TORTS AND DAMAGES

Atty. TIRSO S. LASAY, JR.

TORTS (Quasi Delict)

Culpa Aquiliana – any kind of fault or negligence

Covers all wrongful acts, intentional or negligence

Presupposes that there is no pre-existing contractual relation

In the Philippines, our concept of torts leans towards its civil law equivalent of culpa aquiliana.

Article 2176

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

TORTS

Excludes the notion of willfulness or intent

Also includes negligent acts that are punished by law

If with intention – governed by the RPC

Article 21 of the NCC – willful acts

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

Elements of a Quasi-Delict

1. Damage suffered by the Plaintiff

2. Fault or negligence of the defendant, or for some other person for whose acts he must respond
3. The connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff

No double recovery

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, if he is actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores.

Civil Liability founded on Article 100 of the RPC

Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

Same act or omission can create 2 kinds of liability in the part of the offender:

1. Civil Liability ex-delicto

2. Civil Liability ex quasi-delicto

Article 2177

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

The failure of recovery in one will not necessarily preclude recovery in the other.

What is deemed instituted with the criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from the crime or ex delicto

Civil liabilities that are not deemed instituted:

Article 32 of the New Civil Code

Article 33 of the New Civil Code – In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the
criminal action may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.

Article 34 of the New Civil Code – When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of
danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages and the city or Municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor.

Action based on tort

Shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence

No double recovery

Acquittal based on:

 1. Reasonable doubt – damages may be recovered.
2. Accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of

Example : operator of a common carrier

1. Civil Liability arising from the crime – subsidiary liability

2. Culpa Aquiliana against the employer – primary liability

An employer’s liability based on a quasi delict is primary and direct while the employer’s liability based on a delict is merely subsidiary.

General Rule

A pre-existing contract between the parties bar the applicability of the law on quasi delict

Exception: The act that breaks the contract may also be a tort

This Doctrine can aptly govern only where the act or omission complained of would constitute an actionable tort independently of the contract.

Singson vs. BPI, 23 SCRA 1117 (1968)

Facts: Appeal by plaintiffs from a decision of the CFI Mla dismissing their complaint against defendants.
On May 8, 1963, the Singsong commenced the present action against the Bank and its president, Freixas, for damages in consequence of said illegal freezing of
plaintiffs' account.
After appropriate proceedings, the CFI Mla rendered judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that plaintiffs cannot recover from the defendants upon the
basis of a quasi-delict, because the relation between the parties is contractual in nature.

Issue: WON the existence of a contractual relation between the parties bar recovery of damages.

The SC have repeatedly held that the existence of a contract between the parties does not bar the commission of a tort by the one against the order and the consequent
recovery of damages therefore.

In view, of the facts obtaining in the case at bar, and considering, particularly, the circumstance, that the wrong done to the plaintiff was remedied as soon as the
President of the bank realized the mistake they had committed, the Court finds that an award of nominal damages the amount of which need not be proven in the sum
of P1,000, in addition to attorney's fees in the sum of P500, would suffice to vindicate plaintiff's rights.

Air France vs. Carrascoso 18 SCRA 155

Facts

          On March 28, 1958, the defendant, Air France, through its authorized agent, Philippine Air Lines, Inc., issued to plaintiff a “first class” round trip airplane ticket
from Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, plaintiff travelled in “first class”, but at Bangkok, the Manager of the defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate the
“first class” seat that he was occupying because there was a “white man”, who, the Manager alleged, had a “better right” to the seat. When asked to vacate his “first
class” seat, the plaintiff, as was to be expected, refused, and told defendant’s Manager that his seat would be taken over his dead body; a commotion ensued, and they
came all across to Mr. Carrascoso and pacified Mr. Carrascoso to give his seat to the white man” and plaintiff reluctantly gave his “first class” seat in the plane.

Issue

Whether there is a breach of contract of carriage between Air France and Carrascoso that would hold Air France liable for damages.

Ruling

Yes. Petitioner’s contract with Carrascoso is one attended with public duty. The stress of Carrascoso’s action as we have said, is placed upon his wrongful expulsion.
This is a violation of public duty by the petitioner air carrier — a case of quasi-delict. Damages are proper.

Culpa Contractual vs. Culpa Aquiliana

Negligence in Culpa Contractual is only incidental to the performance of the obligation while the negligence in culpa aquiliana is direct and primary.

Cause of Action – the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.

Separate causes of action, for which separate actions may be maintained, may arise not only out of separate and distinct acts, contracts or transactions, but
also in some cases, out of the same act, contract, or transactions.

Special issues involving culpa aquiliana and culpa contractual

Construction Development Corporation of the Phils. Vs. Estrella GR no. 147791, Sept. 8, 2006 – One can institute a civil case against different sets of
defendants, one based on culpa contractual and the other based on culpa aquiliana.

Anuran vs. Buno, Batangas Laguna Tayabas Co. vs. IAC, Metro manila Transit Corp vs. C.A.

The bus company, its driver, the operator of the other vehicle and the driver of the vehicle were jointly and severally held liable to the injured passenger or
the latter’s heirs.

A passenger of a public utility vehicle involved in a vehicular accident may sue in culpa contractual, culpa aquiliana, or culpa criminal – each remedy being
available independently of the others – although he cannot recover more than once.

1. ELEMENTS OF QUASI DELICT

Damage suffered by the Plaintiff
 2. Fault or negligence of the defendant, or for some other person for whose acts he must respond
3. The connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff

No double recovery

Negligence – omission of that degree of diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of persons, time
and place.

Did the defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same
situation? If not then he is guilty of negligence.

Foreseeability of the harm is therefore an indispensable requirement.

THREE DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE

1. Slight Negligence
2. Ordinary Negligence
3. Gross Negligence
The degree of care required to be exercised varies with the capacity of the person endangered to care for himself.

Standard of conduct – level of expected conduct that is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of the person, time
and place.

Factors to be considered

1. His employment or occupation

2. His degree of intelligence
3. His physical condition

Other circumstances regarding persons, time, and place

Banks – impressed with public interest, the highest degree of diligence is expected, high standards of integrity and performance are even required of it.

2. Fault or negligence is the proximate cause of the damage or injury suffered – proximate cause is that cause which in natural and continuous sequence
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.

The doing of the said omitted act would have prevented the injury.

Concurrence of efficient causes – where several causes combine to produce injuries, a person is not relieved from liability because he is responsible for only
one of them.

Recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons although under the circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of them was more
culpable.

Burden of proof – is on the one alleging the same, must be affirmatively established by competent evidence.

If negligence is not established, there can be no damages (accident).

PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE

A driver is negligent if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months (Article
2184, Civil Code)

A person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating a traffic regulation.

1. Over speeding
2. While making a u-turn failed to signal
3. Vehicle driver did not aid the incident victim (Section 55, Article 5 of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code)
4. Driver did not report the incident to a police officer
5. Possession of dangerous weapons or substance (Article 2188 CC)

RES IPSA LOQUITUR

Res Ipsa Loquitur – The thing speaks for itself – Rebuttable presumption or inference that defendant was negligent, which arises upon proof that
instrumentality causing injury was in defendant’s exclusive control and that the accident was one which ordinarily does not happen in absence of negligence.

Injury was caused by an agency or instrumentality under exclusive control and management of defendant, and that the occurrence was such that in the
ordinary course of things would not happen if reasonable care had been used.

Where the thing which caused the injury, without the fault of the injured, is under the exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is such that it should
not have occurred if he, having such control used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation that the injury arose from the
defendant’s want of care, and the burden of proof is shifted to him to establish that he has observed due care and diligence.

REQUISITES OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR

Res Ipsa Loquitur: Requisites

1. The occurrence of an injury

 2. The thing which caused the injury was under the control and management of the defendant
3. The occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things, would not have happened if those who had control or management used proper
care
4. The absence of explanation by defendant

The doctrine is not a rule of substantive law but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience.

It merely relieves the plaintiff of the burden of producing specific proof of negligence.

It places on the defendant the burden of going forward with the proof.

Can be invoked when and only when, under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is absent and not readily available.

It is not to be invoked to overcome evidence but to be applied only in its absence.

Presumption of negligence in culpa contractual immediately attaches by the failure of the covenant or its tenor.

Whether a person is negligent or not is a question of fact.

NATURE OF LIABILITY – The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi delict is solidary (Article 2194 NCC) and the sharing as between
such solidary debtors is pro-rata.

They are each liable as principals, to the same extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves.

The damages cannot be apportioned among them, except among themselves.

The release of one of the joint tortfeasors by agreement generally operates to discharge all.

Doctrine of Vicarious Liability or imputed negligence – the responsibility for the negligence of those persons whose acts or omissions are imputable, by a legal
fiction, to others who are in a position to exercise an absolute or limited control over them.

Pursuant to Article 2180 of the CC – a person may be held accountable not only for his own direct culpable act or negligence but also for those of others
albeit predicated on his own supposed failure to exercise due care in his supervisory authority and functions.

Is a primary and direct liability, not subsidiary to the liability of the person for whom one is made vicariously liable of. May be proceeded against singly.

May consist in having failed to exercise due care in one’s own act or in having failed to exercise due care in the selection and control of one agents or
servants.

Presumption juris tantum derived from their failure to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of subordinates to prevent them from causing damage.

Defense – exercise of diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

It is the non- performance of certain duties of precaution and prudence imposed upon the persons who become responsible by civil bond uniting the actor to
them, which forms the foundation of such responsibility.

Vicarious Liability of Parents – the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children
who live in their company (Article 2180 CC)
Even if the age of majority has been lowered to 18, the vicarious liability of parents over children living in their company extends until these children reach
the age of 21.

Vicarious Liability of Guardians – guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in
their company (Article 2180 CC).

3 kinds of guardians

1. Legal Guardian – by provision of law without need of judicial appointment

2. Guardian ad litem – appointed by the court for purposes of a particular action or proceeding
3. Judicial Guardian – appointed by the court for all civil acts and transactions

Vicarious Liability of Employers

Before an employer may be held liable for the negligence of his employee, the act or omission which caused damage must have occurred while an employee
was in the actual performance of his assigned tasks or duties.

Owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in
which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the
former are not engaged in any business or industry – so long as they were acting within the scope of their assigned task, even though committed neither in
the service of the branches nor on the occasion of their functions.

In no. 2, it is important that the plaintiff prove the existence of employer and employee relationship and that the employee was acting within the scope of his
assigned task when the tort complained of was committed in order to make him liable.

Common Carriers

In breach of Contract of Carriage – it is of no defense for the carrier that the act was done in excess of authority or in disobedience of the carrier’s orders.

Marchan vs. Mendoza – common carriers cannot escape liability for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence and willful acts of the
former’s employees although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the orders.
Presumption of Negligence imposed upon common carriers – a matter of public policy.

Article 2180 provides for the solidary liability of an employer for the quasi delict committed by an employee – injured party may recover from the employers
directly regardless of the solvency of their employees.

Sample instances:

Employee who uses his employer’s vehicle in going from his work to a place where he intends to eat – not ordinarily acting within the scope of his
employment.

Travelling to and from the place of work - not ordinarily acting within the scope of his employment.

“special errand”, “roving commission” – employee continues in the service of his employer until he actually reaches home. Exception: employee has left the
direct route and is pursuing a personal errand of his own.

An employer who loans his motor vehicle to an employee for the latter’s personal use outside of regular working hours – Employer is not liable.

5. A working student and a scholar of a school who works in cleaning the school premises for only 2 hours in the morning – considered an employee of the
school.

Quasi Delict – Liability of employer is primary/solidary.

Presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the employer in the:

1. Selection of employee
2. Supervision over him after such selection

Respondeat Superior (let the superior reply) vs. Bonus Pater Familias

RS – acts were done in the course of employment

BPF – injury must have occurred while an employee was in the actual performance of his assigned tasks or duties.

Theory bases the liability of the master ultimately on his own negligence and not on that of his servant.

SELECTION AND SUPERVISION

Supervision – includes the formulation of suitable rules and regulation for the guidance of its employees and the issuance of proper instructions intended for
the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has relations through his employees.

Selection – examine the employees as to their qualifications, experience and service records.

Spouses Villoria vs. Continental Airlines – there exists no employer-employee relationship between a travel agency and the airline company.

Negligence in the selection and supervision

Sps. Villoria vs. Continental Airlines GR No. 188288, January 16, 2012 - The mere fact that the employee of the airline company’s agent has committed a tort
is not sufficient to hold the airline company liable. There is no vinculum juris between the airline company and its agent’s employees.

Employer’s vicarious liability under Article 2180 and Employer’s subsidiary liability under Art. 100 of the RPC, distinguished – The Civil Action against the
employer (under Article 2180) may proceed independently of the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, Section 3 of the Rules of Court.

Subject to the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.

Before the employer’s subsidiary liability is enforced, adequate evidence must exist establishing that:

1. They are indeed the employers of the convicted employees

2. They are engaged in some kind of industry
3. The crime was committed by the employees in the discharge of their duties
4. The execution against the employee has not been satisfied due to insolvency

VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF STATE

The Government of the Philippine Islands is not liable in damages for the negligent acts of its regular officers or employees in the performance of their
ordinary functions. The State is responsible only when it acts through a special agent.

2 Aspects of Liability of the State

1. Its Public or Governmental aspects where it is liable for the tortious acts of special agents only.
2. The State agent, if a public official, must not only be specifically commissioned to do a particular task but that such task must be foreign to said
official’s usual governmental functions (Article 1903 of the CC).
3. If the State’s agent is not a public official, and is commissioned to perform a non-governmental function, then the State assumes the role of an
ordinary employer and will be held liable as such for its agent’s tort.
4. Where the government commissions a private individual for a special governmental task, it is acting through a special agent within the meaning of
the provision.
Private or business aspects (as when it engages in private enterprises) where it becomes liable as an ordinary employer.

Special Agent – is one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office.

Article 2180 of the Civil Code establishes a rule of liability, not suability. The government may be held liable under this rule only if it allows itself to be sued
through any of the accepted forms of consent.
The doctrine, which says, “the state may not be sued without its consent” is clear that the State may be sued, with its consent, either expressly or impliedly.
Express consent may be made through a general law or a special law. The Philippine government consents, through Republic Act (RA) 3083, to be sued upon
any money claim involving liability arising from contract, expressly or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties. Implied
consent, on the other hand, arises when the State itself commences litigation, thus opening itself to a counterclaim, or when it enters into a contract in its
proprietary capacity but not in its sovereign or governmental capacity. In this situation, the government is deemed to have descended to the level of the
other contracting party and to have divested itself of its sovereign immunity. When the state itself commences litigation, irrespective of whether or not it is in
its proprietary or non-governmental capacity, it waives its immunity from suit (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212 [1991]).

G.R. No. L-1120 August 31, 1948

INOCENCIO ROSETE, petitioner,

vs.
THE AUDITOR GENERAL, respondent.

There being no showing that whatever negligence may be imputed to the Emergency Control Administration or its officers, was done by an special agent,
because the officers of the Emergency Control Administration did not act as special agents of the government within the above defined meaning of that word
in article 1903 of the Civil Code in storing gasoline in warehouse of the ECA, the government is not responsible for the damages caused through such
negligence.

PROVINCES, CITIES, AND MUNICIPALITIES

Shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings,
and other public works under their control and supervision.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF TEACHERS AND HEADS OF ESTABLISHMENTS OF ARTS AND TRADE

Shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

Rationale of liability – they stand to a certain extent, as to their pupils and students, in loco parentis and are called upon to exercise reasonable supervision
over the conduct of the child.

Palisoc vs. Brillantes – the student need not be boarding with the school authorities.

The teacher is held answerable by the law for the act of the student under him regardless of the student’s age.

PROPRIETOR OF BUILDING OR STRUCTURE – is responsible for damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary
repairs.