Hahaha

TORTS AND DAMAGES REVIEWER 1.
Vicarious Liability 15
I. Introduction 2 A. Parents and Guardians 16
II. Quasi-Delicts 3 B. Owners and Managers of Establishments 16
No Double Recovery Rule 3 Requisites for an owner or manager of an establishment or
enterprise to be liable: 16
III. Negligence 4
C. Employers 17
1. The Concept of Negligence 4
Requisites for the employers to be liable: 17
1. Negligence as Proximate Cause 4
1. An employer-employee relation 17
2. Proof of Negligence 5
D. State 20
3. Presumption of Negligence 5
E. Teachers and Heads of Establishment 21
A. Res Ipsa Loquitur 5
3. Primary Liability 21
B. Respondeat Superior 6
A. Possessors and Users of Animals 21
C. Violation of Traffic Rules 7
B. Owners of Motor Vehicles 22
D. Common Carriers 7
C. Manufacturers and Processors 23
4. Defenses 9
D. Municipal Corporations 23
A. Contributory Negligence 9
E. Building Proprietors 23
B. Assumption of Risk 10
F. Engineers, Architects, and Contractors 24
C. Last Clear Chance 11
4. Solidary Liability 24
D. Prescription 12
V. Special Torts (Human Relations) 25
E. Fortuitous Event 12
F. Diligence 13
G. Mistake and Waiver 13
H. Others 14
IV. Vicarious, Primary, and Solidary Liability 14
Torts and Damages Reviewer Atty. Howard Calleja
I. Introduction m was
violated
or not
Tort or Quasi-Delict
complied
- E with
a. Violation of a right given, or
Burden of On the On the defendant On the
b. Omission of a statutory duty imposed by law
proof plaintiff, to (once the above prosecution, to
- I.e., the commission or omission of an act by one without right prove that the are proven), to prove the guilt of
whereby another receives some injury, directly or indirectly, in person, defendant was prove otherwise the accused
property, or reputation at fault or
negligent
Injury Damage Damages Standard of Preponderance of evidence Beyond a
Definition Illegal invasion of Loss, hurt, or Compensation proof reasonable doubt
a legal right harm resulting awarded for Governing Law on Quasi- Law on Contracts Penal laws
from injury damage suffered laws Delicts (Arts. (from Art. 1101)
2176-2194)
Exercise of Complete Not a complete N/A
Damnum Absque Injuria diligence in defense defense
- Damage without injury (i.e., where the loss or harm was not the result selection &
of a violation of a legal duty) supervision
- There is no legal remedy for such damage, in that no cause of action of
arises in favor of the party suffering damage due to the lack of an illegal employees
invasion of his legal right
Doctrines
Culpa Culpa Culpa Criminal
Aquiliana Contractual Common Carriers
Source of Quasi-delict Breach of contract Delict (crime) A common carrier is bound to exercise extraordinary diligence for the
liability (tort) safety of its passengers. As such, any injury suffered by the latter is
Basis Art. 2176 Art. 1170 (FNDC Penal laws right away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier.
(obligation to in the
pay for damage performance of an Common carriers have the duty to stop their conveyances for a
caused by fault obligation) reasonable length of time in order to afford passengers an opportunity
or negligence) to board and enter the vehicle. They are liable for injuries suffered by
What to Fault or 1. Existenc Requisites of the boarding passengers resulting from sudden, jerking movements of
prove negligence on e of a crime their conveyances while the latter are doing so.
the part of the contract
carrier 2. That the The registered owner of a motor vehicle is solidarily liable for any
obligatio injury and damage caused by the negligence of the driver, even after
n the vehicle may have already been subject of an unregistered sale in
resulting favor of another.
therefro
2
Damaged TORTol
Capistrano. De los Reyes. Espinosa. Medina. Tensuan
II. Quasi-Delicts The same act or omission can create two kinds of liability on the part of
the offender:
Cause of Action Claim of Damages Based on

Civil liability ex Civil liability ex quasi
Quasi-Delict
delicto delicto
Elements Elements
Source of liability Delict (crime) Quasi-delict (tort)
1. A right in favor of the 1. Damage suffered by the
plaintiff, by whatever plaintiff Burden of proof On the prosecution, to On the plaintiff, to
means and under whatever prove the guilt of the prove that the
law it arises or is created 2. Fault or negligence of the accused defendant was at fault
2. An obligation on the part defendant or negligent
of the defendant to respect 3. Causal connection between
or not to violate such right such fault or negligence Standard of proof Beyond a reasonable Preponderance of
and said damage doubt evidence
3. An act or omission of the
defendant that either (a)
a a , These liabilities are entirely separate and distinct
or (b) constitutes a breach - A civil action for damages is not precluded by an acquittal on
of his obligation to the reasonable doubt for the same criminal act or omission
plaintiff, for which the - I.e., the failure of recovery in one will not necessarily preclude
latter may maintain an recovery in the other
action for recovery of
damages Doctrines
Acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable

doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent civil action for damages based
No Double Recovery Rule on quasi-delict.
There is no double recovery when the basis of one action is culpa contractual, while
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is
that of the other is culpa aquiliana.
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.
3
Damaged TORTol
III. Negligence E a ba c a a b a d d a c
and bad faith, if it caused serious anxiety, embarrassment, and
humiliation to another, it may be held liable for moral damages.
1. The Concept of Negligence A bank is negligent if it releases funds without the surrender of the
bearer instrument.
Definition Banks are required to exercise extraordinary diligence in the handling
- Negligence is the want of care required by the circumstances of deposits. This standard, however, is required only where they act in
- I ca b their fiduciary capacities (i.e., as depositaries). The same degree of
a. The omission to do something which a reasonable man diligence is not required for commercial transactions that do not
guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate involve their fiduciary relationship with their depositors.
the conduct of human affairs would do, or
b. The doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man Delay in reporting missing deposits does not amount to negligence on
could not do the part of the depositor.
- It is a relative and comparative concept, in that its application
d d A bank is negligent if it fails to determine the correct identity of its
a. The situation the parties are in, and debtor for purposes of distraint or levy.
b. The degree of care and vigilance reasonably required by the
situation
1. Negligence as Proximate Cause
Test for Determining Negligence
- Whether a prudent man, in the position of the tortfeasor (i.e., the Definition
person to whom negligence is attributed), would have foreseen that an - That cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without
foregoing the conduct or guarding against its consequences which the result would not have occurred
- I.e., that acting first and producing the injury, either:
a) Immediately, or
Doctrines b) By setting other events in motion
- All of which constitute a natural and continuous
A higher degree of care is required of one who has in his possession or control chain, with each event having a close causal
an instrumentality that is extremely dangerous in character (e.g., dangerous connection with its immediate predecessor
weapons or substances). Such person has the duty to take exceptional - The final event in the chain immediately effecting
precautions in order to prevent any injury. the injury must be the natural and probable result
of that first cause
Banks - The person responsible for the first cause should
A bank is negligent if it fails to credit deposits under the name of the have had a reasonable ground to expect, at the
depositor, which was clearly written on the deposit slip, even if the moment of his act or omission, that an injury to
depositor wrote an incorrect account number. another might probably result therefrom
4
Damaged TORTol
Doctrines 2. Proof of Negligence
Prompt notice by the cardholder to the credit card company of the loss or theft A person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the burden of
of his card should be enough to relieve the former of any liability occasioned by proving the existence of such fault or negligence
the unauthorized use of his lost or stolen card. - The facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively established
by competent evidence
Concurrent Negligence
Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omissions of two Liability for Moral Damages
or more persons, although acting independently of each other, are, in - Generally, liability for damages is limited to the natural and probable
combination, the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third consequences of the breach, which the parties have or reasonably
person, and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each could have foreseen
contributed to the injury, either may be held responsible for the whole - Thus, moral damages a b a a d d ca
injury, even though his act alone might not have caused the entire a. The breach is wanton and deliberately injurious, or
injury, or some damage might have resulted from the acts of the other b. The one responsible acted fraudulently or in bad faith
tortfeasor. - However, where a passenger dies as a result of a breach of contract
of carriage, moral damages shall automatically be awarded to his heirs
Loss brought about by the concurrent negligence of two persons shall (Art. 2206)
be borne by the one who was in the immediate, primary, and overriding
position to prevent it. Doctrines
Two persons concurrently negligent cannot recover damages from one Failure to commit an ailing crew member to the nearest port or hospital which
another. results in the serious deterioration of his health and causes permanent disability
on his part amounts not only to negligence, but is also a deliberate and arbitrary
Public Interest refusal which warrants the award of exemplary damages.
A public utility vested with public interest is impressed with certain
obligations towards it customers. Any omission on its part to perform When the contract between the parties is an ordinary one for services, the
such duties would be prejudicial to its interests. standard of care required is that of a good father of a family under Art. 1173.
A company vested with public interest also has the duty to ensure the
safety of the public by the proper maintenance and upkeep of its
facilities. 3. Presumption of Negligence
Vehicles
Drivers of vehicles who bump the rear of another vehicle are presumed
A. Res Ipsa Loquitur
to be the cause of the accident, unless contradicted by other evidence.
The registered owner of any vehicle, even if not used for public service, - L a , a
would primarily be responsible to the public or to third persons for - Rebuttable presumption that the defendant was negligent, which
injuries suffered by them while the vehicle was being driven on the a a
highways or streets. a) T a ca a d da
exclusive control, and
5
Damaged TORTol
b) The accident was one which ordinarily does not happen in - W a c ca da a

the absence of negligence to another, there arises a presumption that the employer
- I.e., it is a rule of evidence whereby the negligence of the wrongdoer failed to exercise diligence in the selection or supervision of
is inferred by the mere fact that the accident happened his employees
- The prima facie recognition of the existence of negligence - In this case, it is enough to allege that there exists an
without direct proof only when direct evidence is absent and employer-employee relationship in order to make out a
not readily available case of quasi-delict in this regard
- This presumption is overcome when the employer proves that he
Elements observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage
1. The accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence
c
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the
Selection of Employees Supervision of Employees
defendant
3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff
Employees must be competent and C
responsible is eliminated
qualified, depending on the nature, a) The formulation of rules
characteristics, and circumstances of and regulations for the
Doctrines
the job guidance of the employees,
b) The issuance of proper
Failure to comply with an ordinance providing for safety regulations is an act of
instructions, and
negligence.
c) The actual implementation
and monitoring of
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is generally restricted to situations in
consistent compliance with
malpractice cases where a layman is able to say, as a matter of common
the rules
knowledge and observation, that the consequences of professional care were not
as such as would ordinarily have followed if due care had been exercised.
Doctrines
The doctrine will not apply in a suit against a physician, which involves the
merits of a diagnosis or of scientific treatment. As such, the physician is not With respect to proprietary functions, a municipal corporation may be held
required at his peril to explain why any particular diagnosis was not correct, or liable to third persons ex contractu. Therefore, a city may be held liable for
why any particular scientific treatment did not produce the desired result. damages caused to another for the failure of its agents to exercise due diligence
in the performance of their tasks.
B. Respondeat Superior
Under Articles 2180 and 2176 of the Civil Code, owners and managers are
responsible for damages caused by their employees. When an injury is caused by
Liability of Employers
the negligence of a servant or employee, the master or employer is presumed to
- An employer may be held solidarily liable for the negligent acts of his be negligent either in the selection or supervision of that employee. This
employees (Art. 2180) presumption may only be overcome by satisfactorily showing that the employer
- I.e., employers are liable for any damage caused by their exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in those regards.
employees or household helpers acting within the scope of
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged Under Art. 2180, liability for a quasi-d c d a dab
in any business or industry acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
6
Damaged TORTol
The responsibility shall only cease when such person has proved that he D. Common Carriers
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.
Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons
C. Violation of Traffic Rules of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them,
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, according to all the circumstances of each case.
if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, Such extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is further expressed
if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at in articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the extraordinary
least twice within the next preceding two months. diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth in articles 1755 and
1756.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Art. 2180 are
applicable. Extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person - Art. 1734: Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction,
driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the
violating any traffic regulation. following causes only:
Doctrines (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural

disaster or calamity;
Under Art. 2185, unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a (2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or
person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap civil;
he was violating a traffic regulation. As the owner of a common carrier, the court (3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
need not make an express finding of fault or negligence in order to hold him (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in
responsible for the payment of damages sought by the passenger. the containers;
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.
A person involved in a vehicular accident cannot be exempt from liability when
it clearly appears from the evidence that he was the party at fault. The fact that GR: Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration
the party driving the other vehicle did not have a license at the time of the of the goods that they agreed to transport to a certain destination.
acc d ca c a ab .
The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if any XPN: 5 causes mentioned in Art. 1734
accident happens, responsibility can be fixed on a definite individual the
registered owner. If the registered owner could evade responsibility by proving - Art. 1735: In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4,
who the supposed transferee of owner is, it would be easy for him, by colluding and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or
with others or otherwise, to escape responsibility and transfer the vehicle to an deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or
indefinite person, or to one who possesses no property with which to respond to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed
financially for the damage or injury done. extraordinary diligence as required in article 1733.
- Art. 1745: Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be

considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy:
7
Damaged TORTol
(1) That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or Liability of Common Carriers
shipper; Art. 1734 provides the liability of common carriers for the
(2) That the common carrier will not be liable for any loss, destruction, loss, or deterioration of goods as well as their exceptions
destruction, or deterioration of the goods; from liability. Fire does not fall under the abovementioned exceptions
(3) That the common carrier need not observe any diligence which would exempt a carrier from liability. Thus:
in the custody of the goods;
(4) That the common carrier shall exercise a degree of GR: The carrier is presumed to be at fault or to have acted
diligence less than that of a good father of a family, or of a negligently
man of ordinary prudence in the vigilance over the movables XPN: unless it proves that it has observed the extraordinary
transported; diligence required by law.
(5) That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the
acts or omission of his or its employees; Test for determining existence of negligence
(6) That the common carrier's liability for acts committed by A person shall be guilty of negligence if the person, in doing the
thieves, or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible alleged negligent act, used:
threat, violence or force, is dispensed with or diminished; ✓ Reasonable care
(7) That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss,
destruction, or deterioration of goods on account of the ✓ Caution
defective condition of the car, vehicle, ship, airplane or other which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same
equipment used in the contract of carriage. situation.
Extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers Contract of Air Carriage

When an airline issues a ticket to a passenger, confirmed for a
Art. 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as particular flight on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises. The
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very passenger then has every right to expect that he be transported on
cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances. that flight on that date. If he does not, then the carrier opens itself to
a suit for breach of contract of carriage.
Art. 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove E. Dangerous Weapons and Substances
that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and
1755. Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the
defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous
Action for breach of contract of carriage weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the
possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business.
- The aggrieved party merely has to prove:
GR: There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the
✓ Existence of the contract d da d a
✓ Fact of its non-performance by the carrier ✓ Dangerous weapons (nuclear missiles, firearms, samurai)
or
Doctrines ✓ Dangerous substances (poison, cyanide, uranium, plutonium, red
kryptonite)
8
Damaged TORTol
XPN: When the possession or use is indispensable in his occupation or If the negligence of the plaintiff Then…
business. is…
The immediate and proximate cause He cannot recover damages
Doctrines of his injury
Only contributory, the immediate He may recover damages, but the
Negligence, definition and proximate cause of his injury d da ab b a d
- Negligence is conduct that creates undue risk of harm to b d da ac d by the court
another. care - The must proportionately
- It is the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest bear the consequences of
of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and his own negligence (i.e.,
vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby the defendant will only be
such person suffers injury. held liable for the damages
actually caused by his
Negligence of the owner of a vessel negligence)
The owner or the person in possession and control of a vessel are
liable for all natural and proximate damage caused to persons and
property by reason of negligent management or navigation. Emergency Rule
- I
4. Defenses a. Suddenly finds himself in a place of danger
b. And is required to act without time to consider the best
A. Contributory Negligence means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger
- Then he is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate method
cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only - Unless the emergency in which he found himself was
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the brought about by his own negligence
defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts
shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. Doctrines
Reduction of damages, not bar to recovery

Contributory Negligence, defined The negligence of the injured person contributing to his injury not
- Conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause being one of the determining causes of the principal accident, does not
to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard which he operate as a bar to recovery but only in reduction of his damages. Each
is required to conform for his own protection. party is chargeable with damages in proportion to his fault.
- By his own negligence (which is the proximate and immediate cause of
the injury) he is not entitled to recover damages in full but must Bar to recover
proportionately bear the consequences of his own negligence. When the immediate cause of an accident resulting in an injury is the
- Defendant shall be held liable only for the damages actually caused by a ac , c c b d c a cc c a
his negligence to the injured party who caused his own injury. one of its determining factors, he cannot recover damages for the
injury.
9
Damaged TORTol
Determining whose negligence is the proximate cause of the injury Honest mistakes
It is the task of a court to determine whose negligence was the legal A mistake is not equivalent to negligence if they were honest
or proximate cause of the injury. mistakes.
Factors to consider: Emergency rule

- R a ca c a GR: One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is
a dd da ac ions required to act without time to consider the best means that may be
- Nature of the negligent act or omission of each party adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if
- Character and gravity of the risks created by such act or he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to
omission have been a better method,
EX: unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about
Doctrine of the last clear chance/Supervening negligence/Discovered by his own negligence.
peril
- When both parties are negligent and the negligent act of one Determining existence of contributory negligence
is appreciably later in time than the other It must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his
- When it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence, injuries in disregard of warning signs of an impending danger to health
the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the and body.
impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the
consequences thereof. Violation of a statute, not immediately considered as proximate cause
- Antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude The violation of a statute is not sufficient to hold it as the proximate
recovery from damages for the supervening negligence of cause of the injury, unless the injury caused is precisely what has been
another if the latter had the last fair change to avoid the intended to be prevented by the statute.
impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.
B. Assumption of Risk
Accident, not negligence
- V a a a a a
✓ Occurs when the person is exercising ordinary care - The negligent conduct of the defendant, or
✓ Which is not caused by fault of any person - The nature of the obligation itself
- Presupposes an intentional exposure to a known
✓ Could not have been prevented by any means suggested by peril
common prudence
Nine-year old child Doctrines

Presumed to be incapable of negligence because of the lack of
discernment. Thus a child under nine years must be conclusively Killed by an animal
presumed incapable of negligence as a matter of law I a ca a b a a
causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself. Being injured
by the animal under those circumstances, was one of the risks of the
occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must
take the consequences.
10
Damaged TORTol
Owners of resorts b. Knew or should have known that the plaintiff was unable to
Owners of resorts are legally bound to exercise ordinary care and get out of such situation
prudence in the management and maintenance of such resorts, to the 3. Defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the impending harm or
end of making them reasonably safe for visitors injury by the exercise of due diligence, but failed to do so
4. Such failure is the proximate cause of the injury
However, such owner is not deemed an insurer of the safety of
patrons. Thus, the death of a patron within his premises does not cast Not applicable in the following cases:
upon him the burden of excusing himself from any presumption of a) Collapse of a building/structure
negligence. b) In a suit between the owner of a vehicle and his passenger
c) When injury cannot be avoided by application of all means
The last clear chance doctrine does not apply where the party is at hand after the peril has been discovered
required to act instantaneously and if the injury cannot be avoided by
the application of all means at hand after the peril is or should have Doctrines
been discovered.
Doctrine, where not applicable
Buyer beware - Where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce
A ba c d c b b a a its contractual obligations for it would be inequitable to exempt the
be no false representation of the seller. negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the
other driver was likewise guilty of negligence.
C. Last Clear Chance - Where there are joint tortfeasors and it is used as a test of whether only
one of them should be held liable to the injured person by reason of
d c a
When both parties are guilty of negligence… - Defendants who are concurrently negligent.
- The antecedent negligence of plaintiff is succeeded by the - As against third persons, a negligent actor cannot defend by pleading
supervening negligence of the defendant after an appreciable that another had negligently failed to take action which could have
interval of time avoided the injury.
- And the defendant has the last reasonable opportunity to
avoid harm by exercising reasonable care and prudence, but Test to apply doctrine
fails to do so It is necessary to show that the person who allegedly had the last
- The defendant is considered as solely responsible for the opportunity to avert the accident was aware of the existence of the
c c ,a d peril or should, with exercise of due care, have been aware of it. One
- He may be held liable for damages by the plaintiff, despite his cannot be expected to avoid an accident or injury if he does not know
own negligence or could not have known the existence of the peril.
Requisites: Proximate cause
1. Pa That cause, which, in the natural continuous sequence, unbroken by
a. Places himself in danger by his own negligent acts and any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which
b. Is unable to get out of such situation by any means the result would not have occurred.
2. D da
a. Knew that the plaintiff was in danger, and
11
Damaged TORTol
Driver of a rear vehicle E. Fortuitous Event

It is the responsibility of the driver of a rear vehicle to avoid the
collision with the front vehicle with the former having the last clear Requisites
chance of avoiding the accident. 1. Cause is d d d b
Culpa contractual 2. Unforeseen/unavoidable event
In a case where the defendant is guilty of a breach of contract while 3. The happening of which made it impossible for the debtor to
the plaintiff was negligent and had the last clear chance to avoid the perform his obligation in a normal manner
peril, the defendant shall not be exonerated from liability but would 4. The debtor did not take advantage of the event to aggravate the
only warrant a reduction of damages to be recovered by the plaintiff. injury to the creditor
D. Prescription General Rule There is no liability in case of a fortuitous event
Actions Prescriptive Periods Exceptions:

Upon injury to the rights of the 4 years 1. Express provision of law
plaintiff 2. Stipulation between the parties
Upon a quasi-delict 4 years 3. Nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk
Upon any act, activity, or conduct 1 year 4. T d b
of any public officer involving the a. In default, or
exercise or powers or authority b. Has promised to deliver the same thing to two or more
arising from Martial Law (e.g., persons who do not have the same interest
arrest, detention, trial)
Doctrines
** Counted from the time the tortious act was known/discovered.
Skidding
It is an unforeseen event which cannot be regarded as negligence.
Doctrines
Employment
Participation of man
An action for damages involving a plaintiff separated from his
W d b a
a d ab ca
participation of man, whether due to his active intervention or
a , a d b b a .
neglect or failure to act, the whole occurrence is then humanized and
removed from the rules applicable to the acts of God.
Act or omission of one party in violation of the right of another
Cause of action arises at the moment such right is violated. Such right
Contract of air carriage
is not imprescriptible. Generally, the law draws a time corridor within
A contract of air carriage generates a relation attended with a public
which to propel a suit for recovery of property.
dute. Neglect or malfeasance of the employees naturally could give a
ground for an action for damages.
Defense of prescription
May only be availed when it is invoked in the answer. However, the
Statutory duty, not exempted from liability
same rule does not obtain when the complaint is based on a cause of
Where there is a statutory duty imposed and there is a failure to comply
action which has already prescribed.
with that duty, he is deemed to be negligent rendering him liable for
12
Damaged TORTol
damages. While the loss may be caused by a fortuitous event, the Travel agencies and common carriers
circumstances cannot exempt him from liability for the loss. A common carrier in a contract of carriage is bound by law to carry
passengers as far as human care and foresight can provide using the
Entire exclusion of human agency utmost diligence of a very cautious person and with due regard for all
There must be an entire exclusion of human agency from the cause of circumstances. However, such degree of diligence is not required for
the injury or loss for it to be considered as a fortuitous event. travel agencies since it is not engaged in the business of transporting
passengers or goods.
Common carriers
Common carriers are not absolutely responsible for all injuries or G. Mistake and Waiver
damages if the same were caused by a fortuitous event.
Mistake as to… Effect
F. Diligence Substance of the object of the Will invalidate consent
contract
- T a c d b Conditions which have principally
- Consists in the omission of that diligence that he was moved one or both parties to enter
required to have observed, and into the contract
- Corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, time, Identity or qualifications of one of Will only invalidate consent if such
and place the parties was the principal cause of the
- When negligence shows bad faith, the party responsible contract
therefore can always be held liable for damages ** Simple mistake of account Correction
Kinds of Diligence to be Observed by Parties E c d

1. That stipulated between them a. Absence of knowledge with respect to a thing (i.e., ignorance), and
2. If there is no stipulation, that required by the law governing b. Wrong conception about a thing, or a belief in the existence of some
the particular obligation circumstance, fact, or event that does not exist in reality (i.e.,
3. In the absence of the foregoing, that which is expected of a mistake)
good father of the family
General Rule Rights may be waived
Doctrines
Exception If the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public
Negligence by employees/servants policy, morals, or good customs,
It is presumed that there was negligence on the part of the master or or prejudicial to the rights of a third person
employer whether in the selection of the servant of employee, or in the
supervision over him after the selection or both. Doctrines
Burden of proof Mistake to invalidate consent

The person who filed a case for negligence has the burden of proving It should refer to the substance of the thing which is the object of the
the existence of such negligence. contract, or to those conditions which have principally moved one or
both parties to enter into the contract. The concept of error must
include both:
13
Damaged TORTol
- Ignorance - absence of knowledge with respect to a thing privileged communication and the counsel, parties or witnesses therein
- Mistake - wrong conception about said thing or a belief in are exempt from liability
the existence of some circumstance, fact, or event which in
reality does not exist Malicious Prosecution
- In both cases, there is a lack of full and correct knowledge about the For there to be malicious prosecution, the following elements must be
thing. present:
Absence of probable cause and
Waiver Legal malice on the part of the petitioners
To be valid and effective, must in the first place be couched in clear
and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of a Legitimate exercise of one s rights
person to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him. Well-settled is the maxim that damage resulting from the legitimate
exercise of a person's rights is a loss without injury -- damnum absque
Laborer s claims injuria -- for which the law gives no remedy. One who merely exercises
L a a a ab his rights does no actionable injury and cannot be held liable for
claims should be treated and upheld as the law between the parties. damages.
However, when the voluntariness of the execution of the quitclaim or
release is put into issue, then the claim of employee may still be given Litis Pendencia
due course. For litis pendencia to be invoked, there must be:
(a) identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interest
Usurpation of status in both actions;
The mere use of surname is not considered as usurpation of status but (b) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
rather it is the use coupled with representation that one is the lawful being founded on the same facts; and,
a a c a ac (c) identity in the 2 cases should be such that the judgment that may
for damages. be rendered in the pending case would amount to res judicata in the
other
H. Others Vicarious Liability

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
Doctrines one is responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity,
the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor
Absolutely privileged communication children who live in their company.
- Utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all
kinds of pleadings, petitions and motions, belong to the class of
communications that are absolutely privileged and no civil action for
IV. Vicarious, Primary, and Solidary Liability
libel or slander may arise therefrom, unless the contents of the petitions are
irrelevant to the subject matter thereof.
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for
- Where the libelous or slanderous words published in the course of one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
judicial proceedings are connected with, or relevant, pertinent or material to, responsible.
the cause in hand or subject of inquiry, the same may be considered
14
Damaged TORTol
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible - This moral responsibility may consist in having failed to exercise
for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. due care in
- The selection and control of one's agents or servants, or
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons - The control of persons, who, by reason of their status,
who are under their authority and live in their company. occupy a position of dependency with respect to the person
made liable for their conduct.
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. Person Liable Person Requisites
Negligent
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though 1. Father / Minor M b a
the former are not engaged in any business or industry. Mother company
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but 2. Court- Minor/ 1. Under the authority/custody of
not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done appointed person liable
properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be guardian Incapacitated
applicable. person 2. L a da c a
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 3. Owner / Employee 1. Circumstance
remain in their custody. Manager of a. In the service of branch where
establishmen person negligent is employed
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein t or b. On the occasion of the
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family enterprise negligent person s functions
to prevent damage.
2. Employer-employee relationship
1. Vicarious Liability 4. Employer Employee Acting within the scope of the

- "Doctrine of imputed negligence" under Anglo-American tort law Household a d a
- Occurs when a person is not only liable for torts committed by him, helpers
but also for torts committed by others with whom he has certain *NOTE: This applies even though
relationship and for whom he is responsible. employer is not engaged in any
- For reasons of public policy, this rule provides the responsibility for business
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.
- Extra-contractual liability - with certain well defined exceptions - is limited
to cases which moral culpability can be directly imputed to the persons
to be charged.
15
Damaged TORTol
No presumption of parental dereliction on the part of the adopting

5. State Special Agent 1. Definite order to do task
parents could arise if the adopted was not in fact subject to their
control at the time the tort was committed.
2. Foreign to usual functions
Proximate cause
- Under Ar. 219 of the Family Code, if the person under custody is a
*NOTE: State not responsible when minor, those exercising special parental authority are principally and
caused by the official to whom the solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the
task done properly pertains unemancipated minor while under their supervision, instruction, or
custody.
- However, for said person to be liable, there must be a finding that
the act or omission considered as negligent was the proximate
6. Teachers/ Apprentice Person negligent must be under the cause of the injury caused because the negligence must have a
Head of teacher or head of the causal connection to the accident.
Establishments ab c d
B. Owners and Managers of Establishments
A. Parents and Guardians Requisites for an owner or manager of an establishment or enterprise to

be liable:
Doctrines (1) There must be an employer-employee relationship
(2) The act must have been done
General (a) In the service of a branch where s/he is employed o
Article 2180 provides that the obligation imposed by Art. 2176 is (b) On occasion of his/her functions;
d a dab ac b a
those of persons for whom one is responsible. The father and, in case Doctrines
of his incapacity or death, the mother, is responsible for the damages
caused by the minor children who live in their company. Diligence required for common carriers
Owing to the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy,
Diligence required common carriers are tasked to observe extraordinary diligence in the
The diligence required by law in a parent-child relationship consists of vigilance over the goods and for the safety of its passengers.
the instruction and supervision of the child. An owner of a firearm When the act or omission must have been committed
should make sure that the firearm is not within reach of the child in Before an employer may be held liable for the negligence of his
order to meet the diligence required of the law. employee, the act or omission which caused damage or prejudice
must have occurred while an employee was in the performance of his
Proof of relationship assigned tasks.
Absent proof substantiating the relationship, the co-defendants cannot
be held subsidiarily liable (Under Art. 103 of the RPC) nor primarily Proof of due diligence
liable (Under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code). Banks are responsible for the acts of its employees unless there is
proof that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to
Presumption of dereliction prevent the damage.
16
Damaged TORTol
proving the employer's vicarious liability.

Necessity of a contractual relation
A contractual relation is a condition sine qua non to the school's - The responsibility arises by virtue of a presumption juris tantum of
liability. negligence (aka rebuttable presumption of negligence) on the part of
the persons made responsible under the article, derived from their
Premise of employers responsibility failure to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of subordinates
The responsibility of employers is premised upon the presumption of to prevent them from causing damage.
negligence of their employees. - To rebut the presumption:
the persons who might be held responsible under it must
Degree of care required of a physically-disabled person prove that exercised the diligence of a good father of a family
One who is physically disabled is required to use the same degree of to prevent damage.
care that a reasonably careful person who has the same physical
disability would use. - Foundation of the responsibility: the non-performance of certain
duties of precaution and prudence imposed upon said persons
Registered owner of vehicle as the employer
In quasi-delict cases, the registered owner of a motor vehicle is the - Distinction between 4th (owners and managers) and 5th
employer of its driver in contemplation of law. The registered owner paragraphs (employers) of Article 2180:
of any vehicle, even if not used for public service, would primarily be - Basically, the 5th par. is an expansion of the 4th par. in both
responsible to the public or to third persons for injuries caused while employer coverage and acts included.
the vehicle was being driven on highways or streets.
Doctrine of Apparent Authority 4th par. 5th par.

As a rule, hospitals are not liable for the negligence of its independent
contractors. However, it may be found liable if the physician or
independent contractor acts as an ostensible agent of the hospital. General Employers Employers
This exception is also known as the doctrine of apparent authority. Application
C. Employers Specific Owners and managers of Employers in general,

Application an establishment or whether or not engaged in
Requisites for the employers to be liable: enterprise any business or industry
1. An employer-employee relation Coverage Negligent acts of Negligent acts of

Supervision of their employees. employees committed employees acting within
either the scope of their assigned
- It is only after the plaintiff establishes the requisites that the defendant- - in the service task
employer may find it necessary to interpose the defense of due of the branches or
diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.
- on the occasion
- There should be a criminal action where employee's negligence is of their functions
proved. Failure to prove employee's negligence is fatal to
17
Damaged TORTol
The phrase e en though the former are not engaged in an business or industr
found in the 5th par. of Art. 2180 should be interpreted to mean that
- Application: Negligent acts of employees, whether or not the it is not necessary for the employer to be engaged in any
employer is engaged in a business or industry, are covered so long as business or industry to be liable for the negligence of his
they were acting within the scope of their assigned task, even employee who is acting within the scope of his assigned task.
though committed neither in the service of the branches nor
on the occasion of their functions. There is no hard and fast rule that can be stated which will furnish
- Employees oftentimes wear different hats; they perform the complete answer to the problem of whether at a given moment,
functions which are beyond their office, title or designation a a d s business in the operation of
but which, nevertheless, are still within the call of duty. a motor vehicle, so as to fix liability upon the employer because of
ac ac ;b a , result varies with
- Definition of "within the scope of his assigned tasks each state of facts.
Include any act done by an employee
The use of the employer s vehicle outside regular working hours
- In furtherance of the interests of the employer or generally does not make the employer liable for the employee s
- For the account of the employer negligent operation of the vehicle during the period of
permissive use, even where (a) the employer contemplates that a
Doctrines regularly assigned motor vehicle will be used by the employee for
personal as well as business purposes and (b) there is some incidental
Due diligence benefit to the employer.
Under Article 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code, liability is
based on culpa aquiliana which holds the employer primarily Negligence of employee must be established
liable for tortious acts if its employees subject, however, to
the defense that the former exercised all the diligence of a Before the presumption of the employer's negligence in the selection
good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his and supervision of its employees can arise, the negligence of the
employees. employee must first be established.
Banks are responsible for the acts of its employees unless there is proof While the allegations of negligence against the employee and that of
that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent an employer-employee relation in the complaint are enough to make
the damage. out a case of quasi-delict under Art. 2180, the failure to prove the
emplo c d a aa
Liability of contractors ca ab .
The general rule is that the client (principal) is not liable for employees
of its contractor. There is no employee-employer relationship Primary liability
between the principal and the employee-security guards provided by
the contractor just because the principal issues guidelines to said - The responsibility of employers for the negligence of employees in the
employees. performance of their duties is primary and, therefore, the injured party
may recover from the employers directly, regardless of the solvency of
their employees.
When employee is deemed engaged in his employer s business
18
Damaged TORTol
- Employers have the burden of proving that they exercised due

diligence both in the selection of the employee and in the supervision
of the performance of his duties. Primary and direct liability of employer
(a) In selection of prospective employees, employers are
required to examine them as to their qualifications,
experience and service records. Quasi-delict Delict
(b) In the supervision of employees, employers must:
(i) Formulate standard operating procedures E ab ac Primary and direct Subsidiary
(ii) Monitor their implementation and of employees
(iii) Impose disciplinary measures for breaches thereof.
Convincing proof of the exercise of due diligence
- Whenever an employees negligence causes damage or injury - Hence, although liability under Art. 2180 originates from negligent
to another, there instantly arises a presumption juris tantum act of employee, the aggrieved party may sue the employer directly.
that the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris - The liability of the employer under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code is
families in the selection (culpa in eligiendo) or supervision direct or immediate it is not conditioned on a prior recourse
(culpa in vigilando) of its employees. against the negligent employee, or a prior showing of insolvency of
- To avoid liability for a quasi-delict committed by his such employee. It is also joint and solidary with the employee.
employee, an employer must overcome the presumption by
presenting convincing proof that he exercised the care and Doctrines
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of his employee.
Liability of owner of motor vehicle
Solidary liability of joint tortfeasors
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article
2180 are applicable. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
- Joint torfteasors are all persons who command, instigate, demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for
promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or those of persons for whom one is responsible.
abet the commission of a tort or who approve of it after it is
done if done for heir beneﬁ The corpora ion hich opera es Working scholars
the radio station, and who is the employer of the radio hosts, is
solidarily liable to pay for damages arising from libelous Working scholars are not considered as employees of the
broadcasts. school/college/university. The students work for the latter in exchange for the
privilege to study free of charge; provided, the students are given real
- The responsibility of two or more persons for a quasi-delict is opportunity, including such facilities as may be reasonable, necessary to finish
solidary. Where there is a solidary obligation on the part of debtors, their chosen course under such arrangement.
each debtor is liable for the entire obligation. Hence, each debtor is
liable to pay for the obligation in full.
19
Damaged TORTol
Mere allegation of existence of company guidelines insufficient D. State
In order that the defense of due diligence in the selection and The State cannot be sued without its consent, except:
supervision of employees may be deemed sufficient and plausible, it
is not enough to emptily invoke the existence of said company 1. When it is performing proprietary functions;
guidelines and policies on hiring and supervision. As the negligence
if the employees gives rise to the presumption of negligence on the 2. When it enters into a contract with a private person; or
part of the employer, the latter has the burden of proving that it has
been diligent not only in the selection of employees but also in the 3. Acts through a special agent
actual supervision of their work. The mere allegation of the
existence of hiring procedures and supervisory policies, - Failure to prove employee's negligence is fatal to proving the
without anything more, is decidedly not sufficient to overcome employer's vicarious liability.
presumption. - A special agent is one who receives a fixed compensation foreign
to the exercise of duties of his office.
Mere possession of driver s license insufficient - State's responsibility in damage cases is limited to that which it
contracts through a special agent:
For an employer to have exercised the diligence of a good father of - Duly empowered by a definite order or commission to
a a , a a d c perform some act or charged with some definite purpose
not suffice. There must be an examination of the qualifications, which gives rise to the claim
experience and record of service. In addition, supervision must - Not where the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable
show the formulation of training programs and guidelines on road to a public official charged with some administrative or
safety for the driver. technical office who can be held to the proper responsibility
in the manner laid down by the law of civil responsibility.
Graduated levels of analyses
Doctrines
- Once negligence, the damages, and the proximate causation are
established, the Court can then proceed with the application and The Government of the Philippine Islands is only liable for the negligent acts
interpretation of the 5th par. of Art. 2180. Under Art. 2176, in of its officers, agents, and employees when they are acting as special agents
a 5 a . A . 2180, a ac d ca d a within the meaning of par. 5 of article 1903 of the Civil Code (now Art. 2180).
ac a b da a A chaffeaur of the General Hospital is not such a special agent.
who is held liable for the negligent act or omission committed by his
. The superior or employer must answer civilly of the negligence or want of skill
- The rationale for these graduated levels of analyses is that it is of his agent or servant in the course of his employment.
essentially the wrongful or negligent act itself which creates the
vinculum juris in extra-contractual obligations
20
Damaged TORTol
E. Teachers and Heads of Establishment

- Teachers of any school are generally liable for any injuries sustained by
- The liability imposed upon them is based on the failure to exercise the d b a c .
degree of care, custody and supervision over their students necessary - Only principals and school heads of trade and art schools, however,
to prevent damage to persons. are liable for such injuries.
- Rationale of the liability of school heads and teachers for the tortious
acts of their pupils and students: Students must have caused the damage
- So long as they remain in their custody, is that they stand, to Article 2180 of the Civil Code connotes that the damage should have been
a certain extent, as to their pupils and students, in loco parentis caused by pupils or students of the education institution.
of the child.
- Governing principle is that the protective custody of the school Mere employment of security guards insufficient
heads and teachers is mandatorily substituted for that of the parents, The school is not absolved of any liability for injuries sustained by its students
and hence, it becomes their obligation as well as that of the school da c a c b c a c c .
itself The said agency, however, may be held liable.
- to provide proper supervision of the students' activities
during the whole time that they are at attendance in the Four-fold Test
school, including recess time, as well as The Court has consistently applied the four-fold test to determine the existence
- to take the necessary precautions to protect the students in of an employer-employee relationship: the employer:
their custody from dangers and hazards that would 1. Selects and engages the employee
reasonably be anticipated, including injuries that some 2. Pays his wages
student themselves may inflict willfully or through negligence 3. Has power to dismiss him
on their fellow students. 4. Has control over his work
Doctrines Of these, the most crucial is the element of control. Control refers to the right
of the employer, whether actually exercised or reserved to control the work of
"So long as [the students] remain in their custody" the employee as well as the means and methods by which he accomplishes the
- Teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades are liable for same.
damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as
they remain in their custody. Source of special parental authority
- The phrase used in the cited article means the protective and Article 218 of the Family Code, in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code,
supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise b ca a a a c , ad a a d
over the pupils and students for as long as they are at attendance in the teachers, or the individual, entity, or institution engaged in child care.
school, including recess time.
Coverage
3. Primary Liability
Art. 2180 of the CC should apply to all schools, academic (rather than technical
or vocational in nature) as well as non-academic.
A. Possessors and Users of Animals
Who shall be held responsible for torts committed by the students:
School is academic - teacher-in-charge Article 2183: The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same
Establishments of arts and letters head is responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be
21
Damaged TORTol
lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from The owner is solidarily liable with the driver if:
force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage. 1. Owner is in the vehicle; and
2. He could have prevented the misfortune through due diligence
GR: Possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of such is responsible
for the damage it may cause. Driver is presumed negligent if:
EX: 1. He is guilty of reckless driving or traffic violations at least 2x within
1. Force majeure the past 2 months.
2. Fault of the injured 2. During the mishap, driver was violating traffic rules.
➔ The possessor remains liable even if the animal is lost, escaped, or ➔ Owner should have a reasonable opportunity of preventing the
removed from his control. acts.
➔ It covers both vicious and tamed animals. ➔ Since the registered owner is the operator of the vehicle with respect
➔ Rationale: Natural equity and the principle of social interest he who to the public and third persons, he is directly and primarily responsible
possessed animals for his utility, pleasure, or service must answer for for the consequences of its operation.
the damage which the animal may cause.
Doctrines
Doctrines
For an owner-passenger of a vehicle to be liable for the damage caused by his
The possessor and user of the animal, and not necessarily its owner, is liable driver, the act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner
for damages for injuries the said animal may have caused. c a a ,b ac c c , a d
act his own.
B. Owners of Motor Vehicles
The registered owner of the vehicle, not the de facto owner, is liable for the
Article 2184: In motor vehicles, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if damage caused by the vehicle.
the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, The relationship between car renter and care lessee is merely contractual. It is
if he has been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at not of a nature of an employer- a
least twice within the next preceding two months. acts may result in his employer being liable. Nor is it one between a master-
driver relationship, because clearly, there can be no control by FILCAR of the
If the owner is not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are ac .
applicable.
Direct liability of the insurer under an indemnity policy does not mean that the
Article 2185: Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person insurer is solidarily liable with the insured and/or other parties found at fault.
driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was The liability of the insurer is based on contract; that of the insured is based on
violating any traffic regulation. tort. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict
is solidarily.
Article 2186: Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file with the proper
government office a bond executed by a government-controlled corporation or A causal connection must exist between the injury received and the violation
office, to answer for damages to third persons. The amount of the bond and of the traffic regulations. Negligence, consisting in whole or in part, of violation
other terms shall be fixed by the competent public official. of law, like any other negligence, is without legal consequence unless it is a
contributing cause of the injury.
22
Damaged TORTol
C. Manufacturers and Processors ◆ Charter lays down the general rules regulating the liability
Article 2187: Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles, of the city.
and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or ◆ Article 2189 particularly applies to the liability arising from
harmful substances used, although no contractual relation exists between them defective public works.
and the consumers.
Doctrines
Manufacturers and processors are liable for death and injuries caused by any
noxious or harmful substances used although no contractual relation exists Article 2189 of the Civil Code does not require that the defective roads or street
between them and the consumers. belong to the province, city, or municipality from which responsibility is
exacted. What is essential is that the province, city, or municipality have either
RA 7394 (Consumer Act of the PH) c ad ad.
Article 97: Liability for the Defective Products Any Filipino or foreign
manufacturer, producer, and any importer, shall be liable for redress, RA 409 establishes a general rule while Article 2189 applies specifically to
independently of fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects resulting damages caused by defective conditions of roads, streets, and public works
from design, manufacture, construction, assembly and erection, formulas and under the control or supervision of the province, city, or municipality. Under
handling and making up, presentation or packing of their products, as well as Article 2189, the defective public works need not belong to the LGU. It is
for insufficient or inadequate information on the use and hazards thereof. sufficient that said LGU has c b c
building in question.
A product is defective if it does not offer the safety rightfully expected of it
considering the following: If the injury is caused while in the performance of a governmental function,
1. Presentation of product there can be no recovery from the municipality unless there is an existing
2. Use and hazards reasonably expected of it statute on the matter; nor from its officers, so long as they performed their
3. Time it was put in circulation duties honestly and in good faith or that they did not act wantonly and
maliciously. With respect to proprietary functions, a municipal corporation is
➔ A product is not defective just because another better quality product subject to be sued upon contracts and in tort.
is in the market.
When the DPWH may have issued the requisite permit for the excavation on
Manufacturer, builder, producer, or importer will not be liable when: a road, the Municipality is not thereby relieved of its liability for its own gross
1. It did not place the product on the market negligence. The obligation of Municipality to maintain the safe condition of
2. The product is not defective the road within its territory is a continuing one. Knowledge of the conditions
3. Consumer is solely at fault of the road and the defect and/or obstructions on the road may be actual or
constructive.
D. Municipal Corporations
E. Building Proprietors
Article 2189: Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for
the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective Article 2190: The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for
condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack
under their control or supervision. of necessary repairs.
Proprietor of a building or structure is liable when:

➔ The article only requires that either control or supervision not 1. Buildings or structure needed necessary repairs.
necessarily ownership.
23
Damaged TORTol
2. Proprietor of the building failed to put up the necessary repairs. 4. Solidary Liability
3. There is partial or total collapse of said building or structure due to Article 2194: The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-
lack of necessary repairs. delict is solidary.
Article 2191: Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused:
➔ Each tortfeasor is solidarily liable for the whole damage caused and
1. By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with
together are jointly liable for the whole damage to each other. They are
due diligence, and the inflammation of explosive substances which
severally liable for the full amount.
have not been kept in a safe and adequate place;
2. By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property;
Doctrines
3. By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not
caused by force majeure;
A registered owner of a public service vehicle is responsible for damages that
4. By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious
may arise incidental to its operation or damages caused to any of the passengers
matter, constructed without precautions suitable to the place.
therein.
➔ It can be restrained by an injunction since it is incapable of pecuniary The quitclaim, where the consideration is scandalously low and inequitable,
estimation and threatened injury is irreparable. cannot be an obstacle to petiti a ca
against her employer. Equity dictates that the compromise agreement should
Article 2193: The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof, is be voided in this instance. Such fact renders the quitclaim null and void for
responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same. being contrary to public policy.
Doctrines Inasmuch as the liability of 2 or more tortfeasors in a quasi-delict is solidary,
the sharing between such solidary tortfeasors is pro rata.
T d c a c a c a c a c a acc d a d
inapplicable to quasi-delicts under Art. 2190 of Civil Code. I a da a c a a d a c d c a a ,
in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
Force majeure is a special and affirmative defense and must be proven by the justice, give everyone what is due to him/her, and observe honesty and good
defendant. a . H ,a ab d a c
ab d ca dc .
F. Engineers, Architects, and Contractors
Article 2192: If damage referred to in the two preceding articles should be the While it is true that where the insurance contract provides for indemnity against
result of any defect in the construction mentioned in Article 1723, the third liability to third persons, and such third persons can directly sue the insurer,
person suffering damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect or the direct liability of the insurer under an indemnity contracts against third
contractor in accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed. party liability does not mean that the insurer can be held liable in solidum with
the insured and/or the other parties found at fault. As the liability of the insurer
Doctrines is based on contract, while the liability of the insured carrier or vehicle owner
is based on tort.
If upon the happening of a fortuitous event, there concurs a corresponding
fraud, negligence, etc., which results in loss, damage, the obligor cannot escape Before execution against an employer ensures, there must be a hearing to
liability. determine the following:
1. Existence of employer-employee relationship;
2. Employer is engaged in some kind of industry;
24
Damaged TORTol
3. Employee is adjudged guilty of the wrongful act and found to commit

the offense in the discharge of his duties; and Good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting honesty of
4. Employee is insolvent. purpose, freedom from intention to defraud, and generally speaking, means
b a d b a .I c
abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another,
V. Special Torts (Human Relations)
even though the forms and technicalities of the law, together with the absence
of all information or belief of facts, would render the transaction
1. Abuse of Right unconscientious.
Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the In a suit for abuse of right under Article 19, the absence of good faith must be
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe sufficiently established.
honesty and good faith. Educational Institutions. The professors are agents of the school and it is the
school which has access to information and is in a position to compel its
Elements:
professors to act with its rules and regulations. It is thus duty bound to inform
1. Existence of a legal right or duty; the students of their academic status and not wait for the latter to inquire. The
conscious indifference of a person to the rights or welfare of another who may
2. Which is exercised in bad faith; and
be affected by his act or omission can support a claim for damages.
3. For the sole intent of prejudice or injuring another
Exercise of the power of Eminent Domain. It is an extraordinary power that
must wield with circumspection and utmost regard for procedural requirements.
Doctrines A government agency could not initiate expropriation proceedings, seize a
Article 19, in relation to Article 21 intended to expand the concept of torts by ,a d d cd proceed with the expropriation.
Such turn- around is arbitrary and capricious.
granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs, which
is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. The
Malicious Prosecution Suit. For a malicious prosecution suit to prosper, the
victim of a wrongful act or omission, whether done willfully or negligently, is
not left without any remedy or recourse to obtain relief. The principle of equity plaintiff must prove the following:
1. The prosecution did occur and the defendant was himself the prosecutor or
and universal moral precepts are embedded in the law.
that he instigated its commencement;
2. The criminal action finally ended with an acquittal or the civil suit/legal
A person, exercising his rights, should be protected only when he acts in the
legitimate exercise of his right, that is when he acts with prudence and good faith proceeding has been terminated in favor of the person sued;
3. In bringing such action, the prosecutor acted without probable cause; and
but not when there is negligence or abuse.
4. The prosecution was impelled by legal malice an improper or a sinister
motive
An act may be legal but the actor may still be held liable when not done in good
faith.
25
Damaged TORTol
The gravamen of this is not the filing of a complaint based on the wrong However, to formally set a wedding and go through all the preparations and
provision of law, but the deliberate initiation of an action with knowledge publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony I to be solemnized, is
that the charges are groundless and false. palpably and justifiably contrary to good customs for which the defendant must
be held answerable for damages pursuant to Article 21.
2. Contrary to Law and Morals
W a a a ac a ca acc a c
Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes of his love and his representation to fulfill such becomes the proximate cause
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. a a c , a d a he has no
intention to fulfill such and is only a deceptive device to entice the woman
Elements would justify an award for moral damages not because of the promise BUT
1. There is an act which causes damage to another; because of fraud and deceit.
2. Such act was done either willfully or negligently; and
3. The provision of law violated does not provide its own sanctions Malicious Prosecution. No malicious prosecution when the case is instituted
based on probable cause even if it eventually leads to acquittal.
Indemnification may be had on account of the damage, loss, or injury directly
suffered as a consequence of the wrongful act of another regardless of whether Interest Rates. The usury law having become legally inexistent with the
or not a special law so provides. promulgation of CB 1982 Circular 905, the lender and borrower could agree on
any interest that may be charged absent any evidence of fraud, undue influence,
Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in manner or any vice of consent.
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage. However, the court may still rule against excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable,
and exorbitant interest rates and reduce equitably liquidated damages.
Elements
1. There is an act which is legal; Obligation not to do. Under Article 1168, when an obligation consists in not
2. Such act is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy; doing and the obligor does what has been forbidden him, it shall also be undone
3. There is an intent to cause loss or injury; and at his expense.
4. The plaintiff must not be at fault
The in pari delicto rule does not apply to usury cases which entitle the borrower
Doctrines to recover the whole interest paid. Otherwise, the avowed policy of discouraging
usurious transacttions would not be served, for the mere invocation of such rule
Breach of promise to marry. Generally, a breach of promise to marry is not
would allow him to reap the benefits of the unlawful act.
actionable and has no standing in civil law, apart from the right to recover money
or property advanced upon the faith of such a promise. Hence, an award of
moral damages is untenable.
26
Damaged TORTol
3. Unjust Enrichment entitled and that the state of affairs are such that it would be unjust for the
person to keep the benefit. One must confer benefit by mistake, fraud, coercion,
Article 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any or request.
other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of
the latter without just or legal ground shall return the same to him. The objective of Article 546 of the Civil Code is to administer justice between
the parties. It is therefore the current market value of the improvements, which
Nemo cum alterius detriment locupletari porest: T a a c should be made the basis of reimbursement. A contrary ruling would unjustly
a a enrich the other party who would be allowed to acquire a highly valued property
for a measly amount.
Elements Hence, when a property constructed has benefited another, to allow acquisition
1. That the defendant has been enriched; at a price far below the actual construction cost would constitute unjust
2. That the plaintiff has suffered a loss; enrichment.
3. That the enrichment of the defendant is without just or legal ground; and
4. That the plaintiff has no other action based on contract, quasi-contract, There is unjust enrichment when a building contractor is denied payment for
crime, or quasi-delict. increased labor cost validly incurred and additional work validly rendered when
- An action in rem verso is considered merely an auxiliary action, the owner has given express or implied consent.
available only when there is no other remedy. Otherwise, if there is
an available action, that must be resorted to and the principle of Performance of obligations. While a contract is the law between the parties,
action in rem verso would not lie. it must be shown that the obligor failed to perform her obligation, thereby giving
the vendors the right to demand the enforcement of the contract. Hence, when
Article 23. E a ac ca da a a there is a tender of payment made which was unjustifiably refused, it would be
was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable inequitable to allow the enforcement of the forfeiture clause, which in effect
for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited. would forfeit the payment of 2/3s of the consideration.
Elements Where the mortgagor pays the insurance premium making the loss payable to
1. T a ac c ca da a a ; a , a c a a d c
2. Such was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant; and be a party to the contract. When there is already a foreclosure of mortgage, the
3. The defendant was benefited. mortgagor cannot anymore collect the insurance proceeds.
i.e: W A d ,a dd ca a d B. W A court may not permit a seller to retain, pendente lite, money paid by a buyer
ca a a d, B c a da a d. H d d Ba a if the seller himself seeks rescission. By seeking rescission, a seller necessarily
benefited. offers to return what he hass received from the buyer. When the court deems it
equitable, it may order that the money be put in judicial deposit.
Doctrines
In a claim for unjust enrichment, the claimant must unequivocally prove that Although implied contracts are void, in view of violation of applicable law or
another party knowingly received something of value to which he was not lack of legal requirement, in the interest of substantial justice, the contractors
27
Damaged TORTol
have a right to be compensated for the additional constructions, applying the 3. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
principle of quantum meruit. 4. Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly
station in life, place of birth, physical defect or other personal condition.
Generally, a quasi-contract is based on the presumed will or intent of the obligor
dictated by equity and by the principles of absolute justice. Doctrines
The acts under Article 26 are not exclusive and do not preclude other similar
4. Judicial Vigilance acts. Damages are allowable for actions a a a d c a
Article 24. In all contractual, property, or other relations, when one of the profane, insulting, humiliating, scandalous, or abusive language.
parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance,
indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be Statements made during judicial proceedings enjoy the shield of absolute
vigilant for his protection. privilege. This remains regardless of the defamatory tenor and the presence of
malice if the same are relevant, pertinent, or material too the cause in hand or
- This article allows the courts to temper the legal presumption subject of the inquiry.
that all persons know the law since the strict application may lead to
inequity if it does not consider the disadvantageous position of one The parents of a child who is of legal age and is acting on his will cannot be
party. charged with alienation of affections in the absence of malice or unworthy
- State as parents patriae is under the obligation to minimize motives, good faith shall be presumed until otherwise provided that they aided
such risk or abetted in doing so.
5. Thoughtless Extravagance Before an in camera inspection may be allowed, there must be a pending case
Article 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display before a court of competent jurisdiction. The inspection must be limited to the
during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of subject matter of the pending case. An investigation under the Office of the
the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution. Ombudsman is not a pending litigation in a court of competent authority.
Who may file? 7. Dereliction of Duty

a. Any government institution
b. Any private charitable institution Article 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public
servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his
6. Disrespect for Person official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter,
Article 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy, and without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative actions that may be taken.
peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar
acts, though may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of Good faith is not a defense under this article. Otherwise, a public servant, an
action for damages, prevention, and other relief: agent of the government, may refuse to perform essential pubic function to the
prejudice of the public.
1. P ac a d c ;
2. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
28
Damaged TORTol
Elements An order which would allow a subversion of a contract which is validly and
1. A public servant or employee refuses or neglects to perform his official duty; freely entered into without any valid or justifiable reason cannot be sanction in
2. There is no valid reason for the refusal or neglect to perform official duty and law or in equity as it will be a derogation of the principle underlying the freedom
3. That injury or damage is suffered by the plaintiff to contract and the good faith which must exist in contractual relations.
Doctrines 9. Violation of Civil and Political Rights

Where an officer is invested with discretion and is empowered to exercise his
judgment in matters brought before him, and when so acting is usually given Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who
immunity from liability to those who may be injured as a result of an erroneous directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or
or mistaken decision, however erroneous his judgment may be, are not liable. impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable
Provided that the acts are done within the scope of his authority and without malice or to the latter for damages:
corruption.
(1) Freedom of religion;
8. Unfair Competition
(2) Freedom of speech;
Article 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial, or industrial
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
enterprises, or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit,
machination, or any other unjust, oppressive, or highhanded method shall give
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffer damage.
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
U a c c d b any person who shall employ deception
or any other means contrary to good faith by which he shall pass off the goods (6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services, for those
of one having established goodwill, or who shall commit any acts calculated to (7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public
d c ad (RA 166). use;
Also punishable under Art. 189 of the Revised Penal Code. (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
Doctrines (9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against
The plaintiff has to prove damages before it may be awarded. unreasonable searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;

In order to qualify the competition as unfair it must have two characteristics:
1. It must involve an injury to a competitor or trade rival and (11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
2. I ac c a c a ac da c a dc c c
c dca b a . (12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not
contrary to law;
29
Damaged TORTol
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Government Offenders under Article 32:
for redress of grievances;
1. Public officer
(14) The right to be a free from involuntary servitude in any form; It must be shown that:
- He has a duty owing to a particular individual as opposed to a
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail; general duty to the public; or that
- Although he is in the performance of a general public duty,
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed
the complaining individual suffers a particular or special injury
of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and
public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process
2. Public employee
to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;
3. Any private individual
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from
being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity
4. Judges, provided the act or omission constitutes a violation of the penal
or reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes
code or a penal statute. (Hence, if it does not constitute a violation, no liability
a State witness;
under this article)
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the - Generally, they cannot be subject to civil, criminal, or administrative
same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been liability for any of their official acts as long as done in good faith.
judicially declared unconstitutional; and - Liability attaches when there is fraud, corruption, gross ignorance, or
bad faith. Bad faith is not mere bad judgment or negligence, there must
(19) Freedom of access to the courts. be a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing
of a wrong, a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act ill will.
or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to - When judges can be prosecuted:
commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for a. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment
other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal b. Knowingly rendering a manifestly unjust judgment through
prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance inexcusable negligence or ignorance
of evidence. c. Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order or decree
d. Maliciously delaying the administration of justice
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be
adjudicated. Doctrines
Good faith is not a defense as the liberties in the Bill of Rights cannot be
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act circumvented. It is enough that there was a violation of the constitutional right
or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. of the plaintiff.
30
Damaged TORTol
A public office is not immune from damages in his personal capacity for acts Extent of liability: The liability of the intermeddler cannot exceed that which
done in bad faith. To hold otherwise would enable the use of public office as a pertains to the party in whose behalf he intermeddles when there is a breach of
tool for oppression. contract. His liability is solidary except when he intermeddles for the protection
A person whose constitutional rights have been violated is entitled to actual, of the other party, in such a case, he is not liable.
moral, and exemplary damages from the person responsible therefor. It is not
the actor alone who is directly responsible who must answer for the damages. A When the other party who breaches the contract pays for his liability pursuant
person indirectly liable must also answer for such. to the breach, such party may nevertheless recover from the interferer.
A public officer is not liable for damages from the just performance of his
official duties within the scope of his authority, as it would be virtually against Doctrines
the republic. However, when a public officer in his personal capacity acts in bad In order for actual damages to be recovered, the amount must be substantiated
faith, he is not anymore protected by the immunity and may be answerable. with a reasonable degree of certainty, upon competent proof and on the best
evidence obtainable.
Exercise of religious belief. This is not absolute. If the exercise of which
clashes with established institutions of society and with the law, then it must Article 1191 pursuant to Article 2220 provides that moral damages may be
give way to the latter. The government may step in and either restrain the awarded in case of breach of contract, when there is bad faith.
exercise or even prosecute the one exercising it.
Malice in some form is generally an essential ingredient. But it is enough if the
wrongdoer, having knowledge, of the existence of the contractual relations, in
VI. Interference in Contractual Relationships bad faith sets about to break it up. Whether his motive is to benefit himself or
gratify his spite by working mischief is immaterial.
Article 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall
be liable for damages to the other contracting party.
- While a contract only binds parties thereto, a stranger is

nonetheless expected not to interfere with its performance. The
persuasion must be done maliciously or with the intent to injure
a d b ac ab . W c duct is based on a
proper business interest, he cannot be considered a malicious
interferer. Lack of malice precludes damages.
Elements:
1. An existing valid contract between two or more persons;
2. The third person or stranger is aware of the existence of the contract;
3. The third person interferes by inducing a party to violate the contract
4. The contract was violated; and
5. The interference is without legal justification or valid excuse
31
Damaged TORTol
M l iple Choice:
The follo ing a e ai of c lpa aq iliana a. Pe a e e /d e e e

e cep : (2014, 2008, 2009, ( nda ed b. E e a defe e f d e d e ce
ample 1)) c. Pe de a ce f e de ce e ed
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
The follo ing a e ai of c lpa con ac al: a. Objec of ca e i a breach of con rac
(2008,2009, ( nda ed ample 1)) b. The aggrie ed par need o pro e he fac of breach of he
con rac
c. O dina diligence i a defen e of emplo e
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. A, B & C
h. None of he abo e
Unde To la he follo ing ha a a. Re Ip a Loq i r

p e mp ion of negligence: (2014, b. Dangero Weapon and S b ance
( nda ed ample 1)) c. A mp ion of Ri k
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
The follo ing ma be ed a a defen e b a. For i o E en

he Re ponden in To La : (2014, b. Re pondea S pe io
( nda ed ample 1)) c. Con rib or Negligence
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
The follo ing ma be ed a a defen e b a. A mp ion of ri k

he Re ponden in To La : (2008) b. Re pondea S pe io
c. Pre crip ion
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. A, B & C
h. None of he abo e
The follo ing a e p e mp ion nde To a. A mp ion of i k

La : (2008) b. Re pondea S perior
c. P e c ip ion
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. A, B & C
h. None of he abo e
The follo ing a e e fo fo io e en : a. The ca e of he nfore een and ne pec ed occ rrence, o ld
(2014, ( nda ed ample 1)) nece aril lead o fail re of he deb or o compl i h hi
obliga ion
b. I m be impo ible o fore ee he e en hich con i e he
ca eo for i o or if i can be fore een, i m be impo ible o
a oid
c. The obligor m be free from an par icipa ion in he aggra a ion
of he inj r re l ing o he credi or
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
The follo ing a e eq i i e o he doc ine a. The plain iff m kno ha he ri k i pre en
of a mp ion of i k: (2014, ( nda ed b. Hi choice o inc r i i free and ol n ar
ample 1)) c. Tha he na e of he i k i nkno n
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
In e ening ca e i p e en in he a. Omi ion ha emain ac i e i elf

follo ing: (2014, ( nda ed ample 1)) b. Omi ion c ea ed ano he fo ce hich emain ac i e n il i di ec l
ca e he e l
c. Omi ion crea ed a ne ri k of being ac ed pon b he ac i e
force ha ca ed he re l
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
The follo ing a e p e eq i i e fo a a. Ac or omi ion con i ing fa l or negligence

q a i-delic ac ion: (2014, ( nda ed b. Inj r ca ed b he aid ac or omi ion
ample 1)) c. The ac a done b f ee- ill and ol n a
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
The follo ing a e e of an efficien a. Eff c e e e ca e de e ca a c ec

in e ening ca e: (2014, ( nda ed be ee e e e ac a d e
ample 1)) b. The efficien in e ening ca e ma be he negligence of he defendan
c. T e eff c e e e ca e a ead ea a e e
e e e ce ac c ed
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
Obliga ion a i e f om: (2014) a. La onl

b. La , con rac , q a i-con rac
c. La and con ac onl
d. Ac or omi ion p ni hed b la
e. delic
f. q a i-delic
g. B, D, and F
h. B and D
Damage a e defined a : (2014) a. The mone hich he la a a d o impo e a pec nia

compen a ion, ecompen e o a i fac ion fo a h done o a ong
ained a a con eq ence of a b each of a legal ac
b. T e f e c e a a ad e a ec a
c e a , ec e e, a fac f a d e a
a ed a a c e e ce f e e a b eac f a
c ac a b a a e a ac
c. The m of mone a a ded b la fo an inj done o a ong
ained a a con eq ence of a pe on ac in iola ion of he la
d. The legal deci ion a a ded b a j dge fo an inj done o a ong
ained a a con eq ence of a pe on ho pi al inj ie
e. A onl
f. A and B
. A f e ab e (?)
h. None of he abo e
The eq i i e of Res Ipsa Loquitur a e: a. T e acc de fa d c d a d e cc e

(2014, ( nda ed ample 1)) (*) ab e ce f e e e e ce
b. T e b fc b c d c c d a e e
a ff e be e a ed
c. I i ca ed b an in men ali i hin he e cl i e con ol of he
defendan o he defendan
d. A onl
e. B onl
f. C onl
g. A and B onl
h. A, B, and C onl (???)
The follo ing a e eq i i e fo he a. I i no d e o an ol n ar ac ion or con rib ion on he par of

applica ion of he doc ine of Res Ipsa he plain iff
Loquitur: (2008) b. I m be ca ed b an agenc or in r men ali i hin he
e cl i e con rol of he defendan
c. The acciden m be of a kind hich ordinaril doe no happen
in he ab ence of omeone negligence
d. The e i no need o p o e he negligence of he defendan
e. The e i a ela ion of ca e and effec be een he fa l o negligence
of he defendan and he damage inc ed b he plain iff
f. A & D onl
g. B & C onl
h. A & B onl
i. A, B & E onl
j. A, B & C onl
k. None of he abo e
Which of he follo ing a e e ample of Res a. a mo q i o fo nd embedded on a loaf of b ead bo gh ealed and
Ipsa Loquitur: (2008) ce ified f om a bake
b. Chai h o n f om an niden ified indo of ho el inj e b ande
c. Slab of b ick fell f om a b ick a eho e indo and fell pon a pa ing
pede ian
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. A, B & C
h. None of he abo e
Common ca ie a e e pon ible fo he a. An ac of he p blic enem in a , he he in e na ional o ci il

lo , de c ion, o de e io a ion of he b. Flood, o m, ea hq ake, ligh ning o o he na al di a e o calami
good , nle he ame i d e o an of he c. Ac o omi ion of he hippe o o ne of he good
follo ing ca e onl : (2014) d. The cha ac e of he good o defec in he packing o in he con aine
e. O de o ac of compe en p blic a ho i
f. A, B and C
g. B and C
. A,B,C,D,E
The elemen ha con i e a fo io a. The obligo m be f ee f om an pa icipa ion in he agg a a ion of he

e en a e a follo : (2014) inj o lo
b. I m be impo ible o fo e ee he e en ha con i e he ca o
fo i o o , if i can be fo e een, i m be impo ible o a oid
c. The occ ence m be ch a o ende i impo ible fo he deb o o
f lfill obliga ion in a no mal manne
d. The obligor must be free from an participation in the aggra ation of the
injur or loss (same as A)
e. A and B
f. A, B and C
g. A, B, C and D
h. None of he abo e
In o de fo mi ake o in alida e con en , i a. Refe o he b ance of he hing hich i he objec of he con ac

ho ld: (2014) b. Refer o he b ance of he hing hich i he objec of he
con rac or o ho e condi ion hich ha e principall mo ed one
or bo h par ie o en er in o he con rac
c. Refe o he b ance of he hing hich i he p o ima e ca e of he
con ac
d. Refe o ho e in ance hich mo e li igan o en e in o he con ac
e. Refe o ho e condi ion hich ha e p incipall mo ed one o bo h
pa ie o en e in o he con ac
f. Refe o he b ance of he hing hich i he objec of he con ac o
o he iden i o q alifica ion of he pa ie o he con ac
g. A and F
h. B and D
Wi h e pec o pa en , liabili i a. The fa her, hen he mo her, in ca e of he former dea h or

e abli hed a follo : (2014) incapaci are re pon ible for he damage ca ed b he minor
children ho li e in heir compan
b. Bo h he fa he and mo he a e e pon ible fo he damage ca ed b
mino child en ho li e in hei compan
c. The mo he i ne e e pon ible fo he damage ca ed b mino
child en ho li e in hei compan
d. The fa he alone i e pon ible fo he damage ca ed b mino
child en ho li e in hei compan
e. B onl
f. A and C
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
Which of he follo ing ac o ld no likel a. Mark and Jennil n en o ge a er; Mark fell do n and broke hi
e l in a o ? (2008, 2009) oe; Jennil n ran af er Jack and came do n mbling al o broke
her oe
b. Rochelle en drinking af er pa ing he bar. On he a o he
re room, he became na eo and omi ed all o er he face of
Jopa
c. Kim, hile a e ing he ga den an back o he ho e o an e he
phone, lea ing he ho e nning and oaking e Ge ald a d. No
kno ing ha he a d a e , Ge ald pla ed in hi a d and lipped,
inj ing hi mall oe
d. A & B onl
e. B & C onl
f. A & C onl
g. A, B & C
h. None of he abo e
When he e i a c iminal ac ion he ci il a. When here i a alid ai er

ac ion i impliedl in i ed, e cep : b. Re er a ion of a ci il ac ion
(2008,2009, ( nda ed ample 1)) c. Ac al in i ion of ci il ac ion
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. A, B & C
h. None of he abo e
The S a e i liable fo a q a i-delic : a. E e ime i commi a q a i-delic

(2008,2009) b. When he q a i-delic i commi ed b he official o hom he a k
done p ope l pe ain
c. When he a e official ac ion /omi ion in he pe fo mance of hi
al d ie i he p o ima e ca e
d. A&B
e. A&C
f. B&C
g. A, B & C
h. None of he abo e
Which of he follo ing a e fac hich m a. The ac o omi ion of he defendan , hich ac o omi ion i
be p o en in o de o hold defendan liable p ni hable b la
fo damage in a q a i-delic ca e: (2008) b. The damage ffered or inc rred b he plain iff
c. The ela ion of ca e and effec be een he ac o omi ion p ni hable
b la of he defendan and he damage inc ed b he plain iff
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. A, B & C
h. None of he abo e
The follo ing a e e of b idia liabili : a. T ec ec ed b e ee ed c a e f d e

( nda ed ample 1) NOT COVERED a e ee
b. J d e e a a e ee c c e ee e
c. E e ca e defe e f - e c f ee ee
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
The follo ing ho ld be p e en in a. Negligence of the actor
p o ima e ca e: ( nda ed ample 1) (*) b. Vol n a il ne of he ac o
c. Ca a c ec be ee e da a e a d e e e ac
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
The follo ing a e e i h ega d o a. Defendan ma ill be held liable if he had a la clea chance of
doc ine of la clea chance: ( nda ed a oiding inj
ample 1) b. La clea chance can be applied among join o fea o
c. I d e a f e a ff a e e
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
The follo ing a e e of join o fea o : a. J fea ae a d e ea ab e f e e

( nda ed ample 1) c
b. J fea ae ab e e da a e -aa
c. J fea a e eac ab e a c a
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
MCQ (From he nda ed ample from Ta hia):
A q a i-delic ma be defined a : (a) The fa l of a pe on, ho, b hi ac o omi ion, connec ed o

nconnec ed i h, b dependen on, an con ac al ela ion, ca e
damage o ano he pe on
(b) The negligence of a pe on, ho, b hi ac o omi ion, connec ed o
nconnec ed i h, b dependen f om, an con ac al ela ion, ca e
damage o ano he pe on
(c) The fa l o negligence of a pe on, ho, b hi ac o omi ion,
connec ed o nconnec ed i h, b independen f om, an con ac al
ela ion, ca e damage o ano he pe on
(d) The fa l or negligence of a per on, ho, b hi ac or omi ion,
connec ed i h, b independen from, an con rac al rela ion,
ca e damage o ano her per on.
Wha ac do q a i-delic incl de? (a) Ac , he he p ni hable b la o no p ni hable b la , he he

c iminal o no c iminal in cha ac e , he he in e na ional o ol n a
o negligen , hich e l in damage o ano he
(b) In e na ional ac , he he p ni hable b la o no p ni hable b la ,
he he c iminal o no c iminal in cha ac e , hich e l in damage
o ano he
(c) Ne e ac , e e c a c a c a ac e ,
e e e a a e e , c e
a e
(d) Vol n a ac , he he p ni hable b la o no p ni hable b la ,
c iminal in cha ac e , hich e l in damage o ano he
A c iminal ac ion a filed again a ck (a) Ye , beca e he inj ed pa i ing o eco e fo diffe en negligen
d i e . Can he emplo e o ne of he ck ac o omi ion
in ol ed in he acciden o be held (b) Ye , beca e e a e ed a a f eb c ab
a f ac e de A c e 100 f e RPC a d f e a
b idia il liable fo he damage a a ded
e a a e ac f a -de c de A . 2176
o he offended pa ie filed a epa a e ci il (c) No, beca e he inj ed pa ha he choice be een (a) an ac ion o
ac ion again he emplo e ck o ne ? enfo ce ci il liabili a i ing f om a c ime nde A icle 100 of he RPC
o (b) a epa a e ac ion fo q a i-delic nde A icle 2176
(d) No, beca e he agg ie ed pa ha al ead collec ed f om he ck
di e
In ac ion ba ed on q a i-delic , he pe on (a) He p o e ha he defendan in ended he ac

inj ed can eco e damage f om he (b) He e a e defe da a e e
defendan if (c) He p o e he e en of he damage
(d) He p o e he ca a ion be een he damage and he defendan ac
P o ima e ca e i defined a : (a) Tha ca e hich, in na al and con in o eq ence nb oken b

an efficien in e ening ca e, con ib e o he occ ence of he
inj
(b) The ela ion of ca e and effec be een he defendan negligence
and he damage o inj he ha inc ed
(c) Tha ca e hich, in na ral and con in o eq ence, nbroken
b an efficien in er ening ca e, bring abo he inj r
(d) The ela ion of ca e and effec be een he defendan negligence
and he damage o inj ha ha occ ed
If he negligence of he plain iff a me el (a) S ch negligence o ld no be a ba o eco e , and he amo n

con ib o o hi inj , he immedia e and eco e able hall be in f ll
p o ima e ca e of he acciden ca ing he (b) S ch negligence o ld no be a ba o eco e ,b he amo n
eco e able hall be cancelled b he co
inj being he defendan negligence,
(c) S ch negligence o ld no be a ba o eco e ,b he amo n
eco e able hall be do bled b he co
(d) S ch negligence o ld no be a bar o reco er , b he amo n
reco erable hall be mi iga ed b he co r
Whe e he plain iff opped o a ch he (a) A mp ion of i k canno be ed a a defen e beca ei a

defendan c e engaged in p ging a ol n a
pipeline i h a p e e ho e. And hen a (b) A mp ion of i k can be ed a a defen e beca ei a
in ol n a
connec ion b oke, ca ing he ho e o i e
(c) A mp ion of i k canno be ed a a defen e beca e he i k a
in he ai and hi l abo he plain iff an n ea onable
f om he place he e he a anding in o (d) A mp ion of i k can be ed a a defen e beca e he i k a
he pa h of an a omobile hich ck him, ea onable
An elec ic an mi ion i e hanging on (a) ABC i no liable beca e in c lpa aq iliana, he b den of p oof i on
he ode ca ed e en i e and e io A o e abli h ha he p o ima e ca e of hi inj a he negligence
damage o A. ABC di claimed liabili on of he ABC
(b) ABC i no liable beca e he dden pa ing of he b oken end co ld
he g o nd ha A had failed o ho an
no ha e been fo e een and a ine i able
pecific ac of negligence. (c) ABC i liable beca e he hing, hich ca ed he inj , i nde i
e cl i e con ol and he inj i ch a in he o dina co e of
hing doe no occ
(d) ABC i liable beca e i had he d o en e ha all i elec ic
an mi ion i e a e p ope l in alled and e en ho gh A co ld ha e
p e en ed i , ABC had he la oppo ni o a e he dange
In a do nhill lope, he ca d i en b D and (a) No, he con en ion i no enable. D a negligen in d i ing ha h
o ned b E ped be ond he a ho i ed he ca en fa e in i de cen
limi and b mped ano he ca . The claim (b) No, he con en ion i no enable. D a negligen in no checking he
b ake befo e a ing he ca
ha he ca b ake locked hence, i a a
(c) Ye , he con en ion i enable. I i no common kno ledge ha
fo i o e en e emp ing hem f om b ake of ca co ld be defec i e pon elea e b he man fac e
liabili . I hi con en ion enable? (d) Ye , he con en ion i enable. The e i no hing D co ld ha e done o
a oid he malf nc ion of he b ake em, hich i a fo i o e en
A i engaged in he b ine of appl ing (a) Ye , dea h e l ed f om hi po e ion of poi on

e mi e con ol o ho e . In he co e of (b) Ye , e ip a loq i applie
ea men , a child of he homeo ne died (c) No, beca e he e mi e con ol i (in)di pen able in hi b ine
(d) No, A i p e med o ha e e e ci ed he diligence of a good fa he of a
i h b bble in hi mo h. I he e p ima
famil
facie p e mp ion of negligence on he pa
of A?
Ab i h obbl heel and a ca (a) The b o ne i no liable o A beca e he ca had he la clea

collided. A, a pa enge of he b , a chance o a oid he acciden
inj ed and filed a claim of damage . D ing (b) The b o ne i no liable beca e he b obbl i e i no he
p o ima e ca e of he acciden
ial, i a p o en ha he ca had he la
(c) The ca o ne i no liable beca e al ho gh i had he la clea
clea chance o a oid he colli ion and he chance o a oid he acciden , aid doc ine i inapplicable o ca e
ca d i e eckle negligence in be een he pa enge and a common ca ie
p oceeding o o e ake he old b a he (d) All of he abo e
p o ima e ca e of he colli ion. Which of (e) None of he abo e
he follo ing a emen a e e?
Which of he follo ing a emen i /a e (a) A be een defendan , he doc ine canno be e ended in o he field
e ega ding he doc ine of la clea of join o fea o a a e of he he onl one of hem ho ld be held
chance. Choo e he be an e . liable o he inj ed pe on b ea on of hi di co e of he la e
pe il, and i canno be in oked a be een he defendan conc en l
negligen
(b) A again hi d pe on , a negligen ac o canno defend b pleading
ha ano he had negligen l failed o ake ac ion hich co ld ha e
a oided he inj
(c) Bo h A and B a e e
(d) Nei he A no B a e e
The e a a ehic la acciden be een A (a) Mo ion o di mi i denied beca e he ca e of ac ion again he
ca and B ck. B a peeding o a d i e and he o ne of he ck i diffe en f om he ca e of ac ion
a fa l . A ed he d i e and he o ne again he in e
(b) Mo ion o di mi i gran ed beca e A canno reco er ice from
nde A icle 2176. A al o ed he in e
he ame inciden
ba ed on he hi d pa liabili cla e in (c) Onl he ca e again he o ne hall be di mi ed beca e he o ne
he ck in ance con ac . A and he i he one ho p oc ed he in ance and ho ld he efo e benefi
in e en e ed in o a comp omi e. The f om he comp omi e
o ne and he d i e mo ed fo he (d) None of he abo e
di mi al of he ca e again hem, in oking
he comp omi e eached b A i h he
in e . Decide.
Which of he follo ing a emen i /a e (a) Bank a e eq i ed a all ime o e e ci e he highe deg ee of ca e
e ega ding he diligence eq i ed of beca e of he na e of i b ine
bank in handling banking an ac ion . (b) The fid ciar na re of heir rela ion hip i h heir depo i or
req ire bank o rea he acco n of heir clien i h he
Choo e he be an e .
highe degree of care
(c) Bank a e eq i ed o e e mo e han he diligence of a good fa he of
a famil in ega d o he ale and i ance of he bjec fo eign
e change demand d af e en ho gh i doe no in ol e he handling of
a c ome depo i i h he bank
(d) All of he abo e
(e) None of he abo e
(f) Bo h A and B a e e
(g) Bo h B and C a e e
(h) Bo h A and C a e e
D ing a chool field ip, he den ee (a) The chool i liable, beca e i a e e ci ing b i e pa en al
inj ed hen he ee ing heel of he b a ho i a he ime of he inj
he e e iding came off and he d i e lo (b) The d i e i liable beca e he a iola ing a affic le
(c) The o ne of he b i liable beca e he failed o e e ci e d e
con ol of he b . The b a o e he
diligence in pe i ion and elec ion of hi emplo ee
ma peed limi a ha ime. The ic im (d) A f e ab e
ed he chool, he d i e and he b (e) None of he abo e
o ne . Decide. (f) Bo h A and B a e e
(g) Bo h B and C a e e
(h) Bo h A and C a e e
Define and Di ing i h:
Doc ine of Con ib o Negligence and Con ib o Negligence i cond c on he pa of he inj ed pa ,

Doc ine of Imp ed Negligence (2009, con ib ing a a legal ca e o he ha m he ha ffe ed, hich fall
2008) belo he anda d o hich he i eq i ed o confo m fo hi o n
p o ec ion
He ho ld no be en i led o eco e damage in f ll b m
p opo iona el bea he con eq ence of hi o n negligence.
Imp ed Negligence (Doc ine of Vica io Liabili ) i he negligence
of a pe on ho i e pon ible fo he ac ion of ano he pe on.
Occ hen a pe on i no onl liable fo o commi ed
b him, b al o fo o commi ed b o he i h hom he
ha a ce ain ela ion hip and fo hom he i e pon ible.
Q a i-delic and C iminal offen e (2009, Elemen of a Q a i-delic :

2008) a. Damage o p ej dice p o en b he pa claiming i
b. Unla f l ac o omi ion amo n ing o fa l o negligence
c. Di ec and ca al connec ion be een he damage done and
he ac o omi ion
C iminal offen e
Q a i-delic and Q a i-Con ac (2015) Q a i-Delic - Whoe e b ac o omi ion ca e damage o ano he ,
he e being fa l o negligence, i obliged o pa fo damage done. The
pa ie in ol ed do no ha e an legal ela ion hip. Upon he
happening of he q a i-delic , he la ope a e a o c ea e a legal
ela ion hip.
Q a i-Con ac - The e i al ead a p e-e i ing obliga ion be een he
pa ie hich e abli he hei legal ela ion hip.
P oof of negligence and P e mp ion of P oof of negligence - a pe on claiming damage ha he b den of

negligence (2009) p o ing he e i ence of he fa l o negligence ca a i e he eof.
P e mp ion of negligence-
Re Ip a Loq i (managemen of ano he ) - The e i
p e mp ion of negligence if he hing hich ca ed he
inj i ho n o be nde he managemen of he
defendan and he acciden i ch a in he o dina co e
of hing doe no happen if ho e ho ha e he
managemen e p ope ca e.
Re pondea S pe io (Emplo e olida il liable fo
negligence of emplo ee ) - The e i p e mp ion of
negligence on he pa of he emplo e in he elec ion and
pe i ion of i emplo ee
Viola ion of affic le - The e i a p e mp ion of
negligence if a he ime of he acciden , he e a a iola ion
of an affic eg la ion
Vica io liabili and P ima liabili (2009) Vica io liabili - (Doc ine of Imp ed Negligence) - Occ hen a
pe on i no onl liable fo o commi ed b him, b al o fo o
commi ed b o he i h hom he ha a ce ain ela ion hip and fo
hom he i e pon ible.
P ima liabili - Obliga ion fo hich he pa i di ec l
liable/ e pon ible.
Po e o / e of animal
O ne of mo o ehicle
Man fac e and p oce o
M nicipal co po a ion
B ilding p op ie o
Enginee /a chi ec /con ac o
Con ib o negligence and negligence a Con ib o negligence - When he negligence a onl con ib o .
p o ima e ca e (2009) The immedia e and p o ima e ca e of he inj being he defendan
lack of d e ca e, he plain iff ma eco e damage , b he co hall
mi iga e he damage a a ded
Negligence a p o ima e ca e - When he plain iff o n negligence
a he immedia e and p o ima e ca e of hi inj , he canno
eco e damage .
Tha ca e, hich, in na al and con in o eq ence,
nb oken b an efficien in e ening ca e, p od ce he
inj and i ho hich he e l o ld no ha e occ ed.
Fo e eeabili f om p obabili ( nda ed Fo e eeabili - The abili o ea onabl an icipa e he po en ial e l

ample 1, 2014) of an ac ion, ch a he damage o inj ha ma happen if one i
negligen o b eache a con ac .
P obabili - Likelihood of an e en happening; ha hich i likel o
happen
Con ib o negligence f om comp l o Con ib o negligence - When he negligence a onl con ib o .

con ib o negligence ( nda ed ample 1, The immedia e and p o ima e ca e of he inj being he defendan
2014) lack of d e ca e, he plain iff ma eco e damage , b he co hall
mi iga e he damage a a ded
Comp l o con ib o negligence - Negligence on he pa of he
plain iff hich con ib e no onl o hi o n inj b al o o ha of
he e en ca ing ch inj . Thi pe of negligence e emp he
defendan comple el f om liabili . (Ta hia)
P o ima e ca e f om conc en ca e P o ima e ca e - A happening hich e l in an e en , pa ic la l

( nda ed ample 1, 2014) inj d e o negligence o an in en ional ongf l ac .
Tha ca e, hich, in na al and con in o eq ence,
nb oken b an efficien in e ening ca e, p od ce he
inj and i ho hich he e l o ld no ha e occ ed.
Conc en ca e - A e e en occ ing im l aneo l o p od ce a
gi en e l . The a e con empo aneo , b ei he e en alone o ld
b ing abo he effec ha occ .
C lpa aq iliana o c lpa con ac al C lpa Aq iliana -- fa l all a i ing f om a q a i-delic

( nda ed ample 1, 2014) S b an i e and independen fa l
A o ce of obliga ion in i elf
Go e ned b A . 2176
C lpa Con ac al -- fa l a an inciden in he pe fo mance of a
p e-e i ing con ac
Tho e ho in he pe fo mance of hei obliga ion , a e g il
of f a d, negligence, o dela , and ho e ho in an manne
con a ene he eno he eof, a e liable fo damage .
Go e ned b :
A . 1170
A . 1172
A . 1173
C lpa Aq iliana C lpa Con rac al
To eco e damage , i i nece a To eco e damage , i i fficien o

o p o e fa l o negligence on he p o e ha he e a a con ac and
pa of he ca ie ha he obliga ion a i ing f om i a
iola ed o no complied i h
The plain iff ha he b den of Once he e i a b each of con ac ,

p o ing ha he defendan a he e i a p e mp ion ha he
negligen defendan a a fa l o negligen .
The b den i on he defendan o
p o e ha he a no a fa l o
negligen
Doc ine of La Clea Chance (2014) Negligence of he plain iff doe no p ecl de a eco e fo he
negligence of he defendan he e i appea ha he defendan b
e e ci ing ea onable ca e and p dence migh ha e a oided inj io
con eq ence o he plain iff no i h anding plain iff negligence
The pe on i h he la clea chance o a oid he acciden b ho did
no do o i con ide ed in la a he one olel e pon ible fo he
con eq ence fo he acciden
Doc ine of No Do ble Reco e (2014) A . 2177:

Re pon ibili fo fa l o negligence nde he p eceding a icle i
en i el epa a e and di inc f om he ci il liabili a i ing f om he
negligence nde he Penal Code
Plain iff canno eco e damage ice fo he ame ac o omi ion of
he defendan .
Vica io Liabili (2015) Vica io liabili - (Doc ine of Imp ed Negligence) - Occ hen a
pe on i no onl liable fo o commi ed b him, b al o fo o
commi ed b o he i h hom he ha a ce ain ela ion hip and fo
hom he i e pon ible.
Pa en and g a dian
O ne and manage of en e p i e
Emplo e
Sae
Teache /Head of e abli hmen
Tho gh le e a agance in ime of ac e A icle 25. Tho gh le e a agance in e pen e fo plea e o

p blic an o eme genc (2015) di pla d ing a pe iod of ac e p blic an o eme genc ma be
opped b o de of he co a he in ance of an go e nmen o
p i a e cha i able in i ion.
Fi , he e m be an ac e p blic an o eme genc .
Second, he e m be a ho gh le e a agance in
e pen e fo plea e o di pla .
Thi d, onl go e nmen o p i a e cha i able in i ion co ld
file he ac ion eeking o op he ho gh le e a agance.
Elemen nece a fo fo ce maje e o The ca e i independen of he deb o /obligo ill

appl a a defen e (2009) Unfo e eeable o na oidable e en
Happening of he e en made i impo ible fo he deb o /obligo o
f lfill hi obliga ion in a no mal manne
Deb o didn ake ad an age of he e en o agg a a e he inj o he
c edi o /obligee
Elemen nece a fo eache and head Teache o head of e abli hmen of a and ade hall be liable
of chool o be ica io l liable (2009) fo damage ca ed b hei p pil and den o app en ice , o
long a he emain in hei c od
Applie onl hen he den /p pil emain in he c od of
he eache ince he a e ac ing in l oco parentis
Applie hen inj ie a e ca ed b he den , and no b
o ide
Elemen eq i i e fo he applica ion of Acciden i of a kind hich o dina il doe no occ in he ab ence of
doc ine of e ip a loq i (2009, 2015) omeone negligence
In men ali i hin he e cl i e con ol of defendan
Po ibili of con ib ing cond c hich o ld make he plain iff
e pon ible i elimina ed
Tr e or Fal e (2008,2009)
The doc ine of res ipsa loquitur di pen e i h he eq i emen of p oof TRUE
of c lpable negligence on he pa cha ged
The p e mp ion ha o ne and manage a e e pon ible fo TRUE

damage ca ed b hei emplo ee ei he in he elec ion o in he
pe i ion of he emplo ee ma be o e come onl b a i fac o il
ho ing ha he emplo e e e ci ed he ca e and diligence of a good
fa he of a famil in he elec ion and pe i ion of ch emplo ee
The negligence and eckle ne of a d i e of a pa enge jeepne i TRUE

binding again i egi e ed o ne engaged a a common ca ie
In ca e he e a negligen ac gi e i e o ci il liabili a i ing f om TRUE

c ime (c lpa c iminal) and ano he a i ing f om ci il negligence (c lpa
con ac al and aq iliana), an e one a ion in one doe no e l in
e one a ion f om he o he
Emplo er liabili ba ed on a q a i-delic i merel b idiar ,

hile he emplo er liabili ba ed on a delic i primar and direc
When a ehicle i lea ed o hi d pe on , he egi e ed o ne can no FALSE

longe be deemed o be p ima il liable fo he dea h , inj ie o
damage ca ed b he e of he ame
When a e el i in he po e ion of hi d pe on , he o ne of he FALSE

e el can no longe be deemed o be liable fo he na al and
p o ima e damage a i ing f om i negligen na iga ion and managemen
In an ac ion fo b each of con ac of ca iage, he agg ie ed pa doe TRUE

no ha e o p o e ha he common ca ie a a fa l o negligen . All
ha i nece a o p o e i he e i ence of he con ac and he fac of
i non-pe fo mance b he ca ie
Neglec o malfea ance of a ca ie emplo ee gi e g o nd fo an TRUE

ac ion of damage
I i a defen e a ailable fo common ca ie in ca e of dea h o inj ie FALSE

o pa enge ha he e e no emi in he elec ion and pe i ion
of hei emplo ee
A mp ion of i k i a p e mp ion in he la on To FALSE
E a (From Ta hia):
A and B en o o b beer in 2000. A a dri ing he car. Unkno n o B, A dri er licen e i e pired. A and
B con med 5 bo le of beer and he hi a lamp po . B broke hi arm. B a oided A for being a bad infl ence.
Fi e ear la er, B di co ered ha A licen e a e pired hen he hi he lamp po . B ed for damage. A
rai ed he defence of a mp ion of ri k. Decide.
Defence of a mp ion of i k can be ed hen he e i a ol n a a mp ion of i k of ha m a i ing f om he
negligen cond c of he defendan o f om he na e of he obliga ion i elf. I p e ppo e an in en ional
e po e o a kno n pe il. B d inking 5 bo le of bee befo e d i ing, he e a al ead an in en ional
e po e o a kno n pe il con ide ing ha he ill be d i ing home af e a d .
While dri ing her car in hea raffic, S ephanie i di rac ed b a di c ion he i ha ing a pa enger, Nicole,
and a a re l rike a r ck being dri en b Darren. (2007, 2014)
If Da en i inj ed, can he ba e a claim fo negligence again S ephanie?
Ye nde q a i delic . En me a e eq i i e of q a i delic he e.
A me Da en ck con ained je ocke f el, and he colli ion e of an e plo ion, inj ing Ma in, a
pede ian. I S ephanie bjec o liabili fo Ma in inj ie ?
If Da en ob e ed nece a diligence and p o ed ch, S ephanie i liable. She i he p o ima e
ca e.
While a Beng e , Mario and a companion ere repairing he ire of heir cargo r ck hich a parked along he
righ ide of he Na ional High a . Maria r ck, dri en reckle l b Man el b mped Mario and a a re l ,
Mario a inj red and ho pi ali ed. I a e abli hed d ring rial ha an earl arning de ice in he form of
ligh ened Kero ene lamp a he back of he r ck placed b Mario. Maria aid an immobile objec along he
high a , like a parked r ck, po e erio danger o mo ing ehicle, hich ha he righ o be on he high a .
(2007, 2014)
I Ma ia co ec ?
Inco ec , Ma io ook he nece a p eca ion of placing an ea l a ning de ice. In a ca e, he one
ho b mped he ea i he one ho i o be p e med negligen . Ma ia i liable ince he i he
o ne of he ck.
Arianne i he ido of Man el r ing o reco er damage from Mar in from an inciden ppo edl ca ed b
he la er. Mar in he k chero opped hi hor e, en o he ide of he rode o fi he hor e ha e er on he
mo h and a commo ion en ed hich frigh ened he hor e. Man el a riding a carroma a hen he hor e ran
a a and o Man el j mped o hile mo ing and ained inj rie . He e en all died. Wido blame Mar in
he dri er for Man el dea h. Mar in denied ha hi ac con rib ed o Man el dea h. (2007, 2014)
I Ma in co ec ?
Co ec . The e e e al ead a lo of in e ening ca e ie. he coming of he ho e b idle,
commo ion, j mping of Man el.
There e i a pa enger of a b ha collided i h a car dri en b JV, d e o he negligence of bo h he dri er and
JV. Af er a fe momen , b a r ck again b Sid negligen dri ing. There e i paral ed b impo ible o
de ermine hich one ca ed i . (2007)
Can he eco e f om B Co, JV and/o Sid?
B co Ba ed on con ac of ca iage
JV and Sid Ye ba ed on q a i delic .
Gian en ered he cro alk a an in er ec ion hile reading a ne paper. He didn reali e he a alking
again a raffic ignal and in o oncoming raffic. (2007)
Ja ie a d i ing i h e ce i e peed. She glanced a a o ligh he ciga e e o he hi Gian ncon cio .
A me ha Gian looked p he o ld e een Ja ie ca coming. I Ja ie liable?
YES. Negligen d i ing b Ja ie i he p o ima e ca e.
Doc ine of la clea chance: Ja ie had he la oppo ni o a oid inj b e e ci ing d e
diligence.
Ja ie i p e med negligen fo iola ing affic le .
Mi iga ed ho gh beca e Gian p o ima e negligence = c o ing i ho aking nece a
p eca ion.
Q e : When negligen pag e ce i e?
Same fac , e cep a me Ja ie a a eling o fa , and ee a oo na o , ha e en if Gian had
looked p, he o ldn ha e go en o of he a in ime. I Ja ie liable?
Ye . T a eling a a fa peed in a na o ee , ac ed negligen l in failing o ob e e d e diligence.
Thea, minor of 10 ear of age, ho Sheila Ong i h an air rifle ca ing inj rie hich re l ed o her dea h. Ci il
complain for damage a filed. Pe i ion o adop Thea a filed and gran ed. I i alleged ha he adop ing
paren are he one liable no for Thea. (2007)
I ha co ec ?
NO. A . 2180 (2) fa he , mo he in ca e of he dea h o incapaci of he fo me .
A he ime of he hoo ing, Thea a ill li ing i h Spo e Jimene no he adop e .
Req i i e o hold pa en liable
C agreed o ell o parcel of land o M. C deli ered he ran fer cer ifica e . M i ed po da ed check b no
fficien l f nded. Con eq en l , M a able o mor gage he land o XYZ Bank and he in ol emen of par ie
ho iden ified hem el e a po e of C ho ing re iden cer ifica e of C and he la er po e. The loan
a no paid h XYZ bank e ra-j diciall foreclo ed he mor gage. C ro e XYZ ha he e ec ion of mor gage
a i ho heir a hori and req e ed o ann l he mor gage. XYZ proceeded i h he a c ion ale. A pe i ion
for ann lmen of mor gage a filed b C. (2009)
Ma he allega ion of C be ained? E plain.
I he bank liable o C? Wha i he na e of he liabili , if he e an ?
I he doc ine of la clea chance applicable in he in an ca e? If e . S a e he in ance. If no, ha
pa ic la doc ine ma be deemed applicable?
Prince of he S n Line pa enger b collided i h a ric cle ca ing e ere damage o he ric cle and
erio ph ical inj rie o he plain iff ric cle dri er T h making him nable o alk and becoming di abled,
i h hi h mb and middle finger on he lef hand being o . T filed a complain for damage again o ner of he
b line MLE, her h band A . MBA, and b dri er F. The complain alleged here a a lo do n ign
near he cene of he inciden . (2009)
E plain he na e and e en of he liabili ie of he pa ie
Will he ca e again MLE and he h band p o pe ? E plain.
RFV compan commenced he con r c ion of a eel fabrica ion plan a he Ba anga Ba in an area adjacen o
he real proper of pri a e re ponden . DSL alleged ha d ring he on-going con r c ion of he plan , RFV
per onnel and hea eq ipmen re pa ed in o hi land and damaged big por ion of DSL proper hich
ere f r her ed b RFV a a depo or parking lo i ho pa ing an ren herefor, nor doe heir land e a
i h he former conformi .
Nece i a ing dredging opera ion a he Ba anga Ba , he ea il and a er o erflo ed and ere depo i ed
pon heir land. Con eq en l , he aid proper hich ed o be agric l ral land principall de o ed o rice
prod c ion co ld no longer be plan ed i h pala .
RFV denied all allega ion . I alleged ha he ea il o erflo a d e o he flood bro gh b T phoon R fo.
(2009)
Decide
Sam i a credi card holder b he Credi Card E pre Compan (CCEC) i h an e en ion card in he
name of hi e ranged ife, Dioni ia, alread re iding in he US. I a fo nd ha he e en ion card a
ed for Php 90,123.45 for hich CCEC filed a collec ion ca e af er Sam ref ed o pa aid npaid charge .
Sam denie e er ha ing applied for, m ch le recei ing he e en ion card. (2009)
Sho ld Same be liable fo he p cha e made ing he e en ion ca d? Wh ?

B ron Tran i B o ned and regi ered n he name of B ron Tran i Compan and hen dri er b he
Compan reg lar dri er Kendrik Bela co ried o o er ake an Ahead Cargo Tr ck dri en b Pa rick Ja reg i
forcing he la er o er e o he righ ho lder. A oon a Pa rick occ pied he righ lane of he road, hi cargo
r ck a hi b he B ron b on i lef fron lane ide, a he b er ed o he cargo r ck lane o a oid an
incoming b on he oppo i e direc ion. (2009)
Who ho ld be liable in hi ehic la colli ion and h ?
Wha i he po ible defen e of he e pon ible pa , if an ?
A a icab o ned and opera ed b Ken Ta i Co. and ano her one o ned and opera ed b Broom Ta i Co. collided
Ma erick, a pa enger of Broom Ta i Co., a inj red. A criminal ac ion a commenced again bo h
dri er (2008)
I he e a need fo Ma e ick o e e e hi igh o in i e a ci il ac ion epa a el ?
If Ma e ick e e o claim damage again Ken Ta i Co. and B oom Ta i Co., can he claim b im l aneo l
a ailing he p o i ion of (1) he Ci il Code on c lpa aq iliana and/o c lpa con ac al, and (2) he RPC (culpa
criminal)?
I he emed of d e diligence in he elec ion and pe i ion of hei d i e a ailable o bo h Ken Ta i Co.
and B oom Ta i Co.? E plain.
Mr . Pe relli, a ido , a dri ing her car in a caref l manner hen ddenl i er ed o he lef and cra hed
in o I aac parked car. I aac, a pain er, had parked in he rong direc ion on he lef -hand ide of he ree in
iola ion of a local ordinance. he car er ed beca e S lar [made repair ] had negligen l a embled he
eering appara af er orking on he car. X bo h car badl damaged. Mr . Pe relli recei ed a e ere blo
on he head. While e rica ing her elf from her car, Mr . Pe relli fel and ac ed di inc l grogg beca e of he
blo o her head. I aac bro gh Mr . Pe relli o he Police for hi ing him. (2008)
Wha a e he igh of he ca io pa ie ? Di c .
While dri ing o Whi e Ca le, Harold car collided i h ano her car dri en b Neil Pa rick Harri (NPH).
In e iga ion ho ed ha Harold a defini el a fa l , he ac being he pro ima e ca e of he acciden . NPH
car ffered P150,000 damage . In e iga ion al o ho ed ha NPH car had no b mper a he ime of he
colli ion beca e NPH car had no b mper a he ime of he colli ion beca e NPH mechanic, K mar, failed
o replace he broken b mper d e o lack of pare par . NPH e Harold and K mar. (2008)
Wha a e he igh of he a io pa ie ? Di c .
Li le Charlie, age 2, a fo nd dead. Hi dea h a a rib ed o he bi e of he dog of hi neighbor, Jarred he
Gang er The inj r ook place in he ho e of Jarred la e fa her, hile Jarred a pla ing i h hi child.
X Li le Charlie a di charged [from ho pi al] af er 9 da b a re-admi ed one eek la er d e o omi ing
ali a. Li le Charlie died he follo ing da d e o broncopne monia. X Jarred con end ha he canno be
held re pon ible a he i no he o ner of he ho e nor of he dog lef b hi la e fa her a he fa her e a e
ha no e been par i ioned and here are o her heir o he proper . (2008)
Who i liable fo he dea h of Li le Cha lie? E plain.
a 3am, Dingdong a dri ing a il er 2008 To o a FJ Cr i er . He a i h a friend. He ddenl no iced
ha ome hing a rong i h hi ire ire ere indeed fla He parked along he ide alk, p on
emergenc ligh and en o he rear of he car o open he r nk he a ddenl b mped b a hi e 2008
BMW X3 being dri en b Richard and regi ered nder he Bench Te ile , Inc. (emplo er of Richard). Dingdong
a hro n again he ind hield of Richard ca. He a p lled from nder Richard car i h hi lef leg
amp a ed. He had o be fi ed i h an ar ificial leg. He filed for damage for P5M or q a i-delic .
Richard aid he a no negligen . He aid a car from he oppo i e direc ion a high pped a i h er
brigh ligh hich emporaril blinded him o he er ed o he righ ere Dingdon a . According o Richard,
Dingdong FJ Cr i er a i ho emergenc ligh ; ha he place a poorl ligh ed; and ha he FJ Cr i er
a diagonall parked (pro r ding). (2008)
Can Richa d be held liable? E plain.

2016 Mid erms
1. Damages mean:
a. Tha hich he co r a ards as pec niar compensa ion for a rong s s ained as a
conseq ence of ac s no amo n ing o a legal inj r or rong
b. Ac ionable loss, h r , or hard hich res l s from he nla f l ac , omission, or negligence of
ano her
c. T a c ca b a a a
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
2. Which of he follo ing is/are r e?

a. In c lpa acq iliana, once he plain iff pro es a breach of con rac , here is a pres mp ion of
fa l or negligence on he par of he defendan
b. A pre-e is ing con rac al rela ion be een he par ies does no precl de he e is ence of a
c lpa acq iliana.
c. In order o reco er damages based on c lpa acq iliana, i is necessar o pro e fa l or
negligence..
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
. B&C
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
3. Which of he follo ing is/are r e in rela ion o he No Do ble Reco er R le?

a. Acq i al from an acc sa ion of criminal negligence shall be a bar o a s bseq en ci il
ac ion for damages d e o a q asi-delic
b. There is do ble reco er hen he basis of one ac ion is c lpa con rac al hile he o her is
a delic
c. An ac or omission hich is e ra-con rac al in na re and ca sing damage o ano her,
here being fa l or negligence, can crea e o separa e ci il liabili ies hich can be bo h
claimed
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
. N ab
4. Which of he follo ing is/are r e abo negligence?

a. I is a rela i e or compara i e concep and i s applica ion depend pon he si a ion
b. The la req ires ha all indi id als obser e e raordinar diligence a all imes
c. Negligence of an obligor in he performance of his obliga ion renders him liable for
damages for he res l ing loss s ffered b he obligee
d. A & B onl
. A&C
Tor s: Ti ala a Tample
1
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
5. The req isi e/s of Respondea S perior is/are:

a. The acciden is of kind hich ordinaril does no occ r in he absence of someone s
negligence
b. I is ca sed b an ins r men ali i hin he e cl si e con rol of he defendan /s
c. The possibili of con rib ing cond c hich o ld make he plain iff responsible is
elimina ed
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
. N ab
6. Alb s o ns a f rni re man fac ring shop adjacen o he residence of Bella ri . Bella ri req es ed
Alb s se eral imes o cons r c a fire all s fficien l complian i h per inen ci ordinances, b
Alb s ne er b il one. One da , a fire broke o in Alb s shop and spread o Bella ri s ho se. The
ca se of he fire as ne er disco ered. Is Alb s liable for negligence res l ing o he fire?
a. Yes, nder he concep of Pro ima e Ca se
b. Y , c R I aL
c. Yes, nder he doc rine of Respondea S perior
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
7. Which of he follo ing s a emen /s is/are r e abo he Doc rine of Res Ipsa Loq i r?
a. The doc rine can be in oked onl hen direc e idence is absen and no readil a ailable
b. The b rden o o ercome he pres mp ion of negligence res s on he defendan
c. I li erall means he hing speaks of negligence
. A&B
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
8. Which of he follo ing is/are false abo he doc rine of Respondea S perior
a. W a c ca a a a , a
a a c c c a
b. To a oid liabili , he emplo er m s presen con incing proof ha he e ercised he care

and diligence of a good fa her of a famil in he selec ion and s per ision of his emplo ee
c. An emplo er canno escape liabili if he complainan fails o allege ha he former failed o
e ercise he req ired diligence in he selec ion and s per ision of i s emplo ees
d. A & B onl
2
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
9. Which of he follo ing is/are e cep ion/s o he general r le ha common carriers are responsible
for he loss, des r c ion or de eriora ion of he goods?
a. Order or ac of compe en p blic a hori
b. Ac of he p blic enem in ar, he her in erna ional or ci il
c. Charac er of he goods or defec s in he packing or in he con ainers
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
. A ab
h. None of he abo e
10. Siri s as ra elling on board his ric cle hile L ci s as dri ing he Riddle, In. deli er an.
L ci s s opped his an beca se he no iced o ehicles racing on he opposi e side of he road.
Wi ho ai ing for he clo d of d s b he racing ehicles o se le, L ci s made a sharp lef rn
o ards Pri e Dri e. This as hen Siri s ric cle, speeding oo closel behind he ehicle he as
follo ing, s ddenl emerged from he d s and smashed head-on agains he an. Siri s died from
he se ere inj ries he s s ained. Which of he follo ing can be a defense for L ci s?
a. C b N c
b. Emergenc R le
c. Las clear chance
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
11. The doc rine of Las Clear chance has he follo ing elemen s e cep :
a. The Plain iff is placed in danger b his or her o n negligen ac s and is nable o ge o of
he si a ion hro gh an means
b. T D a a Pa a a c a
a Pa a ab a
c. The Defendan had he las clear chance o a oid he impending harm or inj r hro gh he
e ercise of d e diligence, b failed o do so
d. S ch fail re is he pro ima e ca se of inj r
e. All of he abo e
f. None of he abo e
g. B and C
h. C and D
12. As a general r le, no one can be held liable for a for i o s e en . This r le, ho e er, has i s
e cep ions s ch as:
a. When i is e pressl s a ed in he con rac
b. When he obliga ion s na re req ires he ass mp ion of risk
3
c. When he la e pressl sa s so
. A ab
e. None of he abo e
f. A and C
g. A and B
h. B and C
13. A and B ere o ners of b ses sed as school ser ice for gradeschool s den s. The hired a ne
dri er, C, o be one of heir school ser ice dri ers and has been in heir ser ice for a eek. One da ,
a gro p of choir members hired heir ranspor a ion ser ices for a rip o heir singing compe i ion in
Bicol. C dro e hem from Manila o Bicol sing one of he b ses of A and B. When nigh ime came,
he ere on a slipper high a and he came pon a sharp c r e hile he b s as r nning a
er high speed. S ddenl , he b s hi a large ree ca sing inj ries o C and mos of he
passengers. The members of he choir s ed A and B. Which of he follo ing s a emen s is r e?
a. A and B are negligen , failed o e ercise he diligence of a good fa her of a famil in he
selec ion and s per ision of heir emplo ee
b. A and B are no negligen and canno be fa l ed for he negligence of C.
c. C dro e he b s negligen l and sho ld be like ise be held liable for he inj ries of he
passengers
d. C sho ld no be held liable for ha happened beca se he as onl performing a ser ice
hich his emplo ers, A and B, asked him o do.
e. None of he abo e.
f. A and B
. Aa C
h. B and C
14. Banks are req ired o obser e

a. U mos diligence
b. Ordinar Diligence
c. E a a c
d. Diligence of a good fa her of a famil
e. None of he abo e
f. A and D
g. B and C
h. C and D
15. Righ s ma be ai ed, nless

a. Wai er is con rar o la
b. COn rar o p blic order
c. Con rar o p blic polic
d. Con rar o morals
e. Con rar o good c s oms
f. Prej dicial o a hird person i h a righ recogni ed b he la
. A ab
h. Righ s canno be absol el ai ed
16. The follo ing req isi es m s conc r for li is penden ia o be in oked:
a. Iden i of he par ies or iden i of in eres s in bo h ac ions
4
b. Iden i of righ s and reliefs, fo nd on he same fac s
c. Iden i of s bjec ma er
d. Iden i of he o cases sho ld be ha regardless of he j dgmen rendered in a pending
case, o ld amo n o res j dica a in he o her.
e. All of he abo e
f. B, C and D
g. A, C and D
. A, B a D
17. Damn m absq e inj ria means

a. Damages or loss ca sed b he ac ions of a person ho as ac ing i ho an legal basis
b. Da a a a c a a
c a
c. Damage or loss from a iola ion of a person s righ s ca sing inj r o ano her
d. Damage res l ing from a legi ima e e ercise of a righ is a loss for hich he la gi es a
remed
e. None of he abo e
f. A and B
g. B and C
h. B and D
18. These are he req isi es for an o ner or manager of an es ablishmen o be held liable for he
damage ca sed b heir emplo ees
a. The ac m s ha e been done b ir e of his emplo men or on he occasion of his or her
f nc ion
b. E is ence of an emplo er-emplo ee rela ionship
c. The emplo er m s ha e a hori ed he ac ions of he emplo ee
d. The emplo ee m s ha e an e is ing con rac i h he emplo er
e. All of he abo e
. Aa b
g. A B and C
h. A and D
19. Which of he follo ing s a emen s is/are r e?

a. Emplo ers shall no be liable for he damage ca sed b heir emplo ee or ho se helper
ac ing i hin he scope of heir assigned asks
b. Emplo ers shall be liable for he damage ca sed b heir emplo ee or ho se helper ac ing
i hin he scope of heir assigned asks
c. Whene er an emplo ee s negligence ca ses damage or inj r o ano her, he pres mp ion
ha he emplo er failed o e ercise diligence of a good fa her of he famil in he selec ion
or s per ision of i s emplo ees arises
d. Whene er an emplo ee s negligence ca ses damage or inj r o ano her, he pres mp ion
ha he emplo er failed o e ercise e raordinar diligence in he selec ion or s per ision of
i s emplo ees arises.
e. None of he abo e
f. A and C
. Ba c
h. B and D
5
20. Q asi-delic or inj r o he righ s of he plain iff m s be ins i ed i hin
a. 5 ears
b. 4 a
c. 1 ear
d. 3 ears
e. 5 mon hs
f. 4 mon hs
g. 1 mon h
h. 3 mon hs
21. The S a e canno be s ed i ho i s consen , e cep :

a. Ac s hro gh an agen
b. When he S a e en ers in o a con rac i h a pri a e person
c. When i is performing proprie ar f nc ions
d. Ac s hro gh a special agen
e. A, B&
f. A, C & D
g. C & D
. B, C & D
22. Pedro killed his classma e Kim b firing a g n a him inside he a di ori m of heir academic school.
Amadora s paren s filed a ci il s i for damages agains he school s rec or, high school principal,
dean and he eacher in charge. Who shall be liable?
a. High School principal
b. Rec or
c. T ac - -c a
d. Dean
e. A & B
f. A & C
g. A & D
23. The possessor of an animal or hoe er ma make se of he same is responsible for he damage
hich i ma ca se, e cep :
a. When he animal ca sed he damage i h ano her animal
b. Force maje re
c. Fa l of he inj red/damaged person
d. No fa l of he inj red/damaged person
e. A & B
f. B & D
g. C & D
. B&C
24. In mo or ehicle mishaps, he o ner is solidaril liable i h he dri er if:

a. He as no he real o ner of he ehicle
b. He co ld ha e, hro gh d e diligence, pre en ed he misfor ne
c. He as in he ehicle
d. The ehicle mishap as ca sed b force maje re
6
e. A&B
f. A&B
. B&C
h. B&D
25. A prod c is defec i e hen i does no offer he safe righ f ll e pec ed of i , aking rele an
circ ms ances in o considera ion b no limi ed o:
a. Presen a ion of prod c
b. Use and ha ards reasonabl e pec ed of i
c. The ime i as p in o circ la ion
. A, b a c
e. A and b
f. A and c
g. C and d
26. The man fac rer, b ilder, prod cer or impor er shall no be held liable hen i e idences:
a. Tha i did no place he prod c on he marke
b. I s prod c is be er q ali hen compared o o her compe ing prod c s
c. Tha al ho gh i did place he prod c on he marke s ch prod c has no defec
d. Tha he cons mer or a hird par is solel a fa l
e. A, b and c
. A, c a
g. B, c and d
h. C and d

7
2007/2012 Finals
1. The follo ing is/are r e of Modera e Damages

a. I is damages more han nominal b less han compensa or
b. Pec niar loss is presen and amo n cer ain in al e
c. M s al a s be j s and reasonable
d. A & B onl
. A&C
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
2. The follo ing ac s shall make one liable for in erference in con rac al rela ions
a. Before b ing a second hand car Y anna ga e arning in good fai h o Camille hich
pre en ed her from b ing he second hand car
b. Rac a ac a Pa c 1M a ,S a c
Rac b ac a ab b a a 1.5M ca
c. Rosal n and Celes e ere in a rade fair bo h selling cars of differen make and model and
in he desire o reach heir q o as bo h fi er heir bo h bea if ll o a rac more b ers (sp)
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
3. Which of he follo ing s a emen s is/are r e

a. When o ha e a ci il ac ion filed a s cceeding criminal ac ion ill s spend he ci il ac ion
b. Once a criminal ac ion is filed he reser ed ci il ac ion can ne er be filed n il final
resol ion of he criminal ac ion
c. Yo canno consolida e o r ci il and criminal ac ions
. A&B
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
4. The follo ing is/are elemen s of nj s enrichmen

a. Enrichmen is d e o loss of damages o he plain iff
b. There e is s a legal ca se for enrichmen
c. Plain iff s ffered loss or damages
d. A & B onl
. A&C
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
5. The follo ing s a emen s are r e

a. C ab a c a ab a b a C C
8
b. Ci il obliga ion from criminal offenses shall be go erned b penal la s
c. All criminal offenses gi e rise o ci il liabili
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
6. A orne s fees can be reco ered in he follo ing

a. In ac ions for c s od and s ppor of minor children
b. In ac ions for reco er of ages
c. In ac ions here here as an a ard for e emplar damages
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
. A ab
h. None of he abo e
7. The follo ing s a emen s on Respondea S perior is/are r e

a. I is a doc rine of s ric l imp ed liabili
b. Emplo er is liable beca se of his o n ac s and or omissions
c. D c c a a
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
8. The follo ing is/are r e of Malicio s Prosec ion

a. Informa ion as filed agains plain iff
b. Defendan filed he case agains plain iff i h malice and bad fai h
c. There as presence of probable ca se agains he plain iff
. A&B
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
9. In reco ering moral damages, he follo ing ma be considered

a. Sen imen al al e of real proper
b. Degree of s ffering
c. Poli ics, social and financial s a s of bo h plain iff and defendan
. A&B (2012)
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
. A ab (2007)
h. None of he abo e

9
10. The follo ing is r e of Nominal damages
a. The co r ma a ard nominal damages in e er case here an proper righ has been
in aded
b. Nominal is gi en in addi ion o moral damages
c. In an a ard for nominal damage he damage s ffered m s be pro en
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
. N ab
11. The follo ing is r e of e emplar damages

a. E emplar damages is reco erable as a ma er of righ
b. In a arding e emplar damages in q asi delic s here m s be negligence on he par of
he defendan
c. In criminal cases e emplar damages ma be gran ed hen he crime as commi ed i h
one or more aggra a ing circ ms ances
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
12. The follo ing damages ma be a arded join l

a. Ac al damages, nominal damages, e emplar damages
b. Ac al damages, moral damages, e emplar damages
c. Liq ida ed damages, e emplar damages, a orne s fees
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
. B&C
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
13. Vilma is a na ional sales manager for Lo eless Cosme ics and is emplo ed a a salar of P
5,000/mon h. Cl eless, a compe i or of Lo eless, offers o do ble Vilma s salar if she ill come o
ork for hem; she accep s. Which of an of he follo ing s a emen s are r e?
a. An ac ion for ind cing breach of con rac canno be main ained beca se Vilma s
emplo men as erminable b her a ill
b. The fac ha Vilma s con rac as erminable a ill is rele an o he meas re of damages,
if Lo eless is en i led o reco er
c. Cl eless as pri ileged o ind ce Vilma o ermina e her con rac i h Lo eless
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
14. The follo ing is/are r e on specifica ion of damages

10
a. A a a a c ca a a b a a a
b. Yo ma amend o r complain and damages a an ime
c. The Co r ma s ill a ard damages no specified in bod or pra er of pleading
d. A & B onl
. A&C (2007)
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
15. In reco ering ac al damages he follo ing m s be presen

a. Compensa ion m s be on pec niar loss
b. The loss m s be pro en
c. The con rac m s be alid
. A&B
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
16. Decena (Emplo er) finds his cash dra er rifled and acc ses Cagimbal (Emplo ee) of ha ing aken
he mone . Cagimbal denies i . Decena here pon calls he police and has Cagimbal arres ed on a
hef charge. Ho e er, he charges agains Cagimbal are s bseq en l dismissed for malicio s
prosec ion. Which of he follo ing s a emen s, if an , are r e?
a. T ac b ca Ca ba a ac c a c a
a a
b. The b rden is on Cagimbal o pro e ha Decena ins i ed he ac ion agains him for some
p rpose o her han bringing a g il person o j s ice
c. The b rden is on Cagimbal o pro e ha Decena had no hones or reasonable belief in g il
hen she called police
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
17. The follo ing is/are r e of damages

a. Indemnifica ion for damages onl incl des he ac al loss s s ained
b. In q asi-delic s he offender is responsible for all he na ral and probable conseq ences of
his ac e en if no foreseeable
c. In q asi-con rac s he obligor shall be responsible for all he damages hich can be
a rib ed o his non-performance of he obliga ion e en if he ac ed in good fai h.
. A&B
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
18. No i hs anding he dea h of he acc sed ci il liabili ma arise in he follo ing

11
a. La
b. Con rac s
c. Q asi Con rac s
. A&B
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
19. The follo ing s a emen s are r e

a. Join or feasors are join l and se erall liable
b. Join or feasors are no liable pro ra a
c. Join or feasors ma be s ed join l or separa el
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
. A ab
h. None of he abo e
20. The follo ing is/are r e of Moral damages

a. Moral damages are no capable of pec niar es ima ion
b. Moral damages m s be pro ima e res l s of he ac s complained of
c. Mere social h milia ion can be a gro nd o a ard moral damages
. A&B
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
21. The follo ing s a emen s is/are r e free of s ric liabili

a. I is a liabili independen of fa l and negligence
b. S ric liabili ma be commi ed e en i h he e ercise of d e and reasonable care b he
defendan
c. Good fai h is a defense
. A&B
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
22. A n isance is an hing hich

a. Anno s and offends he senses
b. Prod ces discomfor o a person
c. Hinders or impairs se of proper
d. A & B onl
. A&C
f. B & C onl
. A ab (2007)
12
h. None of he abo e
23. The follo ing s a emen /s is/are r e of damages

a. Damages is he de rimen inj r occasioned b reason of fa l of an order in he proper or
person
b. Complain for damages is al a s a personal ac ion
c. Da a a c a c a a ac a a
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e
24. The follo ing is/are r e of damages

a. Ac al damages -- re ard for pec niar loss
b. Nominal damages -- indica ion of a righ
c. Liq ida ed -- a ard as defined in a con rac
d. A & B onl
e. A & C onl
f. B & C onl
. A ab
h. None of he abo e
25. Which of he follo ing ac s o ld no likel res l in a or

a. Sleep en drinking af er passing he bar on he a o he res room he became na seo s
and omi ed all o er he face of Gr mp
b. Dope hile a ering he ard ran back o he ho se o ans er he phone, lea ing he hose
r nning and soaking e he neighbor s ard (snee ). No kno ing ha he ard as e ,
Snee pla ed in he ard and slipped inj ring his small oe.
c. Jac a J a . Jac a b .J a a
Jac a ca b a b .
d. A & B onl
. A&C (2007)
f. B & C onl
g. All of he abo e
h. None of he abo e

13
A Torts and Quasi-Delicts Last Minute Reviewer
*Unless otherwise stated, provisions are of the New Civil Code.
DISCLAIMER: This does not contain case summaries. The flow is based on Atty. JJ Disini s discussion on torts and quasi-
delicts, and on Atty. Rommel Casis book.
Quasi-Delict
Q: What is a quasi-delict?
A: 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.
TL;DR: It is an act negligently done that proximately causes injury to another, without any existing contractual relation
between the parties.
Elements (AINPc)
1. Act – Not the collision, but what led to the collision as an example
2. Injury – damage to another s legal right [CAS S]
3. Negligence – The standard of care needed in performing an act (Art. 1173)
4. Proximate causation
a. is a cause without which the injury would not have occurred; and results in the injury as a foreseeable and
natural and probable consequence.
b. If not direct, each event must have a causal connection with its immediate predecessor or is part of a
natural and continuous sequence; and the chain must be unbroken by an efficient intervening cause
[CASIS from jurisprudence].
5. No contractual relation exists between the parties.
Absent any of these elements, there is NO quasi-delict.
Cause
There are three kinds contemplated:
1. Direct – A cause that immediately connects the act with injury; for legal purposes, can be treated the same as
proximate.
2. Proximate
a. Concurrent: It is sufficient that [the defendant s] negligence, concurring with one or more efficient causes
other than plaintiff s, is the proximate cause of the injury [Far Eastern v. CA (1998)].
b. Intervening: The test to determine an intervening cause is whether the intervention of the later cause is a
significant part of the risk involved in the defendant s conduct, or is so reasonably connected with it that
the responsibility should not be terminated [PROSSER AND KEETON, note 3 at 302]
3. Remote – A cause which would have been a proximate cause had there been no efficient intervening cause after
it and prior to the injury [CASIS].
Q: What is an efficient intervening cause?
1 | Miranda & Sebastian H2021

A: It is a cause which breaks the natural sequence of events, without which the injury would not happen.
Tests to Determine Proximate Cause
1. But For: An act or omission is not regarded as a cause of an event if the particular event would have occurred
without it [CASIS; PROSSER AND KEETON, note 3 at 265]
2. Sufficient Link: Only reasonable connection between the act or omission and the injury is required [CASIS]. The
link must not be remote or far-fetched [Dy Teban v. Jose Ching (2008)].
3. Substantial Factor: f the actor s conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about harm to another, the fact that
the actor neither foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it occurred
does not prevent him from being liable [Philippine Rabbit v. IAC (1990)].
4. Mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy and precedent [Dy Teban v. Jose Ching, supra]. Courts can
take any factor into consideration [CASIS].
5. Cause v. Condition: It must refer to the type of case where the forces set in operation by the defendant have come
to rest in a position of apparent safety, and some new force intervenes. But even in some cases, it is not the
distinction between cause and condition which is important, but the nature of the risk and the character of the
intervening cause [Phoenix Construction v. IAC (1987)]
6. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance: Where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later
in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed
to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is
chargeable with the consequences thereof1 [Lapanday v. Angala (2007)]
Negligence
Q: When is there negligence?
A: 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 [Art. 1173].
Negligence is simply the absence of the diligence required [CASIS]
Two things determine negligence: [CASIS]
1. The diligence required of the actor under the circumstances; and

a. The nature of the obligation
b. The circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place (i.e. The more imminent the danger, the
higher the degree of care [Far Eastern Shipping v. CA (1998)].)
2. Whether the actor has performed the diligence required.
Degrees of Negligence
1. Slight: failure to use great care [or] absence of that degree of care and vigilance which persons of extraordinary
prudence and foresight are accustomed to use [PROSSER AND KEETON].
2. Ordinary: Failure to use ordinary care [PROSSER AND KEETON], or in Philippine law, failure to exercise the due
diligence of a good father.
1
In other words, the full burden of damages is on the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the injury. It is NOT a
reduction of damage.
3. Gross: Failure to even use slight care, very great negligence, or want of even slight or scant care, or failure to
exercise even that care which a careless person would use [PROSSER AND KEETON].
Standard of Care
1. Common Law: a reasonable person, or a person of ordinary prudence, or a person of reasonable prudence, or
some other blend of reason and caution [PROSSER AND KEETON].
2. Civil Law (What PH follows): Bonus paterfamilias or good father of a family. (What would daddy do?)
3. Special circumstances: It is proper to consider the particular circumstances of a person, as held in jurisprudence
[CASIS].
4. Children:
a. Absolute immunity from liability following age brackets (if child is below 9, no liability at all; if child is
between 9-15 years, no liability unless it is shown child acted with discernment) [SANGCO, cited in Jarco
Marketing v. CA (1999)]
i. The law fixed no arbitrary age at which a minor can be said to have the necessary capacity to
understand and appreciate the nature and consequence of his own acts [ ]t would be
impracticable and perhaps impossible to do so The age at which a minor can be said to have
such ability will necessarily vary in accordance with the varying nature of the infinite variety of acts
which may be done by him [Taylor v. Manila Electric Railroad (1910)].
b. Take into account the specific characteristic of the child in question: The care and caution required of a
child is according to his maturity and capacity only, and this is to be determined in such case by the
circumstances of the case [Taylor, supra]
c. Average conduct of persons his age and experience: The standard of conduct to which a child must
conform for his own protection is that degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same age,
capacity, discretion, knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances [Ylarde v. Aquino
(1988)].
5. Experts: The acts or omissions of one representing himself as an expert will not be measured against a good
father of a family but by a higher standard of diligence expected of experts [CASIS].
a. Pharmacists are held to the highest degree of care and diligence [as compared to due diligence of a good
father of a family] [Mercury v. De Leon], but not as among other pharmacists.
i. Caveat venditor, or let him be certain that he does not sell to a purchaser or send to a patient one
for another, applies, even if accidental or innocent in mistake [U.S. v. Pineda (1918)]
b. Medical professionals have a duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably
competent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances [Cruz v. CA (1997)].
Presumptions of Negligence
1. In Motor Vehicle mishaps

a. Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was
in his vehicle, could have, by use of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed
that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving [OR] violating traffic regulations
at least twice within the next preceding two months. If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the
provisions of Article 2180 are applicable.

b. Simultaneous violations: Under Art. 2185, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been
negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation, provided there is no proof
to the contrary [CASIS]
i. A causal connection must exist between the injury received and the violation of the traffic
regulation. It must be proven that the violation of the traffic regulation was the proximate or legal
cause of the injury or that it substantially contributed thereto [Tison v. Sps. Pomasin (2011), citing
Sanitary Steam Laundry Inc., v. CA]
ii. In Anonuevo v. CA, the Court ruled that Art. 2185 only applies to motor vehicles expressly, and
there is no ground to presume that the law intended a broader coverage.
2. Possession of Dangerous Weapons and Substances
a. Art. 2188 provides that the defendant is presumed negligent if 1.) the death or injury results from 2.) his
possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison.
b. It does not arise when the possession or use of the dangerous weapon or substance is indispensable to
his occupation or business [CASIS].
3. Common Carriers
a. Art. 1735 provides that a common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently
if the goods it is transporting are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, unless it proves that it observed
extraordinary diligence as required in Art. 1733 [CASIS]
b. It does not arise if the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods was due to the following causes [Art.
1734]:
i. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity (Note that fire is not
considered such a calamity)
ii. Act of the public enemy (enemy of the State) in war, whether international or civil;
iii. Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
iv. The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
v. Order or act of competent public authority.
c. Art. 1752 provides that a presumption of negligence on the common carrier arises even if there is an
agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier.
4. Res Ipsa Loquitur: the thing or the transaction speaks for itself.
a. It is present when:
i. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur unless [the person sought to be made
liable] is negligent;
ii. The accident is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the person sought to
be made liable;
iii. The possibility of contributing conduct, which would make the plaintiff responsible, is eliminated;
and
iv. The absence of explanation by the defendant [Professional Services v. Agana].
b. It can only be invoked when under the circumstances involved, direct evidence of negligence or direct
cause of the injury is absent and not readily available [Layugan v. IAC (1988)]
c. It is merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience [Ramos v. CA (1999)]

d. It does not dispense with the requirement of proof of culpable negligence on the part of the party charged,
BUT merely determines and regulates what shall be prima facie evidence and facilitates the burden of
plaintiff of proving a breach of the duty of due care [Layugan v. IAC, supra]
e. Justified by:
i. Doctrine of common knowledge, or that certain occurrences will not occur without negligence,
based on common knowledge [CASIS]
ii. The fact that the person in charge of the instrumentality ordinarily knows the cause of the injury
[CASIS].
f. It dispenses with need for expert testimony in medical negligence cases according to Ramos v. CA, citing
Voss v. Bridwell, if:
i. The plaintiff submitted himself for the operations and delivered his person over to the care,
custody, and control of the physician;
ii. The physician had complete and exclusive control over him;
iii. The operation was never performed;
iv. At the time of submission, he was neurologically sound and physically fit in mind and body, but
he suffered irreparable damage and injury rendering him decerebrate and totally incapacitated;
and
v. The injury was one which does not ordinarily occur in the process of the operation or in the
absence of negligence.
Defense against the Charge of Negligence
1. Plaintiff s Negligence is the Pro imate Cause

a. Art. 2179 provides that when the plaintiff s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of
his injury, he cannot recover damages. The defendant can raise the defense that the plaintiff was
negligent, and that his negligence was the proximate cause of his injury [CASIS].
i. Plaintiff cannot recover damages even if the proximate cause consists of the plaintiff s negligence
concurring with the defendant s negligence [Bernardo v. Legaspi].
b. Contributory negligence: Where he contributes to the principal occurrence, he cannot recover. Where he
contributes only to his own injury, he may recover [M.H. Rakes v. Atlantic].
i. t is only contributory negligence if the victim s negligence affected the degree to which he was
injured and not whether it is the cause of the injury [CASIS].
ii. If the negligence of the plaintiff was only contributory and the immediate and proximate cause of
the injury was the defendant s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages [Art. 2179], but
the damages are mitigated [Art. 2179; 2214].
2. Fortuitous Event (3-step analysis)
a. Identify the fortuitous event
b. Does it fall under the exceptions of when the defense of FE can t be claimed? [Art. 1174]
i. By law (must be express)
ii. By stipulation
iii. When the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk.
c. If it does not fall under the exceptions, does it meet all the elements of a fortuitous event?
i. The cause is independent of human will

ii. It is impossible to foresee, or if foreseen, inevitable [very important]
iii. Renders fulfillment of the obligation in a normal manner impossible; and
iv. The debtor must be free of any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the
creditor.
3. Assumption of risk and non violenti fit injuria
a. An assumption of risk as a defense exists when [Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Co.]
i. The plaintiff knows the risk is present;
ii. The plaintiff understands the nature of the risk
iii. His choice to incur it is free and voluntary.
b. It does not apply when [INELCO v. CA]:
i. There is an emergency
ii. The life or property of another is at risk; or
iii. When the owner s property or livelihood is at risk.
c. A person crashing a party when not invited assumes the risk of being ejected [Nikko Hotel v. Roberto
Reyes].
4. Prescription: An action for a quasi-delict prescribes within four (4) years from injury [Art. 1146]. The right of action
accrues when:
a. There is a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it is created or arises
from;
b. The defendant is obliged to respect such right;
c. There is an act or omission on the part of the defendant violative of plaintiff s right [Kramer v. CA, citing
Espanol v. Chairman of Philippine Veterans].
Persons vicariously liable A presumption of negligence exists

Notes and Defense
(Art. 2180) when
Persons Exercising Parental A child is: It is a primary action but allows for
Authority [Art. 2180; Art. 1. Living in their company subsidiary liability.
221, FC] (in order) 2. Under their parental authority, where
1. Parents 3. The quasi-delict is done by Both parents are liable primarily
2. Surviving grandparents unemancipated children (Art. 221, Family under the Family Code
3. Oldest sibling (over 21 Code).
unless unfit or The presumption is overturned if the
disqualified) diligence of a good father of a family
4. Actual custodian or over the instruction and supervision
guardian (over 21, of the child are proven.
unless unfit or
disqualified)
5. Heads of
orphanages/other
institutions duly
accredited by the

proper government
agency
Teachers and Schools [Art. A student (under Art. 2180) Defenses:
2180, par. 7; Art. 218, FC] (in 1. Commits a quasi-delict 1. If it occurs in the school, if the
order) 2. While under the protective and one committing a quasi-delict is
1. School supervisory custody of the school, heads, not a student, the school is not
2. School administrators or teachers [Palisoc v. Brillantes] liable for quasi-delict [PSBA v. CA
3. Teachers 3. Within the premises of the school. (1992)]
4. Independent entity or 2. If it occurs outside of the school,
institution engaged in Amadora v. CA provides a distinction on who and outside of an authorized
childcare. may be held liable activity of the school, teachers
1. Teachers in charge (if the school is and schools are not liable.
academic) 3. Under the enrollment contract
2. Heads of schools of arts and trade, if the rule, the diligence of a good
school is technical or vocational in nature father of a family over
(Art. 2180). instruction and supervision of
the student may be raised as a
Art. 218 of the FC expands this rule: defense when the school proves
1. There is special parental authority by the that the breach of its contractual
school obligations is not due to its
2. A minor committed a quasi-delict negligence.
3. Within authorized activities in or out of
school
4. Where the negligence of the one
exercising special parental authority
must have a causal link with a quasi-
delict.
The Enrollment Contract Rule (culpa

contractual)
Schools have the built-in obligation of
providing a conducive atmosphere for
learning, an atmosphere where there are no
constant threats to life and limb, and one
where peace and order are maintained.
Schools must ensure the safety of the
student while they are inside the school
premises, but the school is not the insurer of
it students against all risks [SLCM – William
Quasha Memorial Foundation v. Perez
(2016)].

Employers and Owners or An employee, or one with an existing There exists an employer-employee
managers of employee-employer relationship with the relationship when:
establishments [Art. 2180, employer: 1. Employer selects and engages
par. 4 & 5] 1. Commits a quasi-delict the employee;
2. Within the service of the branches or 2. The employee is paid wages or
occasion of their functions (while doing remunerated;
their job), OR within the scope of their 3. The employer controls the
assigned tasks, in furtherance of the means and method of doing the
employer s interests or for the account of work; and
the employer. 4. The employer can suspend or
dismiss the employee
The defenses that can be raised are:

1. The person is not their
employee;
2. The company exercised due
diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and
supervision of the employee
3. The employee did not act in
furtherance of the employer s
interests outside of the job.
State [Art. 2180, par. 6] A special agent, or one with a fixed or definite State liability (Fontanilla v.
order foreign to the exercise of the duties of Maliaman)
his office (aka not usually what the agent 1. In public or governmental
does) commits a quasi-delict OUTSIDE of the aspects, only the special agent is
duties of his office liable.
2. In private or business aspects,
the State is liable as an ordinary
employer.
Defenses:
1. Non-suability of the State for
acts of its general agents (not a
special agent)
2. The special agent acted within
the duties of his office

Persons Specifically
Liable when Notes and Defense
Liable
Possessor or user of animal Animal in use or possession causes Possession/use, not ownership. Liability is
(Art. 2183) injury to a person regardless of negligence or due diligence on
the part of the possessor or user.
Control is not needed, since escape or loss

does not prevent liability.
No liability when there is 1. Force majeure or

2. Fault of the person who suffered injury or
damages.
Owners of motor vehicles Driver causes injury while 1. Owner The registered owner rule gives rise to a
(Art. 2184, and the is in the car and 2. Owner could have disputable presumption that the
registered owner rule) prevented misfortune by due requirements of Art. 2180 have been proven
diligence. [Caravan Travel and Tours Inc. v. Abejar
(2016)].
Registered owner rule: Registered
owners are liable for death or injury Defenses:
by the operation of their vehicles. 1. Owner may prove absence of employer-
employee relationship
2. Owner may prove that at the time of the
incident, the employee was not acting in
the scope of his assigned tasks;
3. Owner exercised due diligence in
selecting or supervising its employee
4. Owner was in no position to prevent the
misfortune.
Provinces, cities, and There is death or injury of any Due diligence and force majeure are not
municipalities (Art. 2189) person by reason of defective public available defenses, but QC v. Dacara required
work under their control or negligence by the Local Government Unit.
supervision.
The defective public work must be the
proximate cause of the injury (i.e. falling into
an uncovered manhole).
Proprietors of buildings (Art. Plaintiff proves: Defense:
2190 - 2191) 1. Total/partial collapse of a If any of these is the result of any defect
building or structure mentioned in Art. 1723, the third person
2. The defendant is the proprietor suffering damages may proceed only against
3. The collapse is due to lack of the engineer or architect or contractor in
necessary repairs.

Also liable for: accordance with the said article, within the
1. Explosion of machinery which period therein fixed (Art. 2192)
has not been taken care of with
due diligence, and the
inflammation of explosive
substances which have not been
kept in a safe and adequate
place;
2. Excessive smoke, which may be
harmful to persons of property;
3. Falling of trees situated at or
near highways or lanes, if not
caused by force majeure; and
4. Emanations from tubes, canals,
sewers, or deposits of infectious
matter, constructed without
precautions suitable to the
place.
Engineers and architects 1. Building they worked on They are solidarily liable with the contractor if
(Art. 1723) collapses in 15 years after it is the contractor is also the supervisor.
built
2. Due to plan defects or ground Also liable for any damage found in Arts. 2190
defects. – 2191 if it is found that their plan or ground
defects caused the damage.
It prescribes within 10 years of the collapse of

the building.
Head of a family that lives in Any injury caused by things thrown Applies to long-term dwellings only.
a building or part of a or falling from their home.
building (Art. 2193)
Owners of enterprises and Employee suffers death, injury, They must pay compensation to the
other employers (Arts. 1711 illness, or disease within employee or his family, unless the sole
– 1712) employment. proximate cause is a fellow worker s
malicious act.
If the malicious act of the fellow worker is not

the sole proximate cause, then they are
solidarily liable with the worker.
Manufacturers/Producers Death or injuries are caused by any Though no contractual relation exists
of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet noxious or harmful substances used between them and the consumers.
articles, and similar goods in their products.
(Art. 2187)

Persons who interfere with Induces violation of contractual UNLESS there are good grounds for
contractual relations (Art. relations in one party, causing harm interference, such as sufficient justification or
1314) to the other. an actual superior or equal right.
Is liable to the other contracting Misunderstanding of one s rights or lack of

party for damages. malice is not an excuse.
So Ping Bun v. CA (1999) describes

when this happens:
1. A valid contract exists;
2. Third person has knowledge of
the contract;
3. Third person interferes without
legal justification or excuse.
Rabuya Problem on Quasi-delict (2019)
PROBLEM: Nicanor, then drunk, entered the EDSA LRT station after purchasing a token. While standing on the
platform, Lito, the security guard assigned in the area approached Nicanor. A misunderstanding or altercation ensued
between the two that led to a fistfight. Because of their fistfight, Nicanor fell on the LRT tracks and was struck by the
moving train. He was killed instantaneously. Lito is an employee of Prudent Security Agency hired by the LRTA to
provide security services in the premises.
Q1: If the heirs of Nicanor will sue based on breach of contract, may Lito, Prudent and LRTA be held solidarily liable?
ANSWER: No, because the contract of carriage is only between LRTA and Nicanor. Lito and Prudent are not parties to
said contract.
Q2: Are the heirs of Nicanor bound to prove the fault or negligence of Lito?
ANSWER: No. All they have to prove is the existence of contract between LRTA and Nicanor and that said contract
was breached.
Q3: May LRTA deny liability on the ground that Prudent exercised diligence in selecting and supervising its employee?
ANSWER: No, that defense is available only in quasi-delict but not if the basis of the action is breach of contract.
Q4: If the basis of recover of civil liability is crime, may Prudent and LRTA be held solidarily liable with Lito?
ANSWER: No. As to LRTA, it will not be liable because Lito is not its employee. As to Prudent, it may not be held
solidarily liable because its liability is only subsidiary. It will become liable only when Lito, the one primarily liable, is
convicted and discovered to be insolvent.
Q5: May Prudent put up the defense that it exercised diligence in selecting and supervising its employee?
ANSWER: No. That defense is available only in quasi-delict but not in delict.
Q6: May the heirs recover based on quasi-delict even if the act of Lito was criminal in character?

ANSWER: Yes, because the scope of quasi-delict is much broader. It also covers acts and omissions punished by law
or criminal in character, whether the crime is committed negligently or intentionally. That s why the law prohibits
recovery of damages twice based on the same act or omission if based on delict and quasi-delict (Art. 2177, NCC).
Q7: May the heirs recover based on quasi-delict even if there was a pre-existing contractual relation?
ANSWER: Yes, because the existence of a contract does not prevent the recovery of civil liability based on quasi-delict
if the act that breaks the contract is also a tort. Here, the cause of the breach of contract is also a case of quasi-delict.
Q8: If the heirs will recover based on quasi-delict, may Lito, Prudent and LRTA be held solidarily liable?
ANSWER: Yes, because they are considered joint tortfeasors. While the liability of LRTA is based on contract while the
liability of Lito and Prudent is based on quasi-delict, a liability for tort may arise even under a contract where tort is
that which breaches the contract. A contractual obligation can be breached by tort and when the same act or omission
causes the injury, one resulting in culpa contractual and the other in culpa aquiliana, Article 2194 can well apply. (LRTA
v. Navidad [2003])
Human Relations Torts
Abuse of Right
Q: When is there an abuse of right?
A: Under Art. 19 of the NCC, there is abuse of right when:
1. There is a legal right by one

2. Exercised in bad faith
3. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
These are not always adhered to. Sometimes, the absence of good faith is only needed; but this absence is essential
as to when abuse of right may give rise to a cause of action [CASIS].
Q: What is damnum absque injuria?
A: t is the legitimate exercise of a person s rights, even if it results in loss to another, as long as the damage is not a
violation of a legal right. Otherwise, this defense cannot be availed [CASIS].
However, Art. 19 only sets the principle for abuse of rights. It requires Arts. 20 and 21 to hold violators liable for
damages [Globe Mackay v. CA (1989)].
Illegal Acts
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the
latter for the same. It is the legal basis for the award of damages to a party who suffers damage whenever one
commits an act in violation of some legal provision [Garcia v. Salvador (2007)].
Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Art. 21. Provides that any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for damages.
Its elements include:
1. A legal act
2. Contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy
3. Done with intent to injure [Albenson v. CA].
Summarized, a person becomes liable for damages if 1.) he willfully causes loss or injury to another 2.) in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy [CASIS].
Examples of these acts include:
1. Moral Seduction: a breach of promise to marry is not actionable, but if there is lack of intent to fulfill the promise
on the part of the defendant and carnal knowledge by the defendant of the plaintiff, a cause of action arises [SEE:
Tanjanco v. CA, and Baksh v. CA].
2. Public Humiliation
3. Malicious Prosecution/denuncia falsa, which requires (PAPcM):
a. Prosecution of the plaintiff by the defendant
b. Termination of prosecution in acquittal;
c. Absence of probable cause; and
d. Prosecution motivated by malice [CASIS, citing Magbanua v. Junsay].
4. Oppressive dismissal: A dismissal of an employee by an employer anti-socially or oppressively, in violation of
Art. 1701 prohibiting acts of oppression by either capital or labor against the other, and Article 21 [providing the
need for these damages] [Quisaba v. Sta. Ines (1974)]
Violation of Human Dignity
Art. 26. Provides that every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors
and other persons. It further provides that the following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal
offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:
1. Prying into the privacy of another s residence;

2. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
3. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
4. Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect,
or other personal condition.
Dereliction of Duty
Art. 27. Provides that any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or
neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the
latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.
Unfair Competition

Art. 28. Provides that unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the
use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination, or any other unjust, oppressive, or highhanded method shall give rise
to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage.
Independent Civil Actions
Violation of Civil and Political Rights
Q: Who is liable?
A: Art. 32. Provides that 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 rights listed in this article is liable for damages.
The person indirectly responsible must also answer for the injury to the aggrieved party [SIlahis v. Soluta (2006)].
If the defendant is a judge, responsibility under this article is not demandable unless his act or omission constitutes
a delict (violation of the RPC or other penal statute)
Q: Is malice or bad faith required in a violation of Article 32?
A: No, it is not necessary that the defendant under this Article should have acted with malice or bad faith, otherwise,
it would defeat its main purpose, which is the effective protection of individual rights [S lahis v. Soluta, supra].
Q: When does it apply?
A: On violation of any of the constitutional rights listed in Art. 32 by any public officer or private individual. It can
constitute an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief, which will proceed
independently of any criminal prosecution and may be proved by preponderance of evidence [CASIS].
Q: When is there waiver of any of the rights listed?
A: The Court required in Silahis v. Soluta that:
1. The right exists;

2. The person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right;
3. The said person had actual intention to relinquish the right; and
4. The waiver was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
Q: What is the extent of liability of a public officer under this Article?
A: Generally, only violation of the constitutional right by the public officer is required for liability for damages.
However, the resolution of Liwayway Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune (2008) provides an out for public officers, stating there
are two kinds of duties exercised by public officers: the ‘duty owing to the public collectively (the body politic) and the
‘duty owing to particular individuals.
1. Of Duties to the Public The first of these classes embraces those officers whose duty is owing primarily to
the public collectively (the body politic) and not to any particular individual; who act for the public at large,
and who are ordinarily paid out of the public treasury. xxx
2. Of Duties to Individuals – The second class includes those who, while they owe to the public the general
duty of a proper administration of their respective offices, yet become, by reason of their employment by a

particular individual to do some act for him in an official capacity, under a special and particular obligation to
him as an individual. xxx
xxx When what is involved is a [duty to the public], an individual cannot have a cause of action against the public
officer, even though he may have been injured by the action or inaction of the officer.
The exception to this rule occurs when the complaining individual suffers a particular or special injury on account
of the public officer s improper performance or non-performance of his public duty. An individual cannot have a
particular action against a public officer without a particular injury, or a particular right, which are the grounds
upon which all actions are founded.
NOTE: If you follow Art. 32 as to its letter and intent, you will see that only mere violation of the constitutional
right of an individual listed in Art. 32 is required for a cause of action, regardless of what duty the public officer is
performing. Oh well.
Defamation, Fraud, and Physical Injuries
Art. 33. In case of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct
from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the
criminal prosecution and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
It is a civil liability ex delicto that does not require prior reservation of right, as needed under Rule 111 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure, provided that it is any of these three crimes.
Defamation is the offense of injuring a person s character, fame or reputation through false and malicious
statements [Arafiles v. Philippine Journalists (2004)]. To determine whether certain utterances are defamatory, the
words used should be construed in their entirety and taken in their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning, as they
would naturally be understood by persons hearing or reading them, unless it appears that they were used and
understood in another sense [Yuchengco v. Manila Chronicle (2009)].
Words which are merely insulting are not actionable. Neither are mere words of general abuse. The fact that the
language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself [MVRS Publication v. slamic Da Wah (2003)].
Libel has 4 elements:
1. An allegation or imputation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another;

2. Publication of the imputation, or when it is brought to the attention of another person other than its author and
the offended party [Yuchengco, supra]
3. Identity of the person defamed; and
4. Existence of malice [GMA Network v. Bustos (2006)].
The published work must be examined and viewed as a whole [Arafiles v. Phil. Journalists (2004)].
Q: What is the doctrine of fair comment?
A: The doctrine of fair comment holds that when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in
his public capacity, it is only actionable when it is either a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false
supposition [Borja v. CA (1999)].

Fraud: There is no independent civil action to recover the civil liability arising from the issuance of an unfunded check
prohibited and punished under Batas (BP 22), unlike in prosecutions for estafa where the offended party may opt to
reserve his right to file a separate civil action, or may institute an independent action based on fraud pursuant to
Article 33 of the Civil Code [Heirs of Simon v. Elvin Chan (2011)].
Physical Injuries is understood to mean bodily injury under Art. 33 [Carandang v. Santiago (1955)], including those
that cause death [Capuno v. Pepsi Cola (1965)]. Criminal negligence is not one of the three crimes mentioned in
Article 33, and the article further assumes that any of the three acts listed are intentionally committed, precluding
negligence [Bonite v. Zosa (1988)].
Neglect of Duty
Art. 34 provides that a member of a city or municipal police force shall be primarily liable for damages if he refuses
or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property. In such case, the city or
municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible. The civil action shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and
a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.
Catch-All Independent Action
Art. 35 provides that a person may bring a civil action against the alleged offender when the following conditions are
met:
The person claiming to be injured by a criminal offense charges another with the same;
There is no independent civil action granted in his Code or any special law for such criminal offense; and
The judge finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting
attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings.
This civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. But upon the defendant s motion, the court may
require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil
action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings.

Sebastian Notes on Damages (MANTLE)
1. Moral
2. Actual
3. Nominal
4. Temperate
5. Liquidated
6. Exemplary
Actual Damages
Definition: Compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved (2199)
Coverage
Value of loss suffered (2200)
o Loss or Impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury (2205, par 1)
o Injury to plaintiff s business standing or commercial credit (2205, par 2)
Profits failed to be obtained (2200)
Obligation of person suffering damage (2203)
Party suffering must exercise the diligence of a good father to minimize the damages resulting from the act or
omission in question
Circumstances allowing mitigation of damages (2215)
1. That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract;
2. That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract;
3. In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel;
4. That the loss would have resulted in any event;
5. That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff s loss or injury.
Effect of Death (2206)
The amount of damages shall be at least three thousand pesos (even if mitigating circumstances should exist)
Liability for loss of earning capacity of the deceased (par 1)
o Unless no earning capacity at time of death
Limited liability (5 years max) to support non-heirs reliant on support from deceased (par 2)
Liability for Moral Damages against the Spouse, Descendants, and Ascendants of the deceased (par 3)
Civil indemnity for death is set at P50,000 to P75,000, depending on a number of factors according to
jurisprudence.
o "You are guaranteed to be worth Php75,000.00 to your heirs as death indemnity because as a UP student,
you are 1/10th of 1%, so stop being depressed" – Atty. Disini (2019)
Effect of Insurance (2207)
Insurance Company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer who has violated the
contract
If insurance does not cover full amount of loss, aggrieved entitled to recover deficiency from person causing loss
or injury
Rules on Interest
If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for
damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the
absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per annum. (2209)
Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded, although the obligation may be silent
upon this point. (2212)
Cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except when the demand can be established with
reasonable certainty (2213)
Liability Table: Actual Damages
Effect of: (Breach of) Contract (Breach) Quasi- Crime Quasi-Delict

Contract
Good-Faith Natural and Probable Natural and Probable All damages which are All damages which are
Consequences of the Consequences of the the natural and the natural and
breach, foreseen or breach, foreseen or probable probable
could have been could have been consequences, need consequences, need
foreseen [at time of foreseen [at time of not be foreseen/could not be foreseen/could
constitution] (2201) constitution] (2201) have been foreseen have been foreseen
(2202) (2202)
Bad Faith All damages All damages All damages which are All damages which are
reasonably attributed reasonably attributed the natural and the natural and
(2201) (2201) probable probable
consequences, need consequences, need
not be foreseen/could not be foreseen/could
have been foreseen have been foreseen
(2202) (2202)
Aggravating N/A N/A Increased Damages N/A

Circumstances
(2204)

Mitigating N/A N/A Decreased Damages N/A
Circumstances
(2204)
Contributory N/A N/A N/A Reduce Damages

Negligence
(2214)
Interest Discretion of the N/A Discretion of the Discretion of the

Court Court Court
(2210) (2211) (2211)
Reduction of Applies Applies N/A Applies

Damages under
2215, par. 1 - 5
Attorne s Fees & E penses of Litigation (2208)
Coverage (Must always be reasonable in all cases)
n the absence of stipulation, attorney s fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered,
except:
1. When exemplary damages are awarded;
2. When the defendant s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur
expenses to protect his interest;
3. In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;
4. In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;
5. Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff s plainly valid, just and
demandable claim;
6. In actions for legal support;
7. In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
8. n actions for indemnity under workmen s compensation and employer s liability laws;
9. In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;
10. When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
11. In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney s fees and expenses of litigation should
be recovered.

Moral Damages
Definition: Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation,
moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant s wrongful act for omission. (2217)
Coverage [and Analogous cases] (2219)
1. A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
2. Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
3. Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
4. Adultery or concubinage;
5. Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
6. Illegal search;
7. Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
8. Malicious prosecution;
9. Acts mentioned in Article 309;
10. Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35 [Human relations torts].
11. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under
the circumstances, such damages are justly due. [No analogous cases] (2220)
12. breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. [No analogous cases] (2220)
Who may recover Moral Damages
Victim/Plaintiff in any of the actions mentioned above
The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral
damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased [Art. 2206(3)]. Persons exercising substitute
parental authority are to be considered ascendants for the purpose of awarding moral damages in quasi-delict
[Caravan Travel and Tours v. Abejar (2016)].
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also
recover moral damages. (2219)
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action for Art. 3092, in the order
named. (2219)
Nominal Damages
2
Art. 309. Any person who shows disrespect to the dead, or wrongfully interferes with a funeral shall be liable to the family of the
deceased for damages, material and moral.
Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has not been violated or
invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for
any loss suffered by him.
Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in Article
1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded.
Art. 2223. The adjudication of nominal damages shall preclude further contest upon the right involved and all
accessory questions, as between the parties to the suit, or their respective heirs and assigns.
Temperate Damages
Art. 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages,
may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the
nature of the case, be provided with certainty.
Art. 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable under the circumstances
Liquidated Damages
Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof.
Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are
iniquitous or unconscionable.
Art. 2228. When the breach of the contract committed by the defendant is not the one contemplated by the parties
in agreeing upon the liquidated damages, the law shall determine the measure of damages, and not the stipulation.
Exemplary Damages
Definition: Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in
addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. (2229)
Coverage [and Analogous cases] (2219)
In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was
committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and
shall be paid to the offended party. (2230)
In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. (2231)
In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. (2232)
Demandability of Exemplary Damages
Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right; the court will decide whether or not they should
be adjudicated. (2233)
The plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court
may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded. (2234)
n case liquidated damages have been agreed upon the plaintiff must show that he would be entitled to
moral, temperate or compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for liquidated damages. (2234)
A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are renounced in advance shall be null and void. (2235)
Liability Table: M.N.T.L.E. Damages
Effect of: Contract Quasi- Crime Quasi- Human Proof of Assessment of

Contrac Delict Relations Damage Value of
t Torts Required Damage
Moral 22203 N/A 2219 (1) 2219 (2) 2219 2216 2216
Acted Criminal Quasi- (3) (5) (6) (8) No Proof Discretion of

fraudulentl offence delicts (10) the court,
y and in bad resulting in according to
Causing &
faith physical inj. circumstances
physical
Analogous
injuries 2218
Cases
sentimental
value may be
considered
Nominal 2222 2222 2216 2216
arising from any source enumerated in Article 1157 Theoreticall No Proof Discretion of
y Possible the court,
according to
(property
circumstances
right has
been
invaded)
Temperat 2224 2224 2216 2216

e
may be recovered when the court finds that some Theoreticall Proof that Discretion of
pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount can y Possible there has the court,
not, from the nature of the case, be provided with been according to
(some
certainty pecuniary circumstances
pecuniary
loss, the
loss has 2225
actual value
been
of which Must be
suffered)
cannot be reasonable
ascertained under the
. circumstances
3
HOWEVER, in the case of breach of contract of carriage, it may be recovered when a.) death of a passenger results
or b.) it is proven that the carrier was guilty of fraud and bad faith, even if death does not result [Sulpicio Lines v.
Curso (2010)].
Liquidated 2226 N/A N/A 2216 2216
those No Proof Except

agreed liquidated ones
upon by the
2227
parties to a
contract Equitable
reduced if they
are iniquitous
or
unconscionabl
e
2228
When not the

one
contemplated
by the parties
the law shall
determine the
measure of
damages, not
the stipulation.
Exemplary 2232 2230 2231 N/A 2216 2216
Wanton, fraudulent, Aggravating Gross No Proof Discretion of

reckless, oppressive or circumstance negligenc the court,
malevolent manner s e according to
circumstances
2234
Must show he
is entitled to M,
T, C[A]
damages,
before the
court may
consider
xxx
must show that

he would be
entitled to M, T,
C [A] damages
were it not for
the stipulation
for liquidated
damages.

Hahaha

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hahaha

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TORTS AND DAMAGES REVIEWER 1.

Cause of Action Claim of Damages Based on

Acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable

Doctrines 2. Proof of Negligence

b) The accident was one which ordinarily does not happen in - W a c ca da a

Doctrines (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural

- Art. 1745: Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be

Extraordinary diligence for the safety of passengers Contract of Air Carriage

Reduction of damages, not bar to recovery

Factors to consider: Emergency rule

Nine-year old child Doctrines

Driver of a rear vehicle E. Fortuitous Event

D. Prescription General Rule There is no liability in case of a fortuitous event

Actions Prescriptive Periods Exceptions:

Kinds of Diligence to be Observed by Parties E c d

Burden of proof Mistake to invalidate consent

H. Others Vicarious Liability

1. Vicarious Liability 4. Employer Employee Acting within the scope of the

No presumption of parental dereliction on the part of the adopting

A. Parents and Guardians Requisites for an owner or manager of an establishment or enterprise to

proving the employer's vicarious liability.

Doctrine of Apparent Authority 4th par. 5th par.

C. Employers Specific Owners and managers of Employers in general,

1. An employer-employee relation Coverage Negligent acts of Negligent acts of

- Employers have the burden of proving that they exercised due

Convincing proof of the exercise of due diligence

Mere allegation of existence of company guidelines insufficient D. State

E. Teachers and Heads of Establishment

Proprietor of a building or structure is liable when:

3. Employee is adjudged guilty of the wrongful act and found to commit

Who may file? 7. Dereliction of Duty

Doctrines 9. Violation of Civil and Political Rights

(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;

- While a contract only binds parties thereto, a stranger is

The follo ing a e ai of c lpa aq iliana a. Pe a e e /d e e e

Unde To la he follo ing ha a a. Re Ip a Loq i r

The follo ing ma be ed a a defen e b a. For i o E en

The follo ing ma be ed a a defen e b a. A mp ion of ri k

The follo ing a e p e mp ion nde To a. A mp ion of i k

In e ening ca e i p e en in he a. Omi ion ha emain ac i e i elf

The follo ing a e p e eq i i e fo a a. Ac or omi ion con i ing fa l or negligence

The follo ing a e e of an efficien a. Eff c e e e ca e de e ca a c ec

Obliga ion a i e f om: (2014) a. La onl

Damage a e defined a : (2014) a. The mone hich he la a a d o impo e a pec nia

The eq i i e of ​Res Ipsa Loquitur a e: a. T e acc de fa d c d a d e cc e

The follo ing a e eq i i e fo he a. I i no d e o an ol n ar ac ion or con rib ion on he par of

Common ca ie a e e pon ible fo he a. An ac of he p blic enem in a , he he in e na ional o ci il

The elemen ha con i e a fo io a. The obligo m be f ee f om an pa icipa ion in he agg a a ion of he

In o de fo mi ake o in alida e con en , i a. Refe o he b ance of he hing hich i he objec of he con ac

Wi h e pec o pa en , liabili i a. The fa her, hen he mo her, in ca e of he former dea h or

When he e i a c iminal ac ion he ci il a. When here i a alid ai er

The S a e i liable fo a q a i-delic : a. E e ime i commi a q a i-delic

The follo ing a e e of b idia liabili : a. T ec ec ed b e ee ed c a e f d e

The follo ing a e e of join o fea o : a. J fea ae a d e ea ab e f e e

MCQ (From he nda ed ample from Ta hia):

A q a i-delic ma be defined a : (a) The fa l of a pe on, ho, b hi ac o omi ion, connec ed o

Wha ac do q a i-delic incl de? (a) Ac , he he p ni hable b la o no p ni hable b la , he he

In ac ion ba ed on q a i-delic , he pe on (a) He p o e ha he defendan in ended he ac

P o ima e ca e i defined a : (a) Tha ca e hich, in na al and con in o eq ence nb oken b

If he negligence of he plain iff a me el (a) S ch negligence o ld no be a ba o eco e , and he amo n

Whe e he plain iff opped o a ch he (a) A mp ion of i k canno be ed a a defen e beca ei a

A i engaged in he b ine of appl ing (a) Ye , dea h e l ed f om hi po e ion of poi on

Ab i h obbl heel and a ca (a) The b o ne i no liable o A beca e he ca had he la clea

The eq i i e of Res Ipsa Loquitur a e: a. T e acc de fa d c d a d e cc e

P o ima e ca e f om conc en ca e P o ima e ca e - A happening hich e l in an e en , pa ic la l