MIDTERMS

QUASI DELICT- it covers not only acts committed with negligence but also those voluntary or
intentional
The requisites for a claim under quasi-delict to prosper are
as follows:
1. Act or omission causing the damage or injury (for there to be this these are needed a) plaintiff
has legal right which defendant is supposed to respect b) the act or omission violated plaintiff’s
right c) defendant’s act was proximate cause of injury d)damages are incurred
2. there being fault or negligence;
3. Causal connection between the damage and the act or
omission.
4. No-preexisting contractual relationship between the parties

PRINCIPLE OF DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA- damage without injury where the act of a person
may not lead to an action for damages as there was no violation of a legal right

Doctrine of Last Clear Chance

Where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than
that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be
attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending
harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof.

It means that the antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of
damages for the supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against liability sought by another,
if the latter, who had the last fair chance, could have avoided the impending harm by exercise of
due diligence.

Res Ipsa Loquitor: elements include

1. The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is
negligent
2. The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control
of the person charged with negligence
3. Injury suffered must have not been due to any voluntary action or contribution to the
person injured
4. It must appear that the injured party had no knowledge or means of knowledge as to
the cause of the accident, or that the party to be charged with negligence has superior
knowledge or opportunity for explanation of the accident.

It means the thing speaks for itself and under jurisprudence, it means that the fact of the
occurrence of an injury plus the surrounding circumstances may raise a case of negligence
which asks a question of fact where defendant has to offer an explanation
It also is not a rigid doctrine. It does not ask if the medical diagnosis is wrong rather whether or
not the extraordinary event outside routine performance, which happened while the whole
process was occurring, is also beyond customary professional activity, and if left unexplained,
would lead to negligence being the cause

ELEMENTS OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

1. Duty 2. Breach of duty 3. Injury is caused to patient 4. The proximate cause of the injury
was the doctor’s actions

DUTY OF INFORMED CONSENT (FROM Dr. Rubi Li vs Sps Soliman)

Unless excused, the doctor must secure the express or implied consent of his patient to a
particular treatment or investigative procedure

The essential elements in a malpractice action based on the duty of informed consent:
a. Physician has duty to disclose all risks
b. The physician failed to disclose these risks
c. As a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient consented to
treatment she otherwise would not have consented to, and
d. The plaintiff was injured by the treatment

Liability for a tort, even with a contract (from Air France vs Carrascoso)
For there to be a liability for tort even if there was a contract, there must have been an act
independent of the contract which violated the contract

ART 2177
Responsibility for fault or negligence under Art 2176 is entirely separate and distinct from the
civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.

ART 2178: These provisions are applicable to quasi delict

1. The general rule is that no person shall be responsible for events which could not be
foreseen or which, though foreseen, were inevitable (Article 1174, New Civil Code).
a. To exempt the obligor from liability under this Article, for a breach of an obligation
due to an "act of God", the following must concur: (a) the cause of the breach of
the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; (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. Thus, one negligence concurs with the Act of God the defense of
fortuitous event to escape liability cannot apply anymore.
 2. Article 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of
obligations is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts,
according to the circumstances.
3. Article 1173.
4. 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.

EMERGENCY RULE
Under the "emergency rule" an individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of danger
and is required to act without much time to consider the best means that may be used to avoid
the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake upon reflection what
appears to be a better solution, unless the emergency was brought by his own negligence.

ART 2179

When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

ART 2180
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages
caused by the minor children who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under
their authority and live in their company.

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.

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.

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the
damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case
what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove
that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

Torts and Damages Quiz No. 1

1. Differentiate Injury, Damage and Damages from one another.

Injury - illegal invasion of the legal right

Damage - loss, hurt or harm resulting from injury

Damages - recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered

Under doctrine, injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm
which results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for
the damage suffered.

From: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_116100_1996.html

2. Elements of res ipsa loquitur

Elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur:

1. The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent
2. The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the
person charged with negligence
3. Injury suffered must have not been due to any voluntary action or contribution to the person
injured
4. It must appear that the injured party had no knowledge or means of knowledge as to the
cause of the accident, or that the party to be charged with negligence has superior knowledge
or opportunity for explanation of the accident.

3. Does a wrong diagnosis equate to a medical malpractice under the rule on quasi delict?

No. Having a wrong diagnosis or error in judgement is valid, as long as the doctor came to his
diagnosis using and following proper acceptable medical standards. If he was negligent in
following these standards such as in one case, where the doctor failed to read deep enough into
the symptoms of his clients before coming up with a conclusion, then he can be a defendant in a
medical malpractice suit
FINALS

NEGLIGENCE
Negligence is the failure to degree of care the circumstances justly demand which leads to the
injury of a nother person. Common carriers need to practice extraordinary diligence because the
transport of goods of others is in their mercy

PROXIMATE CAUSE

The 4 tests of proximate cause:

Sine qua non (but for test)- the defendant’s conduct is the cause of the event if it was a material
factor in bringing it about

Foreseeability test- Under this test, the person becomes liable when he caused harm that was
or could have reasonably foreseen with his act or omission being the legal cause of the very
harm

Cause and condition test-

Natural and probable causes test- the defendant is only liable if the harm suffered is the natural
and probable consequences of his act

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK

HUMAN RELATIONS

Article 19 NCC
Art 20-21

- The principle of Art 20 is that acting

contrary to the law and causing damages makes one liable for damages. Under here, there is
still civil liability even if he acquitted of the crime and this acquittal is beyond reasonable doubt

ARTICLE 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.

Elements: (LCD)
1. Act which is legal;
2. The act is contrary to morals, good customs,
public order or public policy; and
3. The act is done with intent to injure
ARTICLE 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a
disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness,
tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.

ARTICLE 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of
acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any
government or private charitable institution.

ARTICLE 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of
his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute
a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:

(1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another; dumrrI

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of
birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
ARTICLE 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee
refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for
damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative
action that may be taken.

ARTICLE 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor

through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or
highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers
damage.

ARTICLE 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his
guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act
or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon
motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages
in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.

If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so
declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the
decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.

ARTICLE 30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a
criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil
case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.

ARTICLE 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission
complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal
proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.

ARTICLE 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and
liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

(1) Freedom of religion;

(2) Freedom of speech;

(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;

(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;

(5) Freedom of suffrage;

(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;

(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;

(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;

(9) The right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures;

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

(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence; cd

(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law;

(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Government for redress of
grievances;

(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;

(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;

(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in
his behalf;

(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one’s self, or from being forced to
confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such
confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness;

(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is
imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared
unconstitutional; and

(19) Freedom of access to the courts.

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant’s act or omission
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate
and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be proved by a
preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission
constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. Pnamei

ARTICLE 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages,
entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such
civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.

ARTICLE 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or
protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be
primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible
therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings,
and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.

ARTICLE 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with
the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law, but
the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been
committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the
complainant may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action
may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant’s motion, the court may
require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be
found to be malicious.

If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by the prosecuting
attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings.

ARTICLE 36. Pre-judicial questions, which must be decided before any criminal prosecution
may be instituted or may proceed, shall be governed by rules of court which the Supreme Court
shall promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Code.

CONCEPTS OF DAMAGES

Damages= is the indemnity recoverable by a person who sustained an injury in person or in

relative rights because of the act or fault of another person. It acts as compensation for the
injury or loss of a person

Damage= is the occasion of the damages and the loss caused by the injury

Injury = wrongful act or tort which harmed another

PURPOSE OF DAMAGES
A law on damages was created so that the damage done can be repaired by the putting the
plaintiff in the same position, as much as pecuniary compensation can do, that he would have
been in if the damage never happened in the 1st place.

APPLICABILITY OF DAMAGES
-applies to all obligations arising from
a) Law =
b) Contract
c) quasi contracts
d) delicts, and
e) quasi delicts

Damnum absque injuria= these means damage without injury where One may use any lawful
means to accomplish a lawful purpose and though the means adopted may cause damage to
another, no cause of action arises in the latter's favor so there is no actionable injury

CLASSIFICATIONS OF DAMAGES

ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

Damages awarded to a person as compensation or indemnity for such pecuniary loss suffered
by him as he has duly proved (CIVIL CODE, Art. 2199-2215).

(Baka lalabas)

Actual damages need not be proved under law and jurisprudence under these exceptions:
- When damages are liquidated
- Damages are not actual
- Loss is already presumed
- There is a forfeiture of bonds in favor of the govt because of pucapaciblic interest
Under Art 2200, there are 2 kinds of actual damages, loss or impairment of earning capacity
because of injury suffered ( dano emergente or danovitando and unrealized profits (lucro
captando or lucro cessante)
CLASSIFICATIONS OF DAMAGES

Art 2201= when the obligor was in good faith damages can only be the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of obligation AND that which the parties foresaw or could have
possibly foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.

On the other hand, if the obligor was in bad faith, he shall be responsible for all damages which
can be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.

Art 2202= In CRIMES and QUASI DELICTS,the defendant shall be liable for all damages which
are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of, but it is not
necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by
the defendant.

DAMAGES RECOVERABLE IN DEATH

Under law and jurisprudence, the defendant is liable for these in case of death:

LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY

ATTORNEY FEES AND INTERESTS

MORAL DAMAGES

Moral damages include: (BMW-F-PMS3)

1. Besmirched reputation;
· 2. Moral shock;
3. Wounded feelings;
4. Fright;. ' '·
5. physical ,suffering;·
6. Mental Anguish;
7. Serious anxiety;
8. Social humiliation
. 9. Similar injury (CIVIL CODE, Art. 2217).

For moral damages to be awarded, these requisites are needed:

NOMINAL DAMAGES

Purpose: In order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the
defendant, may be vindicated or recognized. It is not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff
for any loss suffered by him (CIVIL CODE, Art. 2221).

TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGES

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 provided with certainty.

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties in a contract to be paid in case of
breach thereof. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties. No proof is
necessary.The reason why there is no need for proof to recover liquidated damages is because
the agreement is the law between the parties

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by
way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages.

(Dela Cruz vs Octoviano

G.R. No. 219649 July 26, 2017 DOCTRINE)

In rape cases, there are 2 legal bases for awarding exemplary damages

ARTICLE 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability
may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to
the offended party.
ARTICLE 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with

gross negligence.

ARTICLE 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the

defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.

Civil Aeronautics Administration vs CA G.R. L-51806 November 8, 1988

Other CASE DOCTRINES:

A) Negligence:
a) There is no hard and fast rule whereby such degree of care and vigilance is
calibrated; it is dependent upon the circumstances in which a person finds
himself. All that the law requires is that it is perpetually compelling upon a person
to use that care and diligence expected of sensible men under comparable
circumstances · (PNR v. CA,
b) Intoxication is not negligence, just a circumstance which is considered alongside other
evidence tending to prove negligence (E.M Wright vs Meralco)
c) Electric companies are required to exercise a high degree of diligence since electricity is
dangerous(Astudillo vs Meralco)
d) The Civil Code makes clear that whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being negligence, is under obligation to pay for the damage done. Unless it could
be satisfactorily shown, therefore, that defendant-appellee was guilty of negligence then it
could not be held liable. "A person in control of an automobile who crosses a railroad,
even at a regular road crossing, and who does not exercise that precaution and that
control over it as to be able to stop the same almost immediately upon the appearance of
a train, is guilty of criminal negligence, providing a collision occurs and injury results.
(Corliss vs The Manila Railroad Co)
e) A blowout tire cannot be considered a fortuitous event and so a truck diver cannot be
excused from being liable for damages if he was negligent in making sure his bus was
ready for the road during his checkup( La Mallorca vs De Jesus)
f) Banks are required by law to exercise a high degree of diligence when it comes to
ascertaining and debiting from the accounts of their clients due to the fiduciary nature of
banking(Equitable Bank vs Tan)
g) A gunstore owner is liable when a gun injures another as it is a dangerous weapon and as
a result the owner is considred negligent since he was not diligent enough in preventing
injuries from occuring due to the dangerous weapons under his control(Pacis vs Morales
B) Proximate cause:
a) Meralco bears the consequences of its negligence as it has the job of making
electric meters serviceable by dealing with the unregistered energy consumption
as quickly as possible
C) Classifications:
a) Ribo vs CA = Compensatory damages can only be awarded if there is evidence
to prove the same and cannot be based on mere speculation.
b) People vs Asis =

c) Carriaga vs Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co. = under Art. 2201 of the Civil Code the common
carrier is liable for actual damages that are the natural and probable consequences of the
 breaches of the obligation and which the parties could have reasonably foreseen at the
time the obligation was constituted. These damages here consist of the possible income
the injured passenger who was a medical student would have most likely earned after
graduating falls under this provision as they could have been reasonably foreseen by the
parties at the time the student boarded the bus owned by the carrier.
d) G.A. Machineries vs Yaptincha = In this case, the plaintiff was not entitled for damages
because of unrealized profit since he had lack of evidence. The bare assertion of the
respondent that he lost about P54,000.00 and the accompanying documentary evidence
presented to prove the amount lost are inadequate if not speculative. To prove actual
damages, it would have been easy to present the average actual profits realized by the
other freight trucks plying the Manila-Baguio route.
With the presentation of such actual income the court could have arrived with reasonable
certainty at the amount of actual damages suffered by the respondent.
e) Chiang Kai Shek School vs Ca = For the wrongful act of the petitioner, the private
respondent is entitled to moral damages. As a proximate result of her illegal dismissal,
she suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and even besmirched
reputation as an experienced teacher for more than three decades.
f) Rosit vs Davao Doctors Hospital = In this case of medical malpractice where the plaintiff
suffered injuries because of the doctor’s negligence, SC ruled that the patient was
entitled to damages because he he was able to prove the actual expenses incurred
g) People vs Galvez =
D) Damages Recoverable in case of Death

a) (People vs Dadanon)
b)
E) Loss of earning capacity
a)
F) Moral Damages
G)