RAQUEL Q.

CANDELARIA
Torts and Damages

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Tort defined
- Tort is an unlawful violation of private right, not created by
contract, and which gives rise to an action for damages.
- Private or civil wrong or injury, other than breach of
contract, for which the court will provide a remedy in the
form of an action for damages.
2. Classes of Torts
a. Defamation
b. Fraud
c. Physical Injuries
d. Violation of Constitutional Rights
e. Negligence
f. Interference with Contractual Relations
g. Violations of Privacy
h. Malicious Prosecution
i. Product Liability
j. Strict Liability for possession of animals
k. Abuse of right (Article 19, NCC)
l. Acts which violate good morals and customs (Article 21,
NCC)
m. It also includes civil liability arising from criminal liability.

3. Major purposes of Tort Law

a. To provide peaceful means for adjusting the rights of parties
who might otherwise take the law into their own hands;
b. Deter wrongful act;
c. To encourage socially responsible behaviour; and
d. To restore injured parties to their original condition, insofar
as the law can do this, by compensating them for their
injury.
4. Fundamental Principles
These fundamental principles include, equity, justice,
democracy, and respect for human dignity.

EQUITY and JUSTICE - the provisions of the Code “uphold the

spirit that giveth life rather than the letter that killeth.” Thus,
justice and equity demand that persons who may have been
damages by the wrongful or negligent act of another are
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA
Torts and Damages

compensated. Acting with justice involves the duty to

indemnify for damage caused under Arts. 20, 21, 28, 27; to
indemnify by reason of unjust enrichment under Arts. 22 and
23; and to protect the weaker party under Art. 24.

JUSTICE – is a steady and unceasing disposition to render

every man his due.
Two Levels of Justice
1. Social Justice
a. Distributive Justice - addresses the allocation of social
goods and bads: wealth-poverty, income-employment,
power-powerless, and so on. These issues are dealt
with by the Congress and state legislatures.
Distributive justice is a principal concern of our
democratic institutions.
b. Retributive justice, or retribution, refers to sanctions
or penalties that are applied to those who engage in
certain kinds of antisocial behavior; for example,
murder, rape, and kidnapping. The criminal statutes x
x x are examples of this type of justice.

2. Individual Justice
a. Compensatory Justice (also known as corrective
justice) means simply that a person who wrongfully
inflicts harm on another person or that person’s
property must repay or repair the damage; that is, the
one causing harm must try to place the injured party
in as good a position as that person would have
enjoyed had the wrong not been inflicted.
b. Commutative justice entails fairness of a private
bargain or exchange. Mutual satisfaction with regard
to the substance of such an agreement presupposes
full information, truthfulness, mental capacity,
absence of coercion, and subjective satisfaction (as
opposed to dollar-for-dollar equivalency) of the
exchange.

EQUITY – on the other hand, has broadly been defined as justice according
to natural law and right. It is also described as justice outside legality.
Equity is often invoked in justifying the rule regarding mitigation of liability
if the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA
Torts and Damages

DEMOCRACY – such concern for democratic way of life is the reason why
the Code includes provisions that implement the civil liberties guaranteed
by the Constitution. Thus, for example, Article 32 provides for independent
civil action for damages against “any public officer or employee, or any
private individual, who directly and indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates
or in any manner impedes or impairs the civil rights and liberties of
another person.”

II. NEGLIGENCE
1. Defined – is the omission to do something which a reasonable
man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate
the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of
something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

To determine whether or not a person has been negligent

requires determining 2 things:

1) the diligence required of the actor under the circumstances,

and

2) whether the actor has performed the diligence required.

Failing the second requisite would lead to the conclusion that

one has been negligent.

2. Kinds of Negligence
a. Culpa Aquiliana – is a separate source of obligation
independent contract. For instance, when the breach of
contract was committed through the negligence of
employee, the employer cannot erase his primary and direct
liability by setting up the defense of the diligence of a good
father of a family in the selection and supervision of the
employee. That is to say the employer’s liability is direct
and immediate, differing essentially from his presumptive
responsibility for the negligence of his servants based on the
quasi-delict under Article 1280 of the Civil Code, which can
be rebutted by proof of the exercise of due care in their
selection and supervision.
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA
Torts and Damages

b. Culpa Criminal – crimes, under RPC – Art 365

c. Culpa Contractual – the foundation of the liability of the

defendant is the contract. The obligation to answer for the
damage that the plaintiff has suffered arises from breach of
the contract by reason of defendant’s failure to exercise due
care in its performance.

d. Culpa Contractual distinguished from culpa aquiliana

e. Culpa aquiliana distinguished from crime’

Culpa aquiliana or quasi-delitos under the Civil Code:

a) Crimes affect the public interest, while Quasi-delitos are

only of private concern;
b) The Penal Code punishes or corrects criminal act, while
the Civil Code, by means of indemnification, merely repairs
the damage;
c) Delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts, because the
former are punished only if there is a penal law
clearly covering them, while the latter, Quasi-delitos, include
all acts in which any kind of fault or negligence intervenes;
and
d) The liability of the employer of the actor-employee is
subsidiary in crimes while his liability is direct and primary
in quasi-delict.

3. Tests of Negligence
“The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a
particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in
doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used
in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
Hence, they can be expected to take care only when there is
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA
Torts and Damages

something before them to suggest or warn danger. Could a

prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as
a result of the course actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of
the actor to take precautions to guard against harm.

4. Proof of Negligence
a. Presumption of Negligence
b. Res Ipsa Loquitor (requisites, elements, inapplicability of
doctrine)
The three elements of quasi delict are: (a) damages suffered
by the plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, and (c)
the connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence of the defendant and the damages inflicted on the
plaintiff.

Cases:

Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corporation v. Borja, 

GR No. 143008, 10 June 2002
SMITH BELL DODWELL SHIPPING AGENCY CORPORATION vs. CATALINO
BORJA and INTERNATIONAL TO WAGE AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION (ITTC)
G.R. No. 143008. June 10, 2002
PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS:

Smith Bell (petitioner) filed a written request with Bureau of Customs for the attendance of
the latter’s inspection team on vessel M/T King Family which contains 750 metric tons of
alkyl benzene and methyl methacrylate monomer.

Borja was the customs inspector assigned by the Bureau upon arrival and departure.

While M/T King was unloading the chemicals unto two barges ITTC 101 and CLC-1002
owned by the respondent ITTC, a sudden explosion occurred setting the vessels afire. Borja
was at the cabin and ran outside to check but another explosion was heard. Fearing for his
life, Borja jumped overboard, however the water was likewise on fire, he swam his way for
one hour until he was rescued and hospitalized. Borja was diagnosed to be permanently
disabled and demands against Smith Bell and ITTC for the damages caused by the explosion.
Both denied liabilities and attributed to each other negligence.

The RTC ruled in favor of respondent Borja and it was affirmed by the CA, holding the
petitioner liable for the damages and loss of income. P495,360 for actual damages, P100,000
for moral damages and P50,000 as attorney’s fees.
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA
Torts and Damages

ISSUE:
Is Smith Bell liable for Borja’s injuries?

RULING:

Yes, Smith Bell is liable.

Negligence is conduct that creates undue risk of harm to another. It is the failure to observe
that degree of care, precaution and vigilance that the circumstances justly demand,
whereby that other person suffers injury. Petitioners vessel was carrying chemical cargo --
alkyl benzene and methyl methacrylate monomer. While knowing that their vessel was
carrying dangerous inflammable chemicals, its officers and crew failed to take all the
necessary precautions to prevent an accident. Petitioner was, therefore, negligent.

The three elements of quasi delict are: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or
negligence of the defendant, and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence of the defendant and the damages inflicted on the plaintiff. All these elements
were established in this case. Knowing fully well that it was carrying dangerous chemicals,
petitioner was negligent in not taking all the necessary precautions in transporting the
cargo.

As a result of the fire and the explosion during the unloading of the chemicals from
petitioners vessel, Respondent Borja suffered the following damage: and injuries: (1)
chemical burns of the face and arms; (2) inhalation of fumes from burning chemicals; (3)
exposure to the elements [while] floating in sea water for about three (3) hours; (4)
homonymous hemianopsia or blurring of the right eye [which was of] possible toxic origin;
and (5)cerebral infract with neo-vascularization, left occipital region with right sided
headache and the blurring of vision of right eye.

Hence, the owner or the person in possession and control of a vessel and the vessel are
liable for all natural and proximate damage caused to persons and property by reason of
negligent management or navigation

Natividad Andamo and Emmanuel R. Andamo vs. Intermediate

Appelate Court
G.R. No. 74761 November 6, 1990

Same; Same; Quasi-delicts; Elements of quasi-delict.—A
careful examination of the afore
quoted complaint shows that the civil action is one under Articles 2176 and
2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. All the elements of a quasi-delict are
present, to wit: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA
Torts and Damages

the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the
connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant
and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same;  Therecitals of the complaint, the alleged presence

of damage to the petitioners, the act or omission of respondent corporation
supposedly constituting fault or negligence and the causal connection between
the act and the damage, with no preexisting contractual obligation between the
parties make a clear case of a quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana.—While the
property involved in the cited case belonged to the public domain and the
property subject of the instant case is privately owned, the fact remains that
petitioners’ complaint sufficiently alleges that petitioners have sustained and
will continue to sustain damage due to the waterpaths and contrivances built by
respondent corporation. Indeed, the recitals of the complaint, the alleged
presence of damage to the petitioners, the act or omission of respondent
corporation supposedly constituting fault or negligence, and the causal
connection between the act and the damage, with no pre-existing contractual
obligation between the parties make a clear case of a quasi-delict or culpa
aquiliana.

Teague vs. Fernandez, 1973

MERCEDES M. TEAGUE, petitioner, vs. ELENA FERNANDEZ, et al., respondent.
No. L-29745 June 4, 1973

MAKALINTAL, J.:
Subject: Torts and Damages
Doctrine: Violation of Rules and Statutes 

FACTS:

1. Four o’clock in the afternoon of October 24, 1955, a fire broke out in a store located about
ten meters away from the Realistic Institute, situated on the second floor of the Gil-Armi
Building, a two-storey, semi-concrete edifice owned and operated by Teague.
2. It was unpartitioned with total area of about 400 square meters, with only one stairway, of
about 1.50 meters in width,
3. it had eight windows, each of which was provided with two fire-escape ladders and the
presence of each of said fire-exits was indicated on the wall.
4. Apparently, upon seeing the fire, some of the students in the Realistic Institute shouted
‘Fire! Fire!’ and thereafter, a panic ensued.
5. The instructresses and assistant instructress of the Institute, tried to calm down the
students. Even the registrar tried to stop the students from rushing and pushing their way
to the stairs.
6. The panic, however, could not be subdued thereby causing stampede therein.
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA
Torts and Damages

7. No part of the Gil-Armi Building caught fire.

8. But, after the panic was over, four students, including Lourdes Fernandez, a sister of
plaintiffs-appellants, were found dead and several others injured on account of the
stampede.
9. The deceased’s five brothers and sisters filed an action for damages against Mercedes M.
Teague as owner and operator of Realistic Institute. 
10. The CFI found for the defendant and dismissed the case. 
11. It was however, reversed by the CA. The CA held that petitioner was negligent and that such
negligence was the proximate cause of the death of Lourdes Fernandez. This finding of
negligence is based primarily on the fact that the provision of Section 491 Of the Revised
Ordinances of the City of Manila had not been complied with in connection with the
construction and use of the Gil-Armi building. The alleged violation of the ordinance
consisted in the fact that the second storey of the Gil-Armi building had only one stairway,
1.5 meters wide, instead of two of at least 1.2 meters each, although at the time of the fire
the owner of the building had a second stairway under construction.
12. The petitioner relates the chain of events that resulted in the death of Lourdes Fernandez as
follows: (1) violation of ordinance; (2) fire at a neighboring place; (3) shouts of “Fire!, Fire!”;
(4) panic in the Institute; (5) stampede; and (6) injuries and death. As thus projected the
violation of the ordinance, it is argued, was only a remote cause, if at all, and cannot be the
basis of liability since there intervened a number of independent causes which produced the
injury complained of. According to the petitioner “the events of fire, panic and stampede
were independent causes with no causal connection at all with the violation of the
ordinance.”

ISSUE: Whether a violation of a statute constitutes negligence.

WON failure to comply with the ordinance requiring a building to provide two
stairways constitutes act of negligence.

HELD:  
YES.

It is true that the petitioner’s non-compliance with the ordinance in question was ahead of and
prior to the other events in point of time, in the sense that it was coetaneous with its
occupancy of the building. But the violation was a continuing one, since the ordinance was a
measure of safety designed to prevent a specific situation which would pose a danger to the
occupants of the building. That situation was undue overcrowding in case it should become
necessary to evacuate the building, which, it could be reasonably foreseen, was bound to
happen under emergency conditions if there was only one stairway available.

“The general principle is that the violation of a statute or ordinance is not rendered remote as
the cause of an injury by the intervention of another agency if the occurrence of the accident,
in the manner in which it happened, was the very thing which the statute or ordinance was
intended to prevent.” To consider the violation of the ordinance as the proximate cause of the
injury does not portray the situation in its true perspective; it would be more accurate to say
that the overcrowding at the stairway was the proximate cause and that it was precisely what
the ordinance intended to prevent by requiring that there be two stairways instead of only
one. Under the doctrine of the cases cited by the respondents, the principle of proximate
cause applies to such violation.
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA
Torts and Damages

The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

a) Negligence in general.—Negligence is a relative or comparative, not an absolute term

and its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and
vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require (Corliss vs. Manila Railroad
Company,L-21291, March 28, 1969). Negligence is conduct, not a state of mind or the use
of sound judgment. Hence, the existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by
reference to the personal judgment but by the behavior of the actor in the situation before him
(Manila Railroad Co. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, L-12425, December 23, 1959).
b) Necessity to show connection between negligence and damage.—Negligence as giving
rise to a cause of action for damages for personal injuries, under the civil law as well as in
American law, requires not only proof of damage to the plaintiff and negligence on the part
of the defendant personally or of some person for whose acts he must respond, but also the
connection of cause and effect between negligence and damage (De Gregorio vs. Go
Chong Bing, L-7663, December 2, 1957).

Pacis vs. Morales, 2010

SPOUSES PACIS VS. MORALES
G.R. No. 169467
February 25, 2010

FACTS:
This case involves the accidental discharge of a firearm inside a gun store.
petitioners filed with the trial court a civil case for damages against respondent Morales.
Petitioners are the parents of Alfred Pacis, a 17-year old student who died in a shooting incident
inside the Top Gun Firearms and Ammunitions Store in Baguio City. Morales is the owner of the
gun store. 

On the fateful day, Alfred was in the gun store, with Matibag and Herbolario as sales agents and
caretakers of the store while owner Morales was in Manila. The gun which killed Alfred is a gun
owned by a store customer which was left with Morales for repairs, which he placed inside a
drawer. Since Morales would be going to Manila, he left the keys to the store with the caretakers.
It appears that the caretakers took the gun from the drawer and placed it on top of a table.
Attracted by the sight of the gun, the young Alfred got hold of the same. Matibag asked Alfred to
return the gun. The latter followed and handed the gun to Matibag. It went off, the bullet hitting
the young Alfred in the head.

A criminal case for homicide was filed against Matibag. Matibag, however, was acquitted of the
charge against him because of the exempting circumstance of “accident” under Art. 12, par. 4 of
the RPC.

By agreement of the parties, the evidence adduced in the criminal case for homicide against
Matibag was reproduced and adopted by them as part of their evidence in the instant case.

The trial court rendered its decision in favor of petitioners, ordering the defendant to pay
plaintiffs indemnity for the death of Alfred, actual damages for the hospitalization and burial,
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA
Torts and Damages

expenses incurred by the plaintiffs, compensatory damages, MD and AF.

Respondent appealed to the CA, which reversed the trial court’s Decision and absolved
respondent from civil liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. MR denied, hence this
petition.

ISSUE: Was Morales negligent?

HELD: Petition granted. The CA decision is set aside and the trial court’s Decision reinstated.
YES
This case for damages arose out of the accidental shooting of petitioners’ son. Under Article 1161
of the Civil Code, petitioners may enforce their claim for damages based on the civil liability
arising from the crime under Article 100 of the RPC or they may opt to file an independent civil
action for damages under the Civil Code. In this case, instead of enforcing their claim for
damages in the homicide case filed against Matibag, petitioners opted to file an independent civil
action for damages against respondent whom they alleged was Matibag’s employer. Petitioners
based their claim for damages under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code.

**
Unlike the subsidiary liability of the employer under Article 103 of the RPC, the liability of the
employer, or any person for that matter, under Article 2176 of the Civil Code is primary and
direct, based on a person’s own negligence. Article 2176 states:

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence,
is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of
this Chapter.

This case involves the accidental discharge of a firearm inside a gun store. Under PNP
Circular No. 9, entitled the “Policy on Firearms and Ammunition Dealership/Repair,” a person
who is in the business of purchasing and selling of firearms and ammunition must maintain basic
security and safety requirements of a gun dealer, otherwise his License to Operate Dealership will
be suspended or canceled.

Indeed, a higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his possession or under his
control an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character, such as dangerous weapons or
substances. Such person in possession or control of dangerous instrumentalities has the duty to
take exceptional precautions to prevent any injury being done thereby. Unlike the ordinary affairs
of life or business which involve little or no risk, a business dealing with dangerous weapons
requires the exercise of a higher degree of care.

As a gun store owner, respondent is presumed to be knowledgeable about firearms safety and
should have known never to keep a loaded weapon in his store to avoid unreasonable risk of harm
or injury to others. Respondent has the duty to ensure that all the guns in his store are not loaded.
Firearms should be stored unloaded and separate from ammunition when the firearms are not
needed for ready-access defensive use. With more reason, guns accepted by the store for repair
should not be loaded precisely because they are defective and may cause an accidental discharge
such as what happened in this case. Respondent was clearly negligent when he accepted the gun
for repair and placed it inside the drawer without ensuring first that it was not loaded. In the first
place, the defective gun should have been stored in a vault. Before accepting the defective gun for
repair, respondent should have made sure that it was not loaded to prevent any untoward accident.
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA
Torts and Damages

Indeed, respondent should never accept a firearm from another person, until the cylinder or action
is open and he has personally checked that the weapon is completely unloaded. For failing to
insure that the gun was not loaded, respondent himself was negligent. Furthermore, it was not
shown in this case whether respondent had a License to Repair which authorizes him to repair
defective firearms to restore its original composition or enhance or upgrade firearms. 

Clearly, respondent did not exercise the degree of care and diligence required of a good father of
a family, much less the degree of care required of someone dealing with dangerous weapons, as
would exempt him from liability in this case.

Heirs of Abiad vs. Albayda, 2010

Heirs of Redentor Completo, and Elpidio Abiad v. Sgt. Amando Albayda, Jr.
2010 / Nachura [Negilgence > Standard of conduct > Special circumstance]

Facts
1. Albayda is a Master Sergeant of the PH Air Force, and Completo was the taxi driver of a Toyota
Corolla which was owned by Abiad. Albayda was riding a bike on his way to the office, when
Completo's taxi bumped and sideswept him, causing serious physical injuries. He [Albayda] was
brought to the PH Air Force General Hospital, but he was transferred to the AFP Medical Center
because he sustained a fracture and there was no orthopedic doctor available in the first hospital. He
was confined from 27 Aug 1997 to 11 Feb 1998, and again in 23 Feb to 22 Mar 1998 [approx. 7
months].

2. Conciliation before the barangay failed, so Albayda filed a complaint for physical injuries through
reckless imprudence against Completo before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay. Completo
filed a counter-charge of damage to property through reckless imprudence against Albayda. The Office
of the City Prosecutor recommended the filing of an information for Albayda's complaint, and
Completo's complaint [against Albayda] was dismissed. Albayda manifested his reservation to file a
separate civil action for damages against Completo and Abiad.

     Albayda alleged that Completo's negligence is the proximate cause of the incident. He demanded the
following damages and their respective amounts: Actual damages - 276,550; Moral damages -
600,000; Exemplary damages - 200,000; Attorney's fees - 25,000 + 1,000 per court appearance. 
     On the other hand, Completo alleged that he was carefully driving the taxicab when he heard a strange sound
from the taxicab's rear right side. He found Albayda lying on the road, holding his left leg, so he brought
Albayda to PH Air Force General Hospital. Completo asserted that he was an experienced driver, and that he
already reduced his speed to 20km even before reaching the intersection. In contrast, Albayda rode his bicycle at
high speed, causing him to lose control of the bicycle. Completo said that Albayda had no cause of action.
     Several people testified for each side, but here are some notes on the testimony of the owner of the taxi
driver, Abiad. Abiad said that aside from being a soldier, he also held franchises of taxicabs and passenger
jeepneys, and being a taxicab operator, he would wake up early to personally check the taxicabs. When
Completo applied as a taxicab driver, Abiad required him to show his bio-data, NBI clearance, and driver's
license. Completo never figured in a vehicular accident since he was employed, and according to Abiad, he
[Completo] was a good driver and good man.
     RTC rendered judgment in favor of Albayda, and the defendants are ordered to pay actual [46k] and moral
[400k] damages, and attorney's fees [25k]. Upon appeal at the CA, the court affirmed RTC's decision with
modifications [no more actual damages; awarded temperate damages [40k]; moral damages only 200k;
Completo and Abiad are solidarily liable to pay Albayda; added legal interest].

Issues and Holding

1. WON CA erred in finding that Completo was the one who caused the collision. NO
2. WON Abiad failed to prove that he observed the diligence of a good father of the family. YES
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA
Torts and Damages
3. WON the award of moral and temperate damages and attorney's fees for Albayda had no basis. NO /
NO / YES
Ratio
On Negligence
It is a rule in negligence suits that the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence
the motorist's breach in his duty of care owed to the plaintiff, that the motorist was negligent in failing to
exercise the diligence required to avoid injury to the plaintiff, and that such negligence was the proximate cause
of the injury suffered. NCC 2176 q
uoted, and said that the question of the motorist's negligence is a question of fact. Usually, more will be required
of a motorist [25mi/hr = 37ft/sec] than a bicyclist [10mi/hr = 15ft/sec] in discharging the duty of care because of
the physical advantages the former has over the latter.

It was proven by a preponderance of evidence that Completo failed to exercise reasonable diligence.
 He was overspeeding at the time he hit Albayda's bicycle; he did not slow down even when he
approached the intersection
 Such negligence was the sole and proximate cause of the injuries sustained by Albayda
 It was proven that Albayda had the right of way since he reached the intersection ahead of Completo
NCC 2180 cited - obligation imposed by NCC 2176 is demandable also for those persons for whom one is
responsible. Employers are liable for damage caused by employees, but the responsibility ceases upon proof that
employers observed the diligence of the good father of the family in the selection and supervision of
employees. The burden of proof is on the employer. The responsibility of two or more persons who are
liable for QD is solidary. The employer's civil liability for his employee's negligent acts is also primary
and direct, owing to his own negligence in selecting and supervising them, and this liability attaches even if the
employer is not in the vehicle at the time of collision.
     In the selection of employees, employers are required to examine them as to their qualifications,
experience, and service records. With respect to supervision, employers should formulate SOPs and monitor
their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for breaches. To establish these factors in a trial
involving the issue of vicarious [secondary] liability, employers must submit concrete proof, including
documentary evidence. 

ABIAD'S EVIDENCE CONSISTED ENTIRELY OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, AND THIS IS

INSUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE LEGAL PRESUMPTION THAT HE WAS NEGLIGENT IN
THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF COMPLETO.

On Damages
CA rightfully deleted the award of actual damages because Albayda failed to present documentary evidence to
establish the amount incurred. Temperate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary
loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. Moral damages are awarded in QDs
causing physical injuries, so the award is proper. The award of attorney's fees is deleted for failure to prove that
petitioners acted in bad faith in refusing to satisfy respondent's just and valid claim.

Africa v. Caltex, 1966

SPS. AFRICA vs. CALTEX
GR No. L-12986
March 31, 1966

FACTS:
RAQUEL Q. CANDELARIA
Torts and Damages

Gotesco Investment Corp. vs. Chatto, 1992

Batiquin vs. CA, 1996

D.M. Consunji vs. CA, 2001

Macalinao vs. Ong, 2005

Also read relevant Articles in NCC on quasi-delict and RPC (Art. 100, 104
etc)