COURSE OUTLINE FOR TORTS AND DAMAGES

UB School of Law, SY 2022-2023

Course Description

This two-unit course is designed to provide law students an insight

into the core concepts of civil liability for damages caused by a
breach of an imposed duty. Topics pursued include negligence,
delict, absolute liability, intentional torts, special torts, and kinds of
damages.

Course Outline

(First meeting August 17, 2022) Organizational Meeting

Organizational Matters and Course Completion

• Regular Schedule/Make up Time
• Class Coordinators (per group)
• Electronic submission of requirements
 (cda_farinas@yahoo.com)
 Google forms
 Turn in in google classroom

I.INTRODUCTION

CONCEPT OF TORTS

Classes of Torts

Negligent
Intentional
Strict

II. SOURCES OF CIVIL LIABILITY (based on Negligent torts)

Articles 29 to 31; Articles 1159 to 1162 of the Civil Code

Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code
Sections 1 and 2, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure

Kinds of Negligence
Arising from Crime
People of the Philippines vs. Bayotas (G.R. No. 102007, 2 September
1994, 236 SCRA 239)
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. People of the Philippines

Arising from Contract

Air France vs. Carascoso, et al

Arising from Tort

Andamo, et al vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al
Castro vs. People of the Philippines

CULPA AQUILANA/CULPA CONTRACTUAL/CULPA CRIMINAL

Article 2177 of the Civil Code
Fabre, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Calalas vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

III. CONCEPT OF QUASI-DELICT

1. ELEMENTS OF A QUASI-DELICT
Article 2176 of the Civil Code
Cinco vs. Canonoy, et al (90 SCRA 369)

2. DISTINCTIONS

A. Quasi-delict v. Delict
Article 2177, CC
Article 365, RPC
Philippine Rabbit vs. People, GR No. 147703 (2004)

B. Quasi-delict v. Breach of contract

Articles 1170-1174, CC
Article 1174, CC
Article 2178, CC
Far East vs. CA, 241 SCRA 671
Calalas vs. Sunga, 332 SCRA 356 (2000)
IV. NEGLIGENCE

Concept of Negligence
Definition; Elements
Article 20, CC
Article 1173 of the Civil Code
Picart vs. Smith, Jr. (37 Phil 809)

Negligence as the Proximate Cause

Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

Proof of Negligence
A. Burden of proof

Rule 131, Rules of Court (“ROC”)

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Court of Appeals,
et al.

B. Presumption of Negligence
Articles 2184-2185, 2188, 1734-1735, CC

C. Res ipsa loquitur

Layugan vs. IAC, 167 SCRA 363
Batiquin vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

Respondeat superior
Castilex Industrial Corporation vs. Vasquez, Jr., et al.

Violation of Traffic Rules

Article 2184 of the Civil Code
Caedo, et al. vs. Yu Khe Thai, et al.
BLT Bus co. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.

Dangerous weapons and substances

Article 2188 of the Civil Code

V.DEFENSES
KINDS of DEFENSES
-complete
-partial
a. Contributory negligence
Article 2179, 2214 of the Civil Code
Rakes vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company (GR No 1719 (1907))

b. Assumption of Risk
Afiada vs. Hisole (85 Phil 67)

c. Last clear chance

Picart vs. Smith, Jr (37 Phil 809)
Spouses Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District (104 Phil 397)

d. Prescription
Article 1146 of the Civil Code
Article 169 of the Consumer Act of the Philippines
Ferrer, et al. vs. Ericta, et al
Kramer, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. (178 SCRA 518)

e. Force majeure/ Fortuitous event

Article 1170, 1174 of the Civil Code
Gotesco vs. Chatto, et al (210 SCRA 18)
National Power Corporation, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al (GR
Nos. 103442-45 (1993)

f. Exercise of diligence
Article 2180 of the Civil Code
Ramos vs. Pepsi, (19 SCRA 289)

g. Mistake and waiver

Gatchalian vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

h. Damnum absque injuria

National Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al

VI.CAUSATION

Proximate Cause

1. Definition
Fernando vs. CA, 208 SCRA 714
Pilipinas Bank vs. CA, 234 SCRA 435

2. Distinguished from other kinds

Remote
Urbano vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 1
Concurrent
Far East Shipping vs. CA, 297 SCRA 30

VII. VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Article 2180 to 2194 of the Civil Code

1. PARENTS AND GUARDIANS

Article 2180, 2181 and 2182 of the Civil Code
Articles 216 and 218, Family Code
Republic Act No. 6809
Canlas vs. Chan Lin Po, et al. Spouses Libi vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, et al

2. TEACHERS AND HEADS OF ESTABLISHMENTS

Articles 218-219, FC
Article 2180, CC
Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, et al. (108 Phil 414 (1960))

3. OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF ESTABLISHMENTS

St. Francis High School, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al

4. EMPLOYERS
Martin vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al

VIII. PRIMARY LIABILITY (in relation to strict torts)

1. POSSESSORS /USERS OF ANIMALS

Article 2183 of the Civil Code
Vestil, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. (179 SCRA 47)

2. OWNERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Article 2184 of the Civil Code
Caedo, et al. vs. Yu Khe Thai, et al.
Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al
3. MANUFACTURERS AND PROCESSORS
Article 2189 of the Civil Code
in general, Consumer Act of the Philippines

4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
Article 2189 of the Civil Code
Section 24 of the Local Government Code
City of Manila vs. Teotico, et al.

5. BUILDING PROPRIETORS
Articles 2190, 2191, 2192 and 2193 of the Civil Code

6. ENGINEERS /ARCHITECTS /CONTRACTORS

Article 2192 and 1723 of the Civil Code
Nakpil & Sons, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

IX. SPECIAL TORTS (in relation to intentional torts)

1. ABUSE OF RIGHTS

Article 19 of the Civil Code

Velayo vs. Shell Company of the Philippines Islands, Ltd (100 Phil
186)

2. ACTS OR OMISSIONS CONTRARY TO MORALS

Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code
Wassmer vs. Velez

3. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Articles 22 and 23 of the Civil Code

4. JUDICIAL VIGILANCE
Article 24 of the Civil Code

5. THOUGHTLESS EXTRAVAGANCE
Article 25 of the Civil Code

6. RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Article 26 of the Civil Code
St. Louis Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
Castro vs. People of the Philippines

7. DERELICTION OF DUTY
Article 27 of the Civil Code
Torio, et al. vs. Fontanilla, et al

8. UNFAIR COMPETITION
Article 28 of the Civil Code

9. VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Article 32 of the Civil Code
Lim vs. Ponce de Leon

10. INTERFERENCE IN CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

Article 1314 of the Civil Code
Daywalt vs. La Corporacion delos Padres Agustino Recoletos, et al

X. DAMAGES

CONCEPT/KINDS
Article 2195 to 2198 of the Civil Code
Filinvest Credit vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Spouses Custodio, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al

A. ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
Article 2199 to 2215 of the Civil Code

a. In General
PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
(297 SCRA 402)

b. Death and permanent incapacity

Article 2206, CC
Manzanares vs. Moreta
Borromeo vs. Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co

c. Attorney’s Fees
Article 2208, CC
Agustin vs. Court of Appeals

d. Interest
Articles 2209-2213, CC
Eastern Shipping vs. Court of Appeals

B. MORAL DAMAGES
CONCEPT
Article 2217 to 2220 of the Civil Code
Lopez vs. Pan American World Airways

C. NOMINAL AND TEMPERATE DAMAGES

Articles 2221 to 2225 of the Civil Code
Japan Airlines vs. Court of Appeals
Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. Spouses Vasquez

D. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Articles 2226 to 2228 of the Civil Code
Country Bankers vs. Court of Appeals

E. EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES

De Leon vs. Court of Appeals
People of the Philippines vs. Cristobal