TORTS and DAMAGES

Atty. Jess Raymund M. Lopez

 Sources of Obligations

Civil Code, Article 1157:

• Obligations arise from (1) law; (2) contracts; (3) quasi-contracts; (4) acts or omissions punishable by
law (delicts); and (5) quasi-delicts.

What about “tort”?

• “Tort” - covers not only negligence, but included intentional criminal acts like assault, battery, false
imprisonment and deceit;
• “Quasi-delict” - originally intended to cover only non-contractual negligence that does not amount
to a crime.

Strictly speaking, “tort” is not the same as “quasi-delict”; but the distinction has been blurred and they
are now considered equivalent terms.

 Quasi-delict as a source of obligations

Civil Code, Article 2176: Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relationship between the parties is called a quasi-delict.

Elements:
(a) Damage suffered by the plaintiff;
(b) Fault or negligence of the defendant, or of some other person for whose acts the defendant must
respond;
(c) Relationship of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages suffered by the
plaintiff;
(d) No pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties.

 Quasi-delict versus Contract

Contract Quasi-Dialect

Vinculum juris Contract itself Fault or negligence

(1) The actual or direct tortfeasor

Contracting parties, heirs, (2176)
Parties liable
and assigns (2) Person/s vicariously liable (2180)
(3) Joint tortfeasors (2194)

Elements that must be alleged Existence of the contract and Plaintiff generally bears the burden
and proven to establish a cause of breach; fault or negligence generally of proving fault or negligence
action need not be alleged or proven

Quasi-delict versus Contract (cont’d)

Contract Quasi-Dialect

Negligence presumed from Generally no presumption

Presumption of negligence
breach of contract of negligence

Nature of liability when damage is Contracting party’s liability is

caused by servants or employees direct and immediate Employer’s liability is presumed

Defense of due diligence in the

selection and supervision of Not available Available
employees
Quasi-delict versus Contract (cont’d)

Contract Quasi-Dialect

Not applicable for determining

Doctrine of Proximate Cause the fact of liability; applicable for Applicable
determining the extent of liability
for damages

Recoverability of moral damages Generally not recoverable May be recovered

Recoverability of Generally not recoverable

May be recovered
liquidated damages
 Quasi-delict versus Contract (cont’d)

Civil Code, Article 2176: Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relationship between the parties is called a quasi-delict.

General rule: An obligation based on quasi-delict cannot arise as between parties previously bound by
contract.

Exception: An act that breaks a contract may also constitute a quasi-delict where the act that
constitutes a breach of contract would also constitute a quasi-delict had no contract existed between
the parties.

Quasi-delict versus Contract (cont’d)

Orient Freight International, Inc. v. Keihin-Everett Forwarding Co., Inc., G.R. No. 191937 (Leonen, 2017)

KE In-House Brokerage Agreement Matsushita (M)

KE subcontract Orient Freight (OF) subcontract Schmitz

M read in a tabloid that truck carrying its shipments was hijacked and goods were stolen; asked KE to
investigate. KE asked OF, and OF said that the incident was blown out of proportion, as the truck simply
broke down. However, when shipment arrived in Japan, M discovered that goods were missing. KE
independently investigated the incident and confirmed what was reported. M terminated its contract with
KE for loss of confidence. KE then sued OF for lost income. Court of Appeals ruled that OF was liable
based on quasi-delict. Supreme Court disagreed and said that OF could not be held liable based on quasi-
delict.

Quasi-delict versus Contract (cont’d)

Negligence may be either culpa contractual or culpa aquiliana.

• Culpa contractual when it is an incident in the performance of a pre-existing obligation; governed by
Articles 1170 to 1174
• Culpa aquiliana when there is no pre-existing relationship between the parties, and the negligence
itself creates the juridical tie between the parties; governed by Article 2176.

Breach of contract and quasi-delict are mutually-exclusive; generally cannot co-exist; differ in
conditions, defenses, and proof.

Nevertheless, there are instances when Article 2176 may apply even when there is a pre-existing
contractual relationship.

• In situations where the contractual relation is indispensable to hold a party liable, there must be a
finding that the act or omission was done in bad faith and in violation of Article 21 to give rise to an
action based on tort (also gross negligence).

Quasi-delict versus Delict

Delict Quasi-Delict

Interest involved Public interest Private interest

Purpose of law Punitive/corrective Compensatory

All acts in which fault or

Scope/source Penal law negligence intervenes, provided
there is a private offended party

Proof of guilt beyond

Quantum of evidence required Preponderance of evidence
reasonable doubt

General rule: Criminal aspect cannot

Possibility of compromise Subject to compromise
be compromised; civil aspect may
Quasi-delict versus Delict (cont’d)
The reference to “fault or negligence” under Article 2176 covers both acts not punishable by
law, but also criminal acts, whether intentional and voluntary, or negligent. The same negligent,
or intentional and voluntary, act or omission may give rise to 2 types of civil liability – one based
on delict, and another based on quasi-delict. This, however, is subject to the prohibition against
double recovery (Civil Code, Article 2177).
Element: Damage suffered by a plaintiff

The Plaintiff – the injured party, or a person authorized to represent or claim damages for or on
behalf of an injured party (ex: heirs).

• Geluz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-16439 -- The “person” on whose behalf damages are
sought to be recovered must have acquired civil personality. An aborted fetus with an
intra-uterine life of two (2) months never acquired civil personality, and damages in the
form of civil indemnity for death cannot be awarded in connection with its abortion.

Element: Fault or negligence of the

Defendant, or of some other person for
whose acts the defendant must respond

The Defendant/s:
(a) The actual or direct tortfeasor (Article 2176);
(b) Joint tortfeasors (Article 2194); and
(c) Persons vicariously liable (Article 2180).

Joint tortfeasors – Two or more persons who are responsible for a QD. Their liability is solidary in
nature (Article 2194); “all the persons who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise,
countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if
done for their benefit”. In order that two or more persons may be liable as joint tortfeasors: (a) the
defendants’ respective fault or negligence must produce only a single injury, and not separate or
distinct injuries; and (b) their liabilities must both stem from QD.

Element: Fault or negligence (cont’d)

May 1 defendant whose liability arises from contract, be held solidarily liable with another
defendant whose liability arises from QD?

Yes, but not on the basis of Article 2194 because this provision requires that the liabilities of the
defendants both arise from QD (Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. v. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance
Co., Inc., G.R. No. 194121). Solidary liability may instead be based on Spouses Pereña v.
Spouses Zarate, G.R. No. 157917.

Element: Fault or negligence (cont’d)

Civil Code, Article 1173 provides a statutory definition for “fault or negligence”:

Fault or negligence “consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature
of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of persons, time, and place” (see
also Civil Code, Article 2178).

Article 1173 provides the same definition for “fault” and “negligence”. But these concepts were
distinguished by the Supreme Court in Child Learning Center Inc. v. Tagario, G.R. No. 150920:

 Element: Fault or negligence (cont’d)

Fault Negligence

Signifies a voluntary act or omission which causes The failure to observe for the protection of the interest
damage to the right of another giving rise to an of another person that degree of care, precaution and
obligation on the part of the actor to repair such vigilance which the circumstances justly demand (i.e.,
damage. reasonable foresight of harm; ignoring this foresight).

Requires the execution of a positive act which Consists of the omission to do acts which result in
causes damage to another. damage to another.

Element: Fault or negligence (cont’d)

Standard of care: “the level of expected conduct that is required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponding to the circumstances of the person, time and place” (Francisco v. Chemical Bulk
Carriers, Incorporated, G.R. No. 193577).

General rule: The default standard of conduct or diligence is that expected of a good father of a family.

Except: When the law or contract requires a different standard of care (e.g., common carriers, banks, in
dealing with deposits of their clients).

• Doctors - diligence of ordinarily prudent doctors in the same situation (Reyes v. Sisters of Mercy
Hospital, 341 SCRA 760 (2000))
• Physically handicapped - diligence of an ordinarily prudent person who is subject to the same
physical handicap (Francisco v. Chemical Bulk Carriers, Incorporated, G.R. No. 193577).

Element: Fault or negligence (cont’d)

Burden of proving fault or negligence

• General rule: Plaintiff must prove the defendant’s fault or negligence.
• Exceptions (when the defendant may be presumed at fault or negligent):

(a) Res ipsa loquitur

(b) Negligence per se
(c) Statutory presumptions of fault or negligence
(d) Vicarious liability

 Element: Fault or negligence (cont’d)

Res ipsa loquitur

• Applies when the occurrence of the mishap causing the injury is itself sufficient to warrant an
inference or presumption that the defendant was negligent; exempts the plaintiff from the obligation
of having to present specific or direct proof of the defendant’s fault or negligence.
• Requisites:
(a) The accident is of such a nature that it does not ordinarily occur unless someone was negligent;
(b) The thing or instrumentality that caused the injury was under the exclusive management or
control of the defendant;
(c) Injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of
the person injured;
(d) A fourth requisite is mentioned in some cases: there must be no direct evidence available
establishing the defendant’s fault or negligence.
• Effect: Gives rise to a disputable presumption or inference of negligence, which the defendant may
overcome through evidence of his/her diligence.

Element: Fault or negligence (cont’d)

Negligence per se

• When a statute or ordinance requires or prohibits conduct, and the defendant violates this law or
ordinance, the defendant shall be presumed negligent.
• 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 (Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119092)

• Statutory presumptions (see Civil Code, Articles 2184, 2185, and 2188)
• Vicarious liability (Civil Code, Article 2180)

Element: 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 injury would not have occurred.

• The doctrine of proximate cause is not applicable for the purpose of determining the fact of liability
in breach of contract cases, but is applicable for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of liability for
damages (see Civil Code, Article 2201).

• When is an intervening cause an efficient intervening cause?

An intervening cause, to be considered efficient, must be "one not produced by a wrongful act or
omission, but independent of it, and adequate to bring the injurious results." When the intervening
cause is set in operation by the original negligence, such negligence is still the proximate cause. If the
party guilty of the first act of negligence might have anticipated the intervening cause, the connection
is not broken. (Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Co., G.R. No. 164749)

 Defenses

1. Plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of the injury (Civil Code, Article 2179)
• Spouses Latonio v. McGeorge Food Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 206184

2. Contributory Negligence (Civil Code, Article 2179)

• Conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which
falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection.

Defenses (cont’d)

3. Last Clear Chance

• Where both parties are negligent, but the negligence of one precedes that of the other by an
appreciable interval of time, the party who had the last fair chance to avoid the mishap but fails to do
so is chargeable with all the consequences, without regard to the prior negligence of the other party.

• Not applicable:
(a) When only one party is negligent;
(b) When a party is required to act instantaneously;
(c) The proximate cause of the injury can be determined; and
(d) To a common carrier sued by a passenger on the basis of a breach of contract of carriage cause of
action.

 Defenses (cont’d)

4. Assumption of Risk
• One who voluntarily exposes himself to an obvious, known and appreciated danger assumes the
risk of injury that may result therefrom; based on consent, whether express or implied, to accept
danger of a known and appreciated risk.

• Requisites:
(a) The plaintiff must know that the risk is present;
(b) The plaintiff must further understand the nature of the risk; and
(c) The plaintiff’s choice to incur it must be free and voluntary.

Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Co., G.R. No. 164749 – Assumption of risk was not a meritorious defense
because death was not an ordinary risk of participating in a marathon. Minority should also be
considered in determining whether a person understood the nature of the risk involved.

Defenses (cont’d)

5. Prescription
• Actions based on QD prescribe in 4 years from the time the cause of action accrues (from the date
the injury is inflicted).
• When an insurer indemnifies an insured, the insurer is subrogated to the rights of the insured and
only acquires what is left of the insured party’s rights against the defendant. If the insured party’s
cause of action against the defendant is based on QD, the insured party only has 4 years from the
date the injury is inflicted to file a case against the defendant. If the insurer indemnifies the insured,
the insurer only acquires the balance of the period which the insured party has to file a claim against
the defendant. The insured is not entitled to a different period; neither is the period reset. (Henson,
Jr. v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 223134, En Banc, abandoning Vector Shipping
Corporation v. American Home Assurance Company)

 Defenses (cont’d)

6. Force Majeure/Fortuitous Events

• Civil Code, Article 1174

• Requisites:
(a) The cause of the injury must be independent of the human will, or at least of the obligor’s will;
(b) The event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable;
(c) The event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a
normal manner; and
(d) The debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of, the injury to the creditor.

 Defenses (cont’d)

7. Waiver
• Civil Code, Article 6
• Civil Code, Article 1171 - Waivers of actions for future fraud are void. Gross negligence is
equivalent to fraud, and therefore waivers of actions for future gross negligence are likewise void.
Waivers of actions for future simple negligence are valid.
• Civil Code, Article 2235 - Exemplary damages cannot be waived in advance.

• Requisites:
(a) The person making the waiver possesses the right to be waived;
(b) S/he he has the capacity and power to dispose of the right;
(c) the waiver must be clear and unequivocal although it may be made expressly or impliedly; and
(d) the waiver is not contrary to law, public policy, public order, morals, good customs or prejudicial
to a third person with a right recognized by law.

Defenses (cont’d)

8. Emergency
• One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider
the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if
he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method,
unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.

9. Damnum absque injuria (damage without injury)

• Concepts: (a) injury, which the illegal invasion of a legal right; (b) damage, which is the loss, hurt,
or harm that results from the injury; and (c) damages, which is the compensation awarded for the
damage suffered.

There can be damage without injury in those cases where the loss or harm was not the result of the
violation of a legal duty. Those cases do not warrant an award of damages against the person causing
damage, unless there is abuse of rights.

Vicarious Liability (In General)

First paragraph of Article 2180 states the basic theory underlying vicarious liability. Eighth paragraph
of Article 2180 gives you the basic defense available to persons sought to be held vicariously liable (i.e.,
due diligence to prevent damage).

Vicarious liability is different from respondeat superior.

For vicarious liability to attach, the plaintiff must prove:

(a) The requirements of Article 2176 against the actual or direct tortfeasor; and
(b) The specific requirements for vicarious liability to attach under Article 2180.
The plaintiff need not prove the fault or negligence of the person sought to be held vicariously
liable; this would already be presumed.

Direct tortfeasor and person vicariously liable are solidarily liable to the plaintiff. However, persons
vicariously liable have a right to full reimbursement under Article 2181.

Parents/Persons exercising parental

authority

Basis of vicarious liability of parents: parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction

2 relevant statutes dealing with the vicarious liability of parents/persons exercising parental authority:
(a) the Civil Code, specifically Article 2180, par. 2; and (b) the Family Code.

 Parents/Persons exercising parental
authority (cont’d)
Person vicariously liable
Person for whom they are
vicariously liable
Specific requirements for vicarious
liability to attach (to be proven by
the plaintiff)
Defense
Civil Code Family Code
Parents (Article 2180, par. 2).
The sequence of liability in Article 2180, par. 2 Parents/persons exercising parental
(father first, then mother) no longer applies authority (Articles 221, 211, 212, 216, 217,
because parental authority is now jointly 218, 219).
exercised by both parents (Libi v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, 214 SCRA 16). 
Child 18-21 years old (Civil Code, Article
2180, par. 2, in relation to Family Code, Child below 18 years old (Article 221).
Article 236, par. 3).
Child lives in their company and is under
Child lives in their company (Article 2180,
par. 2). their parental authority (Articles 221 and
219).
Ordinary diligence to prevent damage Ordinary diligence (Family Code, Articles
221 and 219, par. 2). 
(Article 2180, par. 8).

Guardians

Fault Negligence

Person vicariously liable Guardians

Person for whom vicariously liable Minors or incapacitated persons

Specific requirements for vicarious liability to Minors or incapacitated person is under their
attach (to be proven by the plaintiff) authority and lives in their company. 

Defense Ordinary diligence to prevent damage (Article 2180, par. 8).

Employers

EMPLOYERS (Article 2180, pars. 4 and 5) (In General)

Person vicariously liable Employers

Person for whom vicariously liable Employees

(a) Employer-employee relationship; and

Specific requirements for vicarious liability to
(b) Employee was acting within the scope of his/her
attach (to be proven by the plaintiff)
assigned tasks when the tort was committed.

(a) No employer-employee relationship;

(b) Employee was not acting within the scope of his/
Defense her assigned tasks; or
(c) Due diligence in the selection AND supervision of
the employee.

Employers (cont’d)
• “Manager” – in Article 2180, par. 4 does not mean a managerial employee. It must be understood to
mean owner or employer. An employee cannot be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by
a co-employee.

• “Acting within the scope of assigned tasks” - includes any act done in the furtherance of the
employer’s business or for the employer’s account (e.g., janitor who drove vehicle for the benefit of
the employer) (Imperial v. Heirs of Spouses Bayaban, G.R. No. 197626, Leonen, 2018).

• “Due diligence in selection” – Employer must prove that s/he examined the qualifications,
experience, and service records of the employee prior to hiring.

• “Due diligence in supervision” – Employer must prove formulation of rules, regulations, and
instructions; imposition of disciplinary measures as necessary; actual implementation and consistent
monitoring.

Employers (cont’d)

Hospitals may be held liable:

(a) As an employer under Article 2180;

(b) Pursuant to the doctrine of apparent authority/ostensible agency (“holding out” and ”reliance”
elements); or
(c) Pursuant to the doctrine of corporate negligence.

Employers (cont’d)

Registered owners of motor vehicles (Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. v. Abejar G.R. No.
170631, Leonen, 2016)
• The registered owner rule provides that the registered owner (RO) of a motor vehicle may be held
vicariously liable for the torts committed by the driver. The driver is deemed to be the agent of the RO,
and the RO may be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by the driver while driving the vehicle.
If the RO is held vicariously liable, may seek reimbursement from the actual owner, or from the driver.

• Public policy behind the RRO: So that the public can seek reparation or indemnification from someone
in case of vehicular mishaps.

• Once the plaintiff proves who the RO of a vehicle involved in a mishap is, a disputable presumption
arises that all of the requirements for vicarious liability to attach have been satisfied. The burden is then
on the RO to overcome this presumption through the defenses provided by law.

• The defenses ordinarily available to employers are available to the RO. Additional defenses include: (a)
the fact that the vehicle was stolen; and (b) unauthorized use.

The State

STATE (Article 2180, par. 6)

Person vicariously liable State

Special agent — one who receives a definite and fixed

Person for whom vicariously liable order or commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties
of his office if he is a special official.

Specific requirements for vicarious liability to

State acted through a special agent, who committed a tort.
attach (to be proven by the plaintiff)

Defense Ordinary diligence to prevent damage (Article 2180, par. 8). 

Teachers and Heads of Establishments of Arts
and Trades
TEACHERS/HEADS OF ESTABLISHMENTS OF ARTS AND TRADES (Article 2180, par. 7)
Person vicariously liable
Person for whom vicariously liable
Specific requirements for vicarious liability to
attach (to be proven by the plaintiff)
Defense
Teacher-in-charge, in respect of torts committed by their
adult students or pupils
Heads of establishments of arts and trades, in respect of
torts committed by their adult apprentices.
The school or establishment itself cannot be held liable
under Article 2180, par. 7.
Adult pupil, student, or apprentice
Tort was committed by a student, pupil, or apprentice
while in the custody of the teacher or head of an
establishment of arts and trades.
Ordinary diligence to prevent damage (Article 2180, par. 8).

Teachers and Heads of Establishments of

Arts and Trades

• Article 2180, par. 7 applies whether the institution is academic or non-academic.

• Article 2180, par. 7 only applies if the tortfeasor is a student, pupil, or apprentice; does not apply if the
tortfeasor is an outsider who gained access to school premises.

• A pupil or student “remains in the custody” of the teacher-in-charge:

• Even during recess time;
• So long as s/he is in school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in the exercise
of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege; and/or
• Even if the student, pupil, or apprentice is not living or boarding with the teacher or head.

• “Teacher-in-charge” - the one designated by the dean, principal, or other administrative superior to
exercise supervision over the pupils in the specific classes or sections to which they are assigned. It is not
necessary that at the time of the injury, the teacher be physically present and in a position to prevent it.

 Special Torts

Strict liability torts

• Torts where liability is imposed even without fault or negligence on the part of the tortfeasor.
• Civil Code, Article 2183 (possessors/users of animals) - Not based on the negligence or on the
presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal causing the damage. It is based on
natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility,
pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such animal may cause. (Vestil v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74431)

Manufacturers and processors (Civil Code, Article 2187)

• Requisites:
(a) Defendant is a manufacturer or processor;
(b) Goods manufactured or processed are foodstuff, drinks, toilet articles, and similar goods;
(c) Noxious or harmful substances are used in the manufacturing/processing;
(d) Death or injury occurs;
(e) Injured party is a consumer, user, or purchaser.

 Special Torts (cont’d)

Local Government Units (Civil Code, Article 2189)

• It is not necessary that the LGU owns the public works; the law simply requires that the LGU has
control or supervision over the public works. Control or supervision may be established by various
pieces of evidence, including the charter of the LGU, and even by the provisions of the Local
Government Code.

• Building proprietors; engineers, architects and contractors (Civil Code, Articles 2190 to 2192,
and 1723)

• Head of the family (Civil Code, Article 2193)

Special Torts (cont’d)

Abuse of rights and acts contra bonus mores (Civil Code, Articles 19 to 21)
• Elements of abuse of rights
(a) There is a legal right or duty;
(b) The legal right or duty is exercised in bad faith;
(c) For the sole intent of prejudicing another.

• Elements of acts contra bonus mores

(a) Act which is legal, or not contrary to law;
(b) Nevertheless, the act is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy;
(c) Act was done willfully with intent to cause loss or injury.

 Provision Scope/Coverage

Lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human relations and for the maintenance of social
Article 19
order, but does not provide a remedy for its violation.

Concerns violations of existing law as basis for an injury; allows recovery should the act have been
willful or negligent.
 
Article 20 Willful = refers to the intention to do the act and the desire to achieve the outcome which is
considered by the plaintiff in tort action as injurious.
 
Negligence = refers to a situation where the act was consciously done but without intending the result
which the plaintiff considers as injurious.

Concerns injuries that may be caused by acts which are not necessarily proscribed by law; requires that
Article 21 the act be willful, that is, that there was an intention to do the act and a desire to achieve the outcome.

Covers situations where an injury happens through an act or omission of the defendant. The act itself
must not be a breach of an existing law or a pre-existing contractual obligation.
Article 2176
(St. Martin Polyclinic, Inc. v. LWV Construction Corp., G.R. No. 217426, citing Leonen’s concurring
opinion in Alano v. Magud-Logmao, G.R. No. 175540, 2014)

 Special Torts (cont’d)

Unjust enrichment (Civil Code, Articles 22 and 23)
• Elements:
(a) Person is benefitted without a valid basis or justification;
(b) Benefit is derived from another person’s expense;
(c) Some cases add a third requisite: the aggrieved party has no other action based on Article 1157.

Disrespect of Persons (Civil Code, Article 26)

• Emotional distress tort/tort of outrage - a civil action filed by an individual to assuage the injuries to
his emotional tranquility due to personal attacks on his character.
• Elements:
(a) The conduct of the defendant was intentional or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff;
(b) The conduct was extreme and outrageous;
(c) There was a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's mental
distress; and
(d) The plaintiff's mental distress was extreme and severe.

Special Torts (cont’d)

Dereliction of Duty (Civil Code, Article 27)
• Inaction must be due to malice or inexcusable negligence.
• Purpose is to end bribery or pabagsak.
• Refers to non-feasance; not to malfeasance or misfeasance.

Unfair competition (Civil Code, Article 28)

• 2 characteristics:
(a) It must involve an injury to a competitor or trade rival; and
(b) It must involve acts which are characterized as "contrary to good conscience," or "shocking to
judicial sensibilities," or otherwise unlawful; in the language of our law, these include force,
intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or high-handed method. The
public injury or interest is a minor factor; the essence of the matter appears to be a private wrong
perpetrated by unconscionable means.

 Special Torts (cont’d)

Violation of Civil/Political Rights (Civil Code, Article 32)
• The Bill of Rights may only be invoked against the State. Article 32 may be invoked against both
private individuals and public officers or employees.
• Good faith is not a defense.
• Direct and indirect violations of these rights may give rise to a cause of action for damages.

Tortious interference with contractual relations (Civil Code, Article 1314)

• Requisites:
(a) Existence of a contract;
(b) Interferer knows that the contract exists;
(c) Interference is without legal excuse or justification;
(d) Malice is required for damages; not for the issuance of an injunction.

Special Torts (cont’d)

Medical negligence/malpractice
• An action available to victims to redress a wrong committed by medical professionals who cause
bodily harm to, or the death of, a patient. It may be brought whenever a medical practitioner or
health care provider fails to meet the standards demanded by his profession, or deviates from this
standard, and causes injury to the patient.
• Elements: (a) duty; (b) breach; (c) injury; and (d) proximate causation.
• “Duty” presupposes the existence of a physician-patient relationship (PPR). A PPR is created when
a patient engages the services of a physician, and the latter accepts or agrees to provide care to
the patient. Acceptance may be express or implied.
• Resident physicians and attending physicians are required to observe the same standard of care.

 Special Torts (cont’d)

Violation of the doctrine of informed consent
• The doctrine of informed consent states that a physician has a duty to disclose to a patient what a
reasonably prudent physician would disclose as regards grave risks of injury that might be incurred
from a proposed treatment.

• Elements:
(a) The physician had a duty to disclose material risks;
(b) S/he failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks;
(c) As a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient consented to treatment s/
he would not have consented to; and
(d) The plaintiff was injured by the treatment.

Damages

6 types of damages:

(a) Actual or compensatory (Civil Code, Articles 2199 to 2215)

(b) Moral (Civil Code, Articles 2217 to 2220)
(c) Nominal (Civil Code, Articles 2221 to 2223)
(d) Temperate or moderate (Civil Code, Articles 2224 to 2225)
(e) Liquidated (Civil Code, Articles 2226 to 2228)
(f) Exemplary or corrective (Civil Code, Articles 2229 to 2235)

Actual Damages

7 types provided in the Civil Code (I-LAV-IIT)

(a) Civil Indemnity for death

(b) Lost profits (lucrum cessans)
(c) Attorney’s fees
(d) Value of the loss actually sustained (damnum emergens)
(e) Compensatory Interest
(f) Injury to business standing or commercial credit
(g) Temporary or permanent loss of earning capacity

Actual Damages (cont’d)

Civil indemnity for death
• Civil Code, Article 2206
• This is an automatic award of actual damages. No proof of pecuniary loss is needed. This is
awarded upon proof of (a) death as a result of a crime or quasi-delict, and (b) the responsibility of
the accused/tortfeasor.
• Article 2206 only provides for a minimum of P3,000.00. It does not provide a maximum. The
maximum may be adjusted by the courts according to the circumstances.
• Although Article 2206 only mentions crimes and quasi-delicts, death as a result of a breach of
contract of carriage will also warrant an award of the damages mentioned in Article 2206.

Actual Damages (cont’d)

Lost profits/lucrum cessans
• Civil Code, Article 2200
• When the existence of a loss is established, absolute certainty as to its amount is not required. The
benefit to be derived from a contract which one of the parties has absolutely failed to perform is of
necessity to some extent, a matter of speculation, but the injured party is not to be denied all
remedy for that reason alone. He must produce the best evidence of which his case is susceptible
and if that evidence warrants the inference that he has been damaged by the loss of profits which
he might with reasonable certainty have anticipated but for the defendant's wrongful act, he is
entitled to recover.
• When it is shown that a plaintiff's business is a going concern with a fairly steady average profit on
the investment, it may be assumed that had the interruption to the business through defendant's
wrongful act not occurred, it would have continued producing this average income "so long as is
usual with things of that nature."

Actual Damages (cont’d)

Attorney’s fees
• Civil Code, Article 2208
• 2 concepts of AFs: (a) ordinary; and (b) extraordinary. In its ordinary concept, AFs refer to the
amounts payable by the client to the lawyer. In its extraordinary concept, AFs refer to damages
awarded to a party in the circumstances mentioned in Article 2208.
• Underlying principle: No premium should be placed on the right to litigate.

Actual Damages (cont’d)

Value of the loss sustained/damnum emergens
• Civil Code, Article 2200
• Plaintiff must prove the value of the thing lost at the time and place of its loss. Official receipts
should be presented.
• If not awarded as actual damages because of evidentiary issues concerning quantification,
temperate damages may be awarded in amount to be determined by the court.

 Actual Damages (cont’d)

Compensatory interest
• Civil Code, Articles 2209 to 2213
• BSP Circular No. 799 took effect on July 1, 2013. In the absence of stipulation, compensatory
interest is fixed at 6% per annum whether or not the obligation involved is a loan or forbearance of
money.
• Only monetary interest may be compounded; compensatory interest may not be compounded.
• If there is a stipulated rate of interest, that interest shall continue to apply to final and executory
judgments until they are satisfied. The legal rate of interest will not apply (Lara’s Gifts & Decors,
Inc. v. Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 225433, En Banc, 2019)

Actual Damages (cont’d)

Injury to Business Standing or Commercial Credit
• Civil Code, Article 2205, par. 2
• Damages to compensate for injury to business standing or commercial credit are actual damages,
thus their amount must be proven. However, if not proven, may be compensated through an award
of: (a) temperate damages; or (b) moral damages.

Actual Damages (cont’d)

Temporary or permanent loss of earning capacity
• Civil Code, Articles 2205, par. 1, and 2206, par. 1
• Formula: Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy x Net Annual Income = 2/3 (80-x) times [Gross
Annual Income – Necessary Expenses]
• “80” is fixed. Do not use retirement age.
• “X” is generally equal to age at the time of death, although the Supreme Court has allowed
modifications to this.

 Actual Damages (cont’d)

• Gross annual income
• General rule: Documentary evidence is necessary.
• Exceptions:
(a) Self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under prevailing labor laws and judicial
notice may be taken of the fact that no documentary evidence is usually available in his line of
work;
(b) Daily wage earner earning less than the minimum wage prevailing under labor laws;
(c) When the injured party is not yet employed but it is reasonably certain that s/he would be
employed had the injury not been inflicted; and
(d) When testimonial evidence is provided by the injured party’s widow, colleagues, or employer
with personal knowledge of the injured party’s income (Torreon v. Aparra, Jr., G.R. No. 188493,
Leonen, 2017).

Actual Damages (cont’d)

• Necessary/living expenses – If there is no documentary evidence, assume that this is half of the
Gross Annual Income.
• Recoverable in: (a) crimes and QD, by express provision of Article 2206; and (b) breach of contract
of carriage cases where death results (Civil Code Article 1764)
• If not recoverable as actual damages because of evidentiary issues regarding quantification, may
be awarded as temperate damages.
• If loss of earning capacity is only temporary, multiply net income with period of incapacity.

 Moral Damages
• Purpose - not intended to enrich, but to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions,
amusements that will serve to alleviate moral suffering; to restore the injured party to the spiritual
status quo ante.

• Requisites:
(a) There must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the
claimant;
(b) There must be a culpable act or omission factually established;
(c) The wrongful act or omission of the defendant must be the proximate cause of the injury
sustained by the claimant; and
(d) The award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code,
or on Articles 1159 or 2220.

Moral Damages (cont’d)

• Moral damages in breach of contract cases
• General rule: not recoverable
• Exceptions:
(a) When a passenger dies as a result of a breach of contract of carriage. However, in these
cases, it is only the spouse, and legitimate and illegitimate ascendants and descendants who
can recover; siblings cannot recover;
(b) Where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith; or with gross negligence;
(c) When the act which breaches a contract is also a tort.

• There is no standing doctrine that corporations are, as a matter of right, entitled to moral
damages. The existing rule is that moral damages are not awarded to a corporation since it is
incapable of feelings or mental anguish. Exceptions, if any, only apply pro hac vice. (Noell
Whessoe, Inc. v. Independent Testing Consultants, Inc., G.R. No. 199851, Leonen, 2018)

Nominal Damages
• Purpose – not for indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition of a right
violated or invaded; if the purpose is to indemnify, but the amount of the loss cannot be
ascertained with reasonable certainty, the court should award temperate damages instead.

• Cannot be awarded together with compensatory damages or exemplary damages. The awards of
compensatory and/or exemplary damages are in themselves a judicial recognition that plaintiff's
right was violated, and thus, an award of nominal damages would be superfluous.

Temperate Damages
• Purpose - indemnification, in cases where it is clear that pecuniary loss has been suffered, but its
amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.

• May be awarded not only in cases where the amount of pecuniary loss is naturally difficult to prove
(e.g., injury to business standing or commercial credit). May also be awarded where the amount of
pecuniary loss could have been proven readily, but the plaintiff failed to do so.

• Generally cannot be awarded together with actual damages; except when an injury is chronic and
continuing, or when the awards seek to compensate different injuries.

Liquidated Damages
• Purpose - could be meant as: (a) indemnity (genuine pre-estimate of the damages to be sustained
in case of breach of contract); or (b) penalty (as a deterrent to breach; to enforce compliance with
the contract).

• May be mitigated in cases of partial performance, or when iniquitous or unconscionable; however,

courts will generally not relieve parties from the consequences or effect of unwise contracts if they
were freely and voluntarily entered into.

• A liquidated damages clause may still be enforced by courts despite the rescission of the contract
where the clause is incorporated (Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. Pilhino Sales Corp., G.R.
No. 185765, Leonen, 2016)

Exemplary Damages
• Purpose - example or correction for the public good; deterrence.

• Basic requirement in all cases: Claimant must prove that s/he is entitled to moral, temperate, or
compensatory damages. If liquidated damages have been agreed upon, claimant must show that
he would be entitled to moral, temperate, or compensatory damages were it not for the agreement
on liquidated damages.

• Cannot be renounced in advance (Civil Code, Article 2235).

Mitigation of Damages
Doctrine of avoidable consequences (Civil Code, Article 2203)
• Defendant must prove: (a) the fact that plaintiff could have mitigated his damages; and (b) the
amount by which the plaintiff could have mitigated.

Civil Code, Articles 2214 and 2215

GOOD LUCK!!!!