Culpa Aquiliana, Culpa Criminal and Culpa Contractual Distinguished
Reference: Torts and Damages by Pineda
Basis Culpa Aquiliana
A. Legal basis of There can be a quasi-delict as long as
liability there is fault or negligence resulting in
damage or injury to another. It is
broader in scope than crime.
B. Criminal intent Criminal intent is not necessary for
quasi delict to exist. Fault or
negligence without intent will suffice.
C. Quantum of Preponderance of evidence
proof
Governing Law New Civil Code
D. Nature of Direst, Substantive and independent
negligence (Rakes vs. Atlantic, etc., 7 Phil. 395).
Defense of a “good Complete and proper defense insofar as
father of a family” parents, guardians, employers are
concerned (Art. 2180, last par.)
Presumption of NO presumption of negligence. The
negligence injured party must prove the negligence
of the defendant (Cangco vs. MRC, 38
Phil 768). Otherwise, the complaint of
injured party will be dismissed.
Culpa Criminal
There can be no crime unless there is a
law clearly punishing the act.
Criminal intent is essential for criminal
liability to exist.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Rvised Penal Code
Culpa Contractual
New Civil Code
Negligence is merely incidental to the
performance of the contractual
obligation. There is a pre-existing
contract or obligation
(Rakes vs. Atlantic, etc., 7 Phil. 395).
NOT a complete and proper defense
in the selection and supervision of
employees (Cangco vs. MRC, 38 Phil.
768).
There is presumption of negligence as
long as it can be proved that there was
breach of the contract . The
defendant must prove there was no
negligence in the carrying out of the
terms of the contract (Cangco vs.
MRC, 38 Phil. 768).