Eh401 Torts Midterms

TORTS AND DAMAGES (MIDTERMS) | Atty.
Pandi | EH 401 Tala Nation 2019-2020
ART. 2176, NEW CIVIL CODE

Use this box to paste codal provisions.
Article. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
AMORO V. 401 TALA NATION obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
FACTS: These are the facts. relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and
is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
ISSUE: This is the issue.
The elements of quasi-delict are:
HELD: This is the ruling.
1. Damages suffered by the plaintiff;
Week 1 - Rubierosse 2. Fault or negligence of the defendant, or some

Week 2 - Anisah other person for whose acts he must respond; and
Week 3 - Brille
Week 4 - Aniah 3. The connection of cause and effect between the
Week 5 - Gab fault/negligence of the defendant and the damages
suffered by the plaintiff.
PART I TORTS Keywords under Article 2176:
I. QUASI-DELICT 1. Whoever
Refers to the actor himself or the persons for whom

INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
he is responsible (vicarious liability under 2180).
What is the Law of Torts for?
2. Act or Omission
1. Corrective Justice
Act- positive act
Omission- failure to act which results in damage to
2. Compensation
another.
You want to compensate the victim for the loss, for
anxiety and everything, and all the damage caused.
3. Fault or Negligence
3. Civil Redress
FAULT NEGLIGENCE
4. Optimal Deterrence
The moment you award damages, you can deter or Voluntary act or omission Failure to observe for
shape social behavior, not just by penalizing people which causes damage to the the protection of the
and bringing them to jail, but also by asking monetary right of another, giving rise interest of another
compensation from them; because admitted, money to an obligation on the part person that degree of
can actually change how people view things. of the actor to repair such care, precaution and
damage. vigilance which the
5. Loss Distribution circumstances justly
demand.
This is relevant when we speak of alternative causes
of action. For example, there is a pedestrian nga Requires the execution of a Omission to do acts
nabanggaan, because nagbangga sad ang duha ka positive act which causes which result in damage
vehicles so you want to distribute the loss so that the damage to another. to another.
victim will have an immediate relief or remedy under
the circumstances. Relevant provisions:
6. Redress of Social Grievances Definition of Negligence:
You want to shape behavior, you want to penalize
acts that are not desirable in any civilized country.
QUASI-DELICT
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor
consists in the omission of that diligence which is required
Relevant provision:
1 | UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS | compiled by TORTOISE 🐢 + 👓 RVP Discussions + ⚖️501 ’18-’19 Notes
TORTS AND DAMAGES (MIDTERMS) | Atty. Pandi | EH 401 Tala Nation 2019-2020
by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the obligation is available to serve as basis of
circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the claims for damages. It is intended to answer
place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of uncertainties.
Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
TORTS vs QUASI-DELICT
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to
be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a ● Quasi-delict, as defined in Article 2176 of the Civil
good father of a family shall be required. Code, is homologous but not identical to tort under
the common law.
● Not all negligence is the same, which is why our ● The common law concept of tort is much broader
standards are the circumstances of the person, of than the civil law concept of quasi-delict because it is
the time and of the place. We measure the degree not only limited to negligence but it also includes
of negligence based on this standard. intentional acts.
ART. 3, REVISED PENAL CODE ● Article 2176 may also cover intentional acts, and that
is what Special torts are for.
Article. 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissions punishable
by law are felonies (delitos).
SPECIAL TORTS
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo)
but also by means of fault (culpa). Article 309. Any person who shows disrespect to the dead,
or wrongfully interferes with a funeral shall be liable to the
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate family of the deceased for damages, material and moral.
intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to
another in manner that is contrary to morals, good customs
or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
4. Damage
CULPA AQUILIANA vs CULPA CRIMINAL
DAMAGE DAMAGES
Based on CRIMINAL AQUILIANA
Refers to the loss, hurt, Refer to the amount,
harm, or suffering brought recompense or Interest Public Interest Private Concern
by the injury. indemnity for the Involved
damage caused.
Purpose Retribution Indemnification
● Damnum Absque non injuria: Damage without
injury. It is possible to suffer damage without injury Scope Lesser Scope Broader Scope
as when a person causes harm to another in the
process of exercising his/her rights. Effect of Acquittal in the Criminal case to the Civil
liability:
5. No Pre-existing contractual relation
● General Rule: Art. 2176 does not apply if Ground for Ex-Delicto Quasi-Delict
there is a pre-existing contractual relation. Acquittal
● Exception: If the act that breaches the Accused is not Acquittal closes An acquittal or
contract is also a tort. The test is: “Where, the author of the the door to civil conviction in the
without a pre-existing contract between two act complained of. liability based on criminal case is
parties, an act or omission can nonetheless the crime or ex entirely
amount to an actionable tort by itself, the The fact from delicto irrelevant in the
fact that the parties are contractually bound which the civil civil case based
is no bar to the application of quasi-delict liability might on quasi-delict or
provisions to the case.” arise did not culpa aquiliana.
exist. Reason: Burden of
● “No pre-existing relation”: Art. 2176 is a proof requires
vacuum filler, as it is intended to provide a Accused is Civil liability ex separate regime
residual remedy if no other sources of

acquitted based delicto may be of law.
on reasonable proved by
Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under
doubt of his guilt. preponderance
the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct
of evidence
from the civil liability arising from negligence under 1the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages
CULPA AQUILIANA vs CULPA CONTRACTUAL twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
As to AQUILIANA CONTRACTUAL
REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Source of Culpa itself- Contract between
obligation Negligence itself the parties
Section 2 (b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure which reads:
Presumption of None, as the Applies only in
negligence negligence itself is certain contracts
(b) Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
the source such as contracts
extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a
of carriage
declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the
civil might arise did not exist.
it is direct and only incidental
primary because to the
no reference performance of
ART. 100, REVISED PENAL CODE
point, and there is the obligation
Negligence no pre-existing because there is
Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony.
contractual an existing
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
relation between contractual
liable.
the parties obligation
between the
parties
● Purpose of forestalling double recovery: To
prevent unjust enrichment.
(1) Existence of
the contract and
● Purpose of Recovery: The purpose is
indemnification and not for one to enrich himself.Hurt
(1) Damage and (2)Failure to
only once, recover only once.
What the (2) Negligent act perform the
Plaintiff needs obligation under
● Consequences of “Entirely separate and
to prove It is more difficult the contract.
distinct”:
to prove because
fault or negligence It is not necessary
a.) Notwithstanding the result in the liability ex-
must be clearly for the plaintiff to
delicto, the civil liability under quasi-delict would still
established as this prove or even
prosper;
is the very basis allege that the
of the action. obligor's non-
b.) Civil action is not deemed instituted;
compliance
was due to fault
c.) Waiver is not required;
or negligence.
d.) Reservation is not required;
e.) Consolidation with the criminal case is not forced.

Defense of
diligence of a Available Not available
ART. 2180 IN RELATION TO ART. 2176
good father of a
family
Relevant provision:

FORESTALLING DOUBLE RECOVERY
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
Relevant provisions: demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions,
but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the some general or special police regulation shall have been
mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the committed by them or their employees.
minor children who live in their company.
Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or
The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and
in their company. corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies
committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices,
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise or employees in the discharge of their duties.
are likewise responsible for damages caused by their
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter
● Employer’s liability: RPC vs NCC
are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their Revised Penal Code New Civil Code
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of
Subsidiary Primary and direct-
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
Victim can right away
engaged in any business or industry. file a case against the
employer without
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through impleading the
a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused employee
by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in
which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be liability originates from a liability is based on
delict committed by the culpa aquiliana which
applicable.
employee who is primarily holds the employer
liable therefor and upon primarily liable for
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and whose primary liability his tortious acts of its
trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils employer’s subsidiary liability employees
and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their is to be based
custody.
There should be a criminal Subject to the defense
action whereby the that the employer
The responsibility treated in this article shall cease when the
employee's criminal exercised all the
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the negligence or delict and diligence of a good
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. corresponding liability father of a family in the
therefore are proved. selection and
● Responsibility is determined by the civil bond that supervision of his
unites them. employees.
● Reasons why vicarious liability is encouraged: The conviction of the No requirement of prior
employee primarily liable is a conviction.
1. To maximize accountability of the persons who condition sine qua non for
exercise certain degree of authority; the employer's subsidiary
2. To compel these individuals to exercise measures of liability.
precaution;
3. By failing to supervise the person for whom one is It is thus, necessary: Can immediately go
responsible means that he failed to perform his 1. To Implead the after the employer.
obligation over such a person. employee;
4. It is founded on the non-performance of certain 2. There must be prior
duties of precaution and prudence, it is not based on conviction; and
representation, relationship or interest. 3. Prior proof of
employee’s
ARTS. 102 and 103, REVISED PENAL CODE insolvency
Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers,

tavern keepers and proprietors of establishments. In
default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers,
CASES
tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall
be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments,
in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH vs. CA
FACTS: Private respondent is a 22 years old, single, Filipino ISSUE: WON the school liable to pay damages on the basis
and a pretty barrio lass of good moral character and of quasi-delict
reputation duly respected in her community and not
accustomed to the trend of modern urban life. While the HELD: YES. The school is liable for damages. The
petitioner is an Iranian citizen. The private respondent filed Elements of Quasi-Delict are: (1) Damages suffered by
a complaint for damages against petitioner for the alleged the plaintiff; (2) Fault or negligence of the defendant, or
violation of their agreement to get married. some other person for whose acts he must respond; and (3)
The connection of cause and effect between the
ISSUE: WON damages may be recovered for a breach of fault/negligence of the defendant and the damages suffered
promise to marry on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code by the plaintiff.
HELD: YES. The existing rule is that a breach of promise to Fault, in general, signifies a voluntary act or omission
marry per se is not an actionable wrong. Nonetheless, the which causes damage to the right of another giving rise to
code contains Art. 21, which is designed to expand the an obligation on the part of the actor to repair such
concept of tort or quasi-delict by granting adequate damage. Negligence is the failure to observe for the
legal remedy for the countless gaps in the statutes, which protection of the interest of another person that degree of
leave so many victims of moral wrongs helpless, even care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances
though they have actually suffered material and moral justly demand. Fault requires the execution of a positive
injury. act which causes damage to another while negligence
consists of the omission to do acts which result in damage
Art. 2176 defines a quasi-delict as limited to negligent acts to another.
or omissions and excludes the notion of willfulness or intent.
Quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a civil law concept while Applying the elements of quasi-delict in this case, (1) There
torts is a common law concept. Torts is much broader was damage suffered by Timothy as he sustained serious
because it includes intentional criminal acts. In our legal multiple physical injuries; (2) There was fault or negligence
system, intentional and malicious acts, with certain on the part of the petitioner-school for the mere fact that
exceptions are governed by RPC while negligent acts or the lock is defective, it should have been foreseen by the
omissions are covered by Art. 2176. Hence, where a man’s school that when the door will not open, the person locked
promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the will try to get out through the window; and (3) The injuries
acceptance of the woman of his love thereby, giving of that were sustained from the fall are product of a natural
herself unto him in a sexual congress when in fact, such and continuous sequence, unbroken by any intervening
promise was only a scheme to entice her to accept him and cause that originated from petitioner-school’s own
to obtain her consent to sexual act, could justify the negligence.
award of damages pursuant to Art. 21, not because
of such promise to marry but because of the fraud
LUMNATAS, MD vs. CALAPIZ
and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her
honor and reputation. Such injury was committed in a
FACTS: This case involves parents who admitted their child
manner contrary to morals, good customs, and public
to the hospital for emergency appendectomy. Then the child
policy.
was advised by the doctor to undergo circumcision, he was
In this case, it was petitioner’s fraudulent and deceptive circumcised, and then after a while, some issues arose from
protestations of love for and promise to marry the plaintiff the said surgery. This resulted in trauma resulting damages
that made her surrender her virtue and to live with him on to the child and to the parents. The parents then brought a
the belief that he would keep the said promise. She criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting to serious
surrendered her virginity not because of lust but because of physical injuries against the petitioner. The petitioner,
moral seduction. however, was acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence but was ordered to pay moral damages.
CHILD LEARNING CENTER, INC. vs. TAGARIO ISSUE: WON civil liability is still possible despite one’s
acquittal of the crime
FACTS: Timothy Tagario entered the CR on the 3rd floor of
their school. He found himself locked and couldn’t open the HELD: YES. The acquittal of the accused does not
door. He called for help but no one answered. He panicked necessarily mean his absolution from civil liability.
and tried opening the window. He fell three stories below Culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil
and obtained serious multiple physical injuries. His parents, Code. Reserving an action for damages only refers to the
herein respondents, filed a complaint for damages under civil liability arising from culpa criminal. IOW, even if you did
Art. 2176 against the petitioner-school. The school alleged not reserve your right to file a separate action for damages
that there was no fault or negligence on its part and the in the criminal case, you can still file a culpa-aquiliana case.
proximate cause of the injury was the kid’s contributory Moreover, there are two types of acquittal: (1) Acquittal
negligence. where the accused did not commit the crime charged. In
this kind, accused can not be made liable for civil liability Reyes alleged that he was disrespectfully asked to leave the
arising from such charge. And (2) Acquittal due to party and like a criminal, was escorted out by the
reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this kind, policeman. Thus, Mr. Reyes commenced an action for
the guilt of the accused was not satisfactorily established; damages brought under the human relations provisions of
he may be made civilly liable which only needs the New Civil Code before the trial court against petitioners.
preponderance of evidence.
The second kind of acquittal is present in this case. ISSUE: Whether or not Ms. Lim acted abusively in asking
Therefore, petitioner may rightfully be held liable for moral Mr. Reyes to leave the party where he was not invited by
damages due to preponderance of evidence that Hanz the celebrant thereof thereby becoming liable under Articles
experienced trauma in the occasion of or incidental to the 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. If Ms. Lim were so liable,
circumcision performed. whether or not Hotel Nikko, as her employer, is solidarily
liable with her.
AIR FRANCE vs CARRASCOSO HELD: No. Ms. Lim, not having abused her right to ask Mr.
Reyes to leave the party to which he was not invited,
FACTS: Plaintiff was a one of a group of 48 Filipino pilgrims cannot be made liable to pay for damages under Articles 19
that left Manila for Lourdes. Air France, through its and 21 of the Civil Code. Necessarily, neither can her
authorized agent, PAL, issued to plaintiff a “first class” employer, Hotel Nikko, be held liable as its liability springs
round trip airplane ticket from Manila to Rome. From Manila from that of its employee.
to Bangkok, plaintiff travelled in first class, but at Bangkok, Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred to
the Manager of the defendant airline forced plaintiff to as the principle of abuse of rights, is not a panacea for all
vacate the “first class” seat that he was occupying because human hurts and social grievances. When a right is
there was a “white man”, who, the Manager alleged, had a exercised in a manner which does not conform with the
better right to the seat. norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to
another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the
wrongdoer must be responsible. When Article 19 is violated,
ISSUE: WON action based on quasi-delict is proper despite an action for damages is proper under Articles 20 or 21 of
the presence of pre-existing contract? the Civil Code. The object of Article 19 is to set certain
standards which must be observed not only in the exercise
of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties.
HELD: Yes. The general rule is that the pre-existing These standards are the following: act with justice, give
contract between the parties bars the applicability of the everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. Its
law in quasi-delict. However, in this case, quasi-delict was antithesis, necessarily, is any act evincing bad faith or intent
applied even if there is an existing contract of carriage.The to injure.
SC said that ‘The act that breaks the contract may also be
a tort.’ The act here that breached the contract which is LIBI vs IAC
also a tort in itself is the act of wrongful expulsion.
FACTS: Respondent spouses are the legitimate parents of
To know whether the breach is caused by an act that the deceased Julie Ann Gotiong; While petitioners are the
amounts to a tort in itself, the test is – “Where without a parents of Wendell Libi, then a minor between 18 and 19
pre-existing contract between the parties, an act or years of age living with his aforesaid parents, and who also
omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable tort in died in the same event on the same date. Julie Ann Gotiong
itself.” Meaning, If in itself, the act would amount to a and Wendell Libi were formerly sweethearts. As a result of
violation of a right even without that contract, then the the tragedy, the parents of Julie Ann filed a Civil Case
exception will apply. against the parents of Wendell to recover damages arising
from the latter's vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the
NIKKO HOTEL MANILA vs REYES Civil Code.
FACTS: Sometime in October 1994, while respondent, was ISSUE: WON the petitioners are liable for damages
having coffee at the lobby of Hotel Nikko, he was spotted
by his friend of several years, Dr. Violeta Filart, who then HELD: Yes. The petitioners were found to have not
approached him. Mr. Reyes alleged that Mrs. Filart invited exercised the due diligence of a good father of the family.
him to join her in a party at the hotel's penthouse in The diligence of a good father of a family required by law in
celebration of the natal day of the hotel's manager, Mr. a parent and child relationship consists, to a large extent, of
Masakazu Tsuruoka. However, to Mr. Reyes’ shock, shame the instruction and supervision of the child. Petitioners were
and despair, as he was about to get food at the buffet gravely remiss in their duties as parents in not diligently
table, he was approached by petitioner Ms. Lim, the supervising the activities of their son, despite his minority
executive secretary of Mr. Tsuruoka, and was told that he and immaturity, so much so that it was only at the time of
was not one of the 60 expected guests of the celebrant. Mr. Wendell's death that they allegedly discovered that he was
a CANU agent and that Cresencio's gun was missing from

the safety deposit box. Both parents were sadly wanting in
III. DAMAGE TO ANOTHER
their duty and responsibility in monitoring and knowing the
activities of their children who, for all they know, may be (See discussion on Damages, infra.)
engaged in dangerous work such as being drug informers,or
even drug users. Neither was a plausible explanation given IV. CAUSAL RELATION BETWEEN
for the photograph of Wendell, with a handwritten
dedication to Julie Ann at the back thereof, holding uptight ACT OR OMISSION AND DAMAGE
what clearly appears as a revolver and on how or why he
was in possession of that firearm.
TISON
REGINO vs PANGASINAN COLLEGES
FACTS: These are the facts.
FACTS: Petitioner Khristine Rea M. Regino was a first year
computer science student at PCST. In Feb, 2002, PCST held ISSUE: This is the issue.
“Rave Party and Dance Revolution” as a fund raising activity
for the construction of the school’s tennis and volleyball HELD: This is the ruling.
court. Each student is required to pay for 2 tickets worth
P100 each and in return there will be additional points in
their test scores; those who refused to pay will not be able
to take the final examinations. Financially strapped and
prohibited by her religion from attending dance parties and OCEAN BUILDERS
celebrations, she refused to pay for the tickets. As a result,
during the scheduled dates of the final examinations in logic FACTS: These are the facts.
and statistics (March 12 and 15, 2002, respectively), her
teachers allegedly disallowed her from taking the tests. ISSUE: This is the issue.
Petitioner alleged that such acts caused extreme
humiliation, mental agony and demoralization in violation of HELD: This is the ruling.
Arts. 19, 21 and 26 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE: WON the respondent is liable for damages

A. DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
HELD: Yes. Liability for tort arises only between parties not
bound by a contract. An academic institution, however, may OCEAN BUILDERS
be held liable for tort even if it has an existing contract with
its students, since the act that violated the contract may FACTS: These are the facts.
also be a tort. Here, The act was the ouster and humiliation
experienced by Regino. ISSUE: This is the issue.

II. ACT OR OMISSION
Use this box to paste codal provisions. B.. DOCTRINE OF IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily

CASE liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle,
could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the
FACTS: These are the facts. misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was
negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or
ISSUE: This is the issue. violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next
preceding two months.
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is
presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been
negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any
traffic regulation.
Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on 1. PLAINTIFF’S OWN NEGLIGENCE
the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his -in this defense the 2nd element absent. The damage is
possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as caused by the plaintiff himself/herself
firearms and poison, except when the possession or use
thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. - if the immediate cause contributing to the principal occurence
of the injury is one’s own fault, as a policy, he cannot be
permitted to recover (principle of mirisi)
FE CAYAO-LASAM vs. SPS. RAMOLOTE

TISON vs POMASIN
FACTS: 3 months pregnant Mrs. Ramolete was brought to
FACTS: These are the facts. Lorma Medical Center (LMC) due to vaginal bleeding.Due to
persistent and profuse vaginal bleeding, petitioner advised
ISSUE: This is the issue. her to undergo “raspa”. She was discharged the following
day. Editha supposed to have a follow-up evaluation a
HELD: This is the ruling. month after but she did not return. 2 months after, she was
once again brought at the LMC, as she was suffering from
vomiting and severe abdominal pains.
Dr. Mayo allegedly informed Editha that there was a dead

fetus in the latter’s womb, after Editha went laparectomy,
C. RES IPSA LOQUITOR she was found to have massive intra-abdominal hemorrhage
and ruptured uterus. Thus, she had to go hysterectomy and
MAAO CENTRAL CO. vs CA as a result no more chance to bear a child.
FACTS: These are the facts. ISSUE: WON the proximate cause of the injury is Mrs.
Ramolete’s own negligence
HELD: YES. When complainant was discharged, the
HELD: This is the ruling. respondent advised her to return 4 days after the D&C. This
advice was clear in complainant’s Discharge Sheet.
However, complainant failed to do so. This being the case,
the chain of continuity as required in order that the doctrine
D. BURDEN OF PROOF of proximate cause can be validly invoked was interrupted.
Had she returned, the respondent could have examined her
ALANO vs MAGUD-LOGMAO thoroughly. Besides, the tool used for the raspa could not
have possibly reached that point where the “hostilities”
FACTS: These are the facts. actually happened. The omission in not returning for a
follow-up evaluation played a substantial part in bringing
ISSUE: This is the issue. about Mrs. Ramolete’s own injury. Had she returned, the
doctor could have conducted the proper medical tests and
HELD: This is the ruling. procedure necessary to determine her health condition and
applied the corresponding treatment which could have
prevented the rupture of her uterus.
V. DEFENSES
BJDC CONSTRUCTION VS. LANUZO
A. COMPLETE DEFENSES
FACTS:This case involves a claim for damages arising from
- These defenses absolutely bar recovery from the defendant the death of a motorcycle rider in a nighttime accident due
to the supposed negligence of a construction company then
- When you invoke a defense, one or more of the elements of undertaking re- blocking work on a national highway. The
a quasi-delict must be absent plaintiffs insisted that the accident happened because the
construction company did not provide adequate lighting on
ELEMENTS OF A QUASI DELICT the site, but the latter countered that the fatal accident was
1. Damage suffered by the plaintiff caused by the negligence of the motorcycle rider himself.
2. Fault or Negligence of the defendant The trial court decided in favor of the construction
3. Causal connection between the damage suffered by company, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the
plaintiff and fault/negligence of defendant
decision and ruled for the plaintiffs. Hence, this appeal. the deceased child should be considered negligent for
leaving their son without a guardian.
ISSUE: WON the negligence of the plaintiff was the
proximate cause of his death Therefore, Hidalgo could have been made liable if the water
tanks were considered as attractive nuisances for such
HELD: Yes. Based on the evidence adduced by the Lanuzo circumstance will no longer bar the plaintiff from recovering,
heirs, negligence cannot be fairly ascribed to the company even if the latter was negligent.
considering that it has shown its installation of the
necessary warning signs and lights in the project site. In
that context, the fatal accident was not caused by any Atty’s Contention: An attractive nuisance is an exception
instrumentality within the exclusive control of the company. because the curiosity of children of tender age rises due to the
In contrast, Balbino had the exclusive control of how he nature of such; can’t completely bar plaintiff from recovering
operated and managed his motorcycle. The records disclose
that he overtook another motorcycle rider at a fast speed. 2. ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Moreover, by the time of the accident, the project had been - it is a complete defense because the 1st and the 3rd
going on for more than a month. Balbino, who had passed elements are missing
there on a daily basis in going to and from his residence
and the school where he then worked as the principal, was -there is no damage to speak of because the plaintiff already
thus very familiar with the risks at the project site. Nor knew that there is a risk and yet he assumed it
could the Lanuzo heirs justly posit that the illumination was
not adequate, for it cannot be denied that Balbino’s - Knowledge of the Risk is the watchword
motorcycle was equipped with headlights. Balbino was also
not wearing a helmet during such time. ART. 2179, New Civil Code
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was

This defense, however, is subject to the exception of the the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance. cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was
only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause
If the defendant has in its control an Attractive Nuisance,
of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care,
where the injury was caused, the plaintiff will no longer be
barred to recover from the former, even if the injury was due the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts
to the latter's negligence. shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
HIDALGO ENTERPRISES VS. BALANDAN
FACTS: Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. was the owner of an ice-

plant factory, in whose premises were installed two tanks ILOCOS NORTE CO.
full of water, 9 feet deep, for cooling purposes of its engine.
While the factory compound was surrounded with FACTS: The typhoon that struck Ilocos Norte flooded the
fence, the tanks themselves were not provided with any place. When it seemed that the typhoon has left, Isabel
kind of fence or top covers. The edges of the tank were went out to check on the merchandise left at her Five Star
barely a foot high from the surface of the ground. Through Emporium. She wanted to see how much damage was
the wide gate entrance, which was continually open, motor caused by the typhoon on her products. On her way, she
vehicles hauling ice and persons buying said commodity sank into the water, her companions wanted to help her but
passed, and anyone could easily enter the said factory, as they saw an electric wire dangling from the post and
he pleased. There was no guard assigned on the gate. At moving in the water. The water were Isabel was was
about noon, Mario Balandan, a boy barely 8 years old, while grounded. Isabel was dead when they rescued her;
playing with other boys of his age, entered the factory allegedly due to electrocution.
premises through the gate, to take a bath in one of said
tanks; and while bathing, Mario drowned and died. The ISSUE: WON Isabel assumed the risk when it tried to go to
child’s parents left for Manila on that unlucky day leaving FSE even when there was still flood
their son under the care of no responsible individual.
HELD: NO. Isabel did not assume any risk. She was
ISSUE: WON the doctrine of attractive nuisance applies exercising her right to protect her property. She wanted to
know how much she has lost and what she can still save
HELD: NO. The water tank was not an attractive nuisance from her source of livelihood.
because it merely replicates what nature offers. If there was INECO can’t escape liability because it was its
any added danger placed around the water tank which negligence which caused the death of Isabel. An inspection
could seem to be inviting to the children, then it would have by an Engr proved that there were indeed wires owned by
been considered an attractive nuisance. Also, the parents of INECO which were dangling and grounded the waters.
The burnt wounds found in the palm of Isabel is

already shows that it has clutched into a live wire when it
sank. ABROGAR
Hence, the principle of assumption of risk cannot
be applied because as an exception to the said principle, FACTS: Rommel Abrogar, participant, surveyed the route of
a person is not liable if an emergency is found to exist the junior marathon and even attended a briefing before
or if the life or property of another is in peril or when the race. He was aware that the marathon would pass
he seeks to rescue his endangered property. As such, through a national road and that the said road would not be
INECO is liable to the death of Isabel as caused by blocked off from traffic. He was already 18 years of age,
electrocution. voluntarily participated in the marathon with his parents'
consent, and was well aware of the traffic hazards along the
Exception: In cases of emergency and people are acting on route. During the marathon, he got hit by a jeep from
such emergency, the doctrine of assumption of risk finds no behind.
application. This is because in an emergency, things change,
they are not in their usual way. One is expected to protect ISSUE: WON the doctrine of Assumption of Risk applies?
one’s life or property.
: NO. The doctrine of assumption of risk means that one

CALALAS vs CA who voluntarily exposes himself to an obvious, known, and
appreciated danger assumes the risk of injury that may
FACTS:A passenger jeepney owned and operated by result therefrom. It rests on the fact that the person injured
petitioner Calalas. As the jeepney was filled to capacity of has consented to relieve the defendant of an obligation of
about 24 passengers, Sunga was given by the conductor conduct toward him and to take his chance of injury from a
an "extension seat," a wooden stool at the back of the known risk, and whether the former has exercised proper
door at the rear end of the vehicle. caution or not is immaterial.
Sunga gave way to the outgoing passenger. Just as she
was doing so, an Isuzu truck driven by Verena and As a defense in negligence cases, therefore, the doctrine
owned by Salva bumped the left rear portion of the requires the concurrence of three elements, namely:
jeepney. As a result, Sunga was injured. She sustained
a fracture of the "distal third of the left tibia-fibula with a. the plaintiff must know that the risk is present;
severe necrosis of the underlying skin." She was confined in b. that he must further understand its nature; and
the hospital for almost a month. Her attending physician c. that his choice to incur it must be free and voluntary.
certified she would remain on a cast for a period of three
months and would have to ambulate in crutches during said The concurrence of the three elements was not shown to
period. exist. Rommel could not have assumed the risk of
death when he participated in the race because death
ISSUE: WON Calalas is liable under their contract of was neither a known nor normal risk incident to
carriage running a race.
HELD: YES. It is immaterial that the proximate cause of Authorities have required that for application of the doctrine,
the collision between the jeepney and the truck was the knowledge of General Risk is insufficient. There must be
negligence of the truck driver. The doctrine of proximate knowledge of the specific risk that caused the harm or injury.
cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict, not in
actions involving breach of contract. The standard of knowing if risk is assumed is Subjective (take
As a common carrier, Calalas is required to exercise note as to test of negligence, test was objective)
extraordinary diligence; when the accident occured, -the reason for such shift of basis is to make sure that
presumption of negligence automatically arose. He failed to our only basis for the assumption is the belief of the plaintiff at
overcome the presumption, for the jeep was improperly that time. Because each person has a different view of what is
parked and over its capacity. risky or not. That’s why we make it subjective, we make the
threshold higher. However, in the test of negligence, the test is
Relation to Topic: There was no assumption of risk in this objective because we have to make the threshold lower. (We
case even if Sunga acceded to using the extension seat. actually put premium to the ability to recover)
According to the Supreme Court, if we were to give weight to
such an argument, it is akin to arguing that the injuries to the Since it requires concurrence of the three elements, absence of
many victims of the tragedies in our seas should not be one will already defeat assumption of risk.
compensated merely because those passengers assumed a
greater risk of drowning by boarding an overloaded ferry.
3. DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE; DOCTRINE OF
(Atty finds this reasoning senseless, but let’s follow the SUPERVENING NEGLIGENCE; DOCTRINE OF
Supreme Court daw) DISCOVERED PERIL; HUMANITARIAN DOCTRINE
The 3rd element (causal connection between the damage and DE ROY
injury) is absent because of the presence of the supervening
negligence. FACTS: The firewall of a burned-out building owned by
petitioners collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop
occupied by the family of private respondents, resulting in
ALLIED BANK injuries to private respondents and the death of Marissa
Bernal, a daughter. Private respondents had been warned
FACTS: This involved a postdated check which was drawn by petitioners to vacate their shop in view of its proximity to
against the account of Silva in her BPI account and was the weakened wall but the former failed to do so.
presented for deposit in Allied Bank. BPI cleared the check The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment
and was deposited in the account of MMGI. finding petitioners guilty of gross negligence and awarding
Silva noticed the debit in her account so he damages to private respondents.
questioned such. BPI then credited back the amount of the On appeal, the decision of the trial court was
check back to her account. BPI notified Allied Bank about it, affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals. On the last day of
but the two banks have just been dodging the liability. the fifteen-day period to file an appeal, petitioners filed a
PCHC decided that they split the liability. However, CA motion for extension of time to file a motion for
found that there was contributory negligence on the part of reconsideration, which was eventually denied by the
Allied Bank for accepting a postdated check; the BPI had appellate court
the last clear chance to correct the mistake.
ISSUE: WON Court of Appeals committed no grave abuse of
ISSUE: WON the doctrine of last clear chance applies. discretion in affirming the trial court's decision
HELD: YES. In this case, the evidence clearly shows that the HELD: This Court likewise finds that the Court of Appeals
proximate cause of the unwarranted encashment of the committed no grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial
subject check was the negligence of respondent who court's decision holding petitioner liable under Article 2190
cleared a postdated check sent to it thru the PCHC clearing of the Civil Code, which provides that "the proprietor of a
facility without observing its own verification procedure. As building or structure is responsible for the damage resulting
correctly found by the PCHC and upheld by the RTC, if only from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the
respondent exercised ordinary care in the clearing process, lack of necessary repairs.
it could have easily noticed the glaring defect upon seeing Nor was there error in rejecting petitioners
the date written on the face of the check. argument that private respondents had the "last clear
Therefore, the petitioner is liable due to chance" to avoid the accident if only they heeded the.
contributory negligence on their part.SC affirmed the CA warning to vacate the tailoring shop and , therefore,
with the 60-40 liability because there was contributory petitioners prior negligence should be disregarded, since
negligence by the petitioner. the doctrine of "last clear chance," which has been
applied to vehicular accidents, is inapplicable to this case
(Atty found it weird why there was a 60-40 liability when the
Court affirmed that the Last Clear Chance was applied. If so,
Contributory Negligence should have been the doctrine
applied.-- However, his justification is, this may only be
applicable to Banking institutions because they are imbued
with public interest. If no liability is given to the collecting ACHEVARA
bank, then it can just result to an unending “ping pong” as to
the liability) FACTS: Benigno Valdez was driving a passenger jeep
heading north in a careless and negligent manner. He tried
Last Clear Chance application: to overtake a motorcycle causing him to encroach into the
Antecedent Negligence- by Allied Bank, for accepting the check opposite lane, which resulted in a collision with the vehicle
even if it shows that it was postdated of Ramos. Ramos died. Achevera was alleged to be
Subsequent Negligence- by BPI, for not dishonoring the check negligent in selecting and supervising Valdez as driver of
the passenger jeep.
PANTRANCO However, Achevera alleges that it was Ramos
vehicle which was running in a zigzag manner, and in order
FACTS: These are the facts. to avoid collision, Valde even tried to drive the jeep towards
the shoulder of the road, but Ramos still hit the side of the
ISSUE: This is the issue. jeep. Ramos was negligent and careless for driving a motor
vehicle which he knows to have a mechanical defect.
ISSUE: WON petitioners are liable to respondents for
damages incurred as a result of the vehicular accident
no last fair opportunity for him to avoid the collision

HELD: NO. The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply because it is too close to avoid the incident. The second
to this case, because even if it can be said that it was point is that even assuming that the bus driver is negligent,
Benigno Valdez who had the last chance to avoid the still URC is liable because it is the registered owner of the
mishap when the owner-type jeep encroached on the van used.
western lane of the passenger jeep, Valdez no longer had Grrenstar’s driver, Sayson, is not negligent because
the opportunity to avoid the collision. when the collision happened, the deceased (driver of URC)
Although the records are bereft of evidence showing was driving at a fast speed. It was mentioned in the case
the exact distance between the two vehicles when the that dust clouds were present upon the happening of the
owner-type jeep encroached on the lane of the passenger accident. Because of the driving speed of the L3 and
jeep, it must have been near enough, because the because it was also not known the exact reason why the
passenger jeep driven by Valdez was unable to avoid the deceased driver couldn’t control his speed, it is he who was
collision. Hence, the doctrine of last clear chance does not negligent because of the speed he was going at which
apply to this case. Article 2179 of the Civil Code provides: further caused the collision. No last clear chance because
When the plaintiff's own negligence was the there was no opportunity for the driver to avoid the
immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot accident
recover damages. But if his negligence was only ISSUE: WON the bus driver failed to exercise the last clear
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the chance doctrine to avoid the collision with the van.
injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff
may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the HELD: Yes, Sayson(bus driver) failed to exercise prudence
damages to be awarded. In this case, both Arnulfo in avoiding the collision.
Ramos and Benigno Valdez failed to exercise The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where
reasonable care and caution that an ordinarily both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is
prudent man would have taken to prevent the vehicular appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or
accident. Since the gross negligence of Arnulfo Ramos where it is impossible to determine whose fault or
and the inexcusable negligence of Benigno Valdez negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident,
were the proximate cause of the vehicular accident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
respondents can’t recover. impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the
consequences arising therefrom. Stated differently, the rule
is that the antecedent negligence of a person does not
preclude recovery of damages caused by the supervening
PNR
negligence of the latter, who had the last fair chance to
prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due
diligence.

4. EMERGENCY RULE
- the 2nd element is absent because there could not have been
any fault/negligence because of the circumstances with which
the defendant found himself in
GREENSTAR
VALENZUELA
FACTS: This involves a speeding draft owned by
Respondent Universal Robina Corp (URC), it was found out
in this case that the driver of such draft was using the
vehicle for personal uses. The petitioner in this case was a
bus owned by Greenstar Express. The two vehicles in this
case collided.
Greenstar alleges that the employer must be liable
for the act of his employee, which is the driver of the
delivery van of the URC because it is presumed since the
driver here is negligent, the presumption arises that the
employer URC is also liable. The driver here is negligent for ORIX METRO
sleeping while driving the company car. Since it was used
by the manager of the Corporation, therefore the burden FACTS: These are the facts.
rests on the employer to prove that the negligent act of the
driver would not impute liability to the employer. Even ISSUE: This is the issue.
assuming that the driver of Greenstar bus is liable, there is
5.PRESCRIPTION
This is a complete defense because the law made it so by

providing prescriptive periods.
The 1st element of damage is treated to be absent because

there could have been no real damage suffered by the plaintiff
because he slept on his rights.
This is also for the benefit of the defendant, who, after the
lapse of the prescriptive period, will be able to sleep soundly at
night knowing that no case can be filed against him pertaining
to that damage anymore. (Atty’s Hugot: Nobody wants
uncertainty!)
CAPUNO
Use this box to paste codal provisions
B. INCOMPLETE/PARTIAL DEFENSE
side of said platform to avoid falling off from the
DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE speeding train. Such contributory negligence, while not
exempting the PNR from liability, nevertheless justifies the
Article 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the mitigation of the liability imposed to it.
immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages. But if his negligence was only RVP: What would have been the warning here of an impending
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the danger was the fact that the deceased was merely sitting on a
injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff platform (in between the coaches), not within the comforts of
may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the the train, even though he knew that he was sitting on an area
damages to be awarded. which is dangerous, he fails to hold properly.
NTC v. De Jeus Cadiente v. Macas
FACTS: Baby John De Jesus was employed as Lineman II by FACTS: Bithuel Macas, a 15 yr. old high school student was
petitioner who died due to electrocution while performing a standing on the shoulder of the road, about 2 ½ meters
hotspot correction. As reflected in the Accident Investigation away from her, when a Ford Fiera driven by Chona
Report presented in evidence, it was noted that” during the Cimafranca bumped and ran the boy over. Macas suffered
unfortunate incident, it was found out that when Baby Jon severe mascular and major vessel injuries, as well as open
requested for a grounding cluster, he was ordered by the bone fracture, which led to the amputation of his both legs
foreman not to come down and just proceed and continue up to the groins. Records revealed that the registered
to climb, which resulted to the incident. owner of the vehicle was Atty. Cadiente who sold it (by the
time the accident happened) to Engr. Jalipa who sold it (by
the time the accident happened) to Abubakar.
ISSUE: WON Baby John has a contributory negligence to
the said incident which resulted to his death ISSUE: WON there was a contributory negligence on the
part of the victim
HELD: Yes. Failure on the part of the late baby John to
use the required protective equipment was an act of
HELD: No. When the accident happened, the victim was
negligence contributory to the unfortunate incident
standing on the shoulder, the uncemented portion of
which led to his death. Baby John should have insisted
the highway intended for pedestrians. Only stationary
for the said required grounding cluster notwithstanding his
vehicles (for loading and unloading passengers) may use
foreman’s directive to proceed without it. As there was
the shoulder. Running vehicles are not supposed to pass
contributory negligence on the part of Baby John, mitigation
through that portion. Here, the Ford Fiera, without slowing
of Transco’s liability for damages is in order.
down, inexplicably swerved to the shoulder, and recklessly
bumped and ran over an innocent victim, who was just
RVP: To hold a person that he has a contributory negligence, where he ought to be when the accident transpired.
there must be a showing that there were warning signs or Bithuel cannot be expected to have foreseen that the
precautions that he will be suffering an impending danger to vehicle would suddenly swerve to the shoulder.
his health or body, and although there is precautions, he did
not exercise the degree of diligence required under the
RVP: In this case, there was no contributory negligence
circumstances.
because there was no disregard of warnings or signs of an
impending danger. Macas was in the rightful place. He has well
PNR v. Tupang on his right to believe that since he was on that part, no one
would likely to bump him. He has the very right to feel safe
FACTS: Winefredo Tupang boarded a train bound for and doesn’t need to take extra measures.
Manila. Since the train was overcrowded, he had to sit on
the open platforms between the coaches of the train. Upon As opposed to what happened in the Tupang case where he
passing Iyam Bridge in Quezon City, he fell off the train knew the danger, as such, he could have held on to the railing
resulting in his death. bars tightly and tenaciously knowing that he opted to sit on
the open platform which is more prone to danger as opposed
ISSUE: WON there was contributory negligence on the part to safely seated inside the coaches.
of the deceased
Bernal & Enverso v. Tacloban Electric & House Plant
HELD: Yes. While petitioner failed to exercise extraordinary (TEHP)
diligence as required by law, it appears that the deceased
was chargeable with contributory negligence. Since he FACTS: Fortunata Enverso with her daughter Purificacion
opted to sit on the open platform between the Bernal, who were from another municipality attended the
coaches of the train, he should have held tightly and procession of Holy Friday in Tacloban. After the procession,
tenaciously on the upright metal bar found at the they, together with two other persons, passed along a
public street and Purificacion was allowed to get a short As to Zhieneth’s admission to the doctor, it should be
distance in advance of her mother and her friends. When in admitted as part of the res gestae under Sec. 42, ROC.
front of the office of TEHP, an automobile appeared from Under such circumstances, it is unthinkable for her,
the opposite direction which frightened the child that she a child of such tender age and in extreme pain, to
turned to run, and as a result, she fell into the street gutter. have lied to a doctor whom she trusted with her life.
At that time, there was hot water in the gutter or ditch
coming from the electric ice plant of J.V. House. The little Lastly, Criselda too, should be absolved from any
girl suffered 3rd degree burn in her whole body which contributory negligence. Criselda momentarily released the
caused her death. child’s hand when she signed her credit card slip. At this
precise moment, it was reasonable and usual for
ISSUE: WON there was a contributory negligence on the Criselda to let go of her child. Further, at the time
part of the plaintiff that led to her death Zhieneth was pinned down, she was just a foot away
from her mother.
HELD: No. The mother and her child had a perfect
right to be on the principal street of Tacloban on the RVP: The time and distance in these two cases were
evening when the religious procession was held. important. The children were not far enough as to impute a
There was nothing abnormal in allowing the child to certain degree of negligence on the part of the parents.
run along a few paces in advance of the mother. No
one could foresee the coincidence of an automobile In Tacloban case, the child was startled, it was natural for her
appearing and of a frightened child running and falling into to avoid the coming vehicle which actually compelled her to
a ditch filled with hot water. run into the ditch.
RVP: Contributory negligence was supposed to mitigate. It is While in Jarco case, it was natural for a parent to let go of her
plaintiff’s own negligence that will absolutely absolve the child momentarily just so she can sign the receipt. Even
defendant. assuming the child climb up on the gift wrapping shelf, this
could be rebutted by the admissions she made with her doctor,
Jarco Marketing Corp. v. CA which formed part of res gestae.
FACTS: Criselda and her 6 yr. old daughter, Zhieneth were NPC v. Casionan
at Syvel’s Department Store owned by petitioner. While
Criselda was signing her credit card slip, she heard a loud FACTS: Noble Casionan was a pocket miner in Dalicno,
thud and saw her daughter on the floor, pinned by the bulk Ampucao, Itogon, Benguet. One day, he and his co-pocket
of the store’s gift-wrapping counter. She was immediately miner cut two bamboo poles for their pocket mining. Each
rushed to the hospital and 14 days thereafter, she died. man carried one pole. They both passed through a trail,
which was regularly used by the members in the
Private respondents led a complaint for damages. Petitioner community, underneath the NPC high tension transmission
denied any liability and claimed that Criselda was negligent lines, where some of which were sagging and dangling 8-10
by allowing her daughter to freely roam around and ft. from the ground. Unfortunately, the tip of the bamboo
Zhieneth, too was guilty of contributory negligence since pole carried by Noble touched one of the dangling high
she climbed the counter. tension wires which electrocuted him and caused his death.
Private respondents presented the testimonies of Gonzales, ISSUE: WON Noble there was a contributory negligence on
who accompanied Zhieneth to the hospital, who claimed the part of Noble
that when asked by the doctor what she did,
Zhieneth replied that she did nothing, that she did HELD: No. The sagging high tension wires were an
not come near to the counter and that the counter accident waiting to happen. The lines were sagging
just suddenly fell off. around 8-10 ft. in violation of the required distance of 18-20
ft. from the ground. Had the lines been properly maintained
ISSUE: Was there contributory negligence of the by petitioner, the bamboo pole carried by Noble would not
respondent? have touched the wires.
HELD: No. The death of Zhieneth was attributable to the Also, there were no warning signs to inform the passers-by
negligence of petitioner for maintaining a defective counter. of the impending danger, considering that the trail was
It was established that petitioners were personally informed the only viable way since the other side was a
of the danger posed by the shaky and unstable counter, precipice. Hence, Noble should not be faulted for simply
yet, neither initiated any concrete action to remedy the doing what was ordinary routine to other workers in the
situation nor ensure the safety of the store’s employees and area.
patrons as a reasonable and ordinary prudent man would
have done. Finally, although pocket mining is prohibited by the DENR,
the pocket miners are also human beings who have to make cargo.
a living in the only way they know how. The fact that
they were not issued a permit by the DENR to do With regards to Loadmasters’ liability, the cargo was lost
pocket mining is no justification for NPC to simply while in the custody of Loadmasters whose employees
leave their transmission lines dangling or hanging (truck driver and helper) were instrumental in the hijacking
posing danger to the life and limb of everyone in the or robbery of the shipment. Hence, it should be made
said community. answerable for the damages caused by its employees who
acted within the scope of their assigned task of delivering
Q: If the facts could be changed in this case, in what the goods safely to the warehouse.
circumstance will the violation of a statute relevant to
contributory negligence? If the accident happens With regards to Glodel, it failed to ensure that Loadmasters
underneath or down there or any other event remotely would fully comply with the undertaking to safely transport
connected to the sagging of electricity lines the subject cargo to the designated destination. It should
have been more prudent in entrusting the goods to
RVP: Negligence per se, which is a violation of a statute, is Loadmasters by taking precautionary measures, such
only relevant if the cause of the accident is the very evil that as providing escorts to accompany the trucks in
the statute intends to suppress. delivering the cargoes.
Such was in the case of Anonuevo v. CA where Villagracia’s ”Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent
bicycle had no safety gadgets such as horn or bell, or and each is an efficient cause without which the injury
headlights. It cannot be denied that the statutory purpose for would not have happened, the injury may be attributed to
requiring bicycles to be equipped with headlights or horns is to all or any of the causes and recovery may be had against
promote road safety and to minimize the occurrence of road any or all of the responsible persons although under the
accidents involving bicycles. At face value, Villagracia’s mishap circumstances of the case, it may appear that one of them
was precisely the danger sought to be guarded against by the was more culpable, and that the duty owed by them to the
ordinance he violated. injured person was not the same.
VI. LIABILITY FOR ACT OR Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or
omissions of two or more persons, although acting
OMISSION independently, are in combination the direct and proximate
cause of a single injury to a third person, it is impossible to
BY THE TORTFEASORS determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury
and either of them is responsible for the whole injury.
Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who Where their concurring negligence resulted in injury or
are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. damage to a third party, they become joint tortfeasors and
are solidarily liable for the resulting damage under Article
Loadmasters Customs Services v. Glodel Brokerage 2194 of the Civil Code.”
FACTS: Columbia engaged the services of Glodel for the RVP: The nature of liability of Loadmasters was quasi-delict
release and withdrawal of the electric copper cathodes, (there was absence of contract between Loadmasters and
which was insured by R&B Insurance, from the pier and Columbia). While the nature of liability of Glodel was
subsequent delivery to its warehouse in Bulacan and contractual (between Columbia and Glodel). As such,
Valenzuela. Glodel, in turn, engaged the services of Loadmasters is not privy to the contact of the two entities.
Loadmasters for the delivery of the cargoes to Columbia’s However, Loadmasters and Glodel were made liable solidarily
warehouses. by the Court, where the plaintiff can actually recover from any
of them.
Out of the six trucks en route to Bulacan, only five reached
the destination. Columbia filed with R&B Insurance a claim Glodel was made liable because it failed to ensure that the
for insurance indemnity. Upon payment by the latter, it Loadmasters will eventually deliver the cargo to the
thereafter filed a complaint for damages against both warehouse. While Loadmasters was held liable because of its
Loadmasters and Glodel, seeking reimbursement of the failure to deliver the copper cathodes occasioned by the
amount it paid to Columbia. liability of its employees, therefore, there is a presumption that
Loadmasters itself is liable. There is vicarious liability,
ISSUE: Who between Glodel and Loadmasters, is liable for where the employer is liable for the negligent act of its
reimbursement to R&B Insurance? employees. The liability is hinge upon the failure to
either select or supervise the employees in the case.
HELD: Both Glodel and Loadmasters are jointly and
severally liable to R&B Insurance for the loss of the subject TN: In this case, Glodel did not interpose a cross-claim against
Loadmasters, hence it cannot seek judicial sanction against the
latter. (In short, Glodel ra makabayad)

majority commences at the age of eighteen years.”
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
CUADRA v. MONFORT
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Articcle 2176 is
demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but FACTS: Cuadra (12), Monfort (13) were assigned to weed
also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. the grass in their school premises. Monfort found a
headband. Jokingly, she said aloud that she had found an
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the earthworm and to frighten Cuadra, tossed the object at her.
mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the At that precise moment, Cuadra turned around to face her
minor children who live in their company. friend and the object hit her right eye. Smarting from the
pain, she rubbed her injured eye and treated it with some
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or powder. The said incident led her to lose the sight of her
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live right eye.
in their company.
ISSUE: WON the father of Monfort could be held liable for
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise the injury caused by his daughter
are likewise responsible for damages caused by their
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter HELD: NO. When the law refers to “all the diligence of a
are employed or on the occasion of their functions. good father of the family to prevent damage,” it implies a
consideration of the attendant circumstances in every
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their individual case, to determine whether or not by the exercise
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of of such diligence, the damage could have been prevented.
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry. ITCAB, there is nothing from which it may be inferred that
the defendant could have prevented the damage by the
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through observance of due care, or that he was in any way remiss in
a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused the exercise of his parental authority in failing to foresee
by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in such damage, or the act which caused it. On the contrary,
which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be his child was at school, where it was his duty to send her
applicable. and where she was, as he had the right to expect her to be,
under the care and supervision of the teacher. And as far as
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and the act which caused the injury was concerned, it was an
trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils innocent prank not unusual among children at play and
and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their which no parent, however careful, would have any special
custody. reason to anticipate much less guard against. Nor did it
reveal any mischievous propensity, or indeed any trait in the
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when child's character which would reflect unfavorably on her
the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all upbringing and for which the blame could be attributed to
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent her parents.
damage.
RVP: The suit was against the parents although it was their
1. PARENTS child’s wrongdoing. Hence, there is a presumption that there is
a vicarious liability. The parent has no control with respect to
Art. 221, Family Code. Parents and other persons the said incident because, generally, when the child is being
exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the sent to school, there is a transfer of accountability to the
injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of teachers, they are considered as substitute parents, locus
their unemancipated children living in their company and parentis.
under their parental authority subject to he appropriate
defenses provided by law. Q: Does it mean to say that for anything that the child
will do in the school, the parents will not have any
RA 6809. AN ACT LOWERING THE AGE OF MAJORITY control? How about a persistent bully? How about if
FROM TWENTY-ONE TO EIGHTEEN YEARS the parents kept on encouraging their child that he is
the strongest thereby making him a bully in school? No.
Sec. 1. Article 234 of EO No. 209, the Family Code of the Unless you can prove any trait in the child’s character which
Philippines, is hereby amended to read as follows: would reflect unfavorably on her upbringing and for which the
blame could be attributed to her parents.
“Art. 234. Emancipation takes place by the
attainment of majority. Unless otherwise provided, Q: Mutatis mutandis, could the teachers prevent the
case? Still no because it was something that is done in jest,
not usually seen as foreseeable. Also, there was no showing

that the teacher was there. of their legal and natural duty closely to supervise the child
who is in their custody and control. Parental liability is,
LIBI v. IAC in other words, anchored upon parental authority
*See pages 6-7 coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the
discharge of the duties accompanying such
RVP: The important factor that made the Court say that the authority.
parents were indeed remiss in supervising Wendell was when
they were not aware that he was an Informant of the During the incident, the parental authority was still lodged
Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU). As it was established in respondent spouse, the natural parents of the child. It
that they were being negligent, their liability as parents was would thus follow that the natural parents who had then
primary. The difference between primary and subsidiary is that actual custody of the minor are the indispensable parties to
in primary, the parents are directly and immediately held liable the suit for damages.
without impleading the erring child. While in subsidiary, there
has to be conviction and insolvency first of the person directly RVP: Parental authority presupposes that the parents have
responsible before one could be held subsidiarily liable. actual control. In this case, there was no control and no
custody of the child by the adoptive parents who were in the
TN: If parents are involved, they are primarily liable, United States when the incident happened. It would be absurd
absolutely, whether it would be quasi-delict or culpa ex to hold them liable for failure to control and supervise the child
delicto. But if the person liable is the employee, the employer’s who was remotely connected to them. The basis for parental
liability for culpa-aquiliana is primary and direct, but for civil liability under the vicarious liability is parental authority which
liability ex delicto, it’s only subsidiary. comes with it instructing, controlling and supervising the
child.
Both pertains to vicarious liability - of parents and employers.
Moreover, the defense of the exercise of diligence of a good
There is a need to distinguish between the liabilities because it father of a family cannot even be interposed by the adoptive
affects the defenses that should be alleged. In primary, a parents because there was no control, custody or supervision
person could alleged as a defense that he exercises the to begin with by them.
diligence of a good father of a family. This defense is only
available in primary and not in subsidiary (in the context of an TN: While Art 2180 mentions father first and in the alternative,
employer) because aside from the fact that the same is the mother, that has been completely amended by the Family
provided under the law, such defense is actually useless where Code. The parents are right away held solidarily liable and can
employer could be held liable post-conviction of the employee both be impleaded in the court, not in the alternative.
and that the employee is insolvent. He cannot interpose such
defense during trial. Unlike if the person is primarily liable (in Q: What if the child is illegitimate? The standard under
the context of the parents), they were the people who were the law is the control and supervision over the actuations of
impleaded, which means, they could interpose such defense the child. The law does not speak of legitimacy or filiation or
during trial. extent of relationship. Hence, the law still applies to illegitimate
children. Ex. If the niece has lived with the aunt for several
TAMARGO v. CA years and there was no other person who exercises parental
supervision over her, there could be no one who could be held
FACTS: Adelberto Bundoc, 10 yrs. old, shot Jennifer liable other than the aunt.
Tamargo with an air rifle which caused her subsequent
death. Prior to the said incident, Sps. Sabas Rapusira filed a TN: What the law says is that the child should be living in the
case to adopt Adelberto. This petition was granted after parents’ company. It is important because it demonstrates
Adelberto shot Jennifer. Petitioners filed a complaint for custody and custody translates to control. Ex. If ang anak sig
damages against the respondents, Adelberto’s natural layas layas, way control ang parents.
parents. However, the respondents interposed that the
parental authority of Adelberto shifted to the adoptive 2. GUARDIANS - apply by analogy
parents.
Art. 217, Family Code. In case of foundlings, abandoned,
ISSUE: WON the effects of adoption, insofar as parental neglected or abused children and other children similarly
authority is concerned may be given retroactive effects situated, parental authority shall be entrusted in summary
judicial proceedings to heads of children’s homes,
HELD: No. The civil liability imposed upon parents for the
orphanages and similar institutions duly accredited by the
torts of their minor children living with them, may be seen
to be based upon the parental authority vested by the Civil proper government agency.
Code upon such parents. The civil law assumes that when
an unemancipated child living with its parents commits a 3. OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF
tortious acts, the parents were negligent in the performance ESTABLISHMENTS
managerial employee of a company-issued vehicle

2. WON Abad was performing acts within the range of
SPS. VILORIA v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC (CAI) his employment
FACTS: Fernando bought airline tickets on board CAI after HELD:

Mager of Holiday Travel informed him that there were no 1. Yes. The phrase “even though the former are not
available seats of Amtrak. One time, when Fernando saw an engaged in any business or industry” found in the 5th
Amtrak station and made inquiries thereto, he was told that paragraph of Article 2180 should be interpreted to mean
there were available seats anytime. And so he confronted that it is not necessary for the employer to be engaged in
the agent about misleading him to buying CAI tickets. He any business or industry to be liable for the negligence of
asked for refund for the tickets but Mager denied it. his employee who is acting within the scope of his assigned
task. Whether or not engaged in any business or industry,
ISSUE: WON continental airlines is liable for the act of the an employer is liable for the torts committed by employees
agent of the travel agency within the scope of his assigned tasks. But it is necessary to
establish the employer-employee relationship; once this is
HELD: No. If the passenger's cause of action against the done, the plaintiff must show, to hold the employer liable,
airline company is premised on culpa-aquiliana or quasi- that the employee was acting within the scope of his
delict for a tort committed by the employee of the airline assigned task when the tort complained of was committed.
company's agent, there must be an independent showing It is only then that the employer may find it necessary to
that the airline company was at fault or negligent or has interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and
contributed to the negligence or tortious conduct committed supervision of the employee.
by the employee of its agent.
2. No. The mere fact that Abad was using a service
Article 2180 of the Civil Code does not make the principal vehicle at the time of the injurious incident is not of itself
vicariously liable for the tort committed by its agent's sufficient to charge petitioner with liability for the negligent
employees and the principal-agency relationship per se does operation of said vehicle unless it appears that he was
not make the principal a party to such tort; hence, the need operating the vehicle within the course or scope of his
to prove the principal's own fault or negligence. employment.
A person's vicarious liability is anchored on his possession of RVP: Castilex wanted to fall their case under the 4 th paragraph
control, whether absolute or limited, on the tortfeasor. of Art. 2180 because there is a geographical limitation. In this
Without such control, there is nothing which could justify case, the incident happened in Fuente Osmena Circle, where
extending the liability to a person other than the one who Abad was not in the service of the branches of Castilex. Also,
committed the tort. the 5th paragraph does not apply to those who are not
engaged in business per se. However, the court said that the
Therefore, without evidence that CAI exercised control over 5th paragraph actually expands the limitations of the 4 th
Holiday Travel’s employees or that CAI was equally at fault, paragraph in terms of employer coverage and acts included.
no liability can be imposed on CAI for Mager’s supposed
misrepresentation. Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5
Q: How is there a vicarious liability of owners and owners and managers of an employers in general,
managers of establishments in this case? Because establishment or enterprise whether or not engaged in
according to the petitioner, there is a principal-agent any business or industry
relationship between CAI and Holiday Travels, in which Mager
was an employee, who wrongly informed petitioner. covers negligent acts of encompasses negligent acts
employees committed either of employees acting within
CASTILEX INDUSTRIES v. VASQUEZ in the service of the the scope of their assigned
branches or on the occasion task
FACTS: Vasquez, son of the respondents was driving a of their functions
motorcycle around Fuente counter-clockwise with no
protective gears and with a SP to drive only. While Abad,
manager of Castilex drove the company car he’s using TESTS: “Acts done within the scope of the employer’s
against the flow of the traffic going through Gen. Maxilom assigned tasks”
St. In the process, the two collided with each other causing
severe injuries to the former. An action for damages was 1. THE FURTHERANCE TEST –
then commenced by respondents. Any act done by an employee in furtherance of the interests of
the employer or for the account of the employer at the time of
ISSUES: the infliction of the injury or damages
1. WON an employer may be held vicariously liable for
the death resulting from the negligent operation by a 2. THE SPECIAL BUSINESS BENEFIT TEST –
Even if it’s not falling under the specific functions of the establishment is a going concern, being employers in general,
employee, but then at the time of the accident, there was it doesn’t have to be that you are engaged in a business. It
actually a special business benefit that inured to the employer, could be that you are not into business, however, you still
then the employer will be liable. engaged the services of some individuals as employees (such
as drivers, gardener, house-helper, in charitable institutions or
Ex. The employer may, however, be liable where he derives churches, etc.)
some special benefit from having the employee drive home in
the employer's vehicle as when the employer benefits from 2. Is it possible that you are not engaged in business
having the employee at work earlier and, presumably, but you are having employees? Yes.
spending more time at his actual duties.
3. Taking into consideration that in our country, even if
3. SPECIAL ERRAND/ ROVING COMMISION RULE – the person is above 18, he or she is still within the
Where the employee’s duties require him to circulate in a custody of their parents, can we make a case out of it?
general area with no fixed place or hours of work, or to go to Even if now, the law says that the age of majority is 18, you
and from his home to various outside places of work, and his can still make a case until the age of 21. You can use as a
employer furnishes him with a vehicle to use in his work, the defense the case of Tamargo and the Family Code, that even
employee continues in the service of his employer until he ages 21-25, there is still a need for parental authority to
actually reaches home. contract a marriage. However, this boils down to a case-to-
case basis. Even in the Taylor case, it was decided that it is not
PHIL. BUS RABBIT v. PHIL-AM FORWARDERS a matter of age but the level of intelligence.
FACTS: Pineda was driving a truck owned by defendant 4. How about those who are living in a boarding house,
when it bumped the bus driven and owned by plaintiffs. A who are below 18, who has control over it? It would be
complaint for damages based on culpa-aquiliana was filed much easier to reason out that the parents has no control
against Phil-Am Forwarders and Balingit as manager of the considering the distance, it would be impossible for them to
company. know the whereabouts of their child.
ISSUE: Whether the terms “employer” and “owners and

managers of an establishment or enterprise” embrace the Kapit lang ng mahigpit
manager of a corporation Aabutin natin ang mga tala
Tala, tala, tala
HELD: No. It may be gathered from the context of article
2180 that the term "manager" ("director" in the Spanish #401TalaNation <3
version) is used in the sense of "employer". Hence, under
the allegations of the complaint, no tortious or quasi-
delictual liability can be fastened on Balingit as manager of
Phil-American Forwarders, Inc., in connection with the
vehicular accident already mentioned because he himself
may be regarded as an employee of his employer, Phil-
American Forwarders, Inc.
RVP: The interpretation of the word manager (in paragraph 4)

is not the managers by designation or of hierarchy but
managers as owners of the establishment. Ultimately, they will
be the one who has the opportunity to select, control and
supervise the employees.
TN: It is not the nomenclature that will control but the

ownership of the establishment.
Questions:
1. Will par. 4 be rendered useless considering that it

was already expanded by 5? Not necessarily because there
can be standards that you can find under par 4 but not in par
5. It appears that it would be irrelevant but there are cases
where it will fall under par 4.
Under par 5, it is not absolutely required that the

Eh401 Torts Midterms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eh401 Torts Midterms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TORTS AND DAMAGES (MIDTERMS) | Atty.

Pandi | EH 401 Tala Nation 2019-2020

ART. 2176, NEW CIVIL CODE

Week 1 - Rubierosse 2. Fault or negligence of the defendant, or some

Refers to the actor himself or the persons for whom

ART. 2177, NEW CIVIL CODE

e.) Consolidation with the criminal case is not forced.

ART. 2180, NEW CIVIL CODE

Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers,

a CANU agent and that Cresencio's gun was missing from

ISSUE: WON the respondent is liable for damages

HELD: This is the ruling.

Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily

FE CAYAO-LASAM vs. SPS. RAMOLOTE

Dr. Mayo allegedly informed Editha that there was a dead

Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was

HIDALGO ENTERPRISES VS. BALANDAN

FACTS: Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. was the owner of an ice-

The burnt wounds found in the palm of Isabel is

: NO. The doctrine of assumption of risk means that one

no last fair opportunity for him to avoid the collision

HELD: This is the ruling.

HELD: This is the ruling.

This is a complete defense because the law made it so by

The 1st element of damage is treated to be absent because

FACTS: These are the facts.

ISSUE: This is the issue.

HELD: This is the ruling.

Use this box to paste codal provisions

NTC v. De Jeus Cadiente v. Macas

latter. (In short, Glodel ra makabayad)

not usually seen as foreseeable. Also, there was no showing

managerial employee of a company-issued vehicle

FACTS: Fernando bought airline tickets on board CAI after HELD:

ISSUE: Whether the terms “employer” and “owners and

RVP: The interpretation of the word manager (in paragraph 4)

TN: It is not the nomenclature that will control but the

1. Will par. 4 be rendered useless considering that it

Under par 5, it is not absolutely required that the

You might also like