INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 1

MODULE 12
TORTS and DAMAGES
WEEK 14

 QUASI-DELICTS DEFINED. – 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 a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of the Civil Code (Art. 2176,
NCC).

 Torts – Quasi-delicts are commonly

designated as ‘torts’. It is derived from the French word
which also originated from the Latin “torquere” which
means to twist, or “tortus” which means twisted.
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 2

 Purpose of the law on quasi-delicts – The law

on quasi-delicts seeks to reduce the risks and burdens of
living in a society and to allocate them among the
members of the society.

 ELEMENTS OF A QUASI-DELICT. – To be able to

recover civil liability or damages arising from quasi-delict,
the following requisites must concur:

(a) There must be an act or omission;

(b) The act or omission is imputable to fault or
negligence;
(c) The act or omission violates a private legal right;
(d) The act or omission causes damage to another;
(e) There is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties;
(f) There is a direct
relation of cause and
effect between the
damage or injury and
the fault or
negligence.
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 3

 Quasi delict is a civil wrong – A quasi-delict is

a civil wrong, not a crime, because it is not caused by an
intentional or malicious act, but by mere fault or
negligence. If the act or omission that caused the damage
was committed unintentionally, it is fault or culpa.
Otherwise, it is dolo, an act that becomes a crime.

 Illustrative example: Letty wore her roller

skates and used them along the corridors of the school.
She felt out of balance and ran into another student Rigor,
who fell down the stairs and sustained injuries. Here, the
liability of Letty is merely civil, one arising from quasi-
delict. She will not then be criminally liable because there
was no intent on her part to cause damage.

 No pre-existing contractual relations – A

quasi-delict is independent of contract because if the said
act or omission is in violation of a contract, then the result
would be that there is a mere breach of contract.

 Indeed, quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is an

independent source of obligation between two persons
not so formerly bound by juridical tie. (BLTB vs. CA, G.R.
Nos. L-33138-39, 27 June 1975.)

 However, even if there is already a contractual

relation, it does not preclude civil liability arising from tort.
A person with an existing contractual relation with another
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 4

may nonetheless be liable to that person for an obligation

arising from culpa aquiliana if the act of negligence as
basis therefor does not arise because of the contract, but
because of some other fact.

 Illustrative example: Joey promised to

deliver to Amie his horse. Before due date, the horse was
run over by a truck because Joey failed to lock the stable
the previous night. Here, Joey is negligent in the
performance of his obligation. Joey’s herein act of
negligence (his failure to observe the diligence of a good
father of a family in preserving the thing object of the
contract) constitutes a breach or a violation of his contract
with Amie for the delivery of the horse. Because of his
negligence (contractual negligence), he will be liable for
civil liability arising from breach of his contract with Amie,
since the parties have a pre-existing contractual relation.

 In this case, let us assume that on the day when Joey

was to deliver the horse to Amie, he went to her house
and allowed his 9-year-old son Jojie to ride the horse on
the way to Amie’s house. Jojie was a mischievous lad. He
always managed to get in trouble if left alone even for only
5 minutes. While in the house of Amie, Joey allowed Jojie
to play in Amie’s house and in the backyard near the
stables. A few minutes after, Amie’s servant came in
informing Amie that Jojie had shot and killed two of
Amie’s pet parrots with a slingshot. Under the facts, Joey
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 5

will be considered to have acted negligently in allowing his

son to move around freely in the compound of Amie
without supervision. For the death of the parrots, Amie
can hold Joey liable for damages. Note that the negligence
here does not arise because of the contract between Joey
and Amie. The negligence here arises independent of that
contract and consists in the failure of Joey to exercise
extra precautions to prevent his son from causing
mischief. Hence, Joey can be held liable for civil
negligence (otherwise known as tort, quasi-delict, or culpa
aquiliana), which requires that there be no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties. Joey’s
negligence here is the source itself of the civil liability (Art.
1157, No. 5).

 Proximate cause – It is that adequate and

efficient cause which in the natural order of events, and
under the particular circumstances surrounding the case,
would naturally produce the event. It is the primary cause
of the injury – an action that produces foreseeable
consequences without intervention from anyone else.

 Hence, to hold the defendant liable for civil liability

arising from tort or quasi-delict, the plaintiff must prove
that the injuries he sustained were the natural and direct
consequence of the defendant’s act or omission (the
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 6

proximate cause), without which the injuries would not

have occurred.

 If the court finds that the injury sustained by the

plaintiff would not have happened were it not for the
defendant’s act or omission, then the plaintiff is deemed
to have established the element of “proximate cause” as
an essential precondition to recovery for damages in an
action based on quasi-delict or tort.

 Illustrative examples:
(a) Renante beat the red light resulting in a collision
with another car. Here Renante’s act of beating the red
light was the proximate cause of the collision which
primarily resulted in damage to the other car. If Renante
had not beat the red light, the accident would not have
happened.

(b) Rocky drove home despite being intoxicated after

having a drinking spree with some high school friends.
Since it was 3:00 o’clock in the morning, Rocky beat the
red light while overspeeding along the corner of Roxas
Boulevard and Quirino Avenue. At this moment, Rocky
crashed into a fuel truck carrying gasoline. The impact
caused the truck to swing to the right side of the road
hitting head-on a hardware. This resulted in a big
explosion and a great blaze, completely burning both the
truck and the hardware. The driver of the truck and a
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 7

companion were likewise killed in the incident. Here, the

immediate cause of the explosion was the gasoline which
was being transported by the truck. But the proximate
cause of the damage was the negligence of Rocky in
causing the accident because he was driving while under
the influence of liquor. Rocky’s act here (not the act of the
truck driver hitting the hardware) can then be the basis of
an action to claim damages or civil liability arising from
tort (quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana).

 Problem: Dinah is a talent of ABC TV

Company with whom she has a 5-year entertainment
contract. With 2 years still remaining in the contract, XYZ
TV Company, a rival station, induced Dinah to sever her
contract with ABC TV Company by offering her a more
lucrative contract. Due to Dinah’s pretermination of her
contract with ABC TV Company, ABC TV Company suffered
severe losses in their sales and income. ABC TV Company
then filed an action for damages against XYZ TV Company.

QUESTION: Under the facts, can ABC TV Company hold

XYZ TV Company for damages arising from Dinah’s
pretermination of her contract with the former
considering that XYZ TV Company was never a party to the
entertainment contract between Dinah and ABC TV
Company?
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 8

ANSWER: YES. A third person who induces a party to

violate his contract with another party shall be liable to
the other contracting party although such third person
was not a party to the contract. The basis of the liability of
the third person is “unwarranted interference with
contractual relations.” In this case, XYZ TV Company, the
inducer, can be held liable for damages by ABC TV
Company for the commission of a tort or quasi-delict
which can arise because of negligence or fault.

 CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE –
 Negligence defined. – The fault or negligence
of the obligor or debtor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation
and corresponds with the circumstances of the person, of
the time and of the place (Art. 1173, NCC).

 It is the failure to observe, for the protection or

interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution
and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,
whereby such person suffers injury.

 Based on this definition, the degree of care, precaution

and vigilance that should be observed depends on the
circumstances of persons, place and time. That which may
be considered therefore as sufficient care and precaution
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 9

in a set of circumstances, may be insufficient in another

set of circumstances that confront the same individual.

 Illustrative examples:
 Diligence required by the nature of the obligation
- Smoking while on duty as a tile-setter in a construction
project does not constitute an act of negligence. However,
smoking while carrying materials known to be inflammable
constitutes negligence.

 Diligence that corresponds with the circumstances

of the person – A 20-year-old and healthy woman hired to
baby-sit must not sleep while on duty, since the
circumstances of her person were considered when she
was taken for the job. Otherwise, she will be found
negligent.

 Diligence that corresponds with the circumstances

of the time – Driving a car without headlights at night is
gross negligence, but it does not by itself constitute
negligence when driving during the day.

 Diligence that corresponds with the circumstances

of the place – Driving at 100 kilometers per hour on the
superhighway is permissible, but driving at the same rate
of speed in Ayala Avenue, Makati is gross recklessness.
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 10

 Degree of care of diligence that is required –

That standard or degree of care or diligence that should be
observed is that which is expected of a good father of a
family, unless the law or the stipulation of the parties
requires another standard of care (Art. 1173, 2nd par.).

 Test to determine negligence – The test to

determine whether a person is guilty of negligence is this:
“Would a prudent man (in his position) foresee harm to
the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the
course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty
on the actor to refrain from that course, or to take
precaution against its mischievous results, and the failure
to do so constitutes negligence. Reasonable foresight of
harm is necessary before negligence can be held to exist.”

 Example: Lucia, while watering her

flower pot from her unit located at the third floor
of a condominium building, accidentally hit the
flower pot that was placed on top of the
overlooking ledge of her unit. The large pot fell on
the ground right on top of the Toyota Land Cruiser
of her neighbor Leonard.

QUESTION: ls Lucia liable for the damage

considering that the fall was accidental without any
intention on her part to cause damage to the
vehicle of Leonard?
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 11

ANSWER: YES. Under the facts, Lucia failed to

exercise reasonable foresight in preventing harm to
others by her act of placing her flower pots on top
of the overlooking ledge outside her unit. She
should have reasonably foreseen that if any of the
pots were accidentally hit by movement or by the
strong winds, since her unit was on the third floor,
it would inevitably fall to the ground hitting people
vehicles, animals, or any other objects passing
through. Lucia’s failure to exercise reasonable
foresight and prudence to prevent harm or damage
to another will give rise to civil liability on her part
arising from tort (quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana).
Hence, she is obliged to pay for the damage to
Leonard’s Land Cruiser, plus other consequential
damages resulting therefrom.

 Necessity of proving negligence – For the

plaintiff to be able to recover in an action for damages
filed and predicated on negligence, the plaintiff has the
burden to prove the fact of negligence. If the facts
constituting negligence on the part of the defendant is not
proven by the plaintiff, then the court cannot award the
damages asked by the plaintiff in their complaint which
may be claimed and proven by Leonard.
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 12

NOTE: Unlike in a crime, in a quasi-delict there is no intent

to cause the injury or damage.

 Doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur” (literally translated as

“the thing or the transaction speaks for itself”) – In some
cases when negligence is hard to prove, the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur may be applied. This means that in certain
instances, the presence of facts or circumstances
surrounding the injury will give rise to a presumption of
negligence on the part of the defendant. This
presumption is, however, rebuttable.

 Illustrative cases:
Bernabe Africa, et al. vs. CALTEX, et al.
L-12986, 31 March 1966

FACTS: A fire broke out at a Caltex service station. It

started while gasoline was being hosed from a tank
trunk into the underground storage, right at the
opening of the receiving tank where the nozzle of the
hose had been inserted. The fire destroyed several
houses. Caltex and the station manager were sued.

ISSUE: Without proof as to the cause and origin of the

fire, would the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor apply such
that the defendants can be presumed negligent?

HELD: YES. Under the principle of res ipsa loquitur,

where the thing which caused the injury complained of
is shown to be under the management of defendant or
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 13

his servants and the accident is such as in the ordinary

course of things does not happen if those who have its
management or control use proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by
defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.
In this case, the gasoline station, with all its appliances,
equipment and employees, was under the control of
defendants. A fire occurred therein and spread to and
burned the neighboring houses. The persons who knew
or could have known how the fire started were
defendants and their employees, but they gave no
explanation at all regarding the fire. It is fair to
reasonably infer that the incident happened because of
their want of care.

Republic vs. Luzon Stevedoring Corporation

L-21749, 29 September 1967

FACTS: A barge belonging to the Luzon Stevedoring

Company rammed against one of the wooden supports
of the old Nagtahan Bridge (a stationary object).

ISSUE: What presumption arises?

HELD: There arises the presumption that the barge was

negligent (doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, meaning, the
thing speaks for itself.) This is evident because the
bridge (at that time) was an immovable, stationary
object, adequately provided with openings for the
passage of watercraft). The doctrine can indeed be
applied, for in the ordinary course of events, such a
ramming would not occur if proper care is used.
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 14

 Doctrine of “last clear chance” (also known as “doctrine

of discovered peril”, or “doctrine of supervening
negligence”, or “the humanitarian doctrine” – Under this
doctrine, even if the injured party was originally at fault, if
the person who finally caused the accident had the “last
clear opportunity” to avoid the injury, he who could have
prevented the injury is still liable if he did not take
advantage of such opportunity or chance. Hence, a
defendant in a complaint for damages may use
this doctrine as a defense by showing that the plaintiff had
the last clear chance to avoid the accident.

 Illustrative case:
Picart vs. Smith
G.R. No. L-12219, 15 March 1918

FACTS: A person driving an automobile on a bridge saw

a man on horseback riding towards him but on the
wrong side of the bridge. The driver sounded his horn
several times, but the horse rider made no move to go
to the correct side. The driver continued in his original
direction until it was too late to avoid a collision.

ISSUE: Is the auto driver liable?

HELD: YES. Although the horse rider was originally at

fault, it was the auto driver who had the last clear
chance to avoid the injury by merely swerving, while
still some distance away, to the other part of the bridge.
“Where both parties are guilty of negligence, but the
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 15

negligent act of one succeeds that of the other by an

appreciable interval of time, the one who has the last
reasonable opportunity to avoid the impending harm
and fails to do so, is chargeable with the consequences,
without reference to the prior negligence of the other
party.” This is the doctrine known as the “last clear
chance.” (Compare this case with PNR vs. Vizcara)

 Measure of liability for damages –

(A) Effects of plaintiff’s own negligence (Art. 2179, NCC):

(A.1) If proximate cause of injury is the plaintiff’s

own negligence. – If the sole cause of the injury is the
plaintiff’s own fault or negligence, the plaintiff cannot
recover damages for his injury.

 EXAMPLE: At around 10:00 in the evening, Arthur

was driving along Roxas Boulevard within the area of
Buendia. His wife and his two daughters are in the car
with him. The highway is normally free from pedestrians
who are required by local ordinances to cross the
boulevard using the designated overpass. Suddenly, from
out of nowhere, Loki, a man in his mid-30’s, crosses the
road. Loki was wearing a black shirt which made him even
more invisible to moving vehicles. Before Arthur realizes
it, Loki was already right in front of the car a few feet
away, and it became impossible to steer clear of Loki after
a rapid full step on the brakes. As a result, Loki suffered
serious injuries, and later died. On the other hand, you
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 16

spent P300,000.00 for medical treatment for yourself and

your family for the physical injuries you all suffered as a
result of the impact of your sudden application of the
breaks on your vehicle to prevent hitting Loki.

QUESTION: Will you be liable for damages to the heirs of

Loki? Can you hold the heirs of Loki liable for the damages
that you and your family suffered as a result of the
accident?

ANSWER: Liability for damages arising from quasi-delict

is predicated on the negligence of the party sought to be
held liable. In this case, Arthur was observing proper
traffic rules and regulations when the accident happened.
It was the pedestrian Loki who failed to observe traffic
rules and regulations by crossing the highway, which act
was prohibited by an existing city ordinance since there
was an overpass designated for them. It was nighttime,
and Loki was wearing black, so it was practically
impossible to spot him at a distance where Arthur could
have ample time to bring his vehicle to a complete stop to
prevent the accident. In this case, since it was Loki who
was negligent, if his heirs file an action to recover
damages, they cannot recover anything from the driver
Arthur who accidentally ran over Loki. On the other hand,
if Arthur files an action for damages against the heirs of
Loki, they can be made liable for the injury caused to
Arthur’s family by reason of the accident. Arthur can then
legally compel the heirs of Loki to pay him the cost of
medical expenses incurred in the amount of P300,000,
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 17

plus other consequential damages suffered by Arthur and

his family arising from the incident.

(A.1) If plaintiff’s negligence was merely

contributory to the damage suffered, but the proximate
cause was still defendant’s negligence. – If the proximate
cause was still the negligence of the defendant, although
negligence can also be imputed to the plaintiff, the
amount of damages recoverable by the plaintiff will be
mitigated because of his contributory negligence.

 Example: One who parks an automobile on the

highway without lights at night is not relieved of
responsibility when another negligently drives into it.

Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC

G.R. No. 65295, 10 March 1987

FACTS: At about 1:30 am, LD was on his way home

from a cocktails-and-dinner meeting with his boss.
During the cock-tails, LD had taken a “shot or two” of
liquor. LD was driving his car and had just crossed the
intersection, not far from his home when his headlights
suddenly failed. He switched his headlights on “bright”
and thereupon he saw a Ford dump truck looming some
2-½ meters away from his car. The dump truck, owned
by Phoenix, Inc. was parked on the right-hand side of
the street (i.e., on the right-hand side of a person facing
in the same direction toward which LD’S car was
proceeding), facing the oncoming traffic. The dump
truck was parked askew (not parallel to the street curb)
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 18

in such manner as to stick out onto the street, partly

blocking the way of oncoming traffic. There were no
lights nor any so-called “early warning” reflector devices
set anywhere near the dump truck, front or rear. LD
tried to avoid a collision by swerving his car to the left
but it was too late and his car smashed into the dump
truck. LD suffered physical injuries including some
permanent facial scars, a “nervous breakdown” and loss
of two gold bridge dentures.

LD sued Phoenix and its driver claiming that the legal

and proximate cause of his injuries was the negligent
manner in which Phoenix’s driver had parked the dump
truck. Phoenix and its driver countered that the
proximate cause of LD’s injuries was his own
recklessness in driving fast at the time of the accident,
while under the influence of liquor, without his
headlights on and without a curfew pass. Phoenix also
sought to establish that it had exercised due care in the
selection and supervision of the driver. The trial court
rendered judgment in favor of LD. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision but modified the award of
damages.

ISSUE: Is Phoenix liable for the damages sustained by

LD?

HELD: YES. The Supreme Court found that LD was

negligent the night of the accident. He was hurrying
home that night and driving faster than he should have
been. Worse, he extinguished his headlights at or near
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 19

the intersection, as he approached his residence, and

thus did not see the dump truck that was parked askew
and sticking out onto the road lane. Nevertheless, the
Court agreed with the trial court and the appellate
court that the legal and proximate cause of the accident
and of LD’s injuries was the wrongful and negligent
manner in which the truck was parked.

The Court held that there was a reasonable relationship

between the dump truck driver’s negligence on the one
hand and the accident and LD’s injuries on the other
hand. The collision of LD’s car with the dump truck was
a natural and foreseeable consequence of the truck
driver’s negligence. The truck driver’s negligence far
from being a “passive and static condition” was an
indispensable and efficient cause. The collision
between the dump truck and LD’s car would in all
probability not have occurred had the dump truck not
been parked askew without any warning lights or
reflector devices. The improper parking of the dump
truck created an unreasonable risk of injury for anyone
driving and for having so created this risk the truck
driver must be held responsible. LD’s negligence,
although later in point of time than the truck driver’s
negligence and therefore closer to the accident, was not
an efficient intervening or independent cause. What
Phoenix and its driver describe as an “intervening
cause” was no more than a foreseeable consequence of
the risk created by the negligent manner in which the
truck driver had parked the dump truck. LD’s
negligence was not of an independent and
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 20

overpowering nature as to cut, as it were, the chain of

causation in fact between the improper parking of the
dump truck and the accident, nor to sever the juris
vinculum of liability.

LD’s negligence was “only contributory.” The

immediate and proximate cause of the injury remained
the truck driver’s “lack of due care.” Hence, LD may
recover damages though such damages are subject to
mitigation by the Courts.

The truck driver’s proven negligence creates a

presumption of negligence on the part of his employer
in supervising its employees properly and adequately.

(B) Liability of defendant for damages in contracts and

quasi-contracts (Art. 2201, NCC):

(B.1) If the debtor is in GOOD FAITH (i.e, there is

mere carelessness or lack of foresight), he shall be liable
for damages which are  the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of the obligation; and for
those which  the parties foresaw and could have
reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was
constituted.

 Example: The income which an injured bus

passenger could have earned (had he finished his medical
course and passed the corresponding board examinations)
must be deemed within the category of “natural and
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 21

probable consequences” which should have foreseen by

the parties at the moment said passenger boarded the
bus.

(B.2) If the debtor is in BAD FAITH (i.e., there is

deliberate and wanton wrongdoing), the debtor shall be
responsible for all damages which may be reasonably
attributed to the non-performance of the obligation. In
this case, it is enough that the damages may be reasonably
attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.
(Relation of cause and effect is enough.) Hence, there is
no necessity of the damage being a natural or probable
consequence, and there is no necessity of foreseeing or
foreseeability.

 Example: Dino, a passenger of Matulin bus, died

after the bus collided head-on with an SUV. In the police
report, it was found that the driver of the bus was
overspeeding and racing along EDSA with another bus.
The driver also tested positive for shabu. When the
mother of Dino, who was in the province, was informed of
her only child’s death, she cried for 2 hours, and
experienced severe chest pains. Upon being brought to
the hospital, she was admitted to the ICU. The doctors
said that she suffered massive myocardial infarction
secondary to anxiety attack. She died after one week of
medical intervention in the ICU. Johnny, the father of
Dino, is now claiming for indemnity for the hospitalization
expenses and burial expenses of his wife. Under the facts,
the bus company, whose driver was grossly negligent in
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 22

causing the accident, will be liable for the damages

sustained by Dino’s family which can be reasonably
attributed to the driver’s gross negligence, although not
necessarily the natural or probable consequence of the
negligent act.

(C) Liability for moral damages for death caused by a

crime or quasi-delict. – In light of recent decisions of
the Supreme Court, if the victim dies because of a
crime, quasi-delict (Art. 2206, par. 3, NCC), or breach
of contract by a common carrier (Art. 1764 read
together with Art. 2206, NCC), the defendant shall be
liable to the heirs of the victim for indemnity as moral
damages in the amount of P75,000.00.

(D) Compensatory interest in monetary obligations. – If

the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of
money, and the debtors incurs in delay, the
indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to
the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest
agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the
legal interest, which is six per cent (6%) per annum.
(Art. 2209, NCC).

REMEMBER: Monetary interest (by way of

compensation for the use of money) cannot be
demanded unless it was previously stipulated upon in
writing (Art. 1956). However, compensatory interest
(by way of damages or penalty) can be recovered in
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 23

case of default even if there is no stipulation to that

effect.

 KINDS OF ACTIONABLE NEGLIGENCE –

Actionable negligence may either be culpa contractual,
culpa aquiliana and culpa criminal. Thus, an action for
damages for the negligent act of the defendant may be
based on contract, quasi-delict or delict. The bases of
liability are separate and distinct from each other even if
only one act or omission is involved.

(A) CONTRACTUAL NEGLIGENCE (or CULPA

CONTRACTUAL) – This is the negligence committed in the
performance of a contract.

 The negligence here is merely incidental in the

performance of an obligation already existing
because of a contract between the parties.

 The defense of a good father of a family in the

selection and supervision of employees is not a
defense although it may mitigate the employer’s
liability. What is followed here is the “master-
servant rule” or “respondeat superior” or
“command responsibility”.
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 24

 Thus, if a passenger of a taxi is injured because of the

negligence of the taxi driver, the negligence
committed here is contractual negligence because of
the contractual relation between the passenger and
the operator of the taxicab company. The passenger
may institute a civil case against the operator of the
taxicab company for breach of the contract of
carriage without prejudice to the right of the
operator to go after the taxi driver for
reimbursement. In this case, the negligence of the
taxi driver is the negligence of the operator of the
taxicab company. The operator of the taxicab
company cannot raise the defense of a good father of
a family in the selection and supervision of his
employees to escape liability.
 Illustrative Case:
Saludaga vs. FEU
G.R. No. 179337, 30 April 2008

FACTS: S, a student of X University, was shot and

wounded by G, a security guard of the school, while
inside the campus. S sued X University for damages on
the ground that it breached its obligation under the
enrollment contract to provide students with a safe and
secure environment and an atmosphere conducive to
learning. In defense, X University pleaded fortuitous
event on the ground that it could not have reasonably
foreseen nor avoided the accident since G was not its
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 25

employee, and that it complied with its obligation to

ensure a safe environment for its students by having
exercised due diligence in selecting the security
services of the SA Security Agency.

ISSUE: Is X University liable for damages for breach of

contract due to negligence in providing a safe learning
environment?

HELD: YES. It is settled that in culpa contractual, the

mere proof of the existence of the contract and the
failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, a
corresponding right of relief. The school failed to prove
that it undertook steps to ascertain that the security
guards assigned to it actually possessed the required
qualifications. A learning institution should not be
allowed to completely relinquish security matters in its
premises to the security agency it hired. To do so would
result in contracting away its inherent obligation to
ensure a safe learning environment for its students.
The defense of fortuitous event or force majeure must
also fail. An act of God cannot be invoked to protect a
person who has failed to take steps to forestall the
possible adverse consequences of the loss sustained.
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 26

(B) CIVIL NEGLIGENCE (or CULPA AQUILIANA,

TORT, QUASI-DELICT, or CULPA EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL) – This
is the wrong or negligence committed independent of
contract and without criminal intent.

 The “master-servant” rule does not apply, i.e., the

negligence of the servant is not necessarily the
negligence of the master. Hence, the employer may
raise the defense of diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and supervision of his
employees to escape liability.

 Thus, if a pedestrian was hit by a taxi and suffered

physical injuries because of the negligence of the taxi
driver, the negligence committed here is civil
negligence because there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the pedestrian and the
operator of the taxicab company. The pedestrian
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 27

may bring an action based on civil negligence against

the taxi driver and the operator of the taxicab
company. The owner, however, can escape liability if
he can prove due diligence in the selection and
supervision of his driver.

(C) CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE (or CULPA CRIMINAL)

– This is negligence that results in the commission of a
crime.
 Defense of a “good father of a family” in the selection
and supervision of employees cannot be interposed
as a defense. If the employee is insolvent or
incapable to pay the civil aspect or liability, the
employer is subsidiarily liable (i.e., the employee’s
guilt is automatically the employer’s civil guilt if the
driver is insolvent).
 The passenger of the taxi may bring a court action not
only for contractual negligence against the operator
of the taxicab company, but also one for criminal
negligence against the taxi driver for physical injuries
through reckless imprudence. In the same way, the
pedestrian may bring not only a court action for civil
negligence against the taxi driver and the operator of
the taxicab company, but also one for criminal
negligence against the taxi driver for physical injuries
through reckless imprudence.
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14]
CULPA CONTRACTUAL
 Negligence is merely
incidental to the performance
of an obligation already
existing because of a
contract.
 There is a pre-existing
obligation (express or
implied).
 Proof needed –
preponderance of evidence.
 Defense of “good father
of a family” in the selection
and supervision of employees
is not a proper complete
defense (though this may
MITIGATE damages). Here
we follow the rule of
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR or
COMMAND
RESPONSIBILITY or the
MASTER AND SERVANT
RULE.
CULPA AQUILLANA
 Negligence is direct,
substantive and independent
of a contract.
 There is no pre-existing  There is no pre-
obligation.
 Proof needed –
preponderance of evidence.
 Defense of “good father
of a family” in the selection
and supervision of
employees is a proper and
complete defense (insofar as
employers or guardians are
concerned).
28
CULPA CRIMINAL
 Negligence is direct,
substantive and independent
of a contract.
existing obligation.
 Proof needed in a
crime – proof of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
 Defense of “good
father of a family” in the
selection and supervision of
employees cannot be
interposed. If the employee
is insolvent or incapable to
pay the civil aspect or
liability, the employer is
subsidiarily liable (i.e., the
employee’s guilt is
automatically the
employer’s civil guilt if the
employee is insolvent).
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 29

CULPA CONTRACTUAL CULPA AQUILLANA CULPA CRIMINAL

 As long as it is proved
that there was a contract and
that it was not carried out, it
is presumed that the debtor is
at fault, and it is his duty to
prove that there was no
negligence in carrying out the
terms of the contract.
 Ordinarily, the victim
has to prove the negligence
of the defendant. This is
because his action is based
on alleged negligence on the
part of the defendant.
 Accused is presumed
innocent until the contrary
is proved, so prosecution
has the burden of proving
the negligence of the
accused.

 WHO ARE LIABLE FOR QUASI-DELICT? – As

provided by the law, the obligation created by a tort or
quasi-delict is demandable not only for one’s own acts or
omissions, but also for those persons for whom one is
responsible. Article 2180 of the Civil Code imposes on
some classes of persons vicarious liability for the acts of
others, to wit:

(a) The father, and in case of his death or incapacity,

the mother, is responsible for the damages caused by the
minors who live in their company.

 If a minor child negligently operates the family

car, the head of the family and owner of the car can be
sued for damages.

 NOTE: The mother is liable only if the father is

dead or incapacitated.
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 30

(b) The guardians are liable for damages caused by the

minors or incapacitated persons who are under their
authority and live in their company.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

(e) 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.

(f) Teachers or heads of establishment 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
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 31

they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family

to prevent damage.

 Read the following cases in their original text:

 Umali vs. Bacani, G.R. No. L-40570, 30 January
1976, 69 SCRA 263. (proximate cause vs. contributory
negligence)

 RCPI vs. CA, G.R. No. 79578, 13 March 1991.

(award of exemplary damages for gross negligence
amounting to wanton misconduct)

 St. Francis High School, et al. vs. CA, G.R. No.

82465, 25 February 1991. (Art. 2180, par. 4, in relation to
Art. 2176, NCC)

 PNR vs. Vizcara, G.R. No. 190022, 15 February

2012. (doctrine of last clear chance)

 People vs. Villarmea, G.R. No. 200029, 13

November 2013. (amount of damages for death caused by
a crime or quasi-delict under Art. 2206, NCC)

 Dela Cruz vs. Octaviano, G.R. No. 219649, 26 July

2017. (establishment of causal link between negligence of
the party and succeeding injury in proving contributory
negligence)
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 32

 Darines vs. Quiñones, G.R. No. 206468, 2 August

2017. (culpa contractual and culpa acquiliana; rule for
recovery of moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s
fees)

 CONCEPT OF DAMAGES – Damages means the

indemnity which a person can recover as compensation for
an injury sustained, either in his person, property, or
rights. Damnum or daño is the detriment, harm or loss to
person or property which is occasioned by the fault of
another. Damages should not be confused with injury,
although the former term is often used in both senses.
Strictly speaking, injury is the harm or loss sustained by a
person; damages is the sum which he can recover as
compensation for such loss or harm. Thus, where one has
been unlawfully assaulted by another, the physical harm
that he suffers is the injury; the amount of money that he
is entitled to recover to compensate his loss as a result of
the injury is the damages.

 Damnum Absque Injuria – This means that

“although there was physical damage, there was no legal
injury.” Hence, if a carefully driven car hurts a pedestrian
because lightning temporarily blinded the driver, the
pedestrian cannot recover damages, for legally while he
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 33

has been DAMAGED, there was NO INJURY or NO FAULT in

view of the fortuitous event.

 CLASSIFICATION OF DAMAGES. – “MENTAL”

(a) Actual or compensatory – One is entitled to an

adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss
suffered by him as he has duly proven (Art. 2199, NCC).

(b) Moral – These include physical suffering, mental

anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and
similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary
computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are
the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or
omission (Art. 2217, NCC).

(c) Nominal – These are adjudicated in order that a

right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by
the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not
for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss
suffered by him (Art. 2221, NCC).

(d) Temperate or moderate – These are more than

nominal but less than compensatory damages, and may be
recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 34

has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature
of the case, be proved with certainty (Art. 2224, NCC).

(e) Liquidated – These are those agreed upon by the

parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach (Art.
2226, NCC).

(f) Exemplary or corrective – These are imposed by way

of example or correction for the public good, in addition to
the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory
damages (Art. 2229, NCC).

* * * END * * *

HAPPY READING & LEARNING!

INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 35

The discussions outlined in

this module have been
collectively lifted from the
cases cited and
commentaries made by the
authors in the references
cited below:

1. Aquino, David Robert C. Introduction to Law.

Quezon City: Central Book Supply, Inc., 2017.

2. Aquino, Timoteo B. Torts and Damages. Manila:

Rex Book Store, 2016.

3. De Leon, Hector S. and De Leon, Hector M. Jr. The

Law on Obligations and Contracts. Manila: Rex Book
Store, 2011.

4. Gamboa, Melquiades J. An Introduction to

Philippine Law. Quezon City: Central Lawbook Publishing
Co., Inc., 1969.

5. Lizaso, Marcelino T. Introduction to Law. Quezon

City: Central Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc., 1991.

6. Martin, Ruperto G. Introduction to Philippine

Laws. Manila: Premium Book Store, 1986.
INTRO – MODULE 12 GUIDE QUESTIONS [WEEK 14] 36

7. Paras, Edgardo L. Civil Code of the Philippines

Annotated, Book V. Manila: Rex Book Store, 2016.

8. Suarez, Rolando A. Introduction to Law. Manila:

Rex Book Store, Inc., 2017.

9. Soriano, Fidelito R. Obligations and Contracts

(Law and Application). Manila: GIC Enterprises & Co., Inc.,
2011.

FOOD FOR
THOUGHT