- - - - - TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES - - - - -
PART 1 (2) That despite such actual or imputable knowledge, the
I. TORTS
A. DEFINITION
 From the root word “torquere” – meaning to twist
 Tort is an unlawful violation of private right not created by
contract which gives rise to an action for damages.
 An act or omission producing an injury to another, without
any previous existing lawful relation of which the said act or
omission may be said to be a natural outgrowth or incident
(Robles v. Castillo)
 The fundamental test of whether a person has a cause of
action in tort against another is whether the defendant owed
plaintiff any legal duty to do something which defendant
wrongfully did not do, or not to do something which he
wrongfully did so, in violation of the legal right or rights of
the plaintiff.
Essential elements of Torts:
1. Duty – there is a legal obligation. Article 1259?
Obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do, or not to
do.
2. Breach – di tumupad
3. Injury – it became prejudical
4. Proximate Causation - no delay
B. KINDS OF TORTIOUS CONDUCT
1. Intentional Torts - A tort is intentional when the tortfeasor:
a. Desire the consequence of their act;
b. They believe that the consequences are substantially
certain to result from his act.
Intentional Torts include conduct where the actor desires to
cause the consequences of his act or believe the consequences
are substantially certain to result from it.
Ex: assault, battery, false imprisonment, defamation, invasion of
privacy, and interference of property.
Naguiat vs. NLRC – not required
Key Take-away:
Tort is a breach of legal duty. Article 283 of the Labor Code
mandates the employer to grant separation pay to employees in
case of closure or cessation of operations of establishment or
undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial
reverses, which is the condition obtaining at bar. CFTI failed to
comply with this law-imposed duty or obligation. Consequently,
its stockholder who was actively engaged in the management or
operation of the business should be held personally liable.
2. Negligence - This involves voluntary acts or omissions that
result in injury to others, without intending to cause the same
where the actor fails to exercise due care in performing such acts
or omission. (Aquino)
Here, the actor fails to exercise due care in performing such acts
or omissions.
Negligence v. Intentional Torts
Negligence involves foreseeability of risks, meaning the act is
unintentional by there is a negligent of duty. In Intentional Torts,
the actor desired to cause the consequences of his action.
He who alleged bad faith has the duty to prove the same. A
finding of bad faith, thus, requires the concurrence of two
necessary elements:
(1) The actor knew or should have known that a particular
course of action is wrong or illegal; and
actor, voluntarily, consciously and out of his own free
will, proceeds with such course of action.
3. Strict Liability - A person is made liable independent of fault
or negligence upon submission of proof of certain facts. Fault or
negligence is immaterial to liability. (Aquino)
Here, defendant cannot escape liability by proving exercise of due
care or lack of intent to cause damage or injury.
Albenson v. CA
Facts:
This is a petition assailing the decision of CA in modifying RTC
judgment and ordering herein petitioner to pay private
respondent certain amounts for moral damages and attorney’s
fees.
The controversy stemmed from a case filed by Albenson
Enterprises against Eugenio S. Baltao for violation of BP 22, upon
checking from SEC that the president of Guranteed Industries
Inc. is one named “Eugenio Baltao”. Bit it appeared that a
1. Law
2. Delict in relation to Art. 100, Revised Penal Code - Every
person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
3. Quasi-delict
Note: Catch-All Provisions:
1. Asynch
2. Art. 19, Civil Code (Abuse of Right)- Every person
must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance
of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith.
Elements:
a. There is a legal right or duty;
b. Which is exercised in bad faith;
c. For the sole intent of prejudicing or
injuring another.
(Albenson Enterprises Corp., vs.
CA)
Albenson v CA
Effects of Application:
Case: Amonoy vs. Spouses Gutirrez (G.R.
No. 140420, February 15, 2001)
Doctrine: “Damnum absque injuria. Under
this principle, the legitimate exercise of a
person's rights, even if it causes loss to
another, does not automatically result in an
actionable injury. The law does not prescribe
a remedy for the loss. This principle does not,
however, apply when there is an abuse of a
person's right, or when the exercise of this
right is suspended or extinguished pursuant
to a court order. Indeed, in the availment of
one's rights, one must act with justice, give
their due, and observe honesty and good
faith.”
LERIZA A. SIMPAO
THIRD YEAR – 1ST SEMESTER
PUP – COLLEGE OF LAW ‘22-‘23
Page 1 of 7
 - - - - - TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES - - - - -
3. Art. 20, Civil Code (Acts Contrary to Law) - Every person C. Prescriptive Period (Art. 1146[2], Civil Code)
who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage The following actions must be instituted within four years:
to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. (2) Upon a quasi-delict.

D. Not Limited to Negligence

This speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions Case: Dulay vs. CA (G.R. No. 108017 April 3, 1995)
of law which do not especially provide for their own
sanction. Thus, anyone who, whether willfully or Doctrine: “Well-entrenched is the doctrine that article 2176
negligently, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, covers not only acts committed with negligence, but also
causes damage to another, shall indemnify his victim for acts which are voluntary and intentional.”
injuries suffered thereby (Albenson Enterprises Corp.,
vs. CA)

Case: Garcia vs. Salvador (G.R. No. 168512, March Culpa Contractual - Culpa Aquiliana or Quasi-
20, 2007) Common Carriage Delict

Doctrine: “In fine, violation of a statutory duty is

negligence. Where the law imposes upon a person the duty There must be a perfected There is no need for a
to do something, his omission or non-performance will contract. contract.
render him liable to whoever may be injured thereby.”

4. Art. 21, Civil Code (Acts Contrary to Morals) - Any person The foundation of liability The foundation of liability is
who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner is contract. the general duty of care
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy owed to the public.
shall compensate the latter for the damage.

The carrier must exercise The diligence required is

Elements:
extraordinary diligence in diligence of a good father of
a. There is an act which is legal; the performance of its a family.
b. But which is contrary to morals, good contractual obligation.
custom, public order, or public policy;
c. and it is done with intent to injure.
(Albenson Enterprises Corp., vs. CA) The common carrier Both the common carrier-
(operator-owner) or employer and the employee
Case: Baksh vs. CA (G.R. No. 97336 February 19, employer is the person are liable.
1993) liable and not the
employee (driver).
Doctrine: “Article 21, which is designed to expand the
concept of torts or quasi-delict in this jurisdiction by
granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of The liability of the The liability of the common
moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to employer is direct and carrier-employer and the
specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books.” primary but not solidary negligent employee is
with the employee. direct, primary and solidary.
II. QUASI- DELICT

The liability is directly The liability imposed on the

A. Definition
imposed on the employer- employer-carrier is vicarious
Art. 2176, Civil Code- Whoever by act or omission causes
carrier because of his own or imputed; he is made to
damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
breach of the contract. answer for the negligence of
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
the employee.
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this chapter.
The employer-carrier The employer can invoke as
B. Requisites cannot invoke the defense a defense diligence in the
Case: Child Learning Center Inc, vs. Tagorio (G.R. No. of diligence in selection selection and supervision of
150920 November 25, 2005) and supervision of the the employee.
employee.
Doctrine: “In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the
Civil Code, plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of
evidence:
Negligence is presumed Negligence must be
1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff; the moment the established as a requisite.
2) the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other passenger or goods did
person for whose act he must respond; and not reach the destination
3) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or or the moment the
negligence and the damages incurred.” passenger was injured or
the moment the goods
were lost or damaged.

LERIZA A. SIMPAO
THIRD YEAR – 1ST SEMESTER
PUP – COLLEGE OF LAW ‘22-‘23

Page 2 of 7
 - - - - - TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES - - - - -
G.
1. Culpa Contractual Involving Common Carriage and Culpa
Aquiliana: (Aquino)
2. Culpa Aquiliana distinguished from Crimes. Crimes (ex
delitos) under the Penal Code differ from culpa aquiliana
or quasi-delitos under the Civil Code:
a. Crimes affect the public interest, while quasi- delitos
are only of private concerns;
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.
(Aquino)
E. Effects of Pre-existing Contractual Relations:
1. General Rule:
Case: Orient Freight International, Inc. vs. Keihin-
Everett Forwarding Company, Inc., (G.R. No.
191937 August 09, 2017)
Doctrine: “Article 2176 of the Civil Code does not apply
when the party's negligence occurs in the performance
of an obligation. The negligent act would give rise to a
quasi-delict only when it may be the basis for an
independent action were the parties not otherwise bound
by a contract.”
2. Exception:
Case: Coca-Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. CA (G.R.
No. 110295 October 18, 1993)
Doctrine: “While it may be true that the pre-existing
contract between the parties may, as a general rule, bar
the applicability of the law on quasi-delict, the liability
may itself be deemed to arise from quasi-delict, i.e., the
acts which breaks the contract may also be a quasi-
H.
delict.”
F. Concurrence of Causes of Action
A single act or omission may give rise to two or more causes
of action. The obligation based on one is separate and
distinct from the other. That is, an act or omission may give
rise to an action based on delict, quasi-delict and even
contract. (Aquino)
1. One Defendant Two or More Sources of Obligation
2. Two or More Defendants, One Act or Omission
Note: Proscription Against Double Recovery- Responsibility
for fault or negligence under the preceding article (2176,
Quasi-delict) 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. 2177, Civil Code)
Definition of Negligence
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. x x x (Art. 1173)
1. Test of Negligence
Case: Abrogar vs. Cosmos Bottling Company (G.R.
No. 164749 March 15, 2017)
Doctrine: “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. The law
here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be
supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet
paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of
negligence in a given case is not determined by
reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the
situation before him. The law considers what would be
reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of
ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines
liability by that.”
Case: Achevarra vs. Ramos, (G.R No. 175172,
September 29, 2009)
Doctrine: “Foreseeability is the fundamental test of
negligence. To be negligent, a defendant must have
acted or failed to act in such a way that an ordinary
reasonable man would have realized that certain
interests of certain persons were unreasonably subjected
to a general but definite class of risks.”
2. Standard of Conduct
x x x If the law or contract does not state the diligence
which is to be observed in the performance, that which
is expected of a good father of a family shall be
required. (Art. 1173, Civil Code)
Negligence is a Conduct
What is important in the determination of the presence or
absence of negligence is what the defendant did or did not
do. The state of mind of the actor is not important; good
faith or use of sound judgment is immaterial.
1. Even if the actor believed that he exercised proper
diligence, he will still be liable if his conduct did not
correspond to what a reasonable man would have done
under the same circumstances.
2. Since negligence is conduct and not a state of mind, the
following rules apply:
a. Motive of the defendant is not material;
b. Only juridical fault is subject to liability and not
moral fault.
(Aquino)
LERIZA A. SIMPAO
THIRD YEAR – 1ST SEMESTER
PUP – COLLEGE OF LAW ‘22-‘23
Page 3 of 7
 - - - - - TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES - - - - -
I. Circumstances that Affect the Determination of
Negligence
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. x x x (Art. 1173)
Negligence is therefore a relative or comparative concept. Its
application depends upon the situation the parties are in, and
the degree of care and vigilance which the prevailing
circumstances reasonably require. Conformably, the
diligence which the law requires an individual to observe and
exercise varies according to the nature of the situation in
which happens to be, and the importance of the act which he
has to perform. (Bulilan vs. COA, [G.R. No. 130057
December 22, 1998])
1. Emergency Rule
Case: Gan vs. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. L-44264
September 19, 1988)
Doctrine: “A corollary rule is what is known in the law as
the emergency rule. "Under that rule, 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."
Case: Valenzuela vs. CA, (G.R. No. 115024,
February 7, 1996)
Doctrine: “While the emergency rule applies to those
cases in which reflective thought, or the opportunity to
adequately weigh a threatening situation is absent, the
conduct which is required of an individual in such cases
is dictated not exclusively by the suddenness of the
event which absolutely negates thoroughful care, but by
the over-all nature of the circumstances.”
2. Children
x x x “the law imposes a duty of care towards children
and minors even if ordinarily there was no such duty
under the same circumstances had the persons involved
been adults of sufficient discretion.” x x x (Aquino, Torts
and Damages, 2013, p. 64.)
3. Disabled
x x x One who is physically disabled is required to use
the same degree of care that a reasonably careful
person who has the same physical disability would use.
Physical handicaps and infirmities, such as blindness or
deafness, are treated as part of the circumstances under
which a reasonable person must act. Thus, the standard
of conduct for a blind person becomes that of a
reasonable person who is blind. (Francisco vs
Chemical Bulk Carriers, [G.R. No. 193577,
September 7, 2011])
4. Experts
Case: Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. Court of
Appeals, (G.R. No. 130068 October 1, 1998)
Doctrine: “Every man who offers his services to another,
and is employed, assumes to exercise in the
employment such skills he possesses, with a reasonable
degree of diligence. In all these employments where
peculiar skill is requisite, if one offers his services he is
understood as holding himself out to the public as
possessing the degree of skill commonly possessed by
others in the same employment, and if his pretensions
are unfounded he commits a species of fraud on every
man who employs him in reliance on his public
profession.”
5. Intoxication
Mere intoxication is not negligence, nor does the mere
fact of intoxication establish want of ordinary care.
(Aquino)
6. Insanity
The insanity of a person does not excuse him or his
guardian from liability based on quasi-delict. This means
that the act or omission of the person suffering from
mental defect will be judged using the standard test of a
reasonable man. (Aquino)
J. Violation of Statute
General Rule:
Case: Cipriano vs. CA, (G.R. No. 107968 October 30,
1996)
Doctrine: “x x x we have already held that violation of a
statutory duty is negligence per se x x x.”
Exception:
When the law treats the violation of the statute as one that
merely gives rise to presumption of negligence. (Aquino)
1. Reason for the Rule
“x x x the statute or ordinance becomes the standard of
care or conduct to which the reasonably prudent person
is held. Failure to follow the statute involved constitutes
a breach of the legal duty imposed and fixed by such
statute. Since negligence is a breach of a legal duty, the
violator of a statute is then negligent as a matter of
law.” (Walz vs. Hudson)
2. Casual Connection
No liability attaches despite the violation of statute
unless it appears that there is a causal connection
between the violation of the statute which is considered
negligence per se and the injury. The only element that
is established by the violation of statute is the presence
of a negligent act or omission. (Aquino)
3. Victim’s Violation
Case: Ramos vs. C.O.L. Realty Corporation, (G.R.
No. 184905 August 28, 2009)
Doctrine: “It becomes apparent therefore that the only
time a plaintiff, the respondent herein, can recover
damages is if its negligence was only contributory, and
such contributory negligence was the proximate cause of
the accident. It has been clearly established in this case,
however, that respondent’s negligence was not merely
contributory, but the sole proximate cause of the
accident.”
K. Proof of Negligence
General Rule: As a rule, it is the plaintiff in quasi-delict who
has the burden of proof and who is required to establish the
existence of negligence which is the basis of the action.
(Calalas vs. CA)
LERIZA A. SIMPAO
THIRD YEAR – 1ST SEMESTER
PUP – COLLEGE OF LAW ‘22-‘23
Page 4 of 7
 - - - - - TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES - - - - -
Exceptions:
a. When the law provides for the presumption of
negligence; and
b. When the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur is applicable.
(Rabuya)
1. Presumptions
a. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is
solidarily liable with his driver, if the former,
who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use
of the due diligence, prevented the misfortune.
It is disputably presumed that a driver was
negligent, if he had been found guilty or
reckless driving or violating traffic regulations
at least twice within the next preceding two
months. (Art. 2184, Civil Code)
b. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is
presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle
has been negligent if at the time of the mishap,
he was violating any traffic regulation. (Art.
2185, Civil Code)
Note: This applies only to the person driving a
motor vehicle at the time of the mishap. It does
not apply to non-motorized vehicles like a
bicycle. (Anonuevo vs. CA, G.R. No. 130003,
October 20, 2004)
c. There is prima facie presumption of negligence
on the part of the defendant if the death or
injury results from his possession of dangerous
weapons or substances, such as firearms and
poison, except when the possession or use
thereof is indispensable in his occupation or
business. (Article, 2188, Civil Code)
L. Res Ipsa Loquitur
Definition:
Case: “Layugan vs. IAC, (G.R. No. 73998 November 14,
1988)”
Doctrine: "Where the thing which causes injury is shown to
be under the management of the defendant, and the
accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not
happen if those who have the management use proper care,
it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an
explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from
want of care.”
Requisites of Application:
Case: Professional Service, Inc. vs. Natividad and
Agana, (G.R. No. 126467)
Doctrine: “From the foregoing statements of the rule, the
requisites for the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur are:
(1) the occurrence of an injury;
(2) the thing which caused the injury was under the
control and management of the defendant;
(3) the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course
of things, would not have happened if those who had
control or management used proper care; and
(4) the absence of explanation by the defendant. Of the
foregoing requisites, the most instrumental is the
"control and management of the thing which caused the
injury."
M. Affirmative Duties
Generally, negligence cases involve a breach of general duty
that is negative in character - not to cause harm by
exercising due diligence. Generally, a person is not required
to do something positive (affirmative) for the benefit of
another so long as the same person did not cause the peril in
the first place. There are certain exceptions under the law
which includes the duty of the owners of the building and
duty of employers. (Aquino)
1. No duty to rescue even if the failure to help a victim of
an accident might be morally reprehensible, the person
who abstained from helping the victim is not legally
responsible. There is also no general duty to rescue a
person who is in distress. (Aquino)
Exceptions:
a. Abandonment of persons in danger under Article
275 of the Revised Penal Code; and
b. The duty of a motor vehicle not to leave the scene
without aiding the victim under Section 55 of the
Land Transportation and Traffic Code. (Aquino)
N. Medical Malpractice
Tort Liability of medical practitioner for negligence can arise
out of delict and quasi-delict. In addition, liability may also
be based on contract. (Aquino)
1. Standard of Care: Negligence in medical malpractice
consists in the failure of a physician or surgeon to apply
to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill
which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally
under similar conditions, and in like surrounding
circumstances. (Aquino)
a. General Practitioner and Specialist: If the physician
is a general practitioner, he or she must exercise
the degree of care and skill of the average qualified
practitioner, taking into account the advances in the
profession. One holding out as a specialist should
also be held to the standard of care and skill of the
average member of the profession practicing the
specialty, taking into account the advances in the
profession. (Aquino)
b. Proof: Negligence of doctors usually requires
presentation of an expert witness to establish the
standard to be followed and why the defendant
doctor can be said to have failed to follow the
standard of care. However, in certain cases the
Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur may also be applied
as in the case when a scissor is discovered inside
the body of the victim after surgical operation.
2. Doctors Not Warrantors
Case: Cruz vs. CA, (G.R. No. 122445 November 18,
1997)
Doctrine: “Doctors are protected by a special rule of law.
They are not guarantors of care. They do not even
warrant a good result. They are not insurers against
mishaps or unusual consequences. Furthermore they are
not liable for honest mistakes of judgment”
LERIZA A. SIMPAO
THIRD YEAR – 1ST SEMESTER
PUP – COLLEGE OF LAW ‘22-‘23
Page 5 of 7
 - - - - - TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES - - - - -
3. Examples of Negligence of Doctors: (Aquino)
a. Negligence in failing to attend to his or her patient
or in delays in attending to his or her patient;
b. Negligence may consist in error in diagnosis and in
treatment;
c. Error in diagnosis or treatment may be the result of
failure on the part of the doctor to take a full
medical history;
d. Negligence in failing to give the proper advice or is
otherwise guilty of negligence in his
communications to the patient. For instance, a
doctor who fails to give proper instructions to the
patient regarding the frequency a quantity of
medication may be held liable for negligence; and
e. Leaving foreign objects (gauze, tools, etc.) inside
the body of the patient after an operation.
4. Informed Consent to Treatment
A doctor held A doctor may I be liable for damages for
his or her Securing negligence in the consent of the
patient to treatment. The requirements that must be
established to establish actionable negligently securing
consent are as follows:
a. Existence of patient-physician relationship;
b. The doctor had duty to information; disclose certain
risk;
c. There was failure to provide the risk information and
the doctor's failure to do so cannot be excused;
d. Had the doctor furnished the undisclosed patient
with the information, the have consented patient
would not to treatment; and
e. The doctor's failure to disclose the was the
information proximate cause of the and damages.
plaintiff's injury.
5. Captain of the Ship Doctrine
Case: Ramos vs. CA, (G.R. No. 124354 December
29, 1999)
Doctrine: “Under this doctrine, the surgeon is likened to
a ship captain who must not only be responsible for the
safety of the crew but also of the passengers of the
vessel. The head surgeon is made responsible for
everything that goes wrong within the four corners of
the operating room. It enunciates the liability of the
surgeon not only for the wrongful acts of those who are
under his physical control but also those wherein he has
extension of control.”
O. Liability of Hospitals
Three legal relationships crisscross: (1) between the hospital
and the doctor practicing within the premises; (2) between
the hospital and the patient being treated or examined within
its premises; and (3) between the patient and the doctor.
The exact nature of each relationship determines the basis
and extent of the liability of the hospital for the negligence of
the doctor." (Professional Service, Inc. vs. Natividad
and Agana, (G.R. No. 126467)
1. Vicarious Liability of the Hospital
a. Vicarious liability as employer of the doctor, nurses
and other hospital staff; or
b. Vicarious liability as Principal of the doctors who are
the hospital's agents either under an express
agreement or under the Doctrine of Apparent
Authority Even when no employment relationship
exists but it is shown that the hospital holds out to
the patient that the doctor is its agent; under Article
2176 in relation to Article 1431 and Article 1869 of
the Civil Code or the Principle of Apparent Authority.
2. Doctrine of Corporate Responsibility
Regardless of its relationship with the doctor, the
hospital may be held directly liable to the patient for its
own negligence or failure to follow established standard
of conduct to which it should conform as a corporation."
The liability is based either on (1) quasi-delict under
Article 2176, or (2) breach of contract. (Aquino)
3. Liability for Unlawful Restraint
A hospital may be liable for unlawful restraint for
detaining a patient. A patient cannot be detained in a
hospital for non-payment of the hospital bill. If the
patient cannot pay the hospital or physician's bill, the
law provides a remedy for them to pursue, that is, by
filing the necessary suit in court for the recovery of such
fee or bill. The liability may be based on Articles 19
(abuse of right), 20 and 21 (acts contrary to morals) of
the New Civil Code. (Aquino)
RECIT Q & A:
SEPTEMBER 12, 2022
1. What are the two kinds of tort liability?
• Negligence
• Intentional Acts
2. Concept of Negligence
Negligence is the absence of diligence required by the nature of
the obligation. Case to case basis
3. What kind of Due Diligence?
Diligence required by the nature of the obligation.
4. What is the diligence required in the contract of
carriage?
Extraordinary Diligence
5. When can you consider a person negligent?
A person is negligence if he failed to perform the diligence
required by the nature of the obligation.
6. What is intentional act?
A person desired to cause the consequence of his act
7. Differentiate negligence to intentional act?
In intentional act, the act intends to cause the damage to
another. Absence of intent to cause damage negates the
intentional act
8. What are the sources of Tort liability?
• Law
• Delict
• Quasi-delict (Culpa Aquilana)\
9. What is Quasi-delict?
It is an act or omission which causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence and there being no pre-existing
contractual relationship between the parties (Art. 2176)
It includes not only injuries to persons but also damage to
property. (Cinco v. Canonoy)
10. Requisites of Quasi-delict: (ANICC)
• An Act or omission;
•The presence of fault or Negligence in the performance or non-
performance of an act;
• Injury;
LERIZA A. SIMPAO
THIRD YEAR – 1ST SEMESTER
PUP – COLLEGE OF LAW ‘22-‘23
Page 6 of 7
 - - - - - TORTS AND DAMAGES NOTES - - - - -
• Causal connection between the negligent act and the injury unborn child, but rather the damage incurred by them (parents)
and because of their loss.
• No pre-existing Contractual relations.
22. How about the heirs?
11. What is the catch-all provision? Yes. Heirs can file a case.
Articles 19-21
23. Who can be held liable?
12. Article 19 All natural and juridical persons (corporation, corporation by
Creates responsibility/ legal duty to everyone estoppel, partnership, state – with its consent)

13. Recite Albenson Enterprises 24. What is the liability of Partnership?

Basis ay Art. 19 Solidarily liability. Partners are solidarily liable

14. Recite Garcia v. Salvador 25. What is the liability of Corporation by estoppel?
Basis ay Art. 20 kasi acts contrary to law. In this case naviolate They will be treated as general partners
yung clinical laboratory Act. Kaso yung law na yun di nagprovide
ng sanction. Hence Art. 20 provides for the basis of damages. OCTOBER 3, 2022

Every person who contrary to law willfully or negligently cause
damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same.
In this case, the basis of indemnity is Article 20, precisely
because Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other
provisions of law which do not provide for their own sanction,
thus anyone who violates a law can use this basis for damages
that’s why isa ito sa catch all provisions.
1. Recite Child Learning
Vicarious liability defense alleging that they employ diligence of
good father of a family in selecting employee is inapplicable in
this case. Because hindi naman yung employee nila ang naka-
damage, sila mismo yung child learning mismo. (they failed to
provide proper doorknob. Yung window ang baba, tapos wala
pang grills)

15. Recite Amonoy case In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code,
Amonoy contends that he is just exercising his rights under the plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence:
principle of Damnum Absque Injuria – SC said Damnum Absque
injuria is inapplicable because Amonoy abused his right. 1. the damages suffered by the plaintiff;
2. the fault or negligence of the defendant or some other
16. What are the elements of Abuse of Right? person for whose act he must respond; and
a. There is a legal right or duty; 3. the connection of cause and effect between the fault or
b. Which is exercised in bad faith; negligence and the damages incurred.”
c. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another.
2.
17. Recite Baksh case
Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. However
the deceit eme 3.
If a person

If there is no law Art. 21 applies when there is no law but an act 4.

is against morals, good custom, public order, or public policy.

The basis of action is the wilful violation against morals, good 5.

custom, public order, or public policy.

Elements of Acts Contrary to Law: 6.

a. There is an act which is legal;
b. But which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order,
or public policy;
c. and it is done with intent to injure.

18. What are the interest protected under the law with
regard to a person? Ano mga pwedeng isampang kaso?
Assault, Defamation, Privacy, etc

19. Who are entitled to damages?

All person that has been injured

20. Can a person exercising parental authority sue on

behalf of the minor child?
Yes. Even those person exercising substitute parental authority
(legal guardian)

21. How about unborn child?

No. Unborn child is not entitled to damages. Although the parents
may file damages not based on the damage incurred by their

LERIZA A. SIMPAO
THIRD YEAR – 1ST SEMESTER
PUP – COLLEGE OF LAW ‘22-‘23

Page 7 of 7