Rule on implied institution. limited.

what is deemed instituted

if source of liab is quasi delict
civil liab arising from a crime

Jarantilla v. Court of Appeals

-implied reservation
-

Park v Choi
Demurrer to evidence
if TC granted the
TC may still award civil liab even if the accused is acquitted
1. when the TC acquitted based on reasonable doubt.
2. TC says the liab of accused is purely civil
3. when the liab arises not on crime but on diff source of liab

instnces cquittal also extinguished civil liab

1. no crime was committed
2. TC a crime was committed but accused is not the author of the crime

SSA v Tangco
if cause of action is quasi-delict, cannot apply RPC but 2176 under NCC with
respect to 2180
no automatic subsidiary liab
elem
1 there must be Er-Ee relationship
2 Ee committed the act while in performance
3 there must be prior final judgment of convictin
4 Ee must have no sufficient prop to answer the award
subsid liab only applies in crim case

People v Navoa
Namatay si Navoa pending appeal
SC: extinguished only crim liab. civil liab subsists. much more if after final
judgment

But in People v Badeo, the accused is not present in the crime scene. so accused
absolved all civil liabs.

HOWEVER, People v Bayotas, abandoned the rulings in People v Navoa and People v
Badeo
Extinguishes both Criminal and Civil liab arising from a CRIME.
But IF the same be based on other sources (like Quasi-delict), it will not. it
shall be filed in a separate. need not worry the prescriptive period

Calang and Philtranco v People

Calang and Philtranco are Solidarily liab
Calang is liable for negligence, but for Philtranco. subsidiarily liab
this case is crim action - so RPC should apply.
rule on subsidiary liab is applicable only in
kabaliktaran ni SSA v Tangco

Torts distinguished from a Contract:

Cangco v manila Railroad Co.
Naapakan ang watermelon, not
Based on contract ito
Note on LRTA v Navidad case
person considered passenger as long as he buys ticket and hes on the premises of
the

So Ping Bun
Tortious Interference
not a party in contract induce one in a party to violate the contract
1.
2.knowledge of existence
3.unlawful interference

OCT 25
Negligence is RELATIVE.

degree of negligence depends upon the degree of diligence

_
ordinatry negligence
gross negligence - amts to bad faith; fraud

Test in determining negligence

PCART.. did the person

foreseeability

negligence should be based on the facts involved and in light of human experience.

PROXIMATE CAUSE (defined)

"the cause of the cause of the cause of the evil cause"

proximate cause v sole cause v direct cause

Concurrence of Efficient causes

joint tofeasors

Burden of proof is

Presumption of ..

2184 & 2185 . applies to motor vehicle

not presumed...2188. dangerous weapon if essential in his occupation (guard with

gun)

Picart v Smith (Test of Negligence)

-forseeability

Contributory negligence.

Doctring of last clear chance

kung ikaw na may control sa situation but di mo ginawa, u will be entirely liable.v