1. What is 2176?

- gives definition of a quasi-delict.

Elements of Quasi-delict:
a. Negligent act or omission of the defendant;
b. Damages to the plaintiff;
c. The connection of cause and effect between such negligence and
damages;
d. No pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties.

2. Does it include juridical persons?

Yes.

3. What is an act or omission?

-It is the positive act or failure to comply or do something

4. The act or omission must cause damage to another, if it does not cause
damage? Then that person has no obligation to be liable?
-Yes.

5. When is there no fault or negligence?

-Accident

6. Is obliged to pay: can he ask for any other mode of compensation?

-No, pay for the damages only.

7. Why is this different from other obligations?

-There is no pre-existing contract.

8. What are the sources of obligation?

 Law.
 Contracts.
 Quasi-contracts.
 Crimes or acts or omissions punished by law.
 Quasi-delicts or torts.

Solutio indebiti v. negotiorium gestio

9. Distinguish delict v quasi delict: we will learn later, that in criminal there
is quasi delict, independent civil action
-

10. why did it referred to fault or negligence not act or omission:

11. Why pre-existing? No meeting of the minds

12. What is contractual relation?

-all element of contract are present

13. Why is it that the provision stated “is called” quasi-delict?

- because they stated that it is only a nomenclature, not really a definition.
Because you will learn later that the term quasi-delict, the code
commission, they did not want to use the word torts because the word
torts at that time includes criminal offenses as well, such as battery, libel
and other forms of criminal cases which are within the term of torts. They
used quasi-delict. As it evolved, lumaki ng lumaki ang concept ng quasi-
delict. It also involve where there is pre-existing obligations and criminal
cases. You can institute it separately but you cannot recover twice. Torts
have been used in jurisprudence.

14. Is governed by the provisions of this chapter: chapter on quasi-delicts of

the civil code. But it doesn’t mean that it is limited to chapter 2

15. What is the concept of fault or negligence

-omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation
and correspondence with the circumstances of the person, time, and place.

16. When you are negligent, are you not at fault?

-Yes

17. When you are at fault does it mean you are negligent?
No

18. When you are driving, and somebody suddenly ran and you ran over
him, is it absolute that you are at fault?
-No. If it is pure accident.

19. Give example of there is fault but no negligence: dapat willful ang act,
was that quasi-delict?
20. if there is contractual obligations = breach of contract/culpa contractual

21. Can a person sue based on quasi delict even if there is a pre-existing
contract?
-Yes. The rule on 2176 is not absolute. There must be an act independent of
the contract that violates the contract 1. For example first class yung binili
na ticket, tapos pinilit sya magtransfer sa economy class, is there breach of
contract? May A still file a case based on quasi-delict? Yes. For as long as
the act which constitutes the breach is in itself an independent and
substantive violation of the right of A. 2. The detor was not able to continue
payment of the installment, is there breach? Yes. May the creditor file a
quasi-delict case? No. Because the act of not paying does not constitute a
quasi-delict. It is just a simple act which causes breach of the contract of
loan. 3. You will learn later on that it is up to the plaintiff, what kind of
action is he going to file against the carrier. Deterine the pros and cons.

22. What degree of diligence must a common carrier exercise?

-Extraordinary diligence. If so, must the complainant prove negligence?-Yes.

23. While walking, you saw a person, walking by along the road, and at your
back, you also saw a speeding vehicle. And a person walking crossing the
road, looking at your direction. You saw that that person was about to be
hit by that speeding car, he was eventually hit by the speeding car. You did
not shout, you knew that the speeding car will hit the person. Are you
negligent? Do you have a legal obligation to give the warning?

24. You are in a zoo, you saw a person fell into the lion den, you did not do
anything, the person died. Are you liable? No, generally you do not have a
duty to act.