qe “FP + lollawe Uniersity Schoo of Law -- IL = Arellano Law Foundation ‘Statca™” ‘Taft Ave., Cor. Mento St., Pasay City CLASSROOM PRAYER Dios aming Ama, kami ay nagpupuri’t nagpapasalamat sa iyo. Sa patnubay ng mahal na Espiritu Santo kami ay tulungan sa aming pag-aaral dito sa Arellano Law Foundation. At sa aming pakikisama sa aming mga guro at kamag-aral. Tulungan Mo po rin ang mga namamahala ng Arellano Law Foundation. At bigyan Mo po kami ng pagkakataon na makapaglingkod sa aming mga kapwa, sa aming mga magulang at sa Bayang Pilipinas. Hinihingi po namin ito sa ngalan ng iyong Anak na si Hesus. Amen. CHAPTER 6 — QUASI-DELICT PP. 167-359 I. Art. 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. a) Quasi-delict (as if, as it were) - by an act or omission a person causes damage to another without a contract through fault or negligence. Page 1 of 15b) Conduct (behavior/ attitude) is seen through: 1. Act 2. Omission — ; c) Concept of fault failure to act/or perform (omission) what is-expected to be done, bt 21% d) Liability i j i not moral (contrary to good conduct). e) Concept of negligence - failure to observe due care, precaution, and vigilance required of a reasonable person. f) Distinction between fault and negligence ~~ Fault - done wrongfully V Negligence - failure to use/exercise reasonable amount of care 9) [ERM cons 2 person is not liable in tort-for ‘ailure to act for the benefit of another. h)INonfeasance'- failure to discharge a duty or obligation. i) Characteristics of the negligence case 1. Open-ended claim - requires evaluation case by case / CC 2. Actual harm requirement 3. Preoccupation with, bodily harm afd property «damage. This does not exclude emotional harms. | 4, Recoverable damage when claim of negligence is established: a) All damages reasonably foreseeable Page 2 of 15b) Intangible damages as: « Pain * Sense of lost enjoyment of life ¢ Emotional distress « Financial loss Wages or medical expenses « Future losses j) Negligence: Conduct vs. state of mind 1. Negligence as risk (possible hazard or danger, probability of loss) - failure to act as a reasonable prudent (caution or good judgment) person under the circumstances. N . Negligence as conduct and not state of mind including knowledge and belief may motivate or shape conduct, but it is not in itself an actionable tort. 3. Conduct includes acts or omissions 4. Intentionally risky conduct: the relation of negligence and_ intentional _ torts. Negligence will depend upon the seriousness of the risk and the reason for taking it. II. SCOPE OF ART. 2176 a) Limited concept of quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana, culpa extra-contractual, or quasi-delictos) It does not arise from law, contracts, quasi contracts, or criminal offenses. b) Expanded concept of quasi-delict. It covers not only acts or omissions “not punishable by law" but_also_acts_criminal_in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. eee valdess impradence Z a y Page 3 of 15,Delicts (fault) in law offense, wrong or injury - acts or omissions punished by law. Quasi-delicts - acts or omissions not punished by law c) Requisites of quasi-delict i i 1. Act or omission 2. Presence of fault or negligence A ow . Damage or injury to another . Direct relation or connection of cause and effect between act or omission and the damage 5. No pre-existing contractual relation between the parties Ex: Airplane ticket Bank error d) Difference Bunn bony Prsunphor g foatt Culpa Aquillana Culpa Contractual (Wiabilityyis governed by 3 anaes 2.Offended party. has the burden of proof of the fault/negligence of the offender <.opresumotion onthe fault or negligence of the offender | required to ve—thes vioTal —~ the contract due to the fault or negligence Offender has the burden to prove there is no. fault. or negligence 4,Governed " Art 2076 Governed by Arts. ‘Obligations — contracts (90 ~ IP Page 4 of 15preceding article dis' III. Art. 2177 — Responsibility for fault or negligence under the is entirely separate and inct 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. a) Distinction é meQueshdelicty | 1. Criminal or malicious : Only negligence Intent 2. Affects PUBIC! Affects private interest interest or concern 3 Aas ~ criminal Only civil liability and civil 4, Punishmentior Indemnification 5.'No compromise) May be compromised Fault or negligence proved by preponderance of evidence Direct and primary Page 5 of 15b) Institution of criminal and/or civil action 1. Civil action for quasi-delict not precluded by acquittal Damages under quasi-delict not subject to double recovery. oe o 5 d (ienendenty c) Recovery of damages twice for the same act or omission is prohibited. IV. Art. 2178 - The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a quasi-delict. 1. Applicable Articles Art. 1170 - Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. Art. 1172 - Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances. Art. 1173 - The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply. Page 6 of 15aoe $f Art. 1174 - Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which, could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable. 2. Testitor datermining whethera person Ie négligent” 7 a)Reasonable care and caution expected of an ordinary prudent person. mater ¢ 7b) No hard and fast rule for measuring degree of care.~ adene c) Negligence, a legal question. ve Carp wl 3. Factors to be considered bhi a) nature of the obligation a: Geta b) circumstances of the person or thing ~ circum dence c) circumstances of time 4) circumstances of the place | 4. Concept of Fortuitous event. /h9sh™9) a) Fortuitous event is any happening which can not be foreseen, or ann trough foreseen is inevitable. b) Fortuitous event distinguished from force majeure. am. More of acts cia (war, ire, robbery, murder, insurrection, etc.) (iForee majetire!- totally independent of human will-and) applies to a natura) (accident (flood, rain, ‘shipwreck, lightning, etc.). of God. Page 7 of 15c) Kinds of Fortuitous Event ~ (Ofdinaryy=\ common~ and _could_reasonably_ foreseen (such as rain) - uncommon and could _not__ reasonably foreseen (acts of God) d) Requisites of a Fortuitous event 1. independent of the human will (esp. the obligor) 2. could not be foreseen and unavoidable 3. such a character to render it impossible to comply with his obligation in a normal manner 4. obligor is_free-from any participation in or the aggravation of the injury. a) When expressly specified by law a.1 debtor is guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay and contravention of the tenor of the obligation. a.2 debtor promises to deliver the same specific thing to two or more persons not having the same interest. a.3 Art. 1268 - When the debt of a thing certain and determinate proceeds from a criminal offense, the debtor shall not be exempted from the payment of its price, whatever may be the cause for the loss, unless the things having been offered by him to the person who should receive it, the latter refused without justification to accept it. Page 8 of 15a.4 Art. 1263 - In an obligation to deliver a generic thing, the loss or destruction of anything of the same kind does not extinguish the obligation. b) When declared by stipulation c) When the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk. 6. Doctrine of assumption of risk - a person voluntarily assumse_the_risk—of—harm_from_the negligent conduct of another. This assumption may be by Contract’ or by voluntary act knowingly the risk involved, F opplicable in inguronce 7. Requisites of the Doctrine of Assumption of Risk a) actual knowledge of the danger b) understanding and appreciation of the risk of the danger i: c) voluntary exposure to such risk _ V. Art. 2179 - When the plaintiff's own negligence was the _immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. 1. Effect of negligence on the part of the injured party a) Negligence merely contributed to injury. Contributing negligence (remote or relatively minor) shall reduce the damages that may be recovered, Page 9 of 15b) Negligence not contributory to injury Fortuitous event and lack of due diligence are present under condition that the loss would have happened with or without the negligence of the hi In such case the Court may mitigate the damages. © c) Negligence is the exclusive or immediate and proximate cause of injury. d) Negligence equal to that of the other. 2. Legal cause of damage, harm or injury Burden of proof to claim damage a) presence of fault or negligence b) presence of damage, harm or injury c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damage. Eo when causes are mes This is determined from the facts of each case, upon a combined consideration of logic, common sense, policy and precedent. b) Definitions or formulations It is a cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result Would not have been occurred. Page 10 of 15c) Rule where there are Concurrent causes The injury may- ee all/or any of the Causes and/recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the injury. 4, Tests of Proximate cause a) But for test Offender’s conduct is the cause of the injury which would not have been sustained if the defendant had not been negligent. b) Cause in-fact test Offender’s conduct played such a part in causing the damage as would make him the author of such damage. c) Substantial factor test The harmful result would not have come about had the offender not been negligent. The conduct here is a substantial factor and there would be legal causation. d) Foreseeability No negligence and no liability. The conduct was reasonable in the light of what he could anticipate. e) Natural and probable consequence test. Injury was not only natural but also the probable consequence of the conduct. Page 11 of 15f) Direct consequence test Liable for all the damage that flows as the ordinary and natural or direct consequence of his conduct. 5. Doctrine of contributory negligence - conduct on the part of the offended contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered which is below the standard required to conform for his own protection. Factors 7 1. Negligence not proximate cause of injury / 2. Mitigation of defendant's liability 7S in ‘terms of the \ of the offended and — rr nod meciey 6D eetrine!of last clear chanee = by-exercising reasonable wah me oa care and prudence, /one )who has the_ first opportunity to avoid ‘injurious consequence to another. Elements 1. The_offended is in danger by his own negligence and unable to escape. ‘ y) 2. (Offender knew that the offended is in danger and the former by €xel ise of ordinary car@ knew the latter was unable to escape. 3. Offender had _thelast.clear_chance_to avoid the accident. Page 12 of 157. Doctrine of Res Ipsa loquitur - the fact of the occurrence of an injury taken with the surrounding circumstances may permit an inference of negligence. 1. Basis- as a matter of common knowledge and experience the very nature of certain types of occurrences may justify an inference of negligence (beating the red light) 2. Rule of evidence - it merely determines and regulates what shall be prima facie evidence thereof to facilitate proving breach of the duty of due care. 3. When_ doctrine -maybe-invoked - when and only when under the circumstances involved, direct-evidence_is_absentYand not readily available. 4. Requisites — a. accident is of a kind of character which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence. b. caused’by an instrumentality or agency within the exclusive management or control of the offender. c. the possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated. Page 13 of 15stlEMmergency!RUIe™> a person is placed in a situation requiring him to take immediate action with no time for reflection. Not applicable where the situation or danger was caused by his own negligence. 9. Standard of care for professionals a. Compliance with the standards of the profession. Constraints a.1 unfamiliarity of Court on-subjects of scrutiny a.2 need for specialized judgment oropinion 10. Medical Practice Elements Required to Claim Medical Malpractice a. Failed to do something that should be done or should not be done b. Failure or action caused injury to the person c. Practice of medicine is conditional upon the highest degree of diligence. Elements in Medical Negligence a. Duty s . Breach c. Injury d. Proximate causation Page 14 of 1511. Lawyer (or attorney) malpractice a. Scope ‘Ordinarily an economic tort, causing financial harm_—without personal injury or property damage. b. Basis Lawyer-client relationship for professional care 12. Liability of public officers for tortuous acts - see R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) a. Not liable Performed within the scope of official authority and in lines of official duty. b. Liable Acts done without or in excess of official authority: Page 15 of 15