Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Laws and Jurisprudence On Torts and Damages Largo PDF 1
Laws and Jurisprudence On Torts and Damages Largo PDF 1
TORTS
(QUASI-DELICT)
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
1
2 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
1
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every per-
son criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
CHAPTER 1 7
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
2
SECTION 1. Institution of Criminal and Civil Actions. — (a) When
a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil
liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted
with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil
action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil ac-
tion shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evi-
dence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reason-
able opportunity to make such reservation.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against
the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary dam-
ages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or infor-
mation, the filing fees therefor shall constitute a first lien on the judg-
ment awarding such damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in
the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be
paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall
be required for actual damages.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be
filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which
could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil
action. (1a)
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reser-
vation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the
offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of
the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages
claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover
liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the of-
fended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the amounts
alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these
damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based
on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof
has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal
action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the
application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accor-
dance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil
and criminal actions.”
CHAPTER 1 9
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
3
ARTICLE 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in
any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liber-
ties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodi-
cal publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due
process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property
is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societ-
ies for purposes not contrary to law;
10 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
6
ARTICLE 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavern-
keepers and proprietors of establishments. — In default of the persons
criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or
corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their estab-
lishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or
some general or special police regulation shall have been committed
by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods
taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging
therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such
guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the
person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn;
and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such inn-
keeper or his representative may have given them with respect to the
care of and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case
of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless
committed by the innkeeper’s employees.
ARTICLE 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The
subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also
apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in
any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils,
workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.
14 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
vs. Cresencia, et al., G.R. No. L-8194, July 11, 1956, that
“plaintiffs’ action for damages is independent of the
criminal case and based, not on the employer’s subsid-
iary liability under the Revised Penal Code, but on a
breach of the carrier’s contractual obligation to carry his
passengers safely to their destination (culpa contractual).
x x x [I]n culpa contractual, the liability of the carrier is
not merely subsidiary or secondary, but direct and im-
mediate (Articles 1755, 1756, and 1759, New Civil Code).”
23
CHAPTER 2
ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICT
23
24 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
Supreme Court found that the actor could not have rea-
sonably foreseen the harm that would befall him, it was
ruled that he was not guilty of negligence (Civil Aero-
nautics Administration vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
L-51806, November 8, 1988).
8. In the civil law and at common law, three Degrees of
degrees of negligence were recognized, namely, slight negligence
negligence, ordinary negligence and gross negligence.
Slight negligence is the failure to exercise great or
extraordinary care. Ordinary negligence is the want of
ordinary care and diligence, that is, such care and dili-
gence as an ordinarily prudent person would exercise
under the same or similar circumstances. Gross negli-
gence is materially greater than ordinary negligence, and
consists of an entire absence of care or an absence of
even slight care or diligence; it implies a thoughtless
disregard for consequences or an indifference to the
rights or welfare of others (cf., 65 CJS at pp.536-539).
9. The concept itself is relative and compara- Nature of the
tive. The degree of care to be exercised depends upon concept
person, place and time. “Negligence is want of care re-
quired by the circumstances. It is a relative or compara-
tive not an absolute term, and its application depends
upon the situation of the parties, and the degree of care
and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably im-
pose.” (U.S. vs. Juanillo, G.R. No. 7255, October 3, 1912).
10. The operator of an automobile is bound to
exercise care in proportion to the varying danger and
risks of the highway and commensurate with the dan-
gers naturally incident to the use of such vehicle. He is
obliged to take notice of the conditions before him, and
if it is apparent that by a particular method of proceed-
ing he is liable to work an injury, it is his duty to adopt
some other or safer method if within reasonable care
and prudence he can do so. In determining the degree
of care an operator of an automobile should use, when
on the highway, it is proper to take into consideration
the place, presence or absence of other travelers, the
speed of the automobile, its seize, appearance, manner
of movement, and the amount of notice it makes, and
26 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
1
Defined as an occurrence by chance, and not as expected. As
used in the phrase “injury arising by accident in compensation stat-
utes, the term is interpreted in the popular and ordinary sense, and is
generally construed as meaning an occurrence which is neither ex-
pected, designed, nor intentionally caused by the workman. (Ballentine’s
Law Dictionary, p. 11.)
An act of God has been defined as an accident, due directly and
exclusively to natural causes without human intervention, which by
no amount of foresight, pains or care, reasonably to have been ex-
pected, could have been prevented (Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-47851, October 3, 1986, citing 1 Corpus Juris 1174).
32 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
& c). Thus, a legal presumption arose that the bus driver
was negligent (Kapalaran Bus Line vs. Coronado, G.R. No.
85331, August 25, 1989).
33. There is prima facie presumption of negligence
on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results
from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances,
such as firearms and poison, except when the posses-
sion or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or
business (Article 2188, NCC).
34. Also, “[w]here the thing which causes injury
is shown to be under the management of the defendant,
and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of
things does not happen if those who have the manage-
ment use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in
the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the
accident arose from want of care.” (Cooley on Torts, Vol.
3, p. 369).
35. As Black’s Law Dictionary puts it: “Res ipsa Res ipsa
loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. Rebuttable presump- loquitur
tion or inference that defendant was negligent, which defined
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. Res ipsa loquitur is rule of evidence whereby
negligence of alleged wrongdoer may be inferred from
mere fact that accident happened provided character of
accident and circumstances attending it lead reasonably
to belief that in absence of negligence it would not have
occurred and that thing which caused injury is shown to
have been under management and control of alleged
wrongdoer. Hillen v. Hooker Const. Co., Tex. Civ. App.,
484 S.W. 2d 133, 155. Under doctrine of “res ipsa loqui-
tur” the happening of an injury permits an inference of
negligence where plaintiff produces substantial evidence
that 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.” (Layugan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
G.R. No. 73998, November 14, 1988).
34 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
CHAPTER 3
NATURE OF LIABILITY
37
38 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
1
In determining the existence of an employer-employee rela-
tionship, the elements that are generally considered are the following:
(a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of
wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to
control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which
the work is to be accomplished. It is the so-called “control test” that is
the most important element (Investment Planning Corp. of the Phils. vs.
The Social Security System, 21 SCRA 924)
CHAPTER 3 45
NATURE OF LIABILITY
CHAPTER 4
DEFENSES IN AN ACTION FOR
QUASI-DELICT
72
CHAPTER 4 73
DEFENSES IN AN ACTION FOR QUASI-DELICT
1
Referring to the case where the doctrine was first given
expression in the United States.
78 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
CHAPTER 5
ENFORCEMENT OF LIABILITY
86
CHAPTER 5 87
ENFORCEMENT OF LIABILITY
1
Quasi-Offenses (Criminal Negligence).
88 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
CHAPTER 6
STRICT LIABILITY TORTS
94
CHAPTER 6 95
STRICT LIABILITY TORTS
1
The term “head of the family” has been defined by law for tax
purposes to mean “an unmarried or legally separated man or woman
with one or both parents, or with one or more brothers or sisters, or
with one or more legitimate, recognized natural or legally adopted
children living with and dependent upon him for their chief support,
where such brothers or sisters or children are not more than twenty-
one (21) years of age, unmarried and not gainfully employed or where
such children, brothers or sisters, regardless of age are incapable of
self-support because of mental or physical defect.” (Section 35, RA
8424)
102 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
CHAPTER 7
SPECIAL TORTS
102
CHAPTER 7 103
SPECIAL TORTS
CHAPTER 8
KINDRED TORTS
110
CHAPTER 8 111
KINDRED TORTS
duty to use at least the same level of care that any other
reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a con-
dition under the same circumstances. The breach of these
professional duties of skill and care, or their improper
performance, by a physician surgeon whereby the pa-
tient is injured in body or in health, constitutes action-
able malpractice. In the event that any injury results to
the patient from want of due care or skill during the
operation, the surgeons may be held answerable in dam-
ages for negligence (Garcia-Rueda vs. Pascasio, supra, cit-
ing Hoover v. Williamson, 236 Md 250 and Gore v. Board
of Medical Quality, 110 Cal App 3d 184 (1980).
3. It is a universal rule that a physician or sur-
geon has the duty to use reasonable care and skill in
diagnosis and treatment. The standard by which the re-
quirement of reasonable skill and care is determined is
the average standard of the profession (61 Am Jur 2d, at
339).
In particular, a doctor has the duty to inform the
patient fully of his condition, and of the results of the
tests made. If the physician discovers, or should know
or discover, that the patient’s ailment is beyond his
knowledge or technical skill, ability or capacity to treat
with a likelihood of reasonable success, he is also under
duty to disclose that fact to the patient and advise him
of the necessity of other or different treatment. It has
also been recognized that there exists a duty on the part
of the physician to advise his patient to consult a spe-
cialist or one qualified in a method of treatment which
the physician is not qualified to give. It is also the settled
rule that one who engages a physician to treat his case
impliedly engages him to attend throughout the illness,
or until his services are dispensed with, but it is recog-
nized that a physician has the right to withdraw from a
case by giving due notice to the patient and affording
him the ample opportunity to secure other medical at-
tendance of his own choice. As corollary to the
physician’s right to withdraw from a case upon giving
proper notice, he is also under duty not to abandon the
patient and to continue attendance until all the condi-
tions for his rightful withdrawal are complied with (cf.,
65 Am Jur 2d, pp. 358 to 368).
112 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
in the ICU for a month. She was released from the hos-
pital only four months later or on November 15, 1985.
Since the ill-fated operation, Erlinda remained in coma-
tose condition until she died on August 3, 1999.” The
Supreme Court held that “[t]he injury incurred by Erlinda
does not normally happen absent any negligence in the
administration of anesthesia and in the use of an endot-
racheal tube. As was noted in the Decision, the instru-
ments used in the administration of anesthesia, includ-
ing the endotracheal tube, were all under the exclusive
control of Dr. Gutierrez and Dr. Hosaka. In Voss vs.
Bridwell, which involved a patient who suffered brain
damage due to the wrongful administration of anesthe-
sia, and even before the scheduled mastoid operation
could be performed, the Kansas Supreme Court applied
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, reasoning that the injury
to the patient therein was one which does not ordinarily
take place in the absence of negligence in the adminis-
tration of an anesthetic, and in the use and employment
of an endotracheal tube. The court went on to say that
“[o]rdinarily a person being put under anesthesia is not
rendered decerebrate as a consequence of administering
such anesthesia in the absence of negligence. Upon these
facts and under these circumstances, a layman would be
able to say, as a matter of common knowledge and ob-
servation, that the consequences of professional treat-
ment were not as such as would ordinarily have fol-
lowed if due care had been exercised.” (Ramos, et al. vs.
Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124354, April 11, 2002).
Liability of 13. As regards the responsibility of the hospital
hospitals in medical malpractice cases, the Supreme Court first
noted the “unique practice (among private hospitals) of
filling up specialist staff with attending and visiting “con-
sultants,” who are allegedly not hospital employees.” It
also noted that hospitals exercise significant control in
the hiring and firing of consultants and in the conduct
of their work within the hospital premises. Doctors who
apply for “consultant” slots, visiting or attending, are
required to submit proof of completion of residency, their
educational qualifications; generally, evidence of accredi-
tation by the appropriate board (diplomate), evidence
of fellowship in most cases, and references. These re-
CHAPTER 8 119
KINDRED TORTS
DAMAGES
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
124
CHAPTER 1 125
INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
1
Literally, “damage without injury.”
126 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
CHAPTER 2
ACTUAL DAMAGES
127
128 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
1
The Civil Code does not confine itself exclusively to the quasi-
contracts enumerated from Articles 2144 to 2175 but is open to the
possibility that, absent a pre-existing relationship, there being neither
crime nor quasi-delict, a quasi-contractual relation may be forced upon
the parties to avoid a case of unjust enrichment (PNB vs. Court of
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 97995, January 21, 1993).
CHAPTER 2 131
ACTUAL DAMAGES
2
(Chapter 5 on Damages, infra.)
136 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
CHAPTER 3
MORAL DAMAGES
141
142 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
1
The matter is discussed under Chapter 7 of Torts (Quasi-delict)
as specie of special torts.
158 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
CHAPTER 4
NOMINAL DAMAGES
168
CHAPTER 4 169
NOMINAL DAMAGES
CHAPTER 5
TEMPERATE DAMAGES
172
CHAPTER 5 173
TEMPERATE DAMAGES
CHAPTER 6
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
176
CHAPTER 6 177
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
CHAPTER 7
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
178
CHAPTER 7 179
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
655; Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. vs. CA, 176
SCRA 778. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may
award exemplary damages if the defendant is found to
have acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppres-
sive, or malevolent manner (Art. 2232, Civil Code; PNB
vs. Gen. Acceptance and Finance Corp., 161 SCRA 449).
7. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may
award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent
manner (Art. 2332, Civil Code). It may be awarded for
breach of contract or quasi-contract as when a telegraph
company personnel transmitted the wrong telegram.
Gross carelessness or negligence constitutes wanton mis-
conduct. (Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, 103 SCRA 359 [1981]. It is not recover-
able in the absence of gross negligence (Bagumbayan Corp.
v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 132 SCRA 441 [1984]).
8. The cavalier treatment of airline personnel
manifests malice as manifested in the contemptuous dis-
regard of the passenger’s protest and the abrupt rejec-
tion of their request that the Manila office be contacted
for verification of the correct billing. Rudeness is never
excusable. It is especially condemnable if it is commit-
ted in one’s own country against a foreign guest. Air-
lines should always bear in mind the special responsi-
bilities they owe their passengers not only of carrying
them safely and comfortably according to their contracts
but also of extending to them the courtesy due them in
all matters relating to their trip, including reservations,
confirmation of bookings, ticketing and other ground
and in-flight services. The fare of the passenger includes
payment for politeness. Award of exemplary damages
warranted (Northwest Orient Airlines vs. Court of Appeals,
et al., G.R. No. 83033, June 8, 1990). In these cases, neither
the social standing nor prestige of the passenger should
determine the extent to which he would suffer because
of a wrong done, since the dignity affronted in the indi-
vidual is a quality inherent in him and not conferred by
these social indicators. Thus, as well and aptly put by
Justice Serafin Camilon, propriety of damage awards is
judged by their fairness considering all the circumstances.
CHAPTER 7 181
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
CHAPTER 8
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
187
188 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
1
Citations omitted.
CHAPTER 8 189
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
BOOK IV
TITLE XVII
Chapter 2
QUASI-DELICTS
193
194 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
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.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or inca-
pacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their com-
pany.
The 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 em-
ployees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned
tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or in-
dustry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a
special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official
to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is pro-
vided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall
be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or appren-
tices, so long as they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of
a good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a)
Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his depen-
dents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or
delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904)
Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no
parents or guardians, the minor or insane person shall be answerable
with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad
litem shall be appointed. (n)
Art. 2183. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use
of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although
it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the
damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person
who has suffered damage. (1905)
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable
with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the
APPENDIX A 195
CIVIL CODE PROVISIONS ON QUASI-DELICT
APPENDIX B
BOOK IV
TITLE XVIII — DAMAGES
Chapter 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Chapter 2
ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is
entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suf-
197
198 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
Chapter 3
OTHER KINDS OF DAMAGES
SUBJECT INDEX
TORTS
ABUSE OF RIGHT
Doctrine ........................................................................... 102
Elements ........................................................................... 104
Test ........................................................................... 105
ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS
Liability for quasi-delict .................................................... 69
Liability under contracts ................................................... 70
As employer ........................................................................ 71
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN .. 109
ASSUMPTION OF RISK ............................................................. 75
Coverage ........................................................................... 75
Exceptions ........................................................................... 76
BURDEN OF PROOF .................................................................. 31
CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP DOCTRINE ...................................... 122
CAVEAT EMPTOR ...................................................................... 98, 99
CAVEAT VENDITOR .................................................................. 98
CONSUMER ACT OF THE PHILIPPINES .............................. 96
CORPORATION
Liability of directors/ trustees ......................................... 122
CULPA AQUILIANA
Distinguished from culpa criminal .................................. 5
Distinguished from culpa contractual ............................ 16, 17
Available remedies ............................................................. 86, 91
Action for damages survives death of defendant ......... 93
DILIGENCE OF GOOD FATHER OF FAMILY ....................... 29, 39, 52
In the supervision of employees ...................................... 52
In the selection of employees ........................................... 54
As a defense ........................................................................ 81
DOCTRINE OF ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE ........................... 74
Excavation ........................................................................... 75
DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Definition ........................................................................... 82
205
206 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
SUBJECT INDEX
DAMAGES
ACTUAL DAMAGES
Definition ........................................................................... 127
Requirements ...................................................................... 128
Burden of proof .................................................................. 128
Components of ................................................................... 129
Kinds .................................................................................... 130
In contracts .......................................................................... 130
In quasi-contracts ............................................................... 130
In quasi-delict ..................................................................... 131, 135
In crimes .............................................................................. 131, 135
ATTORNEY’S FEES ..................................................................... 138, 139
BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY ........................................ 158, 165
CIVIL INDEMNITY ..................................................................... 135, 136
In rape cases ........................................................................ 143
DAMAGE ..................................................................................... 124
DAMAGES
Definition ............................................................................. 124
Distinguished from other concepts ................................. 124
Rationale .............................................................................. 125
General damages ................................................................ 125
Special damages ................................................................. 125
Assessment of ..................................................................... 187
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA ................................................. 124, 125
DOCTRINE OF AVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCE .................... 190
DOCTRINE OF FAIR COMMENT ............................................ 147
EGGSHELL SKULL RULE ......................................................... 131
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
Nature and concept ............................................................ 178
Requisites ............................................................................ 178
Rationale .............................................................................. 179
When recoverable .............................................................. 179
GENERAL DAMAGES ............................................................... 125
209
210 LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS AND DAMAGES
AUTHOR’S ACADEMIC
PROFILE
JOAN S. LARGO
by
JOAN S. LARGO
ISBN 978-971-23-4880-8
No. ____________
Printed by
ii
Tel. Nos. 712-41-08 • 712-41-01
AUTHOR’S NOTE
iii
However, since the Philippines is a civil law country, tort here is
viewed to be that rule of conduct which our legislature prescribes,
supplemented by the interpretations made by our Supreme Court in
appropriate cases presented before it.
Thus, our principal concept of torts is that which is ordained in
Article 2176 of our Civil Code as an act or omission, founded on
negligence, causing damage to another where there is no pre-existing
contractual obligations between parties. Tort, here, is essentially based
on negligent act or omission and cannot generally cover intentional acts,
in view of the limiting definition of Article 2176 of the Code. Unlike in
the United States, tort in the Philippines cannot cover any wrong; its
scope is limited to cases anchored on negligence. The only commonality
shared with the common law concept of torts is that our tort action is
based not on contractual breach and presupposes that there is no pre-
existing contracts between parties. Thus, it was once postulated that
common law torts is more comprehensive than ours.
However, in the course of our jurisprudential development, we
have seen how courts use with greater assertiveness our provisions of
civil law governing human relations. Intentional breaches of the rules
of good morals and customs were considered special torts. Hence, in
modern times, our Supreme Court was bold enough to declare that our
law on civil wrongs has become “much more supple and adaptable than
the Anglo-American law on torts” (Baksh vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,
G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993).
Our courts have also boldly entered the uncharted territories of
strict liability torts (also known strict liability in torts), rules on products
liability and such kindred torts as medical malpractice/negligence.
Alongside with this growth in our substantive law on torts are the
changes in the manner of litigating a tort action.
Fully cognizant of these changes, this book has endeavored to
present both these substantive and procedural developments. In the main,
then, this book aims to present torts in both the substantive and
procedural form so that the torts students will learn how the substance
and procedure relate to and influence each other. It endeavors to follow
and trace the steps taken by law practitioner when espousing or
defending a tort action. In discussing the general concept of torts
(Chapter 1), an extended discussion is made between three remedies
commonly involving negligence, to wit, culpa aquiliana, culpa criminal
and culpa contractual. Afterwhich, the book focused on elements of
quasi-delict which are negligence and proximate cause (Chapter 2).
Discussion then follows on who may be made liable in a tort action,
iv
vicariously or otherwise (Chapter 3), and the possible defenses that
these defendants may raise (Chapter 4). Then, in the event that these
defenses are unavailing, the next question tackled is how does one bring
a case for tort and what are the ways and devices that may be employed
in enforcing this right of action (Chapter 5). After presenting these
important principles and considerations in a pure tort action, such special
topics as strict liability torts (Chapter 6), special torts (Chapter 7) and
kindred torts of medical malpractice (Chapter 8) are then discussed.
As in common law countries, our “strict liability torts” refer to the
peculiar brand of torts that connote wrongs that law will remedy
despite the absence of negligence. The mere doing of the act that causes
harm creates a cause of action in view of the public policy involved in
the nature of the activity.
Special torts, on the other hand, are such because they are not
negligence-based. They are intentional acts that violate the fundamental
precepts of human relations.
The exposition on torts closes with a discussion on medical
malpractice which has gained prominence in the fairly-recent past. As
this is a branch of torts that is yet to be fully-developed, the author drew
heavily from the commentaries and jurisprudence of foreign scholars
and courts.
The book on damages is intended to be an extensive exposition
of the governing laws, principles and jurisprudence on damages. As
with the author’s work on torts, the inputs were drawn heavily from
the works of our Supreme Court from 1901 to present.
In cases where Philippine cases abound, the discussion was
subordinated to the exposition of established rules, principles and
jurisprudence as announced by our own courts, even as neither history
nor the foreign jurisprudence on the subject has been ignored. There is
a conscious effort to avoid putting in the author’s personal views,
realizing fully that in this country, only the words of the Supreme Court
have “binding effect” on the readers. References to the writings and
decisions of US Supreme Court and of foreign writers were made, but
only in few areas where there is dearth of Philippine jurisprudence.
Over-all, this is an attempt to present torts and damages in the words
of our very own Supreme Court. To make the book as useful yet as brief
as possible, recent cases have been preferred to older ones, except when
the older cases offer discussion on the principle and authorities that is
equally valuable.
Unlike existing work on the subject, this book is not intended to
be a digest of reported decisions. Instead, this is a concise presentation
v
of legal principles on quasi-delict and damages achieved by briefly
expounding the law as set forth in judicial decisions and referring only
to those cases which bear directly and helpfully upon the topics to
which they are cited. This book also differs in the manner and order or
sequence of presenting the established principles on quasi-delict and
damages based on the encounters with the students in the academe.
This, after all, is a law student’s book for learning what lawyers need
to know in practicing in the field of torts. As to form or presentation,
this book is written in numbered paragraph form, a personal preference.
Seeing the fulfillment of a dream and the partial completion of a
teacher’s mission, there are just some words that must not go unsaid,
and these are thank you. Thanks to my husband, our Ayen, and family.
Things happen only because I have them. Thanks, too, to my boss, Atty.
Bernardito A. Florido, for the genuine support and kind understanding.
Thanks to University of San Carlos for the constant inspiration. Thanks
to Fr. Ranhilio C. Aquino, Dean of San Beda Graduate School of Law,
for opening the door, and to Justice Jose C. Vitug, my book adviser, for
taking me here. To you both, great minds in extremely humble hearts,
my eternal gratitude. Most importantly, thanks to Him. Now that the
mist has been lifted, I see the humbling power of His daily Grace.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OUTLINE Page
I. QUASI-DELICT
AUTHOR’S NOTE ...................................................................... iii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS ................... 1
CHAPTER 2. ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICT ................. 23
CHAPTER 3. NATURE OF LIABILITY .............................. 37
CHAPTER 4. DEFENSES IN AN ACTION FOR
QUASI-DELICT .............................................. 72
CHAPTER 5. ENFORCEMENT OF LIABILITY ................ 86
CHAPTER 6. STRICT LIABILITY TORTS .......................... 94
CHAPTER 7. SPECIAL TORTS ............................................ 102
CHAPTER 8. KINDRED TORTS .......................................... 110
II. DAMAGES
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS ................... 124
CHAPTER 2. ACTUAL DAMAGES .................................... 127
CHAPTER 3. MORAL DAMAGES ...................................... 141
CHAPTER 4. NOMINAL DAMAGES ................................ 168
CHAPTER 5. TEMPERATE DAMAGES ............................. 172
CHAPTER 6. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ........................... 176
CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ............................ 178
CHAPTER 8. ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES .................... 187
SUB-OUTLINE
AUTHOR’S NOTE
I. QUASI-DELICT
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
Definition of Quasi-delict ................................. 1
Quasi-delict distinguished from torts .............. 2
Elements of Quasi-delict ................................... 3
vii
Culpa aquiliana distinguished from culpa
criminal ................................................... 5
Pre-existing contract generally bars
quasi-delict .............................................. 14
Exceptions ......................................................... 15
Culpa aquiliana distinguished from culpa
contractual ............................................... 16
Special Issues .................................................... 18
CHAPTER 2. ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICT
Definition of Negligence ................................... 23
Test to determine existence of negligence ......... 24
Degrees of Negligence ....................................... 25
Nature of the concept ........................................ 25
Factors to be considered .................................... 28
Definition of proximate cause ........................... 29
Concurrence of efficient causes ......................... 30
Burden of proof ................................................. 31
Presumptions of negligence .............................. 32
Definition of Res ipsa loquitur ......................... 33
CHAPTER 3. NATURE OF LIABILITY
Liability of tortfeasors ....................................... 37
Doctrine of Vicarious Liability ......................... 38
Rationale ....................................................... 38
Vicarious liability of parents ............................ 40
Vicarious liability of guardians ........................ 43
Vicarious liability of employers ........................ 43
Distinctions between employer’s vicarious
liability under Art. 2180 of NCC
and employer’s subsidiary liability
under Art. 100 of RPC ........................... 56
Vicarious liability of owner of vehicle .............. 60
Vicarious liability of State ................................ 60
Provinces, cities and municipalities ................. 62
Vicarious liability of teachers and owners
of schools of arts and trade ..................... 64
Liability of proprietor of building ..................... 71
CHAPTER 4. DEFENSES IN AN ACTION FOR
QUASI-DELICT
Plaintiff’s own negligence ................................ 72
Theory of implied invitation ................... 73
viii
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance ............. 74
Assumption of risk ............................................ 75
Doctrine of last clear chance ............................ 77
Emergency Rule ................................................ 79
Prescription ....................................................... 81
Diligence of good father of family .................... 81
Doctrine of contributory negligence ................. 82
Contributory negligence distinguished from
doctrine of last clear chance .................... 83
ix
II. DAMAGES
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
Definition of damages ....................................... 124
Distinctions with other concepts ...................... 124
Rationale ....................................................... 125
General and special damages ............................ 125
CHAPTER 2. ACTUAL DAMAGES
Definition ....................................................... 127
Requirements for the grant of actual
damages ................................................... 128
Components of actual damages ........................ 129
In contracts and quasi-contracts ............ 130
In quasi-delicts ........................................ 131
In crimes .................................................. 131
Interest ..................................................... 136
Attorney’s fees ......................................... 138
Subrogatory right of the insurer ...................... 140
CHAPTER 3. MORAL DAMAGES
Nature and concept ........................................... 141
Requirements for the grant of moral
damages ................................................... 142
Instances where moral damages may
be recovered ............................................. 144
In seduction ............................................. 144
In quasi-delict .......................................... 144
In rape ..................................................... 145
In defamation ........................................... 145
Doctrine of fair comment .............. 147
Public Figure ................................. 149
Group libel ..................................... 150
Malicious prosecution ............................. 152
Art. 19, 20, 21 of NCC ..................................... 157
Breach of promise to marry ..................... 158
Culpa contractual cases .................................... 159
Analogous cases ................................................ 163
General rule on moral damages in favor
of corporation .......................................... 166
Exception ....................................................... 167
CHAPTER 4. NOMINAL DAMAGES
Nature and concept ........................................... 168
x
Instances where nominal damages are
adjudicated ............................................... 169
CHAPTER 5. TEMPERATE DAMAGES
Nature and concept ........................................... 172
Instances where temperate damages
are adjudicated ......................................... 174
CHAPTER 6. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Definition of liquidated damages ...................... 176
Nature and concept ........................................... 176
CHAPTER 7. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
Nature and concept ........................................... 178
Requisites for the award of exemplary
damages ................................................... 178
Rationale for the award of exemplary
damages ................................................... 179
Instances where exemplary damages
are adjudicated ......................................... 179
CHAPTER 8. ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION OF
DAMAGES
Guiding principle .............................................. 187
In crimes ....................................................... 187
In quasi-delict ................................................... 190
In quasi-contracts ............................................. 190
Doctrine of avoidable consequences .................. 190
Judgment on the pleadings ............................... 190
Good faith not a defense in violation of
constitutional rights ................................ 191
APPENDICES
CIVIL CODE PROVISIONS ON QUASI-DELICT ................. 193
CIVIL CODE PROVISIONS ON DAMAGES ......................... 197
SUBJECT INDEX ......................................................................... 205
xi