TORTS
TORTS the party of Rafael Poblador returned the
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Tort
It is a civil wrong
causes a compensable injury to the person,
property or recognized interest of another, in
violation of a duty imposed by law.
It may either a direct invasion of some legal right
of an individual; or, an act or omission of a person
which causes some injury or damage directly or
Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1489).
Tort v. Breach of Contract
Contract duties are created by the promises of the
parties, while tort duties are imposed as rules of
law (De Leon, 2012).
Main functions of punishing tort
1. Compensation and Restitution To
compensate persons sustaining loss or harm
placing the cost of that compensation on those
who, in justice ought to bear it.
2. Prevention To prevent future losses and
harm.
Civil liabilities which may arise due to an act
or omission of one, causing damage to another
1. Civil liability ex delicto
NOTE: Every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable (RPC, Art.100).
Q: Rafael Poblador engaged the service of
Manzano to look for the buyers of the
Wack-Wack share amounting to
computation for the sale of the Wack-Wack
Share to petitioner, 7 showing a final net
introduced Moreland Realty Inc. who agreed
to buy the Wack-Wack share. The
was
given to Manzano for the payment of the
capital gains tax, documentary stamp tax, and
other pertinent fees, as well as for her service
fee. However, the sale of Wack-Wack share
was annulled by the Probate Court. As such,
661
Wack-Wack share. Rafael demanded Manzano
Rafael requested for the accounting of the
Manzano by sending the Capital Gains Tax
Return dated September 23, 1996 indicating
the payment of Pl, 480,000.00 as capital gains
tax. Examining these documents, Rafael and
Torres allegedly noticed a discrepancy in the
faxed Capital Gains Tax Return: while the
typewritten portion of the Return indicated
Pl, 480,000.00 as the capital gains tax paid,
the machine validation imprint reflected only
P80,000.00 as the amount paid. Rafael filed a
case for Estafa against Manzano. However, the
RTC dismissed the complaint for Estafa for
failure of the prosecution to "prove all the
elements of estafa through misappropriation.
Rafael appealed the civil aspect of the case.
Will the civil aspect based on ex delicto will
prosper?
A: No. In the fairly recent case of Dy v.
People, the Court discussed the concept of
civil liability ex delicto in Estafa cases under
paragraph 1 (b), Article 315 of the RPC (with
which Manzano was likewise charged), stating
that when the element of misappropriation
or conversion is absent, there can be
no Estafa and concomitantly, the civil
liability ex delicto does not
exist. Whenever the elements of estafa are
not established, and that the delivery of any
personal property was made pursuant to a
contract, any civil liability arising from
the estafa cannot be awarded in the criminal
case. This is because the civil liability arising
from the contract is not civil liability ex
delicto, which arises from the same act or
omission constituting the crime. Civil
liability ex delicto is the liability sought to be
recovered in a civil action deemed instituted
with the criminal case." In this case, the Court
agrees with the findings of both the R TC and
the CA that the prosecution failed to prove all
the elements of estafa through
misappropriation as defined in, and penalized
under, paragraph 1 (b ), [Article 315] of the
[RPC] (ESTATE OF HONORIO POBLADOR, JR.,
represented by RAFAEL A. POBLADOR v.
ROSARIO L. MANZANO, G.R. No. 192391, June
19, 2017).
2. Independent civil liabilities, such as those:
a. Not arising from an act or omission
complained of as a felony, e.g., culpa
 CIVIL LAW
contractual or obligations arising from
law under Article 31 of the New Civil
Code (such as breach of contract or tort),
intentional torts under Articles 32 and 34,
and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of
the New Civil Code.
b. Where the injured party is granted a right
to file an action independent and distinct
from the criminal action under Article 33
of the New Civil Code (in cases of
defamation, fraud and physical injuries).
NOTE: Either of these liabilities may be enforced
against the offender subject to the caveat under
Article 2177 of the New Civil Code that the
plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the
same act or omission of the defendant (Santos v.
Pizardo, G.R. No. 151452, July 29, 2005).
Tortious Act
It is a wrongful act. It is the commission or
omission of an act by one, without right, whereby
another receives, some direct or indirect injury, in
person, property, or reputation (De Leon, 2012).
GR: An action for damages can only be maintained
by the person directly injured, not by one alleging
the collateral injury.
XPN: There are instances where injury to one may
operate as an injury to another, e.g. a lone parent
cannot sue for the injury suffered by his child, but
may maintain an action in his own right for any
damages suffered as a result of the injury.
Remedies for Torts (CPR):
1. Compensatory actions for sum of money for
the damage suffered.
2. Preventive prayer for injunction, a writ of
preliminary injunction, and a temporary
restraining order, enjoining the defendant
from continuing the doing of the tortious
conduct.
3. Restitution to return gains that the
defendant wrongfully obtained by tort.
Cause of Action in Tort
Elements: (ROW)
1. A legal Right in favor of a person
2. A correlative legal Obligation on the part of
the defendant to respect such right.
3, A Wrong, an act or omission in violation of
such right with consequent injury.
UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
Note: Damage incurred without the presence of
the other elements does not constitute a cause of
action being merley damnum absque injuria
(AQUINO, Torts and Damages)
QUASI-DELICT
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 quasi-delict or
culpa aquilana (Art. 2176, NCC).
Elements of Quasi-Delict (1993, 1997, 2006,
2007, 2010 BAR)
1. Damage to the plaintiff; NOTE: It is the
loss, hurt or harm which results from
injury. It differs from damages which
term refers to the recompense or
compensation awarded for the damage
suffered (So Ping Bun v. CA, G.R. No.
120554, September 21, 1999).
2. Negligence, by act or omission, of which
defendant, or some person for whose acts,
must respond, was guilty; and
3. Connection of cause and effect between
such negligence and damage (Dra. Leila A.
Llano v. Rebecca Biong, G.R. No. 182356,
December 4, 2013).
NOTE: In civil cases, a party who alleges a fact has
the burden of proving it by preponderance of
evidence or greater weight of credible evidence.
Prescription of an action based on quasi-delict
An action based on quasi-delictmust be instituted
within four (4) years (NCC, Art. 1146).
Act
It is any bodily movement tending to produce
some effect in the external world, it being
unnecessary that the same be actually produced,
as the possibility of its production is sufficient
(People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, March 19,
1990).
Fault
It is a condition where a person acts in a way or
manner contrary to what normally should have
been done (Pineda, 2009).
662
 TORTS
Negligence
It 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 (NCC, Art.
1173).
Foreseeability of harm (Forseeability Test)
The test to determine the existence of negligence
is whether a prudent man could foresee harm as a
result of the course actually pursued (Picart v.
Smith, Jr., G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918).
NOTE: The existence of negligence in a given case
is not determined by reference to the personal
judgment of the actor in the situation before him.
The law considers what would be reckless,
blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary
intelligence and prudence and determines liability
by that (Ibid.).
Rule when negligence shows bad faith
When negligence shows bad faith, responsibility
arising from fraud is demandable in all
obligations (NCC, Art. 1171). Furthermore, in case
of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the
obligor shall be responsible for all damages
which may be reasonably attributed to the non-
performance of the obligation (NCC, Art. 2201).
When is negligence excused
GR: Negligence is excused when events that
transpired were unforeseen or, which though
foreseen, were inevitable (NCC, Art. 1174).
XPN:
1. In cases specified by law;
2. When declared by stipulation; or
3. When the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk.
NOTE: A person or juridical entity is made liable
solidarily with a tortfeasor simply by reason of his
relationship with the latter.
Presumption of negligence on persons
indirectly responsible
The presumption of law is that there was
negligence on the part of the master or employer
either in the selection of the servant or employee
(culpa in eligendo) or in the supervision over him
after the selection (culpa vigilando), or both.
663
NOTE: The presumption is juris tantum
(rebuttable), not juris et de jure (conclusive), and
can be rebutted only by showing proof of having
exercised and observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family (diligentissimi patris familias)
(Tamagro v. CA, G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992).
Nature of responsibility of Vicarious Obligor
Primary and direct, not subsidiary. He is solidarily
liable with the tortfeasor. His responsibility is not
conditioned upon the insolvency of or prior
recourse against the negligent tortfeasor (De Leon
Brokerage v. CA, G.R. 15247, February 28, 1962).
Persons Vicariously Liable (F-GOES-T)
1. Father, or in case of death or incapacity,
mother:
a. Damage caused by minor children
b. Living in their company
2. Guardians:
a. For minors or incapacitated persons
b. Under their authority
c. Living in their company
3. Owners and managers of establishments:
a. For their employees
b. In the service of the branches in which
they are employed, or;
c. On the occasion of their functions
4. Employers:
a. Damages caused by employees and
household helpers
b. Acting within the scope of their assigned
tasks
c. Even if the employer is not engaged in
any business or industry
5. State acting through a special agent and not
when the damage has been caused by the
official to whom the task done properly
pertains.
6. Teachers or heads of establishments:
a. Of arts and trades
NOTE: Article 2180 of the NCC is
applicable to all schools, whether it be
academic or non-academic (Amadora v.
CA, G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988).
b. For damages caused by their pupils and
students or apprentices
c. So long as they remain in their custody
(NCC, Art. 2180).
 CIVIL LAW
The actual tortfeasor is not exempted from
liability
The minor, ward, employee, special agent, pupil,
students and apprentices who actually committed
the delictual acts are not exempted by the law
from personal responsibility. They may be sued
and made liable alone as when the person
responsible for them or vicarious obligor proves
that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a
family or when the minor or insane person has no
parents or guardians. In the latter instance, they
are answerable with their own property (Pineda,
2009).
Common Defenses
The vicarious liability shall cease when the
defendants prove that they observed all the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage (NCC, Art. 2180; Cuadra v. Monfort, G.R. No.
L-24101 September 30, 1970).
Principle of Vicarious Liability or Law on
Imputed Negligence (2001-2006, 2009, 2010
BAR)
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 of the NCC
for quasi-delicts is demandable not only for one's
own acts or omissions, but also for those persons
for whom one is responsible (NCC, Art. 2180).
THE TORTFEASOR
Persons liable for quasi-delict
Every person legally responsible is liable for a tort
committed by him provided it is the p-proximate
cause of an injury to another. (DE LEON, Torts and
Damages)
Defendants in tort cases can either be natural or
artificial beings.
Pursuant to vicarious liability, a corporation may
be held directly and primary liable for tortious
acts of its officers or employees (NCC, Art. 2180).
Joint Tortfeasors
Two or more persons who act together in
committing a wrong, or contribute to its
commission, or assist or participate therein
actively and with common intent, so that injury
UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
results to a third person from the joint wrongful
act of the wrongdoers (De Leon, 2012).
Test for Joint Tortfeasors
Whether the plaintiff has a single cause of action
against such tortfeasors, or whether he has only
several causes of action against each of them.
Liability of Joint Tortfeasors
The responsibility of two or more persons who
are liable for quasi-delict is solidary (NCC, Art.
2194). Each are liable as principals, to the same
extent and in the same manner as if they had
performed the wrongful act themselves (Ruks
Konsult and Construction v. Adworld Sign and
Advertising Corp., G.R. No. 204866, January 21,
2015).
Liability of the owner of a vehicle in case of an
accident (1996, 1998, 2002, 2009 BAR)
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily
liable with his driver, 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, if he had
been found guilty or reckless driving or violating
traffic regulations at least twice within the next
preceding two months (NCC, Art. 2184).
Car owner not present in the vehicle
If the car owner is not present in the vehicle and
the driver was negligent, the injured party may
still sue b said owner under Article 2180 par. (5)
of the New Civil Code for imputed liability.
NOTE: Employers shall be liable for the damages
caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks,
even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry (NCC, Article 2180 par. 5).
If no knowledge of owner of vehicle not liable
An owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an
accident involving the said vehicle if the same was
driven without his consent or knowledge and by a
person not employed by him (Duavit v. CA, G.R. No.
82318, May 18, 1989).
Liability of proprietors of buildings
1. The proprietor of a building or structure is
responsible for the damages resulting from its
total or partial collapse, if it should be due to
664
 TORTS
the lack of necessary repairs (NCC, Art. 2190).
(1990, 2007 BAR)
2. They shall also be responsible for damages
caused by emanations from tubes, canals,
sewers or deposits of infectious matter,
constructed without precautions suitable to
the place (NCC, Art. 2191). (2002 BAR)
Rules on liability for collapse of a building
(NCC, Art. 1723)
1. The collapse of the building must be within 15
years from the completion of the structure.
NOTE: The collapse is by reason of a defect in
specifications, or due to the defects in the
ground
2. The prescriptive period is 10 years following
the collapse.
3. The liability applies to collapse or ruin, not to
minor defects.
4. Even if payment has been made, an action is
still possible.
NOTE: Acceptance of the building, after
completion, does not imply waiver of any of
the cause of action by reason of any defect.
5. If the engineer or architect supervises the
construction, he shall be solidarily liable with
the contractor.
NOTE: The contractor is likewise responsible
for the damages if the edifice falls, within the
same period, on account of defects in the
construction or the use of materials of inferior
quality furnished by him, or due to any
violation of the terms of the contract.
When a building collapses during an
earthquake
GR: No one can be held liable in view of the
fortuitous event if the proximate cause of the
collapse of the building is an earthquake.
XPN: If the proximate cause is the defective
designing or construction, or directly attributable
to the use of inferior or unsafe material, it is clear
that liability exists (NCC, Art. 1723; Juan F. Nakpil
& Sons v. CA, G.R. No. L-47851, October 3, 1986).
Concurrent Negligence of Two or More Persons
Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts
or omissions of two or more persons, although
665
acting independently, are in combination the
direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a
third person (Sabido v. Custodio, G.R. No. L-21512,
August 31, 1966).
Materiality of Intent
Liability in tort for injury is determined by
conduct, and can arise regardless of the mental
state or intent to commit an unlawful.
If several persons jointly commit a tort, the
plaintiff or person injured, has his election to sue
all or some of the parties jointly, or one of them
separately, because the tort is in its nature a
separate act of each individual (Dean Worcester v.
Ocampo, G.R. No. 5932, February 27, 1912).
In case of injury to a passenger due to the
negligence of the driver of the bus on which he
was riding and of the driver of another vehicle, the
drivers as well as the owners of the two vehicles
are jointly and severally liable for damages (Tiu v.
Arriesgado, G.R. No. 138060, September 1, 2004).
ACT OR OMISSION AND ITS MODALITIES
Quasi-Delict
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 (NCC, Art. 2176).
NOTE: While it may be true that the pre-existing
contract between the parties may, as a general
rule, bar the applicability of the law on quasi-
delict, the liability may itself be deemed to arise
from quasi-delict, i.e., the acts which breaks the
contract may also be a quasi-delict (Coca-Cola
Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
110295, 18 October 1993).
Elements of Quasi-Delict (1993, 1997, 2006,
2007, 2010 BAR)
1. Damage to the Plaintiff;
NOTE: It is the loss, hurt or harm which
results from injury. It differs from damages
which term refers to the recompense or
compensation awarded for the damage
suffered (So Ping Bun v. CA, G.R. No. 120554,
September 21, 1999).
 CIVIL LAW
2. Negligence, by act or omission, of which
defendant, or some person for whose acts,
must respond, was guilty; and
3. Connection of cause and effect between such
negligence and damage (FGU Insurance Corp.
v. CA, G.R. No. 118889, March 23, 1998).
NOTE: An action based on quasi-delict must be
instituted within four (4) years.
Act
It is any bodily movement tending to produce
some effect in the external world, it being
unnecessary that the same be actually produced,
as the possibility of its production is sufficient
(People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, March 19,
1990).
Fault or Negligence
It 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 (NCC, Art.
1173).
Affirmative Duties and Miscellaneous
Activities
1.Duties of owners, proprietors and
Possessors of Property
General Rule: The owner has no duty to take
reasonable care towards a trespasser for his
protection from concealed danger. The trespasser
come on to the premises under his own risk.
(Taylor v. Manila Railroad Company, 16 Phil. 8)
XPN:
a. Visitors- owners owe a duty of care to
visitors. (Cabigao v. University of the East,
CA-G.R. No. 33554)
b. Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance- one
who maintains on his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a
character likely top attract children in
play and fails to prevent children from
playing therewith is liable to a child of
TENDER YEARS who is injured thereby.
Even if the child is technically a
trespasser in the premises.
Example: Swimming pool with attractive
floats or paraphernalia.
Note: Generally not applicable to bodies of
natural or artificial water in the absence of
any artificial feature other than mere water.
UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
c. Tolerated Possession- Owner is liable if
the plaintiff is inside his property by
tolerance or by implied permission.
(AQUINO, Torts and Damages)
d. State of Necessity- A situation of present
danger to legally protected interests,
where the only remedy is injuring
2. Duty of Banks
It is one affected by public interest. Banks are
expected to exercise the highest degree of
diligence in the selection and supervision of their
employees. (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. CA)
3.Duty of Common Carriers
They are required to exercise extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over their passengers.
4.Duty of Doctors
General Practitioner: the standard of the care
demanded is ordinary care and diligence in the
application of his knowledge.
Specialist: generally considered to be that of an
average specialist and not of an average physician.
(Solis, Medical Jurisprudence 1998)
Captain of the Ship Doctrine
Th head surgeon is made liable for everything that
goes wrong within the four corners of the
operating room. (AQUINO, Torts and Damages)
The fact that there is a trend in American
Jurisprudence to do away with the Captain of the
Ship Doctrine does not mean that this court will
ipso facto follow said trend. (Ramos v. CA, G.R.
124354)
Doctrine of Apparent Authority
When no employment relationship exists but it is
shown that the hospital holds out to the patient
that the doctor is its agent it may be vicariously
liable under Art. 2176
Doctrine of Corporate Responsibility
A hospital has the duty to see that it meets the
standards of responsibilities for the care of
patients. Such duty includes the proper
supervision of members of its medical staff.
(Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana)
666
 TORTS
5.Duty of Lawyers
An attorney is bound to exercise only a reasonable
degree of care and skill, having reference to the
business he undertakes. (Adarne v. Aldaba, A.M.
No. 801)
VICARIOUS LIABILITY: PARENTS
Basis of vicarious liability of the parents (2005
This liability is made natural as a logical
consequence of the duties and responsibilities of
parents exercising parental authority which
includes controlling, disciplining and instructing
their children. In this jurisdiction the pa
liability is vested by law which assumes that when
a minor or unemancipated child living with their
parent, commits a tortious act, the parents are
presumed negligent in the performance of their
duty to supervise the children under their custody
(Tamagro v. CA, G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992).
Requisites of vicarious liability of the parents
(21-CL)
1. The child is below 21 years of age;
2. The child Committed a tortious act to the
damage and prejudice of another person; and
3. The child Lives in the company of the parent
concerned whether single or married (Pineda,
2009).
Minors v. Incapacitated Persons
Minor Incapacitated Persons
Those who are below Persons beyond 21
21 years of age. years of age but are
incapacitated such as
NOTE: R.A. 6809, An those who are insane or
Act Lowering the Age of imbecile.
Majority from Twenty-
One to Eighteen Years,
did not amend Article
236 of the Family Code
with regard to age.
from the duty or responsibility of parents and
guardians for children and wards below 21 years of
age mentioned in the second and third paragraphs
Thus, under Article 221 of the Family Code, there
is no more alternative qualification as to the civil
liability of parents. The liability of both father and
mother is now primary and not subsidiary (Libi vs.
667
IAC, G.R. No. 70890, September 18, 1992).
Otherwise stated, their responsibility is now
simultaneous, and no longer alternative (Rabuya,
2017).
NOTE: Parents and other persons exercising
parental authority shall be civilly liable for the
injuries and damages caused by the acts or
omissions of their unemancipated children living
in their company and under their parental
authority subject to the appropriate defenses
provided by law (FC, Art.221).
Vicarious liability of other persons exercising
parental authority
In default of the parents or a judicially appointed
guardian, parental authority shall be exercised by
the following persons in the order indicated:
1. Surviving grandparents;
2. Oldest sibling, over 21 years old unless unfit
or unqualified; or
3. old
unless unfit or disqualified
(FC, Art. 216).
Adopted Children
Judicially adopted children are considered
legitimate children of their adopting parents (RA,
8552, Sec. 17).
Thus, adopters are civilly liable for the
tortious/criminal acts of their minor children who
live with them.
NOTE: Parental authority may not be given
retroactive effect so as to make the adopting
parents the indispensable parties in a damage
case filed against their adopted child, for acts
committed by the latter, when actual custody was
yet lodged with the biological parents (Tamargo v.
CA, G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992).
Reversion of parental authority to biological
parents
If the adopter dies while the adopted child is still a
minor, parental authority should be deemed to
have reverted in favor of the biological parents.
(Bartolome vs. SSS)
Illegitimate Child
As for an illegitimate child, if he is acknowledged
by the father and lives with the latter, the father
shall be responsible. However, if he is not
recognized by the putative father but is under the
custody and supervision of the mother, it is the
 CIVIL LAW
latter who is the one vicariously liable (Pineda,
2009).
VICARIOUS LIABILITY: GUARDIANS
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the
minors or incapacitated persons who are under
their authority and live in their company (NCC,
Art. 2180).
If the minor or insane person causing damage has
no parents or guardian, the minor or insane
person shall be answerable with his own property
in an action against him where a guardian ad litem
shall be appointed (NCC, Art. 2182).
NOTE: The rules on vicarious liability of parents
are applicable to vicarious liability of guardians.
De facto guardians covered by Art. 2180 of the
NCC
De facto guardians are relatives and neighbors
who take upon themselves the duty to care and
support orphaned children without passing
through judicial proceedings.
NOTE: They are liable for acts committed by
children while living with them and are below 21
years of age, the law being applied by analogy
(Pineda, 2009).
VICARIOUS LIABILITY:
OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF
ESTABLISHMENTS
AND ENTERPRISES
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 [NCC, Art. 2180(4)].
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused
by their employees and household helpers acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry [Ibid. (5)]. (2005 BAR)
Owners and managers
are used in the
manager of a corporation who himself is just an
employee (Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines v. Phil. American
Forwarders, Inc., G.R. No. L-25142, March 25, 1975).
UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
To make the employer liable under Art. 2180 of
the NCC, it must be established that the injurious
or tortious act was committed at the time the
employee was performing his functions (Marquez
v. Castillo, G.R. No. 46237, September 27, 1939).
NOTE: However, a manager who is not an owner
but who assumes the responsibility of supervision
over the employees of the owner may be held
liable for the acts of the employees (Pineda, 2009).
One who hires an independent contractor but
rk is responsible also for
his negligence. (Cuison v. Norton and Harrison co.,
G.R. No. L-32774)
Requisites before an employer may be held
liable under Article 2180 (4) for the act of its
employees
1. The employee was chosen by the employer
personally or through another;
2. The service is to be rendered in accordance
with orders which the employer has the
authority to give all times; and
3. That the illicit act of the employee was on the
occasion or by reason of the functions
entrusted to him (Jayme v. Apostol, G.R. No.
163609, November 27, 2008).
VICARIOUS LIABILITY: EMPLOYERS
Employer
An employer includes any person acting directly
or indirectly in the interest of an employer in
relation to an employee and shall include the
government and all its branches, subdivisions and
instrumentalities, all government owned or
controlled corporations and institutions, as well as
non-profit private institutions, or organizations
(PD 442, Art. 97).
Presumption on the negligence of the
employer
The negligence of the employee is presumed to be
the negligence of the employer because the
employer is supposed to exercise supervision over
the work of the employees. This liability of the
employer is primary and direct (Standard Vacuum
Oil Co. vs. Tan and Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-
13048. February 27, 1960).
employer can then be made liable on the basis of
the presumption that the employer failed to
exercise diligentissimi patris familias (diligence of
668
 TORTS
a good father of a family) in the selection and XPN: However, it is not necessary that the task
supervision of its employees (LRTA v. Navidad, performed by the employee is his regular job or
G.R. No. 145804, February 6, 2003). that which was expressly given to him by the
employer. It is enough that the task is
Owners/Managers Employers (Par 5, Art. indispensable to the business or beneficial to the
(Par 4, Art. 2180, NCC) 2180, NCC) employer (Filamer Christian Institute v. IAC, G.R.
Requires engagement The employers need No. 75112, August 7, 1992).
in business on the part not be engaged in
of the employers as the business or industry. NOTE: It is not required that the employer is
law speaks of engaged in some kind of industry or work
(Castilex Industrial Corporation v. Vasquez, G.R. No.
132266 December 21, 1999).

Covers negligent acts of Covers negligent acts of
employees committed employees acting
either in the service of within the scope of
the branches or in the their assigned tasks.
occasion of their
functions.
Remedies of the injured party in pursuing the
civil liability of the employer for the acts of his
employees
1. If he chooses to file a civil action for damages
based on quasi-delict under Article 2180 of the
New Civil Code and succeeds in proving the
negligence of the employee, the liability of the
employer is primary, direct and solidary. It is
not conditioned on the insolvency of the
employee (Metro Manila Transit Corp. v. CA,
G.R. No. 118069, November 16, 1998).
2. If he chooses to file a criminal case against the
offender and was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, the civil liability of the
employer is subsidiary. The employer cannot
use as a defense the exercise of the diligence
of a good father of a family.
NOTE: Once there is a conviction for a felony, final
in character, the employer under Article 103 of
the RPC, is subsidiary liable, if it be shown that the
commission thereof was in the discharge of the
duties of the employee. A previous dismissal of an
action based on culpa aquiliana could not be a bar
to the enforcement of the subsidiary liability
required by Art. 103 of the RPC (Jocson, et al. v.
Glorioso, G.R. No. L-22686, January 30, 1968).
Vicarious liability Owners and Managers of
Establishment under Article 2180(5) (1991,
2001 BAR)
GR: It is required that the employee must be
performing his assigned task at the time that the
injury is caused.
When a criminal case is filed against the offender,
exacted, there must be proof that:
1. They are indeed the employer of the convicted
employee;
2. The former are engaged in some kind of
industry;
3. The crime was committed by the employees
in the discharge of their duties; and
4. That the execution against the latter has not
been satisfied due to insolvency (Philippine
Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. People, G.R. No.
147703, April 14, 2004).
NOTE: The determination of these conditions may
be done in the same criminal action in which the
pronounced, in a hearing set for that precise
purpose, with due notice to the employer, as part
of the proceedings for the execution of the
judgement [Rabuya (2017), citing Calang v. People,
626 SCRA 679, 2010)].
Vicarious liability Owners and Managers of
Establishment V. Vicarious liability of
Employers
Q: OJ was employed as a professional driver of
MM Transit bus owned by Mr. BT. In the course
of his work, OJ hit a pedestrian who was
seriously injured and later died in the hospital
sued the driver and the owner of the bus for
damages. Is there a presumption in this case,
that Mr. BT, the owner, had been negligent? If
so, is the presumption absolute or not? (2004
BAR)
A: YES, there is a presumption of negligence on
the part of the employer. However, such
presumption is rebuttable. The liability of the
employer shall cease when they prove that they
observed the diligence of a good father of a family
to prevent damage (Art. 2180). When the

669
 CIVIL LAW
employee causes damage due to his own
negligence while performing his own duties, there
arises the juris tantum presumption that the
employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of
observance of the diligence of a good father of a
family (Delsan Transport Lines v. C & A
Construction, G.R. No. 156034, October 1, 2003).
Likewise, if the driver is charged and convicted in
a criminal case for criminal negligence, BT is
subsidiarily liable for the damages arising from
the criminal act.
Q: After working overtime up to midnight,
Alberto, an executive of an insurance company
drove a company vehicle to a favorite Videoke
bar where he had some drinks and sang some
songs with friends to "unwind." At 2:00 a.m., he
drove home, but in doing so, he bumped a
tricycle, resulting in the death of its driver.
May the insurance company be held liable for
the negligent act of Alberto? Why? (2001 BAR)
A: NO. The insurance company is not liable
because when the accident occurred, Alberto was
not acting within the assigned tasks of his
employment.
It is true that under Art. 2180(5), employers are
liable for damages caused by their employees who
were acting within the scope of their assigned
tasks. However, the mere fact that Alberto was
using a service vehicle of the employer at the time
of the injurious accident does not necessarily
mean that he was operating the vehicle within the
scope of his employment. In Castilex Industrial
Corporation v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 132266, December
21, 1999, the Supreme Court held that
notwithstanding the fact that the employee did
some overtime work for the company, the former
was, nevertheless, engaged in his own affairs or
carrying out a personal purpose when he went to
a restaurant at 2:00 a.m. after coming out from
work. The time of the accident (also 2:00 a.m.)
was outside normal working hours.
When the employee is considered to be acting
within the scope of employment
going from his work to a place where he intends to
eat or in returning to work from a meal is not
ordinarily acting within the scope of his
employment in the absence of evidence of some
special business benefit to the employer (Castilex
Industrial Corporation v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 132266,
December 21, 1999).
UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
vehicle to go to and from meals, an employee is
enabled to reduce his time-off and so devote more
time to the performance of his duties, supports the
finding that an employee is acting within the
scope of his employment while so driving the
vehicle (Ibid.).
Defenses available to an employer
1. Exercise of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of its employees (except in
criminal action); and
NOTE: In the selection of prospective
employees, employers are required to
examine them as their qualifications,
experience, and service records. On the other
hand, with respect to the supervision of
employees, employers should formulate
standard operating procedures, monitor their
implementation, and impose disciplinary
measures for breaches thereof. To establish
these factors in a trial involving the issue of
vicarious liability, employees must submit
concrete proof, including documentary
evidence (Metro Manila Transit v. CA, G.R. No.
141089, August 1, 2002).
2. The act or omission was made outside
rules and regulations.
Q: Would the defense of due diligence in the
selection and supervision of the employee be
available to the employer in both instances?
(1997 BAR)
A: NO. The defense of diligence in the selection
and supervision of the employee under Article
2180 of the New Civil Code is available only to
those primarily liable thereunder, but not to those
subsidiary liable under Article 103 of the Revised
Penal Code (Yumul v. Juliano, G.R. No. 47690, April,
28, 1941).
v.
NEW CIVIL CODE RPC
Liability is direct, Liability is subsidiary.
primary, and solidary -
the employer may be
sued even without
suing the employee.
Diligence of a good Diligence of a good
father of a family is a father of a family is not
defense. a defense.
670
 TORTS
Employer is liable even Petitioner must prove
if not engaged in that the employer is
business. engaged in business.
Proof of negligence is Proof beyond
by mere preponderance reasonable doubt is
of evidence. required.
Q: Arturo sold his Pajero to Benjamin for P1M.
Benjamin took the vehicle but did not register
the sale with the Land Transportation Office.
He allowed his son Carlos, a minor who did not
have a driver's license, to drive the car to buy
pan de sal in a bakery. On the way, Carlos
driving in a reckless manner sideswiped
Dennis, then riding a bicycle. As a result, he
suffered serious physical injuries. Dennis filed
a criminal complaint against Carlos for
reckless imprudence resulting in serious
physical injuries.
1. Can Dennis file an independent civil action
against Carlos and his father Benjamin for
damages based on quasi-delict?
2. Assuming Dennis' action is tenable; can
Benjamin raise the defense that he is not
liable because the vehicle is not registered
in his name? (2006 BAR)
A:
1. YES. Dennis can file an independent civil
action against Carlos and his father for
damages based on quasi-delict there being an
act or omission causing damage to another
without contractual obligation. Under Section
1 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure, what is deemed instituted with the
criminal action is only the action to recover
civil liability arising from the act or omission
punished by law. An action based on quasi-
delict is no longer deemed instituted and may
be filed separately (Sec. 3, Rule 111, Rules of
Court).
2. NO, Benjamin cannot raise the defense that
the vehicle is not registered in his name. His
liability, vicarious in character, is based on
Article 2180 because he is the father of a
minor who caused damage due to negligence.
While the suit will prosper against the
registered owner, it is the actual owner of the
private vehicle who is ultimately liable (See
Duavit v.CA, G.R. No. L-29759, May 18, 1989).
The purpose of car registration is to reduce
difficulty in identifying the party liable in case
of accidents (Villanueva v. Domingo, G.R. No.
144274, September 14, 2004).
671
Q: A driver of a bus owned by company Z ran
over a boy who died instantly. A criminal case
for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
was filed against the driver. He was convicted
and was ordered to pay P2 Million in actual
and moral damages to the parents of the boy
who was an honor student and had a bright
future. Without even trying to find out if the
driver had assets or means to pay the award of
damages, the parents of the boy filed a civil
action against the bus company to make it
directly liable for the damages.
1. Will their action prosper?
2. If the parents of the boy do not wish to file
a separate civil action against the bus
company, can they still make the bus
company liable if the driver cannot pay the
award for damages? If so, what is the
nature of the employer's liability and how
may civil damages be satisfied? (2015
BAR)
A:
1. YES, their action will prosper. The liability of
the employer in this case may be based on
quasi-delict and is included within the
coverage of independent civil actions. It is not
necessary to enforce the civil liability based
on culpa aquiliana that the driver or employee
be proven to be insolvent since the liability of
the employer for the quasi-delict committed
by their employees is direct and primary
subject to the defense of due diligence on
their part (NCC, Art. 2176; NCC, Art. 2180).
2. YES, the parents of the boy can enforce the
subsidiary liability of the employer in the
criminal case against the driver. The
conviction of the driver is a condition sine qua
non for the subsidiary liability of the employer
to attach. Proof must be shown that the
driver is insolvent (RPC, Art. 103)
VICARIOUS LIABILITY: STATE
Aspects of liability of the State
1. Public/Governmental Where the State is
liable only for the tortious acts of its special
agents. The State has voluntarily assumed
liability for acts done through special agents
(Pineda, 2009).
2. Private/Non-governmental When the State is
engaged in private business or enterprise, it
becomes liable as an ordinary employer (NIA
v. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 61045, December 1,
1989).
 CIVIL LAW
NOTE: The State is only liable for the negligent
acts of its officers, agents and employees when
they are acting as special agents.
Special Agent
A special agent is one who receives a definite and
fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise
of the duties of his office.
An employee who on his own responsibility
performs functions inherent in his office and
naturally pertaining thereto is not a special agent
(Meritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands, G.R.
No. 11154, March 21, 1916).
NOTE: Where the government commissions a
private individual for a special governmental task,
it is acting through a special agent within the
meaning of the provision (Largo, 2007).
Liability of Provinces, Cities and Municipalities
and municipalities shall be liable for damages for
the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by
reason of the defective condition of roads, streets,
bridges, public buildings, and other public works
(NCC, Art.
2189).
NOTE: It is not even necessary for the defective
road or street to belong to the province, city or
municipality for liability to attach. The article only
requires that either control or supervision is
exercised over the defective road or street
(Guilatco v. City of Dagupan, G.R. No. 61516, 21 Mar
1989).
Lack of knowledge not a defense
The LGU cannot be relieved of liability based on its
purported lack of knowledge of the excavation and
the condition of the road when the accident
occurred. Its obligation to maintain the safe
condition of the road within its territory is a
continuing one which is not suspended while a
street is being repaired (Municipality of San Juan v.
CA, G.R. No. 121920, 9 Aug 2005).
VICARIOUS LIABILITY: TEACHERS AND HEADS
OF ESTABLISHMENTS OF ARTS AND TRADES
Teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable
for any damages caused by their pupils or
apprentices while they are under their custody.
UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
In the case of Ylarde v. Aquino, G.R. L-33722, July
29, 1988, the teacher Edgardo Aquino, after
bringing his pupils to an excavation site dug by
them, left them all by themselves, and one of the
pupils fell into the pit. The teacher acted with fault
and gross negligence because a teacher who
stands in loco parentis to his pupils would have
made sure that the children are protected from all
harm in his company.
Application of vicarious liability under Art.
2180 of the NCC not limited to schools of arts
and trade
The application of Article 2180 of the New Civil
Code is not limited to schools of arts and trades.
There is really no substantial distinction between
the academic and the nonacademic schools insofar
as torts committed by their students are
concerned. The same vigilance is expected from
the teacher over the students under his control
and supervision, whatever the nature of the school
where he is teaching. There is no reason why
different degrees of vigilance should be exercised
by the school authorities on the basis only of the
nature of their respective schools (Amadora v. CA,
G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988).
NOTE: Although Art. 2180 is applicable to all
schools, the distinction between an academic
school and an establishment of arts and trades is
still essential to distinguish the liability of the
teacher from that of the head of the establishment.
Liability of the teacher as distinguished from
the head of the establishment
GR: Where the school is academic rather than
technical or vocational in nature, responsibility for
the tort committed by the student will attach to
the teacher in charge of such student.
XPN: In the case of establishments of arts and
trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who
shall be held liable as an exception to the general
rule.
In other words, teachers in general shall be liable
for the acts of their students except where the
school is technical in nature, in which case it is the
head thereof who shall be answerable (Ibid.).
They are acting in Loco Parentis (in place of
parents). However, teachers are not expected to
have the same measure of responsibility as that
imposed on parent for their influence over the
672
 TORTS
child is not equal in degree. The parent can instill Teachers and Heads of schools are only liable if
more lasting discipline on the child than the the students remain in schools. If they are no
teacher and so should be held to a greater longer in such premises, their responsibility shall
accountability than the teacher or the head for the attach no more. Their parents become responsible
tort committed by the child (Amadora v. CA, G.R. for them (Pineda, 2009).
No. L-47745, April 15, 1988).
A student is in custody of the school
Special Parental Authority under the Family authorities
Code
The student is in the custody of the school
Art. 218. The school, its administrators and authorities as long as he is under the control and
teachers, or the individual, entity or institution influence of the school and within its premises,
engaged in child are shall have special parental whether the semester has not ended, or has ended
authority and responsibility over the minor child ifies
while under their supervision, instruction or that the student is within the control and
custody. influence of the school authorities. The teacher in
charge is the one designated by the dean,
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all principal, or other administrative superior to
authorized activities whether inside or outside the exercise supervision over the pupils or students in
premises of the school, entity or institution. the specific classes or sections to which they are
assigned. It is not necessary that at the time of the
Art. 219. Those given the authority and injury, the teacher is physically present and in a
responsibility under the preceding Article shall be position to prevent it.
principally and solidarily liable for damages
caused by the acts or omissions of the Article 218 of the Family Code v. Article 2180
unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial of the New Civil Code
guardians or the persons exercising substitute
parental authority over said minor shall be ARTICLE 218 of the ARTICLE 2180 of the
subsidiarily liable. Family Code New Civil Code
School, its Teachers, head of
Rationale of vicarious liability of school heads administrators, establishment in arts
and teachers (2005 BAR) teachers engaged in and trades are made
child care are made expressly liable.
expressly liable.
liability for tortious acts of their pupil and
students, so long as they remain in custody, is that Liability of school, its Neither such express
they stand, to a certain extent, as to their pupils administrators, and solidary nor subsidiary
and students, in loco parentis and are called upon teachers is solidary and liability is stated.
parents are made
subsidiary liable.
for in Articles 349, 350 and 352 of the Civil Code
(Pineda, 2009). Students involved must Students involved are
be a minor. not necessarily minors.
Age of student immaterial
Defenses available
Even if the student has already reached the age of
majority, the liability can be imputed to the Their responsibility will cease when they prove
teacher-in-charge. Under Article 2180, age does that they observed all the diligence of a good
not matter. Unlike the parent who will be liable father of a family to prevent damage (NCC, Art.
only if the child is still a minor, the teacher is held 2180). As for the employer, if he shows to the
answerable by the law for the act of the student satisfaction of the court that in the selection and in
regardless of the age of the student liable the supervision of his employees he has exercised
(Amadora v. CA, G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988). the care and diligence of a good father of a family,
the presumption is overcome and he is relieved
Limitation to the liability of teachers and from liability (Layugan v. IAC, G.R. No. L-49542,
heads of Schools September 12, 1980).

673
 CIVIL LAW
Q: A 15-year-old high school student stabs his
classmate who is his rival for a girl, while they
were going out of the classroom after their last
class. Who may be held liable? (2005 BAR)
A: Under Article 218 of the Family Code, the
school, its administrators and teachers, or the
individual, entity or institution engaged in child
care shall have special parental authority and
responsibility over the minor child while under
their supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all
authorized activities whether inside or outside the
premises of the school, entity or institution.
Liability of the school
1. Vicarious liability as an employer under Art.
2180 of the NCC;
2. Direct liability:
a. for quasi-delicts under Art. 2176 of the
NCC;
b. as an institution exercising special
parental authority over minor children
under Art. 219 of the FC;
c. for breach of contract; or
NOTE: When a student enrolls, a contract is
entered into between him and the school.
Under this contract, the school is supposed to
ensure that adequate steps are taken to
provide an atmosphere conducive to study
and ensure the safety of the student while
inside its premises (Saludaga v. FEU, G.R. No.
179337, April 30, 2008). Thus, any quasi-delict
the student is also actionable under breach of
contractual obligations.
3. Subsidiary liability for felonies committed by
their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices,
or employees in the discharge of their duties,
under Art. 103 of the RPC.
PROXIMATE CAUSE
Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury,
and without which the result would not have
occurred (Ramos v. C.O.L. Realty, G.R. No. 184905,
August 28, 2009).
NOTE: Proximate cause is not necessarily the
time, distance or space (People v. Elizalde, 59 Off.
Gaz. 1241).
UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
Application of proximate cause
The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only
in actions for quasi-delict, not in actions involving
breach of contract.
The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a
person where there is no relation between him
and another party. In such a case, the obligation is
created by law itself. But, where there is a pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties,
it is the parties themselves who create the
obligation, and the function of the law is merely to
regulate the relation thus created (Calalas v. CA,
G.R. No. 122039. May 31, 2000).
Principle of concurrent causes
Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts
or omissions of two or more persons, although
acting independently, are in combination with the
direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a
third person, and it is impossible to determine
what proportion each contributed to the injury,
either of them is responsible for the whole injury,
even though his act alone might not have caused
the entire injury (Sabido v. Custodio, G.R. No. L-
21512, August 31, 1966).
Efficient Intervening Cause (Novus Actus
Interviens)
An efficient intervening cause is one which
destroys the causal connection between the
negligent act and the injury and thereby negatives
liability (Morril v. Morril, 60 ALR 102, 104 NJL 557).
When Efficient Intervening Cause is not
applicable
There is no efficient intervening cause if the force
created by the negligent act or omission have
either:
1. Remained active itself; or
2. Created another force which remained active
until it directly caused the result; or
3. Created a new active risk of being acted upon
by the active force that caused the result (57
Am. Jur. 2d 507).
Proximate, Intervening, Remote and
Concurrent causes distinguished
It is the cause which, in
PROXIMATE natural and continuous
CAUSE sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause,
674

produces the injury, and
without which the result
would not have occurred.
One that destroys the causal
connection between the
negligent act and injury and
thereby negatives liability.
INTERVENING
CAUSE
NOTE: Foreseeable
Intervening causes cannot be
considered sufficient
intervening causes.
That cause which some
independent force merely
REMOTE
took advantage of
CAUSE
accomplish something not the
natural effect thereof.
Causes brought about by the
acts and omissions of third
persons which makes the
CONCURRENT
defendant still liable. Here, the
CAUSE
proximate cause is not
necessarily the sole cause of
the accident.
LEGAL INJURY
TORTS
or shall not do a given act (Pineda, 2011).
Tort arising from Breach of Contract
A quasi-delict can be the cause for breaching a
contract that might thereby permit the application
of principles applicable to tort even when there is
a pre-existing contract between the plaintiff and
the defendant.
Where, without a pre-existing contract between
two parties, an act or omission can nonetheless
amount to an actionable tort by itself, the fact that
the parties are contractually bound is no bar to
the application of quasi-delict provisions to the
to
case.
This rule can govern only where the act or
omission complained of would constitute an
actionable tort independently of the contract (Far
East Bank and Trust Company v. CA, G.R. No.
108164, February 23, 1995).
NOTE: The act that breaks the contract may be
also a tort (Air France v. Carrascoso, G.R. No. L-
21438, September 28, 1966).

CLASSIFICATION OF TORTS
In order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for
the injuries of which he complains, he must
establish that such injuries resulted from a breach Torts are classified as either:
of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff-
a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal 1. Negligent Torts;
responsibility by the person causing it. 2. Intentional Torts; or
a. Intentional Physical Harms
The underlying basis for the award of tort i. Battery
damages is the premise that an individual was ii. Assault
injured in contemplation of law. Thus, there must iii. False imprisonment
first be a breach of some duty and the imposition iv. Trespass to land
of liability for that breach before damages may be v. Trespass to chattels
awarded; and the breach of such duty should be vi. Conversion
the proximate cause of the injury (Equitable
Banking Corp. v. Calderon, G.R. No. 156168. b. Intentional Non-Physical Harms
December 14, 2004). i. Violation of personal dignity
ii. Infliction of emotional distress
Injury, Damage and Damages iii. Malicious prosecution
iv. Defamation
Injury The illegal invasion of a legal right. v. Fraud or Misrepresentation
The loss, hurt, or harm which results vi. Seduction
Damage vii. Unjust dismissal
from the injury.
The recompense or compensation viii. Violation of rights committed by
Damages public officers
awarded for the damage suffered.

Right c. Interference with Relations

i. Family relations
A right is a legally enforceable claim of one person ii. Social relations
against another, that the other shall do a given act, iii. Economic relations

675
 CIVIL LAW
iv. Political relations Culpa Aquilana v. Crimes

3. Strict Liability Torts Culpa Aquiliana Crimes

a. Possessor and user of an animal There can be quasi- There must be a law
b. Nuisance delict as long as there is punishing the act.
fault or negligence
resulting in damage or
NEGLIGENT TORTS injury to another.
Criminal intent is not There must be a
necessary. criminal intent for
Negligence criminal liability to
exist.
Negligence is the omission of that degree of Quasi-delict is wrongful Crime is a wrong
diligence which is required by the nature of the act against a private against the State or the
obligation and corresponding to the individual. public interest.
circumstances of the persons, time and place (NCC, The quantum of proof The guilt if the accused
Art. 1173). for quasi-delict is must be proved beyond
preponderance of reasonable doubt.
An actionable negligence may either be culpa evidence.
contractual, culpa aquilana, and criminal The sanction is either The punishment is
negligence. Thus, an action for damages for reparation or either imprisonment,
negligent act of the defendant may basedon indemnification of the fine, or both (Pineda,
contract, quasi-delict, or delict. The bases for injury or damage. 2019).
liability are separate and distinct from each other
even if only one act is involved Test of negligence
(Aquino, 2017).
The test is would a prudent man, in the position of
Motive NOT Material: the tortfeasor, foresee harm to the person injured
as a reasonable consequence of the course about
Motive is not material ion negligence cases. The to be pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on
defendant may still be held liable even if the act the actor to take precaution against its
was meant to be a practical joke. (AQUINO, Torts mischievous results, and failure to do so
and Damages) constitutes negligence (Picart v. Smith, G.R. No. L-
12219, March 15, 1918).
Culpa Aquiliana v. Culpa Contractual
NOTE: The determination of negligence is a
Culpa Aquiliana Culpa Contractual question of foresight on the part of the actor (Phil.
The foundation of The liability is founded Hawk Corp. v. Vivian Tan Lee, G.R. No. 166869,
liability is independent on a contract. February 16, 2010).
of a contract.
Negligence is direct, Negligence is merely Rule when negligence shows bad faith
substantive and incidental to the
independent. performance of the When negligence shows bad faith, responsibility
contractual obligation. arising from fraud is demandable in all
obligations (NCC, Art. 1171). Furthermore, in case
of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the
complete and proper not a complete defense obligor shall be responsible for all damages
defense insofar as in the selection of which may be reasonably attributed to the non-
parents, guardians, employees. performance of the obligation (NCC, Art. 2201).
employers are
concerned. When is negligence excused
There is no There is presumption
presumption of of negligence as long as GR: Negligence is excused when events that
negligence. The party it can be proved that transpired were unforeseen or, which though
injured must prove the there is a breach of foreseen, were inevitable (NCC, Art. 1174).
negligence of the contract.
defendant. XPN:
1. In cases specified by law;

UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS

2019 GOLDEN NOTES 676

2. When declared by stipulation; or
3. When the nature of the obligation requires
the assumption of risk.
Degrees of negligence
1. Simple negligence Want of slight care and
diligence only.
2. Gross negligence There is a glaringly obvious
want of diligence and implies conscious
indifference to consequences (Amadeo v. Rio Y
Olabarrieta, Inc., G.R. No. L-6870, May 24,
1954); pursuing a course of conduct which
would probably and naturally result to injury
(Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc. v. The
No.
L-8110 June 30, 1956).
Circumstances to be considered
determining whether an act is negligent
TORTS
9. Practice and Custom A practice which is
dangerous to human life cannot ripen into a
custom which will protect anyone who
follows it (Yamada v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R.
No. 10073, December 24, 1915).
10. Physical Disability
General Rule: A weak or accident-prone
person must meet the standard of a
reasonable man, otherwise he will be
considered as negligent.
XPN: if the defect amounts to a real disability,
the standard of conduct is that of a reasonable
person under like disability, e.g. the standard
conduct of a blind person becomes that of a
reasonable person who is blind. (Francisco v.
Chemical Bulk Carriers Incorporated, G.R. No.
193577)
in
Quantum of proof on negligence

1. Person Exposed to the Risk A higher degree
of diligence is required if the person involved
is a child.
2. Emergency The actor confronted with an
emergency is not to be held up to the standard
of conduct normally applied to an individual
who is in no such situation.
3. Social Value or Utility of Action Any act
subjecting an innocent person to unnecessary
risk is a negligent act if the risk outweighs the
advantage accruing to the actor and even to
the innocent person himself.
4. Time of the day May affect the diligence
required of the actor (NCC, Art. 1173); e.g. a
driver is required to exercise more prudence
when driving at night.
5. Gravity of the Harm to be Avoided Even if the
odds that an injury will result are not high,
harm may still be considered foreseeable if
the gravity of harm to be avoided is great.
6. Alternative Cause of Action If the alternative
presented to the actor is too costly, the harm
that may result may still be considered
unforeseeable to a reasonable man. More so if
there is no alternative thereto.
7. Place A man who should occasion to
discharge a gun on an open and extensive
marsh, or in a forest would be required to use
less circumspection and care, than if he were
to do the same thing in an inhabited town,
village or city (A Selection of Cases Illustrative
of the English Law of Tort, Kenny, 1928).
8. Violation of Rules and Statutes
a. Statutes
b. Administrative Rules
c. Private Rules of Conduct
The quantum of proof is preponderance of
evidence [Rules of Court, Rule 133(1)].
Burden of proof
GR: Plaintiff alleging damage due to negligent acts
in his complaint has the burden of proving such
negligence.
XPN: When the rules or the law provide for cases
when negligence is presumed.
Disputable presumptions of negligence
1. Motor vehicle mishaps a driver is presumed
negligent if he:
a. was found guilty of reckless driving or
violating traffic regulations at least twice
within the preceding two months (NCC,
Art. 2184); or
b. was violating any traffic regulation at the
time of the mishap (NCC, Art. 2185).
2. Possession of dangerous weapons or
substances, results in death or injury, except
when the possession or use thereof is
indispensable in his occupation or business
(NCC, Art. 2188).
3. Common carriers are presumed to have been
at fault or acted negligently in cases of death
or injuries to passengers. Unless they prove
that they observed extraordinary diligence
(NCC, Art. 1733 & 1755).
Intoxication not negligence per se

677
 CIVIL LAW
Mere intoxication is not negligence per se nor
establishes want of ordinary care. But it may be
one of the circumstances to be considered to
prove negligence (Wright v. MERALCO, G.R. No. L-
7760, October 1, 1914).
Doctrine of Comparative Negligence
The negligence of both the plaintiff and the
defendant are compared for the purpose of
reaching an equitable apportionment of their
respective liabilities for the damages caused and
suffered by the plaintiff (Pineda, 2009).
The relative degree of negligence of the parties is
considered in determining whether, and to what
degree, either should be responsible for his
negligence (apportionment of damages).
NOTE: Under the modified form, the plaintiff can
recover only if his negligence is less than or equals
that of the defendant. Expressed in terms of
percentages, a plaintiff who is charged with 80%
of the total negligence can recover only 20% of his
damages (De Leon, 2012).
GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY OR
REASONABLY PRUDENT MAN
The general standard of test is Bonus Pater
Familias or that of a good father of a family.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence
which is to be observed in the performance, that
which is expected of a good father of a family shall
be required [NCC, Art. 1173 (2)].
Concept of a good father of the family (pater
familias)
He is not and is not supposed to be omniscient of
the future; rather, he is one who takes precautions
against any harm when there is something before
him to suggest or warn him of the danger or to
foresee it (Picart v. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219, March
15, 1918).
The law requires a man to possess ordinary
capacity to avoid harming his neighbors unless a
clear and manifest incapacity is shown; but it does
not generally hold him liable for unintentional
injury unless, possessing such capacity, he might
ought to have foreseen the danger (Corliss v.
Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. L-21291, March 28,
1969).
Rule in case of fault or negligence of an obligor
UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
1. Art. 1173, NCC - Provides that the fault or
negligence of the obligor consists in the
omission of that diligence which is required
by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds with the circumstances of the
persons, of the time and of the place. When
negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of
Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2 of the
NCC shall apply.
NOTE: Under Art. 1171 of the NCC,
responsibility arising from fraud is
demandable in all obligations. Any waiver of
an action for future fraud is void.
2. Art. 2201, NCC - In contracts and quasi-
contracts, the damages for which the obligor
who acted in good faith is liable shall be those
that are the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of the obligation,
and which the parties have foreseen or could
have reasonably foreseen at the time the
obligation was constituted.
NOTE: In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or
wanton attitude, the obligor shall be
responsible for all damages which may be
reasonably attributed to the non-performance
of the obligation (Ibid.)
Concept of Good Faith
Good faith refers to the state of the mind which is
manifested by the acts of the individual
concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain
from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous
advantage of another (DBP v. CA, et al., G.R. No.
137916, December 8, 2004).
Application of standard of diligence to children
GR: The action of a child will not necessarily be
judged according to the standard of an adult.
XPN: If the minor is mature enough to understand
and appreciate the nature and consequences of his
actions. In such a case, he shall be considered to
have been negligent.
NOTE: The age of absolute irresponsibility is 15
years old and below. (Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act of 2006, RA 9344).
Nevertheless, absence of negligence does not
absolutely excuse the child from liability, as his
properties, if any, can be held subsidiarily liable.
Nor will such absence of negligence excuse the
rious liability.
678
 TORTS
The conduct that should be examined in
negligence cases is prior conduct or conduct prior
to the injury that resulted or, in proper cases, the
aggravation thereof.
STANDARD OF CARE
STANDARD OF CONDUCT or
DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED
In General
If the law or contract does not state the diligence
which is to be observed in the performance, that
which is expected of a good father of a family shall
be required [Article 1173(2)].
NOTE: Diligence of a good father of a family -
bonus pater familias - A reasonable man is deemed
to have knowledge of the facts that a man should
be expected to know based on ordinary human
experience (PNR v. IAC, G.R. No. 7054, January 22,
1993).
Persons who have Physical Disability
GR: A weak or accident prone person must come
up to the standard of a reasonable man, otherwise,
he will be considered as negligent.
XPN: If the defect amounts to a real disability, the
standard of conduct is that of a reasonable person
under like disability.
Experts and Professionals
GR: They should exhibit the case and skill of one
who is ordinarily skilled in the particular field that
he is in.
NOTE: This rule does not apply solely or
exclusively to professionals who have undergone
formal education.
XPN: When the activity, by its very nature,
requires the exercise of a higher degree of
diligence
e.g. Banks; Common carriers
Insane Persons
The insanity of a person does not excuse him or
his guardian from liability based on quasi-delict
(NCC, Arts. 2180 & 2182). This means that the act
or omission of the person suffering from mental
defect will be judged using the standard test of a
reasonable man.
The bases for holding a permanently insane
person liable for his torts are as follows:
679
1. Where one of two innocent person must
suffer a loss it should be borne by the one
who occasioned it;
2. To induce those interested in the estate of
the insane person (if he has one) to
restrain and control him; and
3. The fear that an insanity defense would
lead to false claims of insanity to avoid
liability
(Bruenig v. American Family Insurance Co., 173
N.W. 2d 619, February 3, 1970).
NOTE: Under the RPC, an insane person is exempt
from criminal liability. However, by express
provision of law, there may be civil liability even
when the actor is exempt from criminal liability.
An insane person is still liable with his property
for the consequences of his acts, though they
performed unwittingly (US v. Baggay, Jr. G.R. No.
6659, September 1, 1911).
Employers
Employers are required to exercise that degree of
care as mandated by the Labor Code or other
mandatory provisions for proper maintenance of
the work place or adequate facilities to ensure the
safety of the employees.
NOTE: Failure of the employer to comply with
mandatory provisions may be considered
negligence per se.
Employees
Employees are bound to exercise due care in the
performance of their functions for the employers.
Liability may be based on negligence committed
while in the performance of the duties of the
employee (Araneta v. De Joya, G.R. No. L-25172,
May 24, 1974).
NOTE: The existence of the contract constitutes
no bar to the commission of torts by one against
the other and the consequent recovery of
damages.
Owners, Proprietors and
Possessors of Property
GR: The owner has no duty to take reasonable
care towards a trespasser for his protection or
even to protect him from concealed danger.
XPNs:
1. Visitors Owners of buildings or premises owe
a duty of care to visitors.
2. Tolerated Possession - Owner is still liable if the
plaintiff is inside his property by tolerance or
by implied permission. However, common
carriers may be held liable for negligence to
 CIVIL LAW
persons who stay in their premises even if
they are not passengers.
3. Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance- One who
maintains on his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character
likely to attract children in play, and who fails
to exercise ordinary care to prevent them
from playing therefrom is liable to a child of
tender years who is injured thereby, even if
the child is a trespasser.
4. State of Necessity A situation of present
danger to legally protected interests, in which
there is no other remedy than the injuring of
Doctors
If a General Practitioner Ordinary care and
diligence in the application of his knowledge and
skill in the practice of his profession.
If a Specialist The legal duty to the patient is
generally considered to be that of an average
physician.
Lawyers
An attorney is bound to exercise only a reasonable
degree of care and skill, having reference to the
business he undertakes to do (Adarne v. Aldaba,
A.M. No. 801, June 27, 1978).
UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM
Elements to be considered to determine if a
person has exposed himself to an
unreasonable great risk
1. Magnitude of the risk;
2. Principal object;
3. Collateral object;
4. Utility of the risk; and
5. Necessity of the risk
If the magnitude of the risk is very great and the
principal object, very valuable, yet the value of the
collateral object and the great utility and necessity
of the risk counterbalanced those considerations,
the risk is made reasonable (Prosser and Keeton,
Law of Torts, 1984 Ed., p.173, citing Terry,
Negligence, 24 Harv. L. Rev. 40,42).
NOTE: In the Philippines, the courts do not use
any formula in determining if the defendant
committed a negligent act or omission. What
appears to be the norm is to give negligence a
common sense, intuitive interpretation (Aquino,
2005).
UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
In the field of negligence, interests are to be
balanced only in the sense that the purposes of the
actor, the nature of his act and the harm that may
result from action or inaction are elements to be
considered. Some may not be considered
depending on the circumstances.
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE (2000, 2009
BAR)
A person is generally presumed to have taken
ordinary care of his concerns (Rules of Court, Rule
131, Sec. 3). There are however exceptions when
negligence is presumed:
1. Article 2184, NCC - 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.
2. Article 2185, NCC - Unless there is proof to the
contrary, 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.
NOTE: Proof of traffic violation is required. 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.
Negligence, consisting in whole or in part, of
violation of law, like any other negligence, is
without legal consequence unless it is a
contributing cause of the injury (Tison v.
Pomasin, G.R. No. 173180, August 24, 2011).
3. Article 2188, NCC - There is prima facie
presumption of negligence on the part of the
defendant if the death or injury results from
his possession of dangerous weapons or
substances, such as firearms and poison,
except when possession or use thereof is
indispensable in his occupation or business.
NOTE: Proof of possession of dangerous
weapons or substances is required.
4.. Captain of the ship doctrine - A surgeon is
likened to a captain of the ship, such that it is
his duty to control everything going on in the
operating room. The surgeon in charge of an
operation is liable for the negligence of his
assistants during the time when those
assistants are und
(Cantre v. Go, G.R. No. 160889, April 27, 2007).
680
 TORTS
5. Article 1756, NCC - In case of death or injuries of
passengers, common carriers are presumed to
have been at fault or acted negligently, unless
they prove that they observed extraordinary
diligence prescribed in Articles 1733 and
1755 of the NCC.
Q: Romeo L. Battung, Jr. (Battung)
boarded petitioner's (G.V. Florida
Transport, Inc.) bus. Battung was seated at
the first row behind the driver and slept
during the ride. When the bus reached the
Philippine Carabao Center in Muñoz, Nueva
Ecija, the bus driver, Duplio, stopped the bus
and alighted to check the tires. At this point,
a man who was seated at the fourth row of
the bus stood up, shot Battung at his head,
and then left with a companion. The bus
conductor, Daraoay, notified Duplio of the
incident and thereafter, brought Romeo to
the hospital, but the latter was pronounced
dead on arrival. Hence, respondents filed a
complaint for damages in the aggregate
amount of P1,826,000.00 based on a breach
of contract of carriage against petitioner,
Duplio, and Baraoay (petitioner, et al.)
before the RTC. Respondents contended that
as a common carrier, petitioner and its
employees are bound to observe
extraordinary diligence in ensuring the
safety of passengers; and in case of injuries
and/or death on the part of a passenger,
they are presumed to be at fault and, thus,
responsible therefor. RTC ruled in
respondents' favor. CA affirmed the ruling
of the RTC. Can the petitioner be held civilly
liable?
A: No. Since Battung's death was
caused by a co-passenger, the applicable
provision is Article 1763 of the Civil Code,
which states that "a common carrier is
responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger
on account of the willful acts or negligence of
other passengers or of strangers, if the
common carrier's employees through the
exercise of the diligence of a good father of a
family could have prevented or stopped the act
or omission." Notably, for this obligation, the
law provides a lesser degree of diligence, i.e.,
diligence of a good father of a family, in
assessing the existence of any culpability on the
common carrier's part.
In this case, records reveal that when the
bus stopped at San Jose City to let four (4) men
ride petitioner's bus (two [2] of which turned
out to be Battung's murderers), the bus driver,
681
Duplio, saw them get on the bus and even took
note of what they were wearing. Moreover,
Duplio made the bus conductor, Daraoay,
approach these men and have them pay the
corresponding fare, which Daraoay did. During
the foregoing, both Duplio and Daraoay
observed nothing which would rouse their
suspicion that the men were armed or were to
carry out an unlawful activity. With no such
indication, there was no need for them to
conduct a more stringent search (i.e., bodily
search) on the aforesaid men. By all accounts,
therefore, it cannot be concluded that
petitioner or any of its employees failed to
employ the diligence of a good father of a
family in relation to its responsibility under
Article 1763 of the Civil Code. As such,
petitioner cannot altogether be held civilly
liable.
NOTE: The negligence of the employee gives rise
to the presumption of negligence on the part of
the employer. This is the presumed negligence in
the selection and supervision of the employee
(Poblete v. Fabros, G.R. No. L-29803, September 14,
1979).
Negligence is proven by
1. Direct evidence
2. Circumstantial evidence
3. Res Ipsa Loquitur
TORT CONCEPTS AND DOCTRINES
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
The thing speaks for itself. Rebuttable presumption
or inference that defendant was negligent, which
arises upon proof that instrumentality causing
that the accident was one which ordinarily does
not happen in absence of negligence
Dictionary, 2004).
However, res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of
substantive law and, as such, does not create nor
constitute an independent or separate ground of
liability. Instead, it is considered as merely
evidentiary or in the nature of a procedural rule
(Professional Services v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297,
January 31, 2007).
NOTE: It is also known as the
Requisites for the application of the doctrine
 CIVIL LAW
Resort to the doctrine may be allowed only when:
1. The accident is of such character as to
warrant an inference that it would not have
negligence;
2. The accident must have been caused by an
agency or instrumentality within the exclusive
management or control of the person charged
with the negligence complained of; and
3. The accident must not have been due to any
voluntary action or contribution on the part of
the person injured (Josefa v. MERALCO, G.R.
No. 182705, July 18, 2014).
Thus, it is not applicable when an unexplained
accident may be attributable to one of several
causes, for some of which the defendant could not
be responsible (FGU Insurance Corp. v. G. P.
Sarmiento Trucking Co., G.R. No. 141910, August 6,
2002).
When doctrine is applicable
All that the plaintiff must prove is the accident
itself; no other proof of negligence is required
beyond the accident itself. It relates to the fact of
an injury that sets out an inference to the cause
thereof or establishes the plain prima facie
case. The doctrine rests on inference and not on
presumption (Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v.
Sps. Sarangaya, G.R. No. 147746, October 25, 2005).
Three uses and applications of the doctrine
1. In medical negligence cases;
2. In cases where the exercise of judicial
discretion is abused; and
3. In practical instances
Some cases where doctrine was held
inapplicable
1. Where there is direct proof of absence or
presence of negligence;
2. Where other causes, including the conduct of
the plaintiff and third persons, are not
sufficiently eliminated by the evidence; and
3. When one or more requisites are absent
(Aquino, 2005).
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
(DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERED PERIL or
DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING NEGLIGENCE)
negligent but the negligent act of one succeeds
UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
that of the other by an appreciable interval of
time, the one who has the last reasonable
opportunity to avoid the impending harm and fails
to do so, is chargeable with the consequences,
without reference to the prior negligence of the
other party (Picart v. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219,
March 15, 1918).
The doctrine of last clear chance is a theory
adopted to mitigate the harshness of the
contributory negligence of the plaintiff (Phoenix
Construction Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. L-65295, March 10,
1987).
Requisites:
1. Plaintiff is placed in danger by his own
negligent acts and he is unable to get out from
such situation by any means;
2. Defendant knows that the plaintiff is in
danger and knows or should have known that
the plaintiff was unable to extricate himself
therefrom; and
3. Defendant had the last clear chance or
opportunity to avoid the accident through the
exercise of ordinary care but failed to do so,
and the accident occurred as a proximate
result of such failure (Pineda, 2009).
Instances when doctrine not applicable
1. When the injury or accident cannot be
avoided by the application of all means at
hand after the peril has been discovered
(Pantranco North Expressway v. Baesa, G.R.
Nos. 79050-51, November 14, 1989);
2.
cause and which was still in operation up to
the time the injury was inflicted;
3. Where the plaintiff, a passenger, filed an
action against a carrier based on contract
(Bustamante v. CA, G.R. No. 89880, February 6,
1991);
4. If the actor, though negligent, was not aware
of the danger or risk brought about by the
prior fraud or negligent act;
5. In case of a collapse of a building or structure
(De Roy v. CA, G.R. No. 80718, January 29,
1988);
6. Where both parties are negligent (Philippine
National Railways v. Brunty, G.R. No. 169891,
November 2, 2006);
7. In case of collision, it applies in a suit between
the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles
and not where a passenger demands
responsibility from the carrier to enforce its
contractual obligations (Tiu v. Arriesgado, G.R.
No. 138060, September 1, 2004).
682
 TORTS
NOTE: There is a different rule in case of collision
of vessels.
Q: Mr. and Mrs. R own a burned-out building,
the firewall of which collapsed and destroyed
the shop occupied by the family of Mr. and Mrs.
S, which resulted in injuries to said couple and
the death of their daughter. Mr. and Mrs. S had
been warned by Mr. & Mrs. R to vacate the
shop in view of its proximity to the weakened
wall but the former failed to do so. Mr. & Mrs.
S filed against Mr, and Mrs. R an action for
recovery of damages the former suffered as a
result of the collapse of the firewall. In their
defense, Mr. and Mrs. R relied on the doctrine
of last clear chance, alleging that Mr. and Mrs. S
had the last clear chance of avoiding the
warning to vacate the shop, and therefore Mr.
disregarded. If you were the judge, how would
you decide the case? (1990 BAR)
A: I would decide in favor of Mr. & Mrs. S. The
proprietor of a building or structure is responsible
for the damages resulting from its total or partial
collapse, if it should be due to the lack of
necessary repairs (NCC, Art. 2190). With respect to
the defense of last clear chance, the same is not
tenable as enunciated by the Supreme Court in De
Roy v. CA (L-80718, January 29, 1988), where it
held that the doctrine of last clear chance is not
applicable in instances covered by Art 2190 of the
Civil Code. Further, in Phoenix Construction, Inc. v.
IAC (G.R. L-65295, March 10, 1987) the Supreme
Court held that the role of the common law "last
clear chance" doctrine in relation to Art. 2179 of
the Civil Code is merely to mitigate damages
within the context of contributory negligence.
Q: Wenifredo Salvaña was driving the bus
owned by Bachelor Express, Inc./Ceres Liner,
Inc. along the national highway when he
overtook a PUJ jeepney while negotiating a
blind curve in a descending road causing him
to intrude into the opposite lane and bump the
10-wheeler Hino dump truck of petitioner
Cresencio Baño running uphill from the
opposite direction. The collision resulted in
damage to both vehicles, the subsequent death
of the truck driver, Amancio Asumbrado, and
serious physical injuries to bus driver Salvaña.
A complaint for quasi-delict was filed against
Salvaña for negligently driving the bus causing
it to collide with the dump truck. Respondents
denied liability, claiming that prior to the
collision; the bus was running out of control
because of a problem in the steering wheel
683
system which could not have been avoided
despite their maintenance efforts. Instead,
they claimed that Asumbrado had the last
clear chance to avoid the collision had he not
driven the dump truck at a very fast speed.
Was Salvaña grossly negligent?
A: Yes. When bus driver Salvaña overtook the
jeepney in front of him, he was rounding a blind
curve along a descending road. Considering the
road condition and that there was only one lane
on each side of the center line for the movement of
traffic in opposite directions, it would have been
more prudent for him to confine his bus to its
proper place. Having thus encroached on the
opposite lane in the process of overtaking the
jeepney, without ascertaining that it was clear of
oncoming traffic that resulted in the collision with
the approaching dump truck driven by deceased
Asumbrado, Salvaña was grossly negligent in
driving his bus. He was remiss in his duty to
determine that the road was clear and not to
proceed if he could not do so in safety (Cresencio
Baño v. Bachelor Express, GR No. 191703, March 12,
2012, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.).
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA
(DAMAGE WITHOUT PREJUDICE)
A person who only exercises his legal rights does
no injury. If damages result from such exercise of
legal rights, the consequences must be borne by
the injured person alone. The law affords no
remedy for damages resulting from an act which
does not amount to a legal injury or wrong (Heirs
of Purisima Nala v. Cabansag, G.R. No. 161188, June
13, 2008).
NOTE: When the conjunction of damage and
wrong is wanting there is no damnum absque
injuria (Lagon v. CA, G.R. No. 119107, March 18,
2005).
The principle does not apply when the exercise of
this right is suspended or extinguished pursuant
to a court order (Amonoy v. Gutierrez, 651 SCRA
731, 2001).
Liability without Fault different from Damnum
Absque Injuria
Liability without Fault includes:
a. Strict Liability there is strict liability if
one is made independent of fault,
negligence or intent after establishing
certain facts specified by law. It includes
liability for conversion and for injuries
 CIVIL LAW
caused by animals, ultra-hazardous
activities and nuisance.
b. Product Liability is the law which
governs the liability of manufacturers and
sellers for damages resulting from
defective products (Aquino, 2005).
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY
Mistakes committed by public officers are not
actionable absent any clear showing of malice or
gross negligence amounting to bad faith (Farolan
v. Solmac Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 83589, March
13, 1991).
Extent of recovery of damages
1. Recovery completely barred - When the
Builders, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 121484, January 31,
2005).
NOTE: A complaint for damages is personal in
nature (personal action).
Damages v. Injury
Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right;
damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which results
from the injury; damages are the compensation
awarded for the damage suffered. There can be
damage without injury in those instances in which
the loss or harm was not the result of a violation
of a legal duty. Example: damnum absque injuria
(Sps. Custodio v. CA, G.R. No. 116100, February 9,
1996).

and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages (NCC, Art. 2179).
2. Mitigated damages
negligence was only contributory, the
immediate and proximate cause of the injury
being the defendants lack of due care, he may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate
the damages to be awarded (Ibid.).
DOUBLE RECOVERY
Damages can only be paid with money
Damages can only be paid with money and not
because is not a legal tender
currency in the Philippines (Vda. Simeon Borlado
v. CA, G.R. No. 114118, August 28, 2001).
NOTE: In actions for damages, the courts should
award an amount to the winning party and not its
equivalent in property (Ibid.).

Prohibition against Double Recovery (2003, Kinds of damages (MENTAL)

2006 BAR)
1. Moral
Responsibility for fault or negligence under quasi- 2. Exemplary or corrective
delict is entirely separate and distinct from the 3. Nominal
civil liability arising from negligence under the 4. Temperate or moderate
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover 5. Actual or compensatory
damages twice for the same act or omission of the 6. Liquidated
defendant (NCC, Art. 2177).

NOTE: What is barred by law is the double

recovery of damages, not the availment double
remedies.

DAMAGES

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Damages

sum of money which the law awards or imposes

as a pecuniary compensation, a recompense or
satisfaction for an injury done or wrong sustained
as a consequence either of a breach of a
contractual obligation or a tortious act (MEA

UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS

2019 GOLDEN NOTES 684
 TORTS

ACTUAL/
MORAL NOMINAL
COMPENSATORY
According to purpose
Actual or compensatory damages simply Awarded only to enable the injured Vindicating or
make good or replace the loss caused by party to obtain means, diversion or recognizing the injured
the wrong. amusement that will alleviate the moral
suffering he has undergone, by reason of property that has been
violated or invaded
(Philippine Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. L- (Tan v. Bantegui, G.R.
82619 September 15, 1993). No. 154027, October 24,
2005).
According to manner of determination
Claimant must produce competent proof No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary. No proof of pecuniary
or the best evidence obtainable such asThe assessment is left to the discretion loss is necessary. Proof
receipts to justify an award therefore.of the court according to the that a legal right has
Actual or compensatory damages cannot circumstances of each case. However, been violated is what is
be presumed but must be proved with there must be proof that the defendant only required. Usually
reasonable certainty (People v. Ereo, G.R.
caused physical suffering, mental awarded in the absence
No. 124706, February 22, 2000). anguish, moral shock, etc (Mahinay v. of proof of actual
Velasquez, G.R. No. 152753. January 13, damages.
GR: Actual damages must be 2004).
substantiated by documentary evidence,
such as receipts, in order to prove GR: Factual basis must be alleged. Aside
expenses incurred as a result of the from the need for the claimant to
death of the victim or the physical satisfactorily prove the existence of the
injuries sustained by the victim factual basis of the damages, it is also
(Philippine Hawk Corporation v. Vivian necessary to prove its causal relation to
Tan Lee, G.R. No. 166869, February 16, (People v. Manero,
2010). G.R. Nos. 86883-85, January 29, 1993).

XPN: Damages for loss of earning

capacity may be awarded despite the
absence of documentary evidence when:
1. the deceased is self-employed
and earning less than the
minimum wage under current
labor laws, in which case,
judicial notice may be taken of
the fact that in the deceased's
line of work no documentary
evidence is available; or
2. the deceased is employed as a
daily wage worker earning less
than the minimum wage under
current labor laws (Ibid.).
XPN: Criminal cases. Moral damages
may be awarded to the victim in
criminal proceedings in such amount as
the court deems just without need for
pleading or proof of the basis thereof
(People v. Paredes, G.R. No. 127569. July
30, 1998). The amount of P50,000 is
usually awarded by the Court in case of
the occurrence of death.

Special/Ordinary
Ordinary Special Special

NOTE: Ordinary Damages are those NOTE: Special Damages are those which
generally inherent in a breach of a exist because of special circumstances
typical contract. and for which a debtor in good faith can
be held liable if he had been previously
informed of such circumstances.

685

TEMPERATE
Temperate 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 proved with
certainty.
No proof of pecuniary loss is
necessary. When the court is
convinced that there has been a
pecuniary loss, the judge is
empowered to calculate moderate
damages rather than let the
complainant suffer without redress
(GSIS v. Labung-Deang, G.R. No.
135644, September 17, 2001).
Special
UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
CIVIL LAW
LIQUIDATED
According to purpose
Liquidated damages are frequently
agreed upon by the parties, either by
way of penalty or in order to avoid
controversy on the amount of
damages.
According to manner of determination
No proof of pecuniary loss is
necessary. If intended as a penalty in
obligations with a penal clause, proof
of actual damages suffered by the
creditor is not necessary in order that
the penalty may be demanded (NCC,
Art. 1228)
Special/Ordinary
Special
686
EXEMPLARY/
CORRECTIVE
Exemplary or corrective damages are
intended to serve as a deterrent to
serious wrong doings, and as a
vindication of undue sufferings and
wanton invasion of the rights of an
injured party or a punishment for
those guilty of outrageous conduct
(People v. Orilla, G.R. Nos. 148939-40,
February 13, 2004).
No proof of pecuniary loss is
necessary.
1. That the claimant is entitled to
moral, temperate or compensatory
damages; (NCC, Art. 2243; B. F. Metal
v. Lomotan, G.R. No. 170813, April 16,
2008); and
2. That the crime was committed
with one or more aggravating
circumstances (NCC, Art. 2230), or the
quasi-delict was committed with
gross negligence (NCC, Art. 2231), or
in contracts and quasi-contracts the
act must be accompanied by bad faith
or done in wanton, fraudulent,
oppressive or malevolent manner
(NCC, Art. 2232)
Special
 TORTS
1. Liquidated damages have been previously
ACTUAL AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES agreed upon (NCC, Art. 2226);

NOTE: Liquidated damages take the place of

Actual damages are such compensation or actual damages except when additional
damages for an injury that will put the injured damages are incurred.
party in the position in which he had been before
he was injured. They pertain to such injuries or 2. Forfeiture of bonds in favor of the
losses that are actually sustained and susceptible government for the purpose of promoting
of measurement (Filipinas (Pre-Fab Bldg.) Systems, public interest or policy (Far Eastern Surety
Inc. v. MRT Development Corp., G.R. Nos. 167829-30, and Insurance Co. v. CA, G.R. No. L-12019,
November 13, 2007). October 16, 1958);
3. Loss is presumed (Manzanares v. Moreta, G.R.
NOTE: To recover damages, the amount of loss No. L-12306, October 22, 1918);
must not only be capable of proof but must 4. When the penalty clause is agreed upon in the
actually be proven (1991, 1996, 2004 BAR). contract between the parties (NCC, Art. 1226);
and
Kinds of Actual or compensatory damages 5. When death is caused within the
contemplation of Art. 2206 (Pineda, 2009).
1. Damnun Emergens/Dano Emergente (actual
damages) all the natural and probable Civil liability ex delicto v. actual or
consequence of the act or omission compensatory damages distinguished
complained of, classified as one for the loss of
what a person already possesses
2. Lucrum Cessans/Lucro Cesante (compensatory Civil Indemnity Actual or
damages) for failure to receive, as benefit, Ex Delicto Compensatory
that which would have pertained to him Damages
(expected profits) (Filipinas Synthetic v. De Los Can be awarded To be recoverable must
Santos, G.R. No. 152033, March 16, 2011). without need of further additionally be
proof than the fact of established with
NOTE: Both actual and compensatory damages commission of the reasonable degree of
can be granted at the same time to the plaintiff as felony. certainty (People v.
provided under Article 2200. In other words, Dianos, G.R. No. 119311,
there are two components to actual damages October 07, 1998).
(RCPI v. CA, G.R. No. L-55194, February 26, 1981).
NOTE: Rule applies to civil and criminal cases
Purpose of the law in awarding actual damages (People v. Abaño y Cañares, G.R. No. 188323,
February 21, 2011).
Its purpose is to repair the wrong that has been
done, to compensate for the injury inflicted, and GR: Documentary evidence should be presented
not to impose a penalty (Algarra v. Sandejas, G.R. to substantiate the claim for damages for loss of
No. L-8385, March 24, 1914). earning capacity.

When victim is unknown
The fact that the victim remains unknown and no
heirs have come forward does not warrant the
elimination of civil indemnity (People v. De
Guzman, G.R. No. 92537, April 25, 1994).
Proving the loss
GR: Loss must be proved before one can be
entitled to damages
XPN: Loss need not be proved in the following
cases:
XPN: Damages for loss of earning capacity may be
awarded despite the absence of documentary
evidence when:
1. The deceased is self-employed and earning
less than the minimum wage under current
labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may
be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line
of work no documentary evidence is available;
or
2. The deceased is employed as a daily wage
worker earning less than the minimum wage
under current labor laws (Philippine Hawk

687
 CIVIL LAW
Corporation v. Vivian Tan Lee, G.R. No. 166869,
February 16, 2010).
If amount admitted by a party
Even if there are no receipts and yet the amount
claimed is admitted by a party, it should be
granted (People v. Abolidor, G.R. No. 147231,
February 18, 2004).
Docketing fees must be based on allegation of
actual damages
The amount of damages claimed must be alleged,
not only in the body of the complaint, petition or
answer, but also in the prayer portion thereof
(Siapno v. Manalo, G.R. No. 132260, August 30,
2005).
actual
damages although not alleged in the answer, if and
when they are proved (Heirs of Basilisa Justiva v.
Gustilo, G.R. No. L-16396, January 31, 1963).
NOTE: It is broad enough to comprehend an
application as well for nominal damages and even
exemplary damages.
Article 21 of NCC cannot be used as a basis for
award of actual damages
Article 21 of the NCC cannot be used as a basis for
award of actual damages when there is a pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties
(ACI Philippines, Inc. v. Coquia, G.R. No. 174466, July
14, 2008).
Abrazaldo Doctrine
Temperate damages may be awarded where the
amount of the actual damages, the heirs are
entitled to, cannot be shown. Such temperate
damages, taking into account current
jurisprudence fixing the indemnity for death at
P50,000, should be one half thereof, which is
P25,000. (People v. Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392,
February 7, 2003).
Coverage of actual damages
Aside from actual pecuniary loss, actual damages
also cover the following:
UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
a. Loss or impairment of earning capacity
in cases of temporary or permanent
personal injury;
standing or commercial credit (NCC, Art.
2205).
Loss or impairment of earning capacity
To be compensated for loss of earning capacity, it
is not necessary that the victim be gainfully
employed at the time of the injury or death. Actual
damages are awarded not for the loss of earnings
but for the loss of capacity to earn money (People
v. Sanchez, G.R. Nos. 121039-45, October 18, 2001).
Determination of amount of damages
recoverable
Much is left to the discretion of the court
considering the moral and material damages
involved. There can be no exact or uniform rule
for measuring the value of a human life (Villa Rey
Transit, Inc., v. CA, G.R. No. L-25499, February 18,
1970).
The life expectancy of the deceased or of the
beneficiary, whichever is shorter, is an important
factor. Other factors that are usually considered
are:
1. Pecuniary loss to plaintiff or beneficiary;
2. Loss of support;
3. Loss of service;
4. Loss of society;
5. Mental suffering of beneficiaries; and
6. Medical and funeral expenses (Ibid.).
NOTE: The formula that has gained acceptance
over time has limited recovery to net earning
capacity. The premise is obviously that net
acquire money, less the necessary expense for his
own living (Philtranco Service Enterprises v. Felix
Paras and Inland Trailways Inc., G.R. No. 161909,
April 25, 2012).
Computation of Unearned Income
Formula:
Net Earning Capacity (x) = Life Expectancy X
(Gross Annual Income LESS Living Expenses)
(People v. Asilan, G.R. No. 188322, April 11, 2012)
Legend:
688
 TORTS
Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy x (Gross Injury to business standing and commercial
Annual Income Living Expenses) credit of plaintiff
Life Expectancy = 2/3 x (80 Age of the Deceased
Living Expenses = 50% of gross annual income Compensatory damages can be warded for injury
ding
Basis of Life Expectancy or for loss of goodwill and loss of customers or
shippers who shifted their patronage to
Life expectancy should not be based on the competitors (Radio Communications of the
retirement age of government employees, which is Philippiness v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-55194,
pegged at 65. In calculating the life expectancy of February 26, 1981).
an individual for the purpose of determining loss
of earning capacity under Art. 2206 (1), it is
assumed that the deceased would have earned
income even after retirement from a particular job LITIGATION
(Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corp. v. Borja,
G.R. No. 143008, June 10, 2002).
Two
Heirs cannot claim as damages the full amount
of earnings of the deceased 1. Ordinary reasonable compensation paid to a
lawyer by this client for the legal services he
Said damages consist, not of the full amount of his has rendered to the latter.
earnings, but of the support they received or would
have received from him had he not died in
2. Extraordinary awarded by the court to the
Stated otherwise, the amount recoverable is not successful litigant to be paid by the losing
loss of the entire earning, but rather the loss of party as indemnity for damages (Aquino v.
that portion of the earnings which the beneficiary Casabar, G.R. No. 191470, January 26, 2015).
would have received. In other words, only net They are actual damages due to the plaintiff.
earnings, not gross earning, are to be considered.
Payable not only to the lawyer but to the
In fixing the amount of that support, the client, unless they have agreed that the award
"necessary expenses of his own living" should be shall pertain to the lawyer as additional
deducted from his earnings. Earning capacity, as an compensation or as part thereof (Benedicto v.
element of damages to one's estate for his death Villaflores, G.R. No. 185020, October 6, 2010).
by wrongful act, is necessarily his net earning
capacity or his capacity to acquire money, less the NOTE:
necessary expense for his own living (Villa Rey expenses of litigation must be reasonable
Transit, Inc. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. L-25499, February (NCC, Art. 2208).
18, 1970).
ORDINARY EXTRAORDINARY
Medical Expenses are in the nature of actual Nature
damages The reasonable An indemnity for
compensation paid to a damages ordered by
Medical expenses are in the nature of actual lawyer for the legal the court to be paid by
damages which should be duly proved and the services rendered to a the losing to the
award for actual damages cannot be made on the client who has engaged prevailing party in
(People v. him. litigation.
Enguito, G.R. No. 128812, February 28, 2000). Basis
The fact of employment In cases authorized by
Adjustment fees do not constitute actual
of the lawyer by the law.
damages
client.
To whom payable
Adjustment fees and expense of drivers in the
Lawyer Client
recovery of cargo lost at sea done voluntarily,
though unsuccessfully, does not constitute actual
damages (Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corp. v.
Transport Venture, Inc., G.R. No. 150255, April 22, (1991, 1994, 2002 BAR)
2005).

689
 CIVIL LAW
GR:
damages.
XPNs: (SWISS- MUD- ERC)
1. Stipulation between parties;
2. Recovery of Wages of household helpers,
laborers and skilled workers;
3. Actions for Indemnity under workmen's
compensation and employer liability laws;
4. Legal Support actions;
5. Separate civil action to recover civil liability
arising from crime;
6. Malicious prosecution;
7. Clearly Unfounded civil action or proceeding
against plaintiff;
8. When Double judicial costs are awarded;
9. When Exemplary damages are awarded;
10. Defendant acted in gross & evident bad faith
in Refusing to satisfy plaintiff's just &
demandable claim; and
11. When defendant's act or omission Compelled
plaintiff to litigate with third persons or incur
expenses to protect his interest
NOTE: If not pleaded and prayed for in the
(Tin Po v.
Bautista, G.R. No. L-55514, March 17, 1981).
cannot be consolidated for they are different in
nature and each must be separately determined
(Philippine Veterans Bank v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130439,
October 26, 1999).
defendant employer is not guilty of bad faith
(Dalusong v. Eagle Clark Shipping Philippines, Inc.,
G.R. No. 204233, September 3, 2014).
Q: Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. for and on
behalf of its foreign principal, respondent Marine
Shipmanagement Ltd. hired petitioner as a Chief
Cook while carrying provisions, suddenly felt a
severe pain on his waist, abdomen, and down to
his left scrotum. As the pain persisted for a
number of days, he was airlifted to a hospital in
Belgium where he was diagnosed with "infection
with the need to rule out Epididymitis and
Prostatitis" and advised to undergo
repatriation.8 Upon arrival in the Philippines,
petitioner claimed that he immediately reported
to PTCI and asked for referral for further
treatment, but was ignored. Thus, he filed a
complaint for, inter alia, permanent and total
disability benefits against PTCI, Marine, and
respondent Captain Marlon L. Malanao as the
crewing manager (respondents). Was it proper for
UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
the
A: No, the instances when these may be awarded
are enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code
and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client,
unless the client and his lawyer have agreed that
the award shall accrue to the lawyer as additional
or part of compensation.28 Particularly, Article
2208 of the Civil Code reads:
Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation,
attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other
than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
(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;;(8) In actions for indemnity under
workmen's compensation and employer's liability
laws;
In this case, suffice it to say that the CA erred in
deleting the award of attorney's fees, considering
that petitioner was found to be entitled to
permanent and total disability benefits and was
forced to litigate to protect his valid claim. Thus,
the reinstatement of such award is in order.
(ARIEL P. HORLADOR, v. PHILIPPINE
TRANSMARINE CARRIERS,
INC.,MARINE*SHIPMANAGEMENT, G.R. No. 236576,
September 05, 2018)
EXTENT OR SCOPE OF ACTUAL DAMAGES
IN CONTRACTS AND QUASI-CONTRACTS
Amount of actual damages
The amount of actual damages should be that
which would put the plaintiff in the same position
as he would have been if he had not sustained the
wrong for which he is claiming compensation or
reparation:
1. Property
a) Damage to or loss of personal property -
the plaintiff is entitled to their value at the
time of the destruction, that is, normally,
the sum of money which he would have to
pay in the market for identical or
essentially similar goods, plus in a proper
case, damages for the loss of the use
during the period before replacement
(Marikina Auto Line v. People G.R. No.
152040, March 31, 2006).
b) Damage to or loss of profit-earning
chattels - what has to be assessed is the
value of the chattel to its owner as a going
concern at the time and place of the loss
690
 TORTS
(PNOC Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 107518,
October 8, 1998).
c) Damage to or loss of real property value
at the time of destruction, or market
value, plus, in proper cases, damages for
the loss of use during the period before
replacement, value of use of premises, in
case of mere deprivation of possession.
2. Personal injury
a) Medical Expenses - plaintiff is entitled to
the amount of medical expenses for the
injury suffered as a result of the
NOTE: A person is entitled to the physical
integrity of his or her body; if that integrity is
violated or diminished, actual injury is
suffered for which actual or compensatory
damages are due and assessable (Gatchalian v.
Delim G.R. No. L-56487, October 21, 1991).
b) Rape - For simple rape or qualified rape,
where the penalty imposed is death but
reduced to reclusion perpetua because of
RA 9346, the civil indemnity is
100,000.00 (People v. Jugueta, G.R. No.
202124, April 5, 2016).
NOTE: Civil indemnity is mandatory upon the
finding of the fact of rape; it is distinct from
and should not be denominated as moral
damages which are based on different jural
foundations and assessed by the court in the
exercise of sound discretion (People v.
Tabayan, G.R. No. 190620, June 18, 2014).
3. Death P100,000 by way of civil indemnity ex
delicto (People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124,
April 5, 2016).
4. Physical Injuries Civil indemnity of
P50,000.00 for the victims who suffered
mortal/fatal wounds and could have died if
not for a timely medical intervention, and a
civil indemnity of P25,000 for the victims who
suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries (ibid.).
Mitigation of Actual Damages
Actual damages can be mitigated in the following
cases:
1. For Contracts:
a. Violation of terms of the contract by the
plaintiff himself;
b. Enjoyment of benefit under the contract
by the plaintiff himself;
691
c. Defendant acted upon advice of counsel in
cases where the exemplary damages are
to be awarded such as under Articles
2230, 2231 and 2232;
d. Defendant has done his best to lessen the
NOTE: Award of compensatory damages for
breach of contract may be executed pending
appeal, but not the moral and exemplary
damages which must await the final
determination of the main cases (Radio
Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v.
Lantin, G.R. No. L-59311, January 31, 1985).
2. For Quasi-contracts:
a. In cases where exemplary damages are to
be awarded such as in Article 2232 of the
NCC;
b. Defendant has done his best to lessen the
3. For Quasi-delicts:
a. That the loss would have resulted in any
event because of the negligence or
omission of another, and where such
negligence or omission is the immediate
and proximate cause of the damage or
injury;
b. Defendant has done his best to lessen the
(Pineda, 2009).
4. For Crimes:
The damages to be adjudicated may be
respectively increased or lessened according to
the aggravating or mitigating circumstances
(NCC, Art. 2204).
IN CRIMES AND QUASI-DELICTS
The amount of damages for death caused by a
crime or quasi-delict shall be at least P75,000,
even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances (People v. Tabarnero, G.R. No.
168169, February 24, 2010).
In addition to the amount to be awarded, Art.
2206 of the NCC provides that the defendant shall
also be liable for the following:
1. Loss of the earning capacity of the deceased,
and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of
the latter; such indemnity shall in every case
be assessed and awarded by the court, unless
the deceased on account of permanent
physical disability not caused by the
defendant, had no earning capacity at the time
of his death;
 CIVIL LAW
2. If the deceased was obliged to give support
according to the provisions of Article 291, the
recipient who is not an heir called to the
decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or
intestate succession, may demand support
from the person causing the death, for a
period not exceeding five years, the exact
duration to be fixed by the court;
NOTE: The article only mentioned heir.
Consequently, it cannot speak of devisees and
legatees who are receiving support from the
deceased.
3. 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 (1992, 1993, 2007 BAR).
NOTE: In case of death caused by quasi-delict, the
brother of the deceased is not entitled to the
award of moral damages based on Article 2206 of
the New Civil Code (Sulpicio Lines Inc. v. Curso, G.R.
No. 157009, March 17, 2010).
MORAL DAMAGES
It includes physical suffering, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation,
and similar injury (NCC, Art. 2217).
It is awarded to enable the injured party to obtain
means, diversions or amusement that will serve to
alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by
(Prudenciado v. Alliance Transport System, Inc., G.R.
No. L-33836, March 16, 1987).
Q: Rosalie Sy Ayson discovered that the Fil-
Estate and Fairways illegally entered into her
property when it constructed its golf course.
Despite receipt of a notice to vacate said
property, the latter still continued to encroach
the subject land. On the other hand, Fil-Estate
and Fairways contend that it was in good faith
in constructing the golf course. It contended
that a certain Villanueva, the former owner of
the subject land, gave assurances that Ayson
will agree to a land swap which will be
mutually beneficial for the parties. Ayson
thereafter filed a complaint for damages.
Assuming that the case will prosper, what kind
of damages is she entitled to?
UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
A: Ayson is entitled to recover moral and
exemplary damages. Moral damages are designed
to compensate and alleviate the physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation, and similar harm
unjustly caused to a person. Exemplary damages
may be imposed by way of example or correction
for public good if the guilty party acted in a
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or
malevolent manner.
Here, Ayson can recover moral damages as she
was made to suffer sleepless nights and mental
anguish because her right as the owner of the
subject lot was violated by Fil-Estate in
constructing its golf course in the latter's
property. She is also entitled to exemplary
damages since despite the notice to vacate, the
latter still proceeded to construct its golf course.
(ROSALIE SY AYSON v. FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES,
INC. et.al., G.R. No. 223254, December 1, 2016)
NOTE: Moral damages apply both to natural and
juridical persons. Moral damages are generally not
awarded in favor of a juridical person, unless it
enjoys a good reputation that was debased by the
offending party resulting in social humiliation (
ABSCBN v. CA, 301 SCRA 589).
A corporation can be an offended party in an
action for defamation, and can recover moral
damages pursuant to Article 2219(7) of the NCC.
Act or omission must be with bad faith
The rule is settled that moral damages cannot be
awarded in the absence of a wrongful act or
omission or fraud or bad faith (Siasat v. IAC, G.R.
No. L-67889, October 9, 1985).
Elements required for recovery (1991, 2002,
2003 BAR)
1. An injury clearly sustained by the claimant;
2. A culpable act or omission factually
established;
3. The act or omission must be the proximate
result of the physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation and similar injury; and
wrongful act or omission of the defendant as
the proximate cause of the injury sustained by
the claimant; and
4. The award of damages predicated on any of
the cases stated in Art. 2219 (Amado v.
Salvador, G.R. No. 171401, December 13, 2007).
692
 TORTS
Court given discretion to determine moral
damages
Trial courts are given discretion to determine
moral damages and the Court of Appeals can only
modify or change the amount awarded when they
o as to
indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice
(Yuchengco v. Manila Chronicle Publishing Corp.,
G.R. No. 184315, November 25, 2009).
There is no hard and fast rule in the determination
of what would be a fair amount of moral damages,
since each case must be governed by its own
peculiar circumstances (PNB v. CA, G.R. No.
116181, January 6, 1997).
When victim bearing a child
An award for the death of a person does not cover
the case of an unborn foetus that is not endowed
with personality. The damages recoverable by the
parents of an unborn child are limited to moral
damages for the illegal arrest of the normal
development of the foetus on account of distress
and anguish attendant to its loss (Geluz v. CA, G.R.
No. L-16439, July 20, 1961).
Recovery of moral damages
GR: To recover moral damages, the plaintiff must
allege and prove:
1. The factual basis for moral damages and
2. The causal relation
XPN: Moral damages may be awarded to the
victim in criminal proceedings without the need
for pleading of proof or the basis thereof.
Award of moral damages to a corporation
GR: Juridical person is generally not entitled to
moral damages because, unlike a natural person, it
cannot experience physical suffering or such
sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety,
mental anguish or moral shock. (Filipinas
Broadcasting Network v. Ago Medical and
Educational Center-Bicol, G.R. No. 141994, January
17, 2005).
XPN: A corporation may have a good reputation
which, if besmirched, may also be a ground for the
award of moral damages (Ibid.).
693
Moral damages recoverable under culpa
contractual
GR: Moral damages are not recoverable in actions
for damages predicated on a breach of contract.
XPNS: Moral damages may be awarded in culpa
contractual, involving common carriers in the
following instances:
a. Where the passenger died by reason of
negligence of the carrier (Art. 1764);
b. Where it is proved that the carrier is
guilty of fraud or bad faith, even if the
death does not result (Fores v. Miranda
105 Phil. 266; Pineda, 2010; Sulpicio Lines,
Inc., v. Napoleon Sesante, G.R. No 172682,
27 July 2016)
XPN to XPN: Even if death or injury does not
result, there is fraud or bad faith on the part of the
defendant (Sulpicio Lines, Inc., v. Curso, G.R. No.
157009, March 17, 2010)
NOTE: Even if the negligence of the bank is not
attended with malice and bad faith, moral
damages may be granted (Cavite Development
Bank v. Lim, G.R. No. 131679, February 1, 2000).
Moral damages may be recovered in the
following and analogous cases (1996, 2002,
2004, 2006, 2009 BAR)
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; and
10. Actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28,
29, 30, 32, 34, and 35 (NCC, Art. 2219).
NOTE: Art. 2219 of the NCC provides for criminal
offenses resulting from physical injuries and
quasi-delicts causing physical injuries.
Parents of the victim seduced, abducted, raped, or
abused, may also recover moral damages (NCC,
Art. 2219). The prevailing jurisprudence is that the
award of moral damages should be granted jointly
to both the victim and her parents. Stated
differently, the parents are not entitled to a
 CIVIL LAW
separate award of moral damages (People v. Delen,
G.R. No. 194446, Apil 21, 2014).
NOTE:
2219(1) of the NCC, includes death, and no proof
of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that such
damages may be adjudicated. (People v. Tambis, G.
R No. 124452, July 28, 1999).
Tortious acts referred to in chapter of human
relations of the NCC
The plaintiff may recover moral damages:
1. Willful acts contrary to morals, good customs
or public policy;
2. Disrespect to the dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind of neighbors and other
persons;
3. Refusal or neglect of a public servant to
perform his official duty without just cause;
4. Unfair competition in enterprise or in labor;
5. Civil action for damages against accused
acquitted on reasonable doubt;
6. Violation of civil rights;
7. Civil action for damages against city or
municipal police force; and
8. When the trial court finds no reasonable
ground to believe that a crime has been
committed after a preliminary investigation
or when the prosecutor refuses or fails to
institute criminal proceedings.
Moral damages may be awarded in appropriate
cases referred to in the chapter on human
relations of the Civil Code (Articles 19 to 36),
without need of proof that the wrongful act
complained of had caused any physical injury
upon the complainant (Patricio v. Leviste, G.R. No.
L-51832, April 26, 1989).
Cases where moral damages is mandatory
without need of any proof
1. Rape cases
2. Murder cases
NOTE: Same rule applies in cases of frustrated
murder
3. Homicide
In robbery and other common crimes, the grant of
moral damages is not automatic, unlike in rape
cases (People v. Taño, G.R. No. 133872, May 5,
2000).
Civil indemnity different from moral damages
in rape
UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS
2019 GOLDEN NOTES
In rape cases, civil indemnity is different from
moral damages. It is distinct from and should not
be denominated as moral damages which are
based on different jural foundations and assessed
by the court in the exercise of sound discretion
(People v. Caldona, G.R. No. 126019, March 1,
2001).
NOTE: In criminal proceedings for rape, plaintiff
need not prove the factual basis for moral
damages as well as the causal relation to the
Amount of award in qualified rape
For qualified rape, where the penalty imposed is
death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because
of RA 9346, the amount of damages to be awarded
are as follows:
1. Civil indemnity P100,000.00;
2. Moral damages P100,000.00;
3. Exemplary damages P100,000.00
(People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016).
Psychologically incapacity and moral damages
By declaring petitioner as psychologically
incapacitated, the possibility of awarding moral
damages was negated, which should have been
proved by specific evidence that it was done
deliberately. Thus, as the grant of moral damages
was
not proper, it follows that the grant of exemplary
damages cannot stand since the Civil Code
provides that exemplary damages are imposed in
addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages (Buenaventura v. CA, G.R.
No. 127358, March 31, 2005).
NOMINAL DAMAGES
Nominal damages are adjudged in order that a
right of the plaintiff, which has 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 (NCC, Art. 2221) (1991, 1994, 2005 BAR).
Nature of Nominal Damages
Nominal damages are small sums fixed by the
court without regard to the extent of the harm
done to the injured party. They are damages in
name only and are allowed simply in recognition
of a technical injury based on a violation of a legal
694
 TORTS
right (Robes-Francisco Realty v. CFI, G.R. No. L-
41093 October 30, 1978).
Elements of Nominal Damages
1. Plaintiff has a right;
2. Such right is violated; and
3. The purpose of awarding damages is to
vindicate or recognize the right violated.
Cases where nominal damages are awarded
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 (NCC, Art. 2222).
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 (NCC, Article 2223).
NOTE: Nominal damages cannot co-exist with
compensatory damages. Nominal damages are
adjudged in order that a right of the plaintiff,
which has 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 (LRTA v. Navidad, G.R.
No. 145804, February 6, 2003).
Nominal and temperate damages cannot be
awarded concurrently. The two awards are
incompatible. Nominal damages are given in order
that a right of plaintiff which has been violated or
invaded by the defendant, may be
vindicated or recognized. On the other hand,
temperate damages may be awarded when the
court finds that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot be proved with
reasonable certainty (Rabuya, 2017).
Award of nominal damages in labor
termination cases
Where an employee was terminated for a caused,
but the employer failed to comply with the notice
requirement, the employee is entitled to the
payment of nominal damages (Agabon v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 158693,
November 17, 2004). The nominal damages
awarded to the employees for a dismissal based
on just cause under Art. 282 of the Labor Code
without notice requirement was P30, 000; while,
where the dismissal of the employees was based
on authorized cause under Art. 283 of the Labor
Code, but without the required notice, the amount
695
was fixed at P50, 000 (Celebes Japan Foods
Corporation v. Yermo, G.R. No. G.R. No. 175855,
October 2, 2009).
TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGES
Temperate damages are those damages, which are
more than nominal but less than compensatory,
and may be recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its
amount cannot be proved with certainty (NCC, Art.
2224).
Nature of Temperate Damages
The allowance of temperate damages when actual
damages were not adequately proven is ultimately
a rule drawn from equity, the principle affording
relief to those definitely injured who are unable to
prove how definite the injury (Equitable PCI Bank
v. Tan, G.R. No. 165339, August 23, 2010).
Temperate damages may be awarded in the
following cases:
1. In lieu of actual damages; or
2. In lieu of loss of earning capacity.
Rationale behind the temperate or moderate
damages (1994 BAR)
The rationale behind temperate damages is
precisely that from the nature of the case, definite
proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered. When
the court is convinced that there has been such
loss, the judge is empowered to calculate
moderate damages, rather than let the
complainant suffer without redress from the
(GSIS v. Spouses Labung-
Deang, G.R. No. 135644, September 17, 2001).
Elements of Temperate Damages
1. Some pecuniary loss;
2. Loss is incapable of pecuniary estimation; and
3. The damages awarded are reasonable.
Q: Nanito Evangelista filed a complaint
for damages against Andolong over the
latter's failure to give the former's share in
the net profits derived from their business.
However, this was evidenced solely by the
documentary exhibits which disclosed the
gross monthly revenue and not the actual
profit earned. During the course of the
proceedings, Andolong was declared in
default. Consequently, it was no longer
 CIVIL LAW
possible for Evangelista to prove the actual December 30, 1961).
profit earned since such documents were
in possession of Andolong. Can Evangelista Liquidated damages v. Penalties
recover damages if the net profits can no
longer be ascertained? Liquidated Damages Penalties
Purpose
A: Yes. Evangelista can recover damages It is a sum inserted in a It is a sum inserted in a
although the exact amount of the net profits contract as a measure of contract as a
remained unproven. This comes in the form of compensation for its punishment for default,
temperate or moderate damages. Temperate breach. or by way of security
damages may be recovered when the court for actual damages
finds that some pecuniary loss has been which may be
suffered but its amount cannot, from the sustained because of
nature of the case, be provided with certainty. the non- performance
Consequently, in computing the amount of of the contract.
temperate or moderate damages, it is usually
left to the discretion of the courts, but the Nature
amount must be reasonable, bearing in mind Its essence is a genuine An agreement to pay a
that temperate damages should be more than covenanted pre- stipulated sum on
nominal but less than compensatory. (NANITO estimate of damages. breach of contract
EVANGELISTA v. SPOUSES NERO ANDOLONG irrespective of the
III AND ERLINDA ANDOLONG et.al., G.R. No. damage sustained (De
221770, November 16, 2016) Leon, 2012).

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Liquidated damages are fixed damages previously
agreed by the parties to the contract and payable
to the innocent party in case of breach by the
other (Pineda, 2009).
Liquidated damages are those that the parties
agree to be paid in case of a breach. Under
Philippine laws, they are in the nature of penalties.
They are attached to the obligation in order to
ensure performance. As a precondition to such
award, however, there must be proof of the fact of
delay in the performance of the obligation
(Suatengco v. Reyes, G.R. No. 162729, December 17,
2008).
Legal Results
There is no difference between a penalty and
liquidated damages, as far as legal results are
concerned (Lambert v. Fox, G.R. No. L-7991,
January 29, 1914).
NOTE: Whether as a penalty or indemnity, it is
necessary that there be a contract the violation of
which give rise to the liquidate damages
stipulated upon (Pineda, 2009).
Liquidated damages may be equitably reduced
when
1. Iniquitous or unconscionable (NCC, Art. 2227)
2. Partial or irregular performance
When principal obligation is void

Nature of Liquidated Damages
A stipulation on liquidated damages is a penalty
clause where the obligor assumes a greater
liability in case of breach of an obligation. The
obligor is bound to pay the stipulated amount
without need for proof on the existence and on the
measure of damages caused by the breach (Titan
v. Uni-Field, G.R. No. 153874, March 1, 2007).
NOTE:
damages except that when it is stipulated and
therefore in the form of liquidated damages no
proof of pecuniary loss is required (NCC, Article
2216) (Santiago v. Dimayuga, G.R. No. L-17883,
The nullity of the penal clause does not carry with
it that of the principal obligation.
The nullity of the principal obligation carries with
it that of the penal clause (NCC, Art. 1230).
Rule governing in case of breach of contract
When the breach of 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 (NCC, Art. 2228).

UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS

2019 GOLDEN NOTES 696
 TORTS
malevolent manner (Mendoza v. Spouses
EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014).

Award in Crime, Quasi-Delict, Contracts and

Exemplary damages or corrective damages are Quasi-contracts
imposed, by way of example or correction for the
public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, Award in Award in Award in
liquidated or compensatory damages (NCC, Art. Crime Quasi-Delict Contracts and
2229)(2003, 2005, 2009 BAR) Quasi-
Contracts
NOTE: They are also known as An aggravating May be May be
circumstance, granted if the awarded if the
whether defendant defendant is
Nature of exemplary damages ordinary or acted with found to have
qualifying gross acted in a
Exemplary damages are mere accessories to other (People v. negligence wanton,
forms of damages except nominal damages. They Dadulla, G. R. (BPI fraudulent,
are mere additions which may or may not be No. 172321, Investment reckless,
granted at all depending upon the necessity of February 9, Corp. v. D.G. oppressive, or
setting an example for public good as a form of 2011). Carreon malevolent
deterrent to the repetition of the same act by Commercial manner (Far
anyone (Pineda, 2009). Corp., G.R. No. East Bank and
126524, Trust Company
Rationale behind exemplary damages November 29, v. Hon. Court of
2001). Appeals, G.R.
The rationale behind exemplary damages is to No. 108164,
provide an example or correction for the public February 23,
good and not to enrich the victim (Rana v. Wong, 1995).
G.R. No. 192861, June 30, 2014).
NOTE: In quasi-contracts, award of exemplary
Cases where exemplary damages may be damages is discretionary (Benguet Electric
imposed as accessory damages Cooperative, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 127326, December
23, 1999).
GR: Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a
matter of right (NCC, Art. 2233).
DAMAGES IN CASE OF DEATH
XPN: They can be imposed in the following cases:
1. Criminal offense when the crime was
committed with one or more aggravating Damages that can be recovered in case of
circumstances (NCC, Art. 2230); death (MEA-I3)
2. Quasi-delicts when the defendant acted with
gross negligence (NCC, Art. 2231); 1. Moral damages
3. Contracts and Quasi-contracts when 2. Exemplary damages
defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent, 3. Attorney's fees and expenses for litigation
reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner 4. Indemnity for death
(NCC, Art. 2232). 5. Indemnity for loss of earning capacity
6. Interest in proper cases
Requirements for an award of exemplary
damages Rules when crimes and quasi-delict has caused
death
1.
has been established; The amount of damages for death caused by a
2. Their determination depends upon the crime or quasi-delict shall be at least P75,000,
amount of compensatory damages that may even though there may have been mitigating
be awarded to the claimant; and circumstances. In addition:
3. The act must be accompanied by bad faith or 1. The defendant shall be liable for the loss of
done in wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or the earning capacity of the deceased, and the
indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the

697
 CIVIL LAW
latter; such indemnity shall in every case be
assessed and awarded by the court, unless the
deceased on account of permanent physical
disability not caused by the defendant, had no
earning capacity at the time of his death;
2. If the deceased was obliged to give support
according to the provisions of Article 291, the
recipient who is not an heir called to the
decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or
intestate succession, may demand support
from the person causing the death, for a
period not exceeding five years, the exact
duration to be fixed by the court;
3. 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 (NCC, Art. 2206).
NOTE: The plaintiff is entitled to the amount that
he spent during the wake and funeral of the
deceased. However, it has been ruled that
expenses after the burial are not compensable.
GRADUATION OF DAMAGES
Reduction of damages in quasi-delict cases
In quasi-delict, the contributory negligence of the
plaintiff shall reduce the damages he may recover
(NCC, Art. 2214).
Reduction of damages in contracts, quasi-
contracts and quasi-delicts
The court can equitably mitigate the damages in
contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts in the
following instances other than in Art. 2214:
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; and
5. That since the filing of the action, the
defendant has done his best to lessen the
(NCC, Art. 2215).

Rules in graduation of damages in torts cases Liquidated damages, whether intended as an

indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced
Generally, the degree of care required is if they are iniquitous or unconscionable (Art.
graduated according to the danger a person or 2227).
property attendant upon the activity which the
actor pursues or the instrumentality he uses. The MISCELLANEOUS RULES
greater the danger the greater the degree of care
required (Keppel Cebu Shipyard v. Pioneer The injured party is obligated to undertake
Insurance, G.R. Nos. 180880-81, September 25, measures that will alleviate and not aggravate his
2009). condition after the infliction of the injury or
nuisance.
However, foreseeability is not the same as
probability. Even if there is lesser degree of The party suffering loss or injury must exercise
probability that damage will result, the damage the diligence of a good father of the family to
may still be considered foreseeable. minimize the damages resulting from the act or
omission (NCC, Art. 2203).
NOTE: The test, with respect to foreseeability, is
not the balance of probabilities, but the existence, Co-existence of Damages
in the situation in hand, of some real likelihood of
some damage and the likelihood is of such Damages Damages
Damages that
appreciable weight and moment to induce, or that cannot that must
must co-exist
which reasonably should induce, action to avoid it co-exist stand alone
on the part of a person or a reasonably prudent Nominal Exemplary Nominal
mind. Damages Damages must Damages
cannot co- co-exist with
Rules in graduation of damages in crimes exist with Moral,
Exemplary Temperate,
In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be Damages Liquidated or
respectively increased or lessened according to Compensatory
the aggravating or mitigating circumstances (NCC, Damages
Art. 2204).

UNI VERSI TY OF SA NTO TOMAS

2019 GOLDEN NOTES 698