What is Quasi Delict?

The definition of quasi-delict can be found in Art. 2176 of the New Civil Code
which provides:

Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to

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

What are the elements of quasi delict?

In the case of Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers Inc., et.al., G.R. No. 180440, the
Supreme Court laid down the requisites for a person to be held liable for quasi
delict, which are as follows:

(a) damages suffered by the plaintiff;

(b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose
acts he must respond; and

(c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of
the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff

Culpa aquiliana distinguished from culpa criminal

a. Crimes affect the public interest, while quasi- delict are only of private
concern;

b. The Revised Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act while
the Civil Code, merely repairs the damage caused by the quasi delict;

c. Crimes are punished only if there is a penal law clearly covering them
while quasi delicts include all acts in which any kind of fault or
negligence intervenes

Is the absence of a contractual relation between the parties a pre-requisite

for one to be liable for tort?

As a general rule, YES. HOWEVER, the following are exceptions to the general
rule:

- A liability for tort may arise even under a contract, where tort is that which
breaches the contract. (AQUINO REVIEWER ON TORTS AND
DAMAGES)

- When an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself

constituted the source of a quasi- delictual liability, the contract can be
said to have been breached by tort, thereby allowing the rules on tort to
apply. (American Express Int’l. v. Cordero)
Proscription against double recovery

The New Civil Code prohibits double recovery as stated in Article 2177 which
provides:

ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding

article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from
negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.

REASON: to allow such double recovery would allow the Plaintiff to unjustly
enrich himself at the expense of the Defendant

In Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme

Court ruled that in negligence cases, the aggrieved party has the choice
between an action to enforce civil liability arising from crim under Art. 100
of the RPC or a separate action for quasi delict under Art. 2176 of the NCC.
Once the choice is made, the injured party cannot avail himself of any
other remedy because he may not recover damages twice for the same
negligent act or omission.

LIABILITY WHERE THERE ARE TWO OR MORE DEFENDANTS

Under Art. 2194, the liability of two or more persons liable for quasi delict is
SOLIDARY.

NOTE: this presupposes that their liability arose from the same and not from
different acts. Otherwise, there would be no solidary, but separate liabilities as
the Plaintiff would now have separate causes of action against these two
defendants.

TEST TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF NEGLIGENCE

The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case

may be stated as follows: Did the defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act,
use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would
have used in the same situation? (LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE ON TORTS
AND DAMAGES BY JOAN S. LARGO)

IMPORTANT TERMS

Proximate Cause – that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,

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

Contributory Negligence - is negligence that is caused by both plaintiff and

defendant. If the plaintiff contributed to his injury, then, in some states, the
plaintiff will be prevented from collecting any damages.

Comparative Negligence - allows the plaintiff to collect some damages, but it

will be reduced by the amount by which the plaintiff contributed to his own injury.
There are 3 major rules, which differ according to state law and according to the
amount of contributory negligence, that determine the amount that the plaintiff
can collect.
Res Ipsa Loquitur - a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if
he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there
is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the
accident would not have happened

Last Clear Chance - The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both
parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of
time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or
negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the
last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is
chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom.

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE

1. Degree of intelligence

2. Physical condition

3. Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

RATIONALE: in a case decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that

with respect to extra-contractual obligation arising from negligence, whether of
act or omission, it is competent for the legislature to elect to limit such liability to
cases in which the person upon whom such an obligation is imposed is morally
culpable or, on the contrary, for reasons of public policy, to extend that liability,
without regard to the lack of moral culpability, so as to include responsibility for
the negligence of those persons whose acts or omissions are imputable, by a
legal fiction, to others who are in a position to exercise an absolute or limited
control over them. The legislature which adopted our Civil Code has elected to
limit extra-contractual liability – with certain well-defined exceptions- to cases in
which moral culpability can be directly imputed to the persons to be charged.
This moral responsibility may consist in having failed to exercise due care in
one’s own acts, or in having failed to exercise due care in the selection and
control of one’s agents or servants, or in the control of persons who, by reasons
of their status, occupy a position of dependency with respect to the person made
liable for their conduct.

Art. 2180 - The obligation imposed by article 2176 is 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 mother, are responsible for
the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.

NOTE: -

- The minor child, having no legal capacity, cannot be liable.

- It is the father who should be held primarily liable in such case
- Parents must prove that they acted with the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent liability

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated

persons who are under their authority and live in their company.
NOTE: same as vicarious liability of parents over their minor children

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 employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

NOTES

- It has been held that an employee who uses his employer’s vehicle in
going from his work to a place where he intends to eat or returning to work
from a meal is not ordinarily acting within the scope of his employment in
the absence of evidence of some special business benefit to the
employer. Castilex v. Vasquez

- In the same vein, travelling to and from the place of work is ordinarily a
personal problem or concern of the employee and not a part of his
services to his employer.

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

- Employers have the burden of proving that they have exercised such
diligence, both in the selection of the employee and supervision of the
performance of his duties

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 provided in article 2176 shall be
applicable.

NOTES

- A special agent is one who receives a definite and fixed order or

commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a
special official so that in representation of the state and being bound to act
as an agent thereof, he executed the trust confided to him

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable

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

NOTES

- In the case of Amadora v. CA, it was clarified that this provision applies to
all schools, academic as well as non-academic.
- Where the school is academic rather than technical or vocational in
nature, responsibility for the tort committed by the student will attach to the
teacher in charge of such student
 - Nowhere in the law does it require that the student or apprentice be a
minor. In other words, even those students or apprentices who have
reached the age of majority are included.

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)

DEFENSES IN AN ACTION FOR QUASI DELICT

Plaitiff’s own negligence

- This is provided under Art. 2179 wherein it is stated that when the
plaintiff’s own negligence is the immediate and proximate cause of his
injury, he cannot recover damages

Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance

- One who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or

appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to
exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or
resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby,
even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises.
- Generally not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in
the absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the
mere water and its location

Assumption of Risk

- One who voluntarily assumes the risk may not later on ask for damages
- Refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which precludes the
recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed
himself to danger even if he is not negligent in doing so
- Exception is when a person voluntarily assents to a known danger he
must abide by the consequences if an emergency is found to exist or if the
life or property of another is in peril

Doctrine of Last Clear Chance

- A person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an

accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or the
negligence of a third person which is imputed to his opponent, is
considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of the accident
- Applies only in a situation where the defendant, having the last fair chance
to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so, becomes liable for all the
consequences of the accident notwithstanding the prior negligence of the
plaintiff.
- It must be shown that the person who allegedly had the last opportunity to
avert the accident was aware of the existence of the peril or, with exercise
of due care, should have been aware of it
- It does not apply in cases of culpa contractual

Emergency Rule

- One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to

act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid
 the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt what
subsequently, and upon reflection may appear to have been a better
method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought
about by his own negligence.

Prescription

- An action for quasi-delict must be instituted within four years

Diligence of Good Father of Family

- Only applies to persons who are held vicariously liable

Contributory Negligence

- Only a partial defense

- Does not exonerate the tortfeasor from liability but the same is mitigated