacity.
2.        Fault or negligence consists in the omission of
that degree of diligence, required by the nature of
the obligation and corresponding to the
circumstances of the person, time and place.
3.        GF connotes a situation where the person had
no knowledge and circumstance that would put him
into an inquiry. There should be no intention of
taking an unconscientious advantage of another.

Did the defendant in doing the negligent act use reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent man would have used in the same
situation? If not, there is negligence.

Notes:

Test of
Negligence
 1.        Conduct is negligent when a prudent man in
the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen
hat an effect harmful to another was sufficiently
Test of probable to warrant his disregard of conduct or
Negligence guarding against its consequences.
2.        “Diligence before the fact”—conduct that
should be examined in negligence cases is the
conduct before the injury or the aggravation
thereof.
3.        State of mind of actor is not important. GF or
use of sound judgment is immaterial. Only juridical
fault is subject to liability and not moral fact.

The court will place itself in the actor’s position to see if a prudent man
could have foreseen the resulting harm if the conduct is pursued. Even
if injury is not foreseeable, risk is still foreseeable if possibility of injury
is foreseeable. Foreseeability is the fundamental test of negligence.

A higher degree of diligence

is required if a child is
Persons
involved, even if the child is
exposed to
the risk a trespasser because entry
of children in a vacant lot
may be foreseeable.

GR: If an individual is
suddenly in a dangerous
situation, and required to
act without time to consider
the best means to avoid the
impending danger, he is not
guilty of negligence if he fails
Emergency to undertake a better
Rule or solution.
Sudden Peril
Doctrine

S: Emergency Rule does not

apply if the person invoking
it created the danger
through his own negligence.

Circumstance
s that may
affect
determinatio Any act subjecting an
n of innocent person to
negligence unnecessary risk is a
Social value negligent act if the risk
outweighs the advantage
accruing to the actor and
even to the innocent person
himself.

EX: More prudence is

Time of day required when driving at
night.

Even if the odds that an

Gravity of injury will result are not
harm to be high, harm may still be
avoided. considered foreseeable if
the gravity to be avoided is
great.
 If the alternative presented
to the actor is too costly, the
Alternative harm that may result is still
courses of considered unforeseeable to
action a reasonable man. More so,
if there is no alternative
course of action.

EX: Degree of diligence is

required when travelling in a
Place
wet and slippery road than a
dry one.

It appears to require a
different standard of care
for women under
circumstances indicated. It
Women can also be argued that the
same conclusion can be
reached if it was sa man who
was in the position of the
actor.

GR: Mere intoxication is not

negligence nor establishes
want of ordinary care. But it
may be one of
circumstances to prove
negligence.
Intoxication
S: A driver is presumed
negligent if he is violating
any traffic violation at the
time of the mishap.

When persons imposed

upon themselves certain
obligations and its non-
compliance will be
considered negligence.
Nature of
activity
EX: Railroad company must
have a gate at the railroad
crossing.

An expert should exhibit

Experts and care and skill one ordinarily
professionals skilled in the particular field
that he is in.

GR: A weak or accident-

prone person must meet the
standard of a reasonable
man.

Physical S: If defect amounts to a

disability real disability, standard of
conduct is that of a
reasonable person under the
same disability.
 Physical
disability

RPC NCC

He is exempt
from criminal It does not
liability. But excuse him or
he may not his guardian
be exempt from liability
from civil based on
liability ex Quasi-Delict.
Circumstance delicto.
s material in
determining
negligence

1.       
Bases for holding an Betwee
insane
Insanity n
person liable for his tort:
innocen
t
persons,
2.
the       
loss
Induce
should
those
be
interest
borne
ed in
by the
the
one who
estate
3.        
occasion
of
edthe
Fear it.
insane
that
to
insanity
restrain
would
and to
lead
control
false
him.
claims
of
insanity
and
avoid
liability.
Care and caution required of
a child is according to his
maturity and capacity. This is
determined in a case to case
basis.

A child under 15 years of age

can still be subsidiarily liable
with his property for civil
liabilities ex delicto (Art 100
RPC). Absence of negligence
does not necessarily mean
absence of liability.

Children

If the child is legally

incapable of discernment,
parents or those exercising
parental authority may still
be liable if proper diligence
in supervising the child was
not observed. The actor-
child himself is liable up to
extent of his properties.
Knowledge
and
Experience of
the Actor

GR: Plaintiff alleging damage due to negligent acts has the burden of
proving the negligence.
S: When rules or the law provide for cases when negligence is
presumed.
1.       
Was
found
A driver is presumedguilty of
negligent if he: reckless
driving
or
violating
traffic
violation
2.       
Motor sWas
at
vehicle least
violating
mishaps twice
any
within
traffic
the
regulati
precedi
on at
ng
thetwo
time
months.
of the
misshap
e (Art
2185)

There is a prima facie

presumption of negligence
on the part of the defendant
if the death or injury results
from his possession of
dangerous weapons or
substantces, such as
firearms or point, except
when the possession or use
is indispensable in his
occupation or business (Art
2188)

Possession of
dangerous
weapons or
substances There is prima facie 2.       
that results in negligence when: 1.        
Death
death or Person
or injury
injury dies
results or
is
from
injured
defenda
nt’s
possessi
on of
dangero
us
weapon
When possession or ofuse is
indispensable in defendant’s
substan
occupation or business,
ces no
presumption.
 Common carriers are
presumed to have been at
Common fault or acted negligently in
carriers in case of death or injuries of
case of death 1.       
passengers. Unless they
or injuries of Violatio
prove that they observed
passengers n of Sec
extraordinary diligence
37and
prescribed in Art 1733 RA
Art 1735). 4136
(Land
Transpo
rtation
and
Traffic
Code)
requirin
g
motorist
s to
2.        
drive on
Speedin
the right
g in
side of
violation
the road
of
andlaw
providin
providin
gg for
3.        
rules
restricti
Speedin
on
gon
4.        
in onan
overtaki
speed
intersec
Vehicle’
ng.
stion failure
to signal
5.
while        
Driver
making
escaped
the u-
6.
and
turn        
Driving
abando
without
ned the
the
victims
license
and
8.        his
or
truck
7.        
Overtaki
driving
Motorcy
ng in a
alone
cle
“no-
with
driver
overtaki
Presumption only
was
ng not on
under Special azone”
wearing
Laws and student’
his
particul
Ordinances sarlylicense
protecti the
ve
places
headgea
where
rthere
at the
time
are of
accident
continu
.ous
yellow
lines at
the
center
of the
highway
10.
which      is
Violatio
internati
n of
onally
9.        
MMDA
recogniz
Overtaki
ordinan
ed
ng in an
ce
paveme
intersec
prohibiti
nt
tiona
ng
regulati
vehicle
on
coming
known
from
as
one
“double (?
Check
center
GR
lines”
184905)
street
from
crossing
another
specifie
d street
or
avenue.
It literally
means “the
thing speaks
for itself”.
Notes on Res
Ipsa Loquitor:
Definition
 Definition

Presumption
of Negligence

Torts/Quasi-
Delicts (Art
2176-2194)
(51)
Delicts (Art
2176-2194)
(51)

Res Ipso
Loquitor

Presumption
of Negligence
 Res Ipso
Loquitor

Presumption
of Negligence
Concepts and
Doctrines

Requisites
Concepts and
Doctrines

Requisites
Inapplicabilit
y of the
Doctrine
Inapplicabilit
y of the
Doctrine

General
Rules:
Statutes and
ordinances
Statutes and
ordinances

EXCEPTIONS
(non-
compliance
becomes a
sine qua non):
 Violations of
Rules and
Statutes
Other factors
in
determining
presence of
negligence
 Violations of
Rules and
Statutes
Other factors
in
determining
presence of
negligence

It is not
negligence
Administrativ per se but an
e rules
evidence of
negligence.

Violation of
rules imposed
by private
individuals
Private rules (e.g.
of conduct employers) is
only a
possible
evidence of
negligence.

GR: Plaintiff
must prove
that:
Proximate
cause
Proximate
cause
EXCEPTIONS:
 Note: See
notes below.

A practice which is
dangerous to human life
Practice and cannot ripen into a custom
custom
which will protect anyone
who follows it.

When plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause
of his injury, he cannot recover damages.

Legal Basis If his negligence was only contributory and the defendant’s lack of care is
(Art 2179) still the immediate and proximate cause, the plaintiff may still recover
damages but courts will mitigate the damages to be awarded.

It is that cause, which in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken

by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which
the result would not have occurred.

Definition
One of the essential facts which the plaintiff must prove to recover
damages is the relation of cause and effect between the defendant’s
negligence and the injury he incurred.

When there are concurrent or successive negligence acts or omissions

are the direct and proximate cause of a single injury even if the two or
more persons who committed it acted independently, and it is impossible
to determine the proportion contributed to the injury, all of them are
responsible for the entire result and shall be liable as if their individual
acts were the sole cause.

Effect when Notes on Concurrent Liabilities:

there are
concurrent 1.        Generally, each wrongdoer is liable for the
cause total damage suffered.
2.        If there are several causes for the resulting
damages, a party is not relieved from the liability,
even partially. a.        It is sufficient that
negligence of each party is an
efficient cause, without which
the damage would not have
b.        It is not a defense that
resulted.
damage would not have resulted
with the negligence of only one
tortfeasor, without the acts of
the concurrent tortfeasor.

Proximate Concurrent
Remote cause
cause cause

Test on
determining
 Where
several
causes
producing an
injury are
Natural and Whenever a new cause concurrent
continuous intervenes, which is not a and each is an
sequence, consequence of the first efficient
unbroken by wrongful cause, which is not cause without
any efficient under control of the which the
Test on intervening wrongdoer, which could not injury would
determining cause, have been foreseen by the not have
which is the produces the exercise of reasonable happened,
cause of injury and diligence, and except for the injury
injury without which the final injurious may be
which the consequence could not have attributed to
result would happened, then such all or any of
not have injurious consequence must the causes
occurred. be deemed remote. and recovery
may be had
against any or
all of
responsible
persons

Cause-in-fact test Policy tests

If defendant’s
negligence
was indeed
the cause-in
fact, the
inquiry shifts
to the
Determine if defendant’s question of
negligence was the cause-in- limit of
Tests of Tests fact of the damage to the
Proximate plaintiff. If it is not, inquiry liability of the
Cause defendant.
stops. The law may
limit the
liability of the
defendant to
certain
consequences
of his action.
 Necessary
Substantial Element of
But For Test
Factor Test Sufficient Set
Test

Negligent
conduct is the
cause in fact
of the
damage if it
was a
substantial Negligent act
factor in or omission is
producing a cause in fact
injuries. The of the
cause set in damage if it is
Defendant’s conduct is the motion by the a necessary
cause in fact of the injury if defendant element of a
Test the damage would not have must sufficient set.
resulted had the defendant continue until This is
not been negligent. the moment effective in
of damage or solving
at least the problems
setting in regarding
motion of concurrent
final active causes.
injurious
force which
immediately
produced or
preceded the
damage.

Notes on But-For Test:

1.        Negligence does not need to be the sole
Tests applied cause. The actor is liable as long as it is the
in the proximate concurring cause.
Philippines 2.        The injured party must establish that the
defendant’s culpable conduct was the cause of
injury. a.        EX: If X fails to keep a life
vest in the ship and Y could have
been saved if there was a life
vest, X shall be liable for Y’s
drowning. However, if Y could
have drowned even if there was
a life vest, X shall not be liable.
3.        There is a degree of artificial abstraction (state
of preoccupation). a.        EX: If X and speeding and
hits Y, X can argue that he would
have hit Y even if he has not
been speeding. His negligence
will not be a But-For Cause if the
outcome would have been the
4.        It is possible tosame.
have more than 1 But-For
cause for an injury.

Proximate Notes on Substantial Factor Test:

Cause 1.        If the actor’s conduct is the substantial factor
in bringing the injury, the fact that the actor did not
foresee or could not have foreseen the injurious act
does not prevent him from being liable.
Proximate
Cause

a.        The conduct should have

set the cause of the injury. This
cause must continue until the
moment of damage or                       
the final
active injurious force                      
which
preceded the actual                    
damage.
2.        If the injury would not have happened i.      had
Neitherthe
defendant not been negligence, his conduct of theseshall isbe
considered the substantial factor. the a But-
For Cause
3.        This is used to supplement the But-For because Testinif
redundant multiple causes would preventthe liability.
absence
a.        EX: X starts a fire on the
of either
left side of Y’s house.fire,Z starts
Y’s a
fire on the right side.houseBoth firescould
destroyed Y’s house.still have
burned.
                      
Because
                      
both causes
                 
are
ii.       To
redundant,
avoid
and neitherthis,
Substantial
is a But-For,
Factor
this may gives
liability
result toto
the
potential
defendant
preclusion
that
of liability
materially
against
contributed
either
to the
defendant if
injury.
you use the
This destroys the causal But-For
connection between the Test.
Effect
negligent act and the injury.
Thus, it negatives liability.

An intervening cause shall

be regarded as the
proximate cause, in lieu of
Regarded as the primary cause, if1.         It
the
the chain of events is so must
broken be
proximate that they become a new
cause independent and that and the
result cannot be saidindepen
to be
the consequences ofdent the
primary cause. and not
under
the
control
of the
wrongd
oer, or
one
which
by
exercise
of        It
2.
must
reasona
break
ble
the
foresigh
continui
t and
Test of ty of
diligenc
Sufficiency causal
e, he
connecti
should
on
have
3.        
betwee
anticipa
Injury so
n the
ted or
that the
original
guarded
former
negligen
against
cannot
tbe
it.act
said
and
to have
omissio
been
n
the
efficient
cause of
the
There is no efficient latter.
intervening cause if the
force created by the
negligence act or omission
have either:

Inapplicabilit
y of the
Doctrine
 1.       
2.        
Remain
Created
ed
another
active
Inapplicabilit force
itself
y of the which
3.        
Doctrine remaine
Created
ad new
active
until it
active
directly
risk of
caused
being
the
acted
resultby
upon
the
active
force
that
caused
1.        A
It cannot be considered the as a
tortfeas
sufficient intervening result.
orcause
is
because there is an liable
opportunity to guardfor
against it. consequ
ences of
Notes: negligen
Efficient ce,
intervening mistake
cause or lack
of skill
of       
2. a
physicia
The
n or
original
surgeon
tortfeas
whose
or is not
treatme
liable if
nt
the
aggravat
injured
ed the
party
Foreseeable original
fails to
intervening injury.
exercise
Cause This is
reasona
consider
ble care
ed as a
in
normal
securing
and
the
foreseea
services
3.        If
ble
thearisk.
of
compet
interven
ent
ing
surgeon
cause is
or
a
physicia
recurren
n.
t This
can
featurebe
consider
of the
ed an
environ
efficient
ment, it
interven
is not an
ing
efficient
cause.
interven
ing
cause
because
it is
foreseea
The intervention of an ble.
unexpected cause is not
sufficient to relieve the
wrongdoer from
consequences of negligence
if the negligence proximately
cooperates with the
independent cause in the
resulting injury.

Unforeseen
and
unexpected
act or cause
 Unforeseen
and An unforeseen and
unexpected unexpected act of a third
act or cause person may not be
considered an efficient
intervening cause if it is
duplicative (copy) in nature
or if it merely aggravated
the injury that resulted
because of the prior cause.
This is the same conclusion if
the third person’s act is part
of the causal set, together
with the defendant’s
negligence that operated to
cause the injury.

Where several causes producing the same injury are concurrent and
each is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have
happened, the injury may have attributed to all or any of the causes
and recovery may be had against any or all responsible persons.

Notes:
Concurrent 1.        Plaintiff cannot recover if negligence of both
cause plaintiff and defendant can be considered proximate
causes of the injury.
2.        The actor is liable even if a third person’s
innocent, tortious or criminal act is also a substantial
factor in bringing about the harm as long as effects
of the actor’s negligent conduct actively and
continuous operate to bring about harm to another.

Legal liability in tort is founded upon acts which cannot be excused in law, or which are committed without justifiable cause or
occasion. A damage caused to another does not create any liability when there is a legal excuse or justification for the doing of
the act causing damage.

This means damage without injury in those cases in which the loss or
harm was not a result of a violation of legal duty.
Definition
In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the injured person
alone.

In order to have an award for damages, there must first be a breach of

some duty and imposition of liability for that breach. Breach of such duty
should be the proximate cause of the injury. Thus, the mere fact that the
party suffered losses does not give rise to a right to recover damages.
There must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted and
damage suffered by the plaintiff.
Rationale

Damnum
Absque Injury A wrong without damage, or damage without wrong, does not constitute
a cause of action, because damages are only part of the remedy allowed
for the injured caused by a breach or wrong.

Instances
when the 1.        When there is an abuse of a person’s right.
Principle
does not
apply
 Instances
when the
Principle
does not
apply 2.        When exercise of this right is suspended or
extinguished pursuant to a court order.

GR: It is a complete defense and the person is not liable.

S: Partial defense, if the fortuitous event is not the sole cause of the injury and courts may mitigate the damage if the
loss would have resulted in any event.

Notes:
1.        When an act of God concurs with negligence of defendant to produce an injury, the
defendant is liable if the injury would not have resulted but for his own negligent conduct or
Fortuitous omission. The whole occurrence is humanized and removed from the rules applicable to Acts of
event God.
2.        Fire is not a natural calamity because it arises from human means, except if caused by
lightning.
3.        Carnapping per se is not a fortuitous event.
a.        To be considered as such, it must be more than just forceful taking of
another’s property. It must be proved and established that the event was an
act of God and done solely by third parties, that neither the claimant nor the
person alleged to be negligent has any participation.

GR: A plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm arising from

negligent or reckless conduct of defendant cannot recover for such harm.

Doctrine of
Assumption EXCEPTIONS (plaintiff is free from liability):
of Risk
1.        Emergency is found to exist
2.        Life or property of another is in peril when he
seeks to rescue his endangered property

“That which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury”.

One is not legally injured if he has consented to the act complained of or

was willing that it should occur. This negates negligence or liability on
Volenti Non part of the defendant even if his conduct would have constituted an
Fit Injuria actionable negligence, and without regard to the fact that plaintiff may
have acted in due care.

1.        If the person created the danger and another

person voluntarily assumes the risk but is not injured
by it even though he was injured in some other way
in attempted to withdraw from the scene after the
decree of danger increases, the defense of
Assumption of Risk cannot be available.

Inapplicabilit 2.        It is not available to employer in cases covered

y of the by Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Doctrine a.        Here, the burden of risk of
industrial accidents has been
        Employer
transferred
b. by law
is liable
from for
employeeortocompensation
damages employer. to
employee for any injuries from
accidents arising out of and in
the course of his employment or
other illness directly caused by
such employment.

There is an assumption of
risk if plaintiff in advance has
expressly waived his right to
recover damages.

Express
Waiver of
Right to
Recover
 1.       
Waiver
to
recover
before
Express the
Waiver of negligen
Right to ce       
2. act is
Waiver
invalid
Recover after the
because
negligen
it is
tprohibit
act is
valid
ed. as
it is in
the
form of
Condon
ation.

Dangerous
conditions
 Dangerous
conditions

Assumption
of risk
Assumption
of risk

Kinds

Implied
Assumptions
Implied
Assumptions

Contractual
relations
 Contractual
relations

Dangerous
activities

When
plaintiff is
aware of risk
Defenses in created by
Negligence the
Cases defendant’s
Defendant’s negligence
negligence but he
voluntarily
decides to
proceed,
there is an
implied
admission.

It is treated generally as negligence per se, except when the law or rules specifically provide for a different rule.
Effect would depend on whether the violation is:

Violation of 1.        Merely contributory negligence—partial defense

statute by
the victim
Violation of
statute by 2.        Proximate cause of loss—complete defense
the victim
3.        Neither contributory nor proximate cause of loss—proof of causation required

An action based on Quasi-Delict prescribes in 4 years from date of

Prescription accident, to be counted from last element of commission of act or
omission violative of right of plaintiff.

Relations An act done at one time is considered to have been done at some
Prescription antecedent period. The prescriptive period should commence to run only
Back Doctrine upon discovery of injury.

Plaintiff’s
own
negligence

Uncontrollabl Persons using violence or causing fear are primarily liable for acts
e fear or committed by third persons acting under irresistible force or
irresistible uncontrollable fear. If there are no such persons, those doing the act
force shall be secondarily liable (Art 101, RPC).

Where both parties are

negligent in such a way that
it would be impossible to
determine whose
negligence was the
proximate cause of the
accident, the party who had
the last clear chance or
opportunity to avoid the
accident by use of proper
care but failed to do so is
considered by law to be
solely responsible for the
consequences of the
accident.

EX: If a truck driver saw an

incoming car that swerved
and entered the truck’s lane
to avoid running over a
pedestrian, and the truck
driver did not move to the
side to give way to the
incoming car even if he
could have done so to avoid
the collision, he is solely
liable for the incident.

1.        It
Notes: only
2.        It
applies
assumes
to
negligen
vehicula
ce
r on
the part
accident
of
s. the
defenda
nt and
contribu
tory
negligen
ce on
the
plaintiff.

Definition
 n
i
o
n
ra
r
h
b
y
i.
 sc
 a
 lr
 a
e
 s,
t 
 
h
ca
Definition D
l.v
eo
 
ic 
an
rt g
3.        It r 
is ci t
 
n
h
someti h
mes ae e
 n
referred
to as: co
lH
fe
4.        a
u
The role ss
m
w
of the ato
u
doctrine n
p
u
in icle
relation tld
r
to Art aev
2179 is raee
only to irxn
mitigate ao
i
damage cn
n
5.        It n
h
s within
does ega
the d
rn
not o
context
apply in an
ce
of
relation te
contribu tge
ship rl
tory
betwee
negligen itti
n bank o
n
ce.
and its g
h
eee
deposits an
. vc
d
o
eei
fd
6.        It e
applies n
l
in suit d
o
betwee as
n n
s
owners t
and o
drivers fr
of two r
colliding o
i
vehicles m
n
. j
Howeve lu
r, it ir
does ay
not b
,
arise i
where a lw
passeng ih
1.        ti
er
Plaintiff
demand yc
was in .h
sthe
responsi
position
bility Tw
of h
from
danger. a
carrier is
By his s
to
own
enforce
negligen t
its o
h
ce,       
2. he is n
contract
Defenda
unable e
ual l
nt
to had yp
obligati
the
escape last
Doctrine of ons.
clear r
Involuntarine from so
ss Last Clear chance
Chance that ex
to avoid
position ri
the
by use vm
accident
of ea
through
ordinary st
Elements exercise
care.
of e
t
ordinary o
care but c
failed to a
ru
exercise es
it. d
e
u
co
ef
ss Last Clear
Chance
3.       
Defenda
Elements nt knew
that the
plaintiff
was in
the
position
of
4.       
danger,
Accident
or
occurre
should
d as a
have
proxima
known
te result
such.
of such
failure.

Only the person injured and

not the defendant. This
doctrine implies that the
person injured had
contributory negligence.
However, it does not
Who may preclude the defendant
invoke it
from proving the other way
and that it was the
contributory negligence
which proximately caused
the accident in order to stop
the plaintiff from recovering.
1.       
Neglige
nce of
3.        
plaintiff
The
is        
2.
party
concurr
Absence
charged
ent with
of
is
that of
precedi
required
defenda
ng
to
nt’sact
negligen
instanta
ce on
neously,
part of
and
defenda if
the
nt.
injury
cannot
be        As
5.
betwee
avoided
4.
n        
by
Passeng
defenda
whateve
er
nts,
r means
demand
doctrine
savailabl
cannot
e after
responsi
be
the
bility
extende
danger
from
d
is into
or
carrier
the field
should
to joint
of
have
enforce
tortfeas
been
its
ors as a
discover
contract
test of
ed.
ual
whether
obligatio
only one
ns.them
of
should
be held
liable to
the
injured
person
because
of his
discover
y of the
Cases when latter’s
the Doctrine peril,
is and it
inapplicable cannot
be
invoked
as
betwee
n
defenda
nt
concurr
ently
negligen
t.
 6.        As
against
third
persons,
Cases when a
the Doctrine negligen
is ce actor
inapplicable cannot
defend
himself
8.         In
abycase of
pleading
culpa
that
contract
another
7.         A
ual,
had
suit
where
negligen
brought
neither
tly the
by failed
contribu
to take
heirs
tory of
action
decease
negligen
which
d
ce of of
could
passeng
plaintiff
have
ers
nor his
avoided
against
last
the
both
clear
injury.
owners
chance
and
to avoid
drivers
the loss,
of
would
colliding
exonera
vehicles.
te the
defenda
nt from
liability.
Such
contribu
tory
negligen
ce or
last
clear
chance
by the
plaintiff
only
reduces
the
recover
y of
damage
s by the
plaintiff
but
does
not
exculpat
e the
defenda
nt from
his
1.        If negligence
breach of the plaintiff cooperated with
the negligence of of the defendant in bring the accident
causing the injury, negligence of the plaintiff shall be
contract
the absolute bar . to recovery.
Doctrine of 2.        If negligence of plaintiff was merely
contributory contributory to his injury, the immediate and
negligence proximate cause of the accident is still the
defendant’s negligence, recoverable damages will
only be mitigated.

It is the conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal

cause to the harm he suffered, which falls below the standard, which he
is required to conform for his own protection.

Notes:
4.        The defense of contributory negligence does
not apply in criminal cases committed through
reckless imprudence because one cannot allege the
negligence of another to evade the effects of his
own negligence.
5.        (Imputed Contributory Negligence)
Contributory Negligence is imputed if the actor is different from
Contributory negligence the person who is beinga.       made
Sinceliable.
the master may be
negligence held for his servant’s wrongful
act, the law imputes to the
master the act of the servant.
 Contributory
Contributory negligence
negligence
b.        This applies in situations
where the negligence on the
part of the person for whom the
plaintiff is responsible, and
especially by negligence of an
c.         The defendant
associated will be
in the transaction
subject
where he to was
mitigated liability
injured.
even if the plaintiff was not
himself personally negligent
because the negligence of
another is imputed to the
plaintiff.

GR: If an individual is suddenly in a dangerous situation, and required to

act without time to consider the best means to avoid the impending
Emergency danger, he is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake a better
Rule or solution.
Sudden Peril
Doctrine S: Emergency Rule does not apply if the person invoking it created the
danger through his own negligence.

Injury Damage

Injury vs. Loss, hurt or

Damage harm which
Definition Illegal invasion of a legal right.
results from
injury.

Elements to 1.        Legal right

bring an 2.        Legal obligation not to violate the legal right
action for
injuries 3.        Wrong in the form of a act or omission and duty with consequent injury or damage

Damage
Legal Injury without Loss or harm was not a result of a violation of legal duty.
injury

1.        Injury to persons

a.        Injury to persons does not necessarily involve contract with the person
injured. It embraces all actionable injuries affecting reputation, character,
Different conduct, manner and habit.
classes of 2.        Injury to property
injury
3.        Injury to relations

1.        Moral
2.        Exemplary
Kinds of
damages that 3.        Nominal
may be 4.        Temperate
recovered
5.        Actual
6.        Liquidated
Damage Damages
 Pecuniary
compensatio
n,
recompense,
or satisfaction
for an injury
sustained.
Definition Detriment, injury or loss occasioned by reason of fault of another in the These are
property or person. pecuniary
consequences
which the law
imposes for
breach of
some duty or
violation of
some rights.

Note:
1.        A complaint for damages is a personal action.
2.        Award must be monetary.
a.        In an action for damages, courts should award an amount to the
winning party and not its equivalent in property.
3.        Pecuniary loss is loss of money or something by which money or something of money
value may be acquired.
Distinctions a.        Proof is required to justify an award for actual damages.
General b.        Only claims duly supported by receipts shall be taken into
consideration.
Provisions c.         Moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages are
incapable of exact pecuniary estimation. Thus, assessment of damages is left
to the sound discretion of court, except for liquidated damages in which
parties fix themselves.
4.        Kinds of damages recoverable:
a.        Time losses: loss of wages or value of lost time or earning capacity
when injuries prevent the person to go to work.
b.        Injury expenses: incurred by reason by injury
c.         Pain and suffering: these include emotional distress and
consciousness of loss.

Damages Restitution

Requires
defendant to
Definition Money awarded because of a tort. restore any
gains he
made.

Notes: Both restitution and injunction are occasionally available in tort cases.

1.        Parents cannot recover actual damages in case of an accident where the mother had a
miscarriage.

Parents in
representatio
n of the fetus
 a.        Actual damages in this case are only speculative. Although parents are
entitled to damages, these based on damages inflicted directly upon them
and not from the injury or violation of rights of an unborn child.
Parents in
representatio 2.        If a mother goes to an abortionist without the husband’s consent, the husband cannot
n of the fetus file an action against the abortionist for damages on account of personal injury or death of the
unborn child.
a.        No such right could derivatively accrue to its parents or heirs. In fact,
even if a cause of action did accrue on behalf of the unborn child, it was
extinguished because of its pre-natal death, since no transmission o anyone
cant take place from the lack of juridical personality.

These are damages awarded to a person as compensation or indemnity for such pecuniary loss.

Plaintiff is entitled to an adequate compensation only for pecuniary loss he suffered and which he has duly proved.

Notes on Proof of Pecuniary Losses:

1.        Actual damages must be proved with reasonable degree of certainty. A court cannot rely
on speculation as to the fact and amount of damages but must depend on competent proof
that they have suffered, and on the evidence of actual amount.

a.        EXCEPTIONS:
                                                                i.      There is a
penalty clause agreed upon in the contract (Art 1126).
                                                              ii.      Liquidated
damages have been agreed upon (Art 2226)
                                                             iii.      Loss is presumed
as when a child or spouse dies as a result
                                                             iv.      Forfeiture of
bonds in favor of the government for promoting public
interest
                                                              v.      Damages for
death caused by crime of delict which an be awarded to
the heirs by proof of death alone
                                                             vi.      Damages implied
by law (e.g. complainant in libel cases is not required to
introduce evidence of actual damages when the amount
of award is more or less nominal; injury to reputation is a
natural and probable cause of libel)
b.        However, if injury consists on failure to realize expected profits,
Art 2199 uncertainty as to the precise amount of these unrealized profits will not
prevent recovery of an award.
2.        Proof required is:
a.        Damage sustained is the natural and probable consequences of
negligent act.
b.        Claimant must prove the amount of such damage
3.        Requisites for awarding actual damages:
a.        There must be a pleading and proof of actual damages suffered
b.        Amount of loss must be capable of proof
c.         Amount of loss must be actually proven with a reasonable degree of
certainty, premised upon competent proof or best evidence obtainable
d.        Courts are required to state the factual bases of the award
4.        Brief Rulings:
a.        Actual damages must be specifically prayed for.
b.        It may be executed pending appeal but not an award for moral or
exemplary damages which cannot be regarded as fixed until there is final
judgment.
c.         It replaced the loss caused by the wrong.
d.        Interest may be recovered for failure to pay sum of money.

Damnum emergens Ganacias

frustradas
 Failure to
receive as a
benefit that
would have
pertained to
him.

Definition Loss of what a person already possesses

Art 2200
(Classification
s of actual
damages)
Art 2200
(Classification
s of actual
damages)

Notes on Classification:

1.        Restitutio In integrum: the amount to be awarded should be the sum which will put the
party who has been injured or who has suffered as he would have been if he had not sustained
the wrong for which he is not getting his reparation.

2.        The primary object of an award of a civil action is just compensation, indemnity or
reparation for loss or injury.
a.        S: Damages are measured by benefit that has accrued to the
defendant in certain cases (e.g. IPC allows recovery of amount that was
earned by defendant who infringed the right of the owner of the mark).
b.        Indemnity includes compensation for everything then on, about or
belonging to the person as well as for all bodily injuries which are proved to
be the result of the accident.

3.        Doctrine of Foreseeable or Anticipated Consequences: those injuries that could have been
foreseen by parties at the time the contract was entered into are recoverable contract damages.

4.        Loss of Earning Capacity:

a.        Formula: {2/3 x (80 –age of death0} x (monthly earnings/2) x 12
b.        Variables considered:
                                                                i.      Life expectancy
is computed as: {2/3 x (80 – age ofii.death)
                                                                    Net
income/earnings – total of earnings less expenses
necessary for creation of such earnings, and les sliving or
other incidental
c.         The court considered expenses.
net earnings and potentiality and capacity to
increase future income as the important elements in measuring loss of
earning capacity.
d.        It is not necessary for plaintiff to be employed at the time of injury
for the court to be able to compensate him both for value of time loss after
the injury and before the trial and the impairment to his capacity to earn
money in the future.
e.        Indemnification for loss of earning capacity must be prove.
                                                                 i.      It partakes the
nature of actual damages. It refers to net income (i.e.,
his total income net of expenses)
                                                              ii.      GR:
Documentary evidence should substantiate the claim
for damages for loss of earning capacity.
1.        EXCEPTIONS:
a.        Award for temperate damages for loss in lieu of
documentary evidence
b.        Non-working victims
c.         Deceased is self-employed and earning less than
the minimum wage under current labor laws.
d.        Testimonial evidence sufficiently establishes the
loss.

5.        Loss of Profits: Average profit for the preceding years x number of years during which
the business is affected by wrongful act or breach.

Obligor in GF Obligor in BF

He shall be
liable for all
damages
Art 2201
He shall be liable for natural and probable consequences of the breach of which
may be
(Damages in reasonably
contracts and Liability obligation and which parties have foreseen and could have reasonably
attributed to
quasi foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.
the non-
contracts) performance
of the
obligation.

Actual and
Compensator
y Damages Art 2202 He is liable for all damage which are natural and probable consequences of acts or omissions complained of.
(Damages in
crimes and
quasi-delicts)
It is not necessary that damages have been foreseen or could have been foreseen at the time obligation was
constituted.
Injured victims have a responsibility to act reasonably to limit or mitigate
losses incurred.
Failure to mitigate the injury will not hold the defendant for incremental
(small) losses that could have been avoided.

If as a consequence of refusal of injured to submit to an operation, a

series of infections ensued and expensive medical treatment was
Definition required, defendant should not be charged with the expenses.

A person who reasonably attempts to minimize his damages can recover

the expenses he incurred.

Doctrine of Avoidable Contributory

Art 2203 Consequences Negligence
(Doctrine of
Avoidable
Consequence It occurs
s) before or at
Acts of It must occur after the act or the time of
Doctrine of plaintiff omission of the defendant. the act or
Avoidable omission of
Consequence defendant.
s vs.
Contributory
Negligence
 Consequence
s)
Doctrine of
Avoidable
Consequence
s vs.
Contributory
Negligence
He
contributed
Acts of He has a responsibility to to the
injured victim limit or mitigate his losses. accident
responsible
for his injury.

Ordinary Extraordinary

Indemnity for
damages
ordered by
court be paid
to be paid by
the losing
party in
litigation to
the prevailing
party.

Damages (Art
2195-2235)
(21)
 Basis Reasonable compensation for legal services he rendered. It is based on
fact of his employment and his agreement with the client.

Attorney’s
fees
 Grounds for claiming attorney’s fees:
1.        Separate civil action to recover civil liability ex delicto
2.        Defendant’s act or omission compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur
expenses to protect his interest
3.        Actions for legal support
4.        Unfounded civil action or proceeding against plaintiff
5.        Criminal cases for malicious prosecution against the plaintiff
6.        When exemplary damages are awarded
7.        When at least double judicial costs are awarded
8.        Where court deems is just
9.        Actions for recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers
10.      Actions for indemnity under Workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws
11.      Defendant acted in gross and evident BF in refusing the satisfy the plaintiff’s claim

Moral damages are designed to compensated for actual injury. It is based on the maxim “when there is a wrong,
there is a remedy”.
1.        Besmirched reputation

What is
included (Art
 2.        Moral shock
3.        Wounded feelings

What is 4.        Fright

included (Art 5.        Physical suffering
2217)
6.        Mental anguish
7.        Serious anxiety
8.        Social humiliation
9.        Similar injury

An award for moral damages calls for presentation of:

1.        Evidence of besmirched reputation, or physical, mental or psychological suffering sustained
by the claimant.
2.        A culpable act or omission factually established.
3.        Proof that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the
damages sustained.
4.        Proof that the act is predicated on any of the instances expressed by Art 2219:
a.        A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries
b.        Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries
c.         Seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts
d.        Adultery or concubinage
When e.        Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest
property
awarded f.         Illegal search
g.        Libel, slander or any other form of defamation
h.        Malicious prosecution
i.          Acts mentioned in Art 309, Art 21, 26-29, 30, 32, 34 and 35.

Notes on When Moral Damages Be Awarded:

1.        Damages must be the proximate result of the wrongful act or omission.
2.        Generally, plaintiff must prove factual basis and causal relation of damages to the
defendant’s act.
a.        S: Moral damages may be awarded to victim in criminal proceedings
without need for pleading of proof of basis.

GR: Moral damages are not recoverable because the action is not included in Art 2219 as one of the actions where
Moral moral damages may be recovered.
Damages
EXCEPTIONS:
1.        Where mishap results in the death of a passenger
2.        Where common carrier has been guilty of fraud or bad faith

Moral
damages in Notes on Moral Damages in Culpa Contractual:
culpa
contractual 1.        Intent does not always have to be present because negligence may be so gross as to
amount to malice or BF.
a.        BF under Art 2220 includes gross negligence.
2.        Moral damages in case of physical injuries are recoverable only by the party injured.
a.        A patient can leave the hospital despite non-payment of bills but the
hospital can pursue other remedies.

Moral
damages in It may be recovered only in cases of intentional tort.
Quasi-Delict
 1.        It can be due when accused is found guilty of physical injuries, lascivious acts, adultery or
concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention, illegal arrest or search, defamation and malicious
prosecution.
2.        Award of civil indemnity is mandatory without the need of other proof aside from the
Moral commission of the crime.
damages in
Crimes or 3.        Although RA 9346 prohibits imposition of Death, civil indemnity is proper because it is not
Felony dependent upon the imposition of Death Penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances
warranting the imposition of death.

GR: Only the victim can recover.

EXCEPTION (the following relatives may recover):
1.        Spouse, legitimate and illegitimte descendants and ascendants.
2.        Parents of female seduced, abducted, raped or abused.
Persons who 3.        Spouse, descendants, ascendants and brothers and sisters, in the order named, against any
may recover person who shows disrespect to the dead, or wrongfully interferes in the funeral of the deceased.

Note: They must also suffer mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock and other similar
injuries.

Moral GR: A corporation may not be awarded moral damages because it cannot suffer from wounded feelings, serious
damages on anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock
Corporations
S: Libel, slander or any other form of defamation. However, there must be evidence to prove it.

Those are recoverable in instances where amount has not been or cannot be shown:
1.        A legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no
actual present loss of any kind
2.        there has been some injury arising from a breach of contract or legal duty
Nominal
Damages
Notes on Nominal Damages:
1.        Grant of nominal damages is a bar to recovery of actual, moral, or temperate damages.
2.        Law presumes damage although actual or compensatory damages are not proven.

These are damages which are more than nominal but les than compensatory. It may be allowed in cases where
Definition definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced even if the court is convinced that the aggrieved party suffered
some pecuniary loss.

GR: Temperate and actual damages are mutually exclusive and may not be awarded at the same time.
EXCEPTIONS:
1.        When injury is continuing and future complications may arise although difficult to predict,
there is no incompatibility between actual and temperate damages.
Temperate 2.        When there must be additional damages to cover estimated future cost of proper care and
damages it would not be equitable for the victim to repeatedly go to court and seek aid in seeking
with actual adjustments to the compensatory damages previously awarded.
Temperate or damages
Moderate
Damages
Heirs of victim are entitled to 50,000 as civil indemnity, which is mandatory and granted without need of any
evidence of proof of damages other than the commission of the crime.

Temperate Temperate damages may be recovered when:

damages in 1.        Pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty.
lieu of actual
damages 2.        When crime is heinous, SC increased the award for mandatory civil indemnity to 75,000.
 Those agreed upon by parties in a contract to be paid in case of breach.
Stipulation as to amount should not be enforced if the breach is not the one contemplated by parties. It presumable
Definition contemplates a total breach.

Rules
Governing in If the breach committed is not one contemplated by parties, the law shall determine the measure of damages, not
case of
Breach of the stipulation.
Contract

Liquidated damages Penalty

Sum inserted
as
punishment
for default or
by way of
Purpose Sum inserted in a contract as a measure of compensation for its breach. security for
actual
damages
because of
non-
performance

Liquidated
Damages
Liquidated Agreement to
damages vs. pay a
Penalty stipulated
sum on
Nature Convenanted pre-estimate of damages
breach,
irrespective
of damage
sustained.

Necessity of
proof of Injured party does not need to prove.
damages

Effect if
principal Stipulation on liquidated damages shall also be void. Both damages being accessory
obligation is obligations to the principal obligation.
void

May it be Liquidated damages, whether as indemnity or penalty, cannot be changed by court. However, if iniquitous or
reduced unconscionable, it shall be equitably reduced.

It is imposed by way of example or correction for public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or
Definition
compensatory.

1.        It is imposed, by way of example in addition to compensatory damages, only after the
claimant’s right to it has been established.

Exemplary or 2.        It is not recoverable as a matter of right because determination depends upon the amount
Corrective Requisites of compensatory damages that may be awarded
Damages 3.        Wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith.
4.        Award would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or
malevolent manner.

1.        Civil indemnity ex delicto

Damages that
may be
recovered in
case death
occurs due to
a crime
 2.        Actual damages
Damages that
may be 3.        Moral damages
recovered in 4.        Exemplary damages
case death
occurs due to 5.        Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation
a crime
6.        Interests

Amount of damages caused by a crime of quasi-delict shall be at least 3,000 even though there may have been
mitigating circumstances.
In addition, defendant shall be liable for:
1.        Loss of earning capacity of the deceased to be paid to the heirs.
Art 2206
(Damages in a.        S: If the deceased had no earning capacity at the time of his death
Case of
Death) 2.        Recipient of support who is not an heir called to the decedent’s inheritance by law may
demand support from the person causing the death, for a period not exceeding 5 years, the exact
duration to be fixed by court.
Damages in
Case of Death 3.        Spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants may demand moral
damages.

1.        Loss of earning capacity.

a.        The court can consider the nature of the deceased’s occupation,
educational attainment and state of his health at the time of death.
b.        Circumstances of petitioners, their number as dependents to the
deceased and their anxiety in searching for their parents among the survivors
and corpses recovered from sea.
Factors c.         Under Art 1764 in relation to Art 2206, amount of 3,000 is not
considered in increased to 75,000.
determining 2.        Earning capacity of deceased, his obligation to support dependents and moral damages
damages suffered by his kin.
3.        If financial capacity of carrier enables it to pay more, a greater sum should be given.
4.        Life expectancy of the deceased
5.        Rate of inflation that depleted the value of judgment was considered in imposing legal
rate of interest on the indemnity due.

See table with Crimes in Memory Aid.

 Culpa
aquiliana or
Culpa
culpa ex- contractual
contractu
(Quasi-Delict)

There can be Obligation

a Quasi-Delict arises
as long as because
there is fault there was a
or negligence breach of
in the contract in
resulting the failure of
damage or exercise due
injury to care in its
another. performance.

Non-
Negligent act
or omission fulfillment of
contract

Incidental to
Direct, the
performance
substantive
of an existing
and obligation
independent.
based on a
contract.

Not
necessary;
fault or
negligence Not necessary
without
intent will
suffice.

Preponderanc Preponderanc
e of evidence e of evidence

There is a
pre-existing
None. express or
implied
contractual
obligation.

Not a
A complete complete and
and proper proper
defense defense in
lvent, the employer is insofar as selection of
parents, employees
guardians are but it can
concerned mitigate
(Art 2180). liability for
damages.
 There is a
presumption
of negligence
as long as it
No can be
presumption proven that
of negligence. there was a
The injured breach of
party must contract.
prove the Defendant
negligence of must prove
the that there
defendant. was no
negligence in
performance
of the
contract.

Private right.
It is a wrong
against a Private right.
private
individual.

Art 2176, Art Art 1170-

1172-1174 1174 NCC.
NCC.

ages incurred through

there is a law clearly covering

nes.

y?
ervation is not necessary

na)
not result from exoneration

sary that he must choose

ons in RPC on liabilities of

s double recovery, not double

abilities:

na)
ges twice for the same
er simultaneously or
he two cases, he may recover
unt adjudged is bigger, he
in the first case, he may not

prove due diligence in

damages?
owever, if they are able to
tion:

ility because P was a

s still liable but the company

n Quasi-Delict or Culpa
under Art 2180.

o the Theory of Respondeat

ger safely to his place of
aid law, we adhere to the
or operator, a presumption
drivers.

e civil action when a private

osecute a separate civil action

y.

eyond reasonable doubt, can

action?

t a private prosecutor.

ust concur:

over subject matter and over

ty of parties, identity of

ar but to B’s jeep.

g from criminal negligence

t 2180.
lpa aquiliana. Therefore,
he action for civil liability is

the fact from which the civil

minal Procedure. Even if A’s

t would still be the same
d on reasonable doubt.

urt says that the fact from

bility of employer under Art

while the second action is

rforming their duties. Hence,
er is subsidiarily liable if
he former and present cause

. Applying the test, it is

diligence of selection and
e employer is inseparable

as the option to either

 with criminal action under
7 NCC, however, prevents

een Culpa Aquiliana and their

ty under Art 100 RPC.

ble recovery of damages for

pa Aquiliana case”, was
d also be the amount

ame injured party.

ecover damages twice for the

he employer for his act or

ry, subject to the defense of

e.
ployee is insolvent in order
bility with the employer is

a felony committed by his

f a crime done in the

pect to the civil liability.
ning:
mployer-employee
mployer is engaged in some
mployee is declared to be
offense in the discharge of
commits is done while in the
mployee is insolvent.
nclusive upon the employer

. Employer may adduce all

me proceeding because the

njury to another’s person,

or negligence and there being

ship of employer and
f contract, except when the
me where Art 100 will be

nstituted after 4 years.

event without human

rty
an airline acted in wanton,
ard of any form of damages.

whether intentional,

e under Art 2176 is entirely

ence under RPC (thus a
tiff cannot redover damages

ly also to a Quasi Delict:

Responsibility arising from
nd of obligation is also
e regulated by courts,
ault or negligence of obligor
ired. If negligence shows bad
demandable in all obligations.
r wanton attitude, obligor
h may be reasonably
gation.
e the diligence required,
her of family shall be
o person shall be responsible
r inevitable even if

tipulation
the assumption of risk
criminal act, whether or not
provided that the offended
the offender is actually

a contract.
ationship between the
act that violates the contract

ts is not a bar to the

ct or Tort. As a matter of fact,
n both breach of contract
contractual relationship

r is created.
 ight.
duty resulting to injuries or

nt and the damage incurred

believe the consequences as

rtain facts. When strict

onsists in causing harm
 has been injured because of

the same manner as natural

d primarily liable under
ility.
holders are personally who
n may be personally liable for
 r children living with them
ommitted but also for torts
or whom he is responsible.

the position to exercise an

minor or insane person shall

on against him where a
.

here is a presumption that

ervant or employee, or in
ance of good father of the
e outside of his place of work,
ule is applicable. Under this
f his employer even outside of
errand for the company
n accident on the way to the

and managers of an
rporation.
e term manager is used in the
ctual liability can be fastened
truck in connection with the
egarded as an employee of

sumption of the employer’s

e it can be rebutted by proof

f a family.
cause liability based on Pater
fault or negligence of the
o was in the vehicle and the

vehicle mishaps, the owner is

in the vehicle and could have
ce… if the owner was not in
provision, it is clear that the
fferent from one who is not:

e held liable if he himself did

vehicle at the time of mishap.
basis of his liability is not
Familias. In this theory, the
er and susceptible of his
he fails to correct it in order

e under Art 2184 must

mined if the driver was
r be imputed of negligence.

er stands.
is considered an independent
lack of control exerted over
Hospital are then exempt
ple for any fault or negligence
n.
 fficacy has before. In Ramos
oyee relationship between the
ospitals is based on Principle
nd Doctrine of Corporate
               i.      Principle of
ncy by Estoppel, because
pal or as employer somehow
lieve that such authority
now estopped from passing
             ii.      Under Doctrine
ospitals now have the duty to
t to monitor and oversee the
administered by physicians
hus, physicians guilty of
able for damages.

tion of a patient by a doctor,

room and all personnel

ng which caused the injury to

ough the act was done by

ecial agent, but not when

property pertains.
mployee who is performing a
hose specifically
of outside the agent’s regular
               i.      Thus, if the
ence of ambulance driver
driver of vehicle belonging to
ment, and at the time of
erforming his usual duties,
s employer can be held liable.

both X and F based on Quasi-

ld liable?

is below 21 years of age.

ho has reached 18 years of

ears of age and are still living
the time of the incident. Art
ective as of the date of the
should be retroactive.

be unfair if liabilities would

minor at the time of the
agreement secured by a real

task properly pertains, who

plicable provisions are Art

delay in the performance of

damages”.
or which the obligor who
consequences of breach of
eseen at the time the

fact to be proven, GSIS can

of title. As an obligor in GF,
igation”.

ue to GSIS’s failure to return

er, B?

on Quasi-Delict because there

ec 1 Rule 111 RC, what is
from a delict. Thus, an action
ately.

hicle is not registered in his

d, not on the fact of

ather of a minor who caused

vate vehicle who will be

n case of accidents.

otor vehicle is solidarily liable

spite of the fact that the
in favor of another person.
rties, especially victims of
owner is the lawful operator
rned. It is directly and
ts operation.
ployer of the driver, the actual

by the actual owner is

istered owner because the

t he was not actually the

f ownership in order to escape

vehicle to one who does not
ans to discover or identity the
e public or to third persons for

mes into play only if the

cademic school no longer
of his minor students
egardless of nature of school”.
d executed by a government-
ond and other terms shall be

arty liability insurance.

currence of injury or event. It
nsured.

d does not affect third

.
solidarily liable for damages
ner.

elevant to determining the

ectly responsible for any

ries suffered by, any person

public works under their

vince, city or municipality for

nable. It only requires that

of Manila shall not be liable

arising from failure of any city
gligence while enforcing their
9 us a specific provision which
4 Ra 409 is a general provision
object.

warning device or barricade

ehicle rammed into a pile of
without justifiable cause or
stification for the doing of
 ay mitigate the damage if the

o produce an injury, the

s own negligent conduct or
he rules applicable to Acts of

means, except if caused by

e than just forceful taking of

blished that the event was an
t neither the claimant nor the
ation.
ovide for a different rule.
ausation required
 Damages

Compensatio
n awarded for
damage
suffered.

uent injury or damage

olve contract with the person

ting reputation, character,
 ward an amount to the
y.
ey or something of money

ctual damages.
hall be taken into

r exemplary damages are

assessment of damages is left
idated damages in which

t time or earning capacity

.
njury
nal distress and

Injunction

Forbids
threatened
actions or
requires the
defendant to
alter harmful
conduct or
repair its
consequences
.

nt where the mother had a

ulative. Although parents are
nflicted directly upon them
an unborn child.
nsent, the husband cannot
rsonal injury or death of the

o its parents or heirs. In fact,

f the unborn child, it was
ce no transmission o anyone
ality.

which he has duly proved.

certainty. A court cannot rely

pend on competent proof

               i.      There is a

n in the contract (Art 1126).
             ii.      Liquidated
d upon (Art 2226)
            iii.      Loss is presumed
dies as a result
            iv.      Forfeiture of
nment for promoting public
             v.      Damages for
elict which an be awarded to
alone
            vi.      Damages implied
libel cases is not required to
al damages when the amount
minal; injury to reputation is a
e of libel)
realize expected profits,
unrealized profits will not

bable consequences of

damage

tual damages suffered

with a reasonable degree of

est evidence obtainable
ases of the award

ed for.
ot an award for moral or
as fixed until there is final

.
pay sum of money.
e the sum which will put the
been if he had not sustained

ensation, indemnity or

t has accrued to the

very of amount that was
the owner of the mark).
erything then on, about or
injuries which are proved to

e injuries that could have been

coverable contract damages.

monthly earnings/2) x 12

               i.      Life expectancy

–            
age ofii.death)
      Net
earnings less expenses
uch earnings, and les sliving or
potentiality and capacity to
ents in measuring loss of
ployed at the time of injury
th for value of time loss after
ment to his capacity to earn

city must be prove.

                i.      It partakes the
It refers to net income (i.e.,
enses)
             ii.      GR:
ould substantiate the claim
ning capacity.

e damages for loss in lieu of

ployed and earning less than

current labor laws.
e sufficiently establishes the

mber of years during which

sions complained of.

time obligation was

with third persons or to incur

and skilled workers

mployer’s liability laws
y the plaintiff’s claim

m “when there is a wrong,

ychological suffering sustained

he proximate cause of the

ssed by Art 2219:

uries

vious acts

ation

, 30, 32, 34 and 35.

omission.
n of damages to the

ctim in criminal proceedings

as one of the actions where

ce may be so gross as to

nce.
nly by the party injured.
non-payment of bills but the
 , lascivious acts, adultery or
efamation and malicious

her proof aside from the

ity is proper because it is not

at qualifying circumstances

ts.

the order named, against any

n the funeral of the deceased.

shock and other similar

wounded feelings, serious

prove it.

ion that has produced no

e damages.
roven.

e allowed in cases where

e aggrieved party suffered

t the same time.

although difficult to predict,

future cost of proper care and

d seek aid in seeking

ed without need of any

proved with certainty.

ory civil indemnity to 75,000.
ed by parties. It presumable

e measure of damages, not

owever, if iniquitous or

mperate, liquidated or

damages, only after the

on depends upon the amount

on, fraudulent, oppressive or

 gh there may have been

rs.
y at the time of his death
t’s inheritance by law may
t exceeding 5 years, the exact

nts may demand moral

deceased’s occupation,
at the time of death.
er as dependents to the
r parents among the survivors
mount of 3,000 is not

ndents and moral damages

er sum should be given.

onsidered in imposing legal

 UY, SON GABRIEL J.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
1 Criminal intent
2 Defense of diligence
Existence of a pre-existing
3 contractual
obligation
4 Governing law
5 Legal basis
6 Nature of negligence
7 Nature of right violated
8 Presumption of negligence.
9 Proof needed
10 Source of obligation
Quasi-Delict
(Culpa aquiliana)
Not necessary; fault or negligence
Not necessary
without intent will suffice.
A complete and proper defense
insofar as parents, guardians are
concerned (Art 2180).
None.
Art 2176, Art 1172-1174 New Civil
Code
There can be a Quasi-Delict as
long as there is fault or negligence
in the resulting damage or injury
to another.
Direct, substantive and
independent.
Private right. It is a wrong against
a private individual (private
concern)
No presumption of negligence.
The injured party must prove the
negligence of the defendant.
Preponderance of evidence
Negligent act or omission
Quasi-Contract and/or
Delict
Culpa contractual
Essential
Ordinary diligence or defense of
Not a complete and proper
“good father of a family” cannot
defense in selection of employees
be interposed. If the employee is
but it can mitigate liability for
insolvent, the employer is
damages.
subsidiarily liable.
There is a pre-existing express or
None.
implied contractual obligation.
Art 1170-1174 New Civil Code Art 365 Revised Penal Code
Obligation arises because there
was a breach of contract in the There can be no crime unless a
failure of exercise due care in its law clearly punishes the act.
performance.
Incidental to the performance of
Direct, substantive and
an existing obligation based on a
independent.
contract.
Public right. It is a wrong against
Private right
the State (affects public interest)
There is a presumption of
negligence as long as it can be
proven that there was a breach of Innocents of accused is presumed
contract. Defendant must prove until contrary is proven.
that there was no negligence in
performance of the contract.
Preponderance of evidence Proof beyond reasonable doubt
Non-fulfillment of contract Criminal act