TORTS

( 2023 EDITION)

CONCEPT ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW

TORT- A private or civil wrong violating a right for which the law provides a remedy Art. 20, CC.Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently
in the form of damages causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same

Acts giving rise to civil liability but are not necessarily the consequences of crimes or The provision is intended to provide a remedy in cases where the law declares an act
contractual obligations. (Paras, Pre-week Handbook in Civil Law, p. 588, 2012) illegal but fails to provide for a relief to the party injured.

Elements Art. 20 does not distinguish, and the act may be done willfully or negligently.
1. Duty
2. Breach Requisites
3. Injury; and
4. Proximate Causation 1. The act must be willful or negligent;
2. It must be contrary to law; and
QUASI-DELICT (also known asculpa aquiliana) 3. Damages must be suffered by theinjured party.
Art. 2176, CC. 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 4BLUE 95: There is a common element under Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the must be intentional. However, Article 20 does not distinguish: the act may be done
provisions of this Chapter. either "willfully", or "negligently" (Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. Court of Appeals,
supra). Under Article 20, there is no requirement that the act must be directed at a
Elements of quasi-delict specific person, but it suffices that a person suffers damage as a consequence of a
1. Act/omission committed through fault/negligence wrongful act of another in order that indemnity could be demanded from the wrongdoer.
2. Damage/injury is caused by such act/omission (Petrophil Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122796, 2001)
3. Does not arise under a pre-existing contractual obligation

4BLUE 95 NOTE: Jurisprudence replaces the third element with causal connection

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

ABUSE OF RIGHT
Art. 19, CC. 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.
4blue 95: Malice or bad faith is at the core of an abuse of right. (Chevron
Philippines, Inc. v. Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 211533 & 212071, 2019).
4blue 95: Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design to
do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity (California
Clothing Inc. v. Quiñones, G.R. No. 175822, 2013).
Elements:
Art. 22, CC. Every person who through an act of performance by another,
or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the
expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to
him.
Art. 23, CC. Even when an act or event causing damage to another’s
property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter
shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited.
Art. 2142, CC. Certain lawful, voluntary, and unilateral acts give rise to
the juridical relation of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be
unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another.
Art. 2143, CC.The provisions for quasi contracts in this Chapter do not
exclude other quasi-contracts which may come within the purview of the
preceding article.

1. There is a legal right or duty; 4BLUE 95: One person should not be permitted to unjustly enrich himself at the expense
2. Which is exercised in bad faith; of another, but should be required to make restitution of, or for property or benefits
3. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. received, retained, or appropriated where it is just and equitable that such restitution be
made, and where such action involves no violation or frustration of law or opposition to
public policy, either directly or indirectly.

Test of abuse of rights Enrichment at the expense of another is not per se forbidden. It is such enrichment
without just or legal cause that is contemplated here. Just and legal cause is always
No hard and fast rule; depends on the circumstances of each case. presumed, and the plaintiff has the burden of proving its absence. The restitution must
Generally, the exercise of any right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it cover the loss suffered by the plaintiff but it can never exceed the amount of unjust
was established. It must not be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to enrichment of the defendant if it is less than the loss of the plaintiff.
injure another.
Requisites
1. That the defendant has been enriched;
2. That the plaintiff has suffered a loss;
There is abuse of right when: 3. That the enrichment of the defendant iswithout just or legal ground; and
4. That the plaintiff has no other action based on contract, crime or quasi-
1. The right is exercised for the only purposeof prejudicing or injuring delict.
another
2. The objective of the act is illegitimate
3. There is an absence of good faith 4BLUE 95: Under the civil law principle of unjust enrichment, the registered owner of
the motor vehicle has a right to be indemnified by the actual employer of the driver; and
under Article 2181 of the Civil Code, whoever pays for the damage caused by his
Effects of the application of Art. 19: dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in
satisfaction of the claim.”
1. “A right, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as
such, may nevertheless become the source of some illegality”;
2. It precludes the defense of damnum absque injuria. Damnum absque
injuria does NOT apply when there is an abuse of a person’s right.

1
LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT
D. NUISANCES (ART. 694)
Art. 23, CC. Even when an act or event causing damage to another’s
Any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else
property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the
latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was which:
benefited.
a. Injuries or endangers the health or safety of others;
b. Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality;
This provision imposes liability even without fault, as long as the injurious act or
c. Annoys or offends the senses;
event benefited the defendant.
d. Hinders or impairs the user of property; or
e. Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or
This article is based on equity, An involuntary act, because of its character cannot
street, or any body of water.
generally create an obligation; but when by such act its author has been enriched,
it is only just that he should indemnify for the damages caused, to the extent of his
enrichment. The indemnity does not include unrealized profits of the injured party,
because defendant’s enrichment is the limit of his liability. The plaintiff has the
General Rule:
burden of proving the extent of the benefit or enrichment of the defendant.
Everyone is bound to bear the habitual or customary inconveniences that result
from the proximity of others, and so long as this level is not surpassed, he may not
complain against them.
INSTANCES OF STRICT LIABILITY:
Exception:

If the prejudice exceeds the inconveniences that such proximity habitually brings,
A. POSSESSORS AND USERS OF ANIMALS (ART. 2183)
the neighbor who causes such disturbance is held responsible for the resulting
damage, being guilty of causing nuisance (Velasco v. Manila Electric Co., G.R.
General Rule: The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is
No. L-18390, 1971).
responsible for the damages which it may cause although it may escape or be lost.

Ownership is immaterial. What must be determined is the possession of the dog

that admittedly was staying in the house in question, regardless of the ownership of
Kinds
the dog or of the house. It makes no distinction as to the kind of animal. This is
applicable whether the animal is domestic or wild (Vestil v. IAC, G.R. No. 74431,
1989). a. Nuisance Per Se and Nuisance Per Accidens

Nuisance per se is recognized as a nuisance under any and all circumstances

because it constitutes a direct menace to public health or safety, and, for that
Exceptions:
reason, may be abated summarily under the undefined law of necessity.
a. By force majeure – Possessor or user is still liable even if damage is caused
Nuisance per accidens is that which depends upon certain conditions and
by the negligence of third person unless equated with force majeure.
circumstances, and its existence being a question of fact, it cannot be abated
without due hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing
b. By the person who suffered the damage
does in law constitute a nuisance. (Salao vs. Santos, 67 Phil. 550)
c. Defendant is not the possessor of the animal
b. Public Nuisance and Private Nuisance

Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a community or

neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the
B. FALLING OBJECTS (ART. 2193)
annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal. A private
nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing definition (Art. 695).
The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof, is responsible for
damages caused by things thrown or falling from the same.
Remedies against public nuisance
Head of the family is not limited to the owner of the building. It may include the
1. Prosecution under the RPC or any local ordinance
lessee thereof. (Dingcong v. Kanaan, G.R. No. L-47033, 1941).
2. Civil action
3. Abatement, without judicial proceeding
The head of the family may recover from the person who caused the damage. The
liability is solidary. (Art. 2194)
Remedies against private nuisances:

1. Civil Action
2. Abatement, without judicial proceedings

Who may avail of the remedies

C. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS IN CASE OF DEATH OR INJURIES OF
EMPLOYEES (ART. 1711)
1. Public officers
2. Private persons - if nuisance is especially injurious to himself; the ff. must be
General Rule: Owners of enterprises and other employers are liable to pay for
made:
the death of injuries to their employees, even if the cause is purely accidental.
i. Demand be first made upon owner or possessor of the property to abate
Exception:
nuisance
ii. That such demand has been rejected
If the mishap was due to the employee’s own notorious negligence, or voluntary
iii. That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and executed
act or drunkenness.
with the assistance of local police
iv. That the value of destruction does not exceed P3,000
Exception to the Exception:

When the employee’s lack of due care only contributed to his death or injury, the
DOCTRINE OF ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE
employer shall be liable for compensation but the same shall be equitably reduced.
One who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a
Where he contributes to the principal occurrence as one of its determining factors,
character likely to attract children in play and who fails to exercise ordinary care to
he cannot recover. Where, in conjunction with the occurrence, he contributes only
prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of
to his own injury, he may recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the
tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in
event should pay for such injury, less a sum deemed suitable equivalent for his
the premises. (Hidalgo v. CA, G.R. No. L-342, 1952)
own imprudence (Rakes v. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., G.R. No. 1719, 1907).
Attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable to bodies of water, artificial
as well as natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature
other than the mere water and its location. Hence, when the owner of private
Rule on Employer’s Liability for Injuries caused by co-worker (Art. 1712)
property creates an artificial pool on his own property or a tank, merely duplicating
the work of nature without adding any new danger, owner is not liable. (Hidalgo v.
a. If the death or injury is due to the negligence of a fellow-workman, the
CA, G.R. No. L-3422, 1952)
latter and the employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation.

b. If a fellow worker’s intentional or malicious act is the only cause of the

death or injury, the employer shall not be answerable unless it should be
shown that the latter did not exercise due diligence in the selection of
supervision of the plaintiff’s fellow-worker.

2
E. PRODUCT LIABILITY BY MANUFACTURERS (ART. 2187)
Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods
shall be liable for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances
used, although no contractual relation exists.
Requisites:
a. The defendant is the Manufacturer or processor of foodstuff, drinks, toilet
articles and similar goods involved;
b. Plaintiff Used or consumed such product unaware of the injurious
condition of the product;
c. The defendant used Noxious or harmful substances in the manufacturing or
processing of the foodstuff, drink or toilet articles and similar goods;
d. Plaintiff’s Injury or death was caused by the product used or consumed;
and
e. The Forms or kinds of damages suffered and the amount thereof.
Product Liability Law
This governs the liability of manufacturers and sellers for damages resulting
from defective products.
Liability for defective products may be based on fraud, warranty, negligence,
or strict liability (Aquino, Torts and Damages, supra at 858).
Consumer Act
A law that is meant to protect the consumers by providing for certain
safeguards when they purchase or use consumer products (Republic Act No.
7394, Consumer Act).
E.1: LEGAL BASES TO JUSTIFY PRODUCT LIABILITY
1. Delict
Basis of Liability:
a. Criminal negligence under the Revised Penal Code; and
b. Violation of any special law, even in the absence of intent (Aquino, Torts and
Damages, supra at 873-74).
2. Warranties
To enforce warranty rights, a claim must be presented. It is sufficient for the
purchaser to present to the immediate seller either the warranty card or the official
receipt along with the product to be serviced or returned to the immediate seller
(R.A. No. 7394, Art. 68).
Subsidiary Liability of Retailer
Retailer is subsidiarily liable under the warranty in case of failure of both the
manufacturer and distributor to honor the warranty.
Privity of contract is not necessary in successfully pursuing an action for
breach of warranty or in enforcing the same under the Consumer Act.
The provisions of the Civil Code on conditions and warranties shall govern
all contracts of sale with conditions and warranties (R.A. No. 7394, Art. 67).
Negligence
It is considered negligence per se if there is violation of:
a. Acts or omissions expressly prohibited by Product Liability statutes;
b. Standards imposed by special laws, rules and regulations of proper
government agencies with respect to Product Liability Law (Aquino, Torts
and Damages, supra at 871).
Liability attaches if due care of an ordinarily prudent man was not exercised
in manufacturing, packaging, marketing or distributing of the product.
Warranty Under the Consumer Act
In addition to the Civil Code provisions on sale with warranties, the following
provisions shall govern the sale of consumer products with warranty.
Any seller or manufacturer who gives an express warranty shall:
1. set forth the terms of warranty in clear and readily understandable language
and clearly identify himself as the warrantor;
2. identify the party to whom the warranty is extended;
3. state the products or parts covered;
4. state what the warrantor will do in the event of a defect, malfunction of
failure to conform to the written warranty and at whose expense;
5. state what the consumer must do to avail of the rights which accrue to the
warranty; and stipulate the period within which, after notice of defect,
malfunction or failure to conform to the warranty, the warrantor will perform
any obligation under the warranty (R.A. No. 7394, Art. 68).
3
3. Fraud or Misrepresentation
General Rule: Not all expressions of opinion or usual exaggerations in trade are
actionable misrepresentations if they are established to be inaccurate.
Exception: An act or practice shall be deemed deceptive whenever the producer,
manufacturer, supplier or seller, through concealment, false representation or
fraudulent manipulation, induces a consumer to enter into a sale or lease
transaction of any consumer product or service (R.A. No. 7394, Art. 50).
4. Strict Liability
It is imposed on manufacturers under the Consumer Act and privity of contract is
not required. (Aquino, Torts and Damages, supra at 881). It does not preclude an
action based on negligence (quasi-delict) for the same act of using noxious or
harmful substances (Id. at 882).
For instances under Art. 97-99 (defective products and services), the primarily
liability for death or injury is on the manufacturer and processor, instead of
the seller. There is no requirement that they act negligently.
Manufacturer includes:
a. Any person, who manufactures, assembles or process consumer products;
and
b. Any person who attaches his own brand name to the consumer products
manufactures, assembled, or processed for him.
Defective Product or Service
The product or service is defective when it does not offer the safety that the
consumer may rightfully expect of it.
Kinds of Defective Products
1. Manufacturing defect – resulting from manufacture, assembly and erection;
2. Design defect – resulting from design;
3. Presentation defect – resulting from handling, making up, presentation or
packing of the products; or
4. Absence of appropriate warning – resulting from the insufficient or
inadequate information on the use and hazards of the products (Aquino, Torts
and Damages, supra at 884).
Defect resulting from packaging and presentation of the product can be
included under manufacturing defect or design defect.
Liability for Defective Product or Service:
1. Manufacturer – liability shall be imposed upon manufacturers independent
of fault (R.A. No. 7394, Art. 97 and 99)
2. Tradesman or Seller – generally, not liable for damages caused by
defective products under the Act.
Exceptions:
a. It is not possible to identify the manufacturer, builder, producer or
importer;
b. The product is supplied, without clear identification of the manufacturer,
producer, builder or importer;
c. He does not adequately preserve perishable goods (R.A. No. 7394, Art.
98).
Test under the Consumer Act
To determine what is considered defective, the Consumer Act adopts the
“Consumer Expectation Test.”
Under the consumer expectation test, a product may be found defective in
design, if the plaintiff demonstrates that the product failed to perform as
safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or
reasonably foreseeable manner (Baker v. Lull Engineering, S.F. No. 23519,
1978).
Defenses
1. Manufacturer, builder, producer, or importer shall not be liable when it
proves the following:
a. That it did not place the product on the market;
b. That although it did place the product on the market, such product has no
defect; and
c. That the consumer or a third party is solely at fault (R.A. No. 7394, Art.
97).
2. Supplier of the services shall not be liable when it is proven:
a. That there is no defect in the service rendered; and
b. That the consumer or a third party is solely at fault (R.A. No. 7394, Art.
99)
To enforce liability against the defendant, the plaintiff should allege and
prove that:
1. The product was defective;
2. The product was manufactured by the defendant; and
3. The defective products was the cause in fact of his injury (Aquino, Torts
and Damages, supra at 896).
E.2: BUSINESS TORTS

Kinds:

1. NON-POSSESSORY INVASION 4. UNFAIR COMPETITION

Elements: Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial, or industrial enterprises, or in

a. The other has property rights and privileges with respect to the use or
enjoyment interfered with;
b. There is substantial invasion;
c. The defendant’s conduct is a legal cause of invasion; and
d. The invasion is either intentional and unreasonable or unintentional ad
actionable under general negligence rules. (Aquino, Torts and Damages,
supra at 899).
2. INTERFERENCE OF CONTRACTS
Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall be liable for
damages to the other contracting party (Art. 1314).
General Rule: Only the parties to a contract are bound by the terms of the contract
and only a party can file an action for breach of contract or for rescission or
annulment thereof.
labor, through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any unjust or
oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by a person
who thereby suffers damage (Art. 28).
It is defined as the passing off or attempting to pass of upon the public the goods
or business of one person as the goods or business of another, with the end goal
and probable effect of deceiving the public.
What is being sought to be prevented by Article 28 is not competition per se but
the use of unjust, oppressive or high-handed methods which may deprive others of
a fair chance to engage in business or to earn a living. Plainly, what the law
prohibits is unfair competition and not competition where the means used are fair
and legitimate (Willaware Products v. Jesichris Manufacturing, G.R. No. 195549,
2014).
True test: Whether the acts of defendant are such as are calculated to deceive the
ordinary buyer making his purchases under the ordinary conditions which prevail
in the particular trade to which the controversy relates (Alhambra Cigar v. Mojica,
G.R. No. L-8937, 1914).

Exceptions: Cases included:

a. Stipulation in favor of third person;
b. Contracts intended to defraud creditors.
It is tortuous because it violates the rights of the contracting parties to fulfill
the contract and to have it fulfilled, to reap the profits resulting therefrom,
and to compel the performance by the other party.
a. Interference – Unfair competition includes involving the tort of
interference with contractual relations with prospective advantage;
b. Misappropriation – Unfair competition is present if the defendant
committed fraudulent misappropriation against a competition;
c. Monopolies and predatory pricing

Elements: Monopoly – any combination the tendency of which is to prevent

a. Existence of a valid contract;
b. Knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of the contract;
c. Interference of the third person without legal justification
4blue 95 Note: Malice is not essential. Breach must occur because of the
alleged act of interference (So Ping Bun v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
120554, 1999).
competition in the broad and general sense, or to control prices to the
detriment of the public (Gokongwei, Jr. v. SEC, G.R. No. L-45911.
1979).
Predatory pricing – means selling or offering to sell any product at a
price unreasonably below the industry average cost so as to attract
customers to the detriment of competitors (Republic Act No. 8180, An
Act Deregulating the Downstream Oil Industry, and for Other
Purposes).

Privilege to Interfere
d. Passing off and disparagement of products
Elements:

a. The defendant’s purpose is a justifiable one;

b. The actors do not employ means of fraud or deception, which are regarded
as unfair (Aquino, Torts and Damages, supra at 906).

Rules on Liability:

a. The extent of the liability for the breach of a contract must be determined
in the light of the situation in existence at the time the contract is made; and
the damages ordinarily recoverable are in all events limited to such as might
be reasonably foreseen in the light of the facts then known to the contracting
parties (Daywalt v. La Corporacion, G.R. No. L-13505, 1919).
b. Defendant cannot be held liable for more than the amount for which the
contracting party was induced to break the contract can be held liable; and
c. Rules under Article 2201 and 2202 of the Civil Code applies.

If in good faith: Defendant is liable only for consequences that can be

foreseen. Defendant is liable for all natural and probable consequences of his
act or omission, whether the same is foreseen or unforeseen (Go v. Corderdo,
G.R. No. 164747, 2010).

If in bad faith: Defendant is liable for all natural and probable consequences
of his act or omission, whether the same is foreseen or unforeseen (Go v.
Corderdo, G.R. No. 164747, 2010).

3. INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ADVANTAGE

It is a tort committed when there is no contract yet and the defendant is only being
sued for inducing another not to enter into a contract with the plaintiff (Aquino,
Torts and Damages, supra at 922).

4
5. ACTS CONTRARY TO MORALS SPECIAL LIABILITY
Art. 21, CC. Any person who willfully 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.
1. PRODUCTS LIABILITY; MANUFACTURERS OR PROCESSORS
Elements
( SEE DISCUSSION)
1. There is an act which is legal;
2. But which is contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy; and
3. It is done with intent to injure.
2. VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; VIOLATION OF CIVIL
The doctrine of proximate cause must apply, because the defendant must have caused
LIBERTIES
the injury through their act or omission. If through the plaintiff’s own fault or
negligence, they sustained injury, they cannot recover.
Persons who violate constitutional rights and civil liberties are liable for
damages, regardless of whether the act or omission which lead to
impairment of such rights constitutes a criminal offense.(Refer to Art. 32)
1. Breach of Promise to Marry and Moral Seduction
Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. BUT to
formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparation
and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be
3. VIOLATION OF RIGHTS COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary
to good custom.
Art. 34, CC. When a member of a city or municipal police forcerefuses
or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or
Where a man's promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the
property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the
acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that
city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil
promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself
action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings,
unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of
and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.
marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or
deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her
consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to
Article 21 NOT BECAUSE OF SUCH PROMISE TO MARRY BUT
BECAUSE OF THE FRAUD AND DECEIT BEHIND IT and the willful
injury to her honor and reputation. It is essential, however, that suchinjury
4. PROVINCES, CITIES, AND MUNICIPALITIES
should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs
or public policy.
Art. 2189, CC. Provinces, cities, and municipalities shall be liable for
damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of
However, when for one whole year, the plaintiff, a woman of legal age,
the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and
maintained sexual relations with the defendant, with repeated acts of
other public works under their control or supervision.
intercourse, there is here voluntariness. No case under Article 21 is made.

5. OWNER OF MOTOR VEHICLE

2. Malicious Prosecution
Malicious prosecution is the institution of any action or proceeding,
( SEE DISCUSSION)
either civil or criminal, maliciously and without probable cause.

Elements
a. The fact of the prosecution or that the prosecution did occur
and that the defendant was himself the prosecutor or that he
6. NUISANCE ( SEE DISCUSSION)
instigated its commencement;
b. That the action finally terminated with an acquittal;
ESTOPPEL- One who voluntarily places himself in a situation whereby
c. That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without
he suffers an injury will not be heard to say that his damage is due to a
probable cause
nuisance maintained by another.
d. That the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal
malice, that is, by improper or sinister motive.

7. PROPRIETOR OF BUILDING, STRUCTURE, OR THING

3. Public Humiliation
Art. 2190, CC. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for
It is against morals, good customs and public policy to humiliate, the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due
embarrass and degrade the dignity of a person. Everyone must respect the
to the lack of necessary repairs.
dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other
persons (Article 26, CC).
Art. 2191, CC. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused:
1. By the explosion of machinery which has not been taken
4BLUE 95: A person may be held liable under Article 21 if they make an
care of with due diligence, and the inflammation of
accusation against another and acts to prejudice such person, without proof
explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and
substantiating her accusation
adequate place;
2. By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or
property;
4. Oppressive Dismissal 3. By the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes,
if not caused by force majeure;
The right of an employer to dismiss an employee is not to be confused
4. By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of
with the manner in which this right is to be exercised and the effects
infectious matter, constructed without precautions suitable to
flowing therefrom. If the dismissal was done antisocially or oppressively,
the place.
then there is a violation of Article 1701, which prohibits acts of oppression
by either capital or labor against the other, and Article 21, which makes a
person liable for damages if he willfully causes loss or injury to another in
a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. When
8. HEAD OF FAMILY
the manner in which the company exercised its right to dismiss was
abusive, oppressive and malicious, it is liable for damages
Art 2193, CC.The head of a family that lives in a building or a part
thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things thrown or falling
from the same.

9. VIOLATIONS OF DATA PRIVACY

The right to data privacy is the right of an individualnot to have private

information about himself disclosed, and to live freely from surveillance
and intrusion.

RA 10173, or the Data Privacy Act,protects individuals from unauthorized

processing of personal information that is (1) private, not publicly
available; and (2) identifiable, where the identity of the individual is
apparent either through direct attribution or when put together with other
available information.

5
Q: A van owned by Orlando and driven by Diego, while negotiating a downhill slope of
a city road, suddenly gained speed, obviously beyond the authorized limit in the area,
and bumped a car in front of it, causing severe damage to the care and serious injuries to
its passengers. Orlando was not in the car at the time of the incident. The car owner and
the injured passengers sued Orlando and Diego for damages caused by Diego’s
negligence. In their defense, Diego claims that the downhill slope caused the van to gain
speed and that, as he stepped on the brakes to check the acceleration, the brakes locked,
causing the van to go even faster and eventually to hit the car in front of it. Orlando and
Diego contend that the sudden malfunction of the van’s brake system is a fortuitous even
and that, therefore, they are exempt from any liability. Is this contention tenable?
Explain. (2002 Bar)
A: No. Mechanical defects of a motor vehicle do not constitute fortuitous event, since
the presence of such defects would have been readily detected by diligent maintenance
check. The failure to maintain the vehicle in safe running condition
constitutesnegligence.
Q: Liwayway Vinzons-Chato was then the Commissioner of Internal Revenue while
Fortune Tobacco Corporation is an entity engaged in the manufacture of different brands
of cigarettes, among which are "Champion," "Hope," and "More" cigarettes. Fortune
filed a complaint against VinzonsChato to recover damages for the alleged violation of
its constitutional rights arising from Vinzons-Chato’s issuance of Revenue
Memorandum Circular No. 37-934 (which re- classified Fortune cigarettes as locally
manufactured with foreign brands and thereby imposed higher taxes), which the
Supreme Courtlater declared invalid. Vinzons-Chato filed a Motion to dismiss arguing
that she cannot be held liable for damages for acts she performed while in the discharge
of her duties as BIR Commissioner. Is she correct? Explain. (2012 Bar)
A: Yes. As a general rule, a public officer is not liable for acts performed in the
discharge of his duties. The exceptions are when he acted with malice, bad faith, or
gross negligence in the performance of his duty, or when his act is in violation of the
constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties of a person under Art. 32. The public
officer is not automatically considered to have violated the rights or liberties of a person
simply because the rule the public officer issued was declared invalid by the Court. The
complainant must still allege and prove the particular injury or prejudice he has suffered
from the violation of his constitutional right by the issuance of the invalidated rule. The
problem does not state any fact from which any malice, bad faith or gross negligence on
the part of Vinzons-Chato may be inferred, or the particular injury or prejudice the
complainant may have suffered as a result of the violation of his constitutional rights.
Hence, she cannot be held liable. The facts presented are similar to the facts of the case
of Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune, (G.R. No. 141309, December 23, 2008).
Q: Tony bought a Ford Expedition from a car dealer in Muntinlupa City. As payment,
Tony issued a check drawn against his current account with Premium Bank. Since he has
a good reputation, the car dealer allowed him to immediately drive home the vehicle
merely on his assurance that his check is sufficiently funded. When the car dealer
deposited the check, it was dishonored on the ground of "Account Closed." After an
investigation, it was found that an employee of the bank misplaced Tony's account
ledger. Thus, the bank erroneously assumed that his account no longer exists. Later it
turned out that Tony's account has more than sufficient funds to cover the check. The
dealer however, immediately filed an action for recovery of possession of the vehicle
against Tony for which he was terribly humiliated and embarrassed. Does Tony have a
cause of action against Premium Bank? Explain. (2006 Bar)
A: Yes, Tony may file an action against Premium Bank for damages under Art. 2176.
Even if there exists a contractual relationship between Tony and Premium Bank, an
action for quasi-delict may nonetheless prosper. The Supreme Court has consistently
ruled that the act that breaks the contract may also be a tort. There is a fiduciary
relationship between the bank and the depositor, imposing utmost diligence in managing
the accounts of the depositor. The dishonor of the check adversely affected the credit
standing of Tony, hence, he is entitled to damages. (Singson v. BPI, G.R. No. L-24932,
June 27, 1968; American Express International, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 72383, November
9, 1988; Consolidated Bankand Trust v. CA, G.R.No.L70766 November 9,1998)
Q: OJ was employed as professional driver of MM Transit bus owned by Mr. BT. In the
course of his work, OJ hit a pedestrian who was seriously injured and later died in the
hospital as a result of the accident. The victim’s heirs sued the driver and the owner of
the bus for damages. Is there a presumption in this case that Mr. BT, the owner, had
been negligent? If so, is the presumption absolute or not? Explain. (2004 Bar)
A: Yes, there is a presumption of negligence on the part of the employer. However, such
presumption is rebuttable. The liability of the employer shall cease when they prove that
they observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (Art. 2180)
When the employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his own
duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the employer is negligent,
rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family.
(Metro Manila Transit v. CA, G.R. No. 104408, June 21, 1993;Delsan Transport Lines
v. C&A Construction, G.R. No. 156034, October 1, 2003) Likewise, if the driver is
charged and convicted in a criminal case for criminal negligence, BT is subsidiarily
liable for the damagesarising fromthecriminalact.
Q: Silvestre leased a car from Avis-Rent-ACar Co. at the Mactan International Airport.
No sooner had he driven the car outside the airport when, due to his negligence, he
bumped an FX taxi owned and driven by Victor, causing damage to the latter in the
amount of P100,000.00. Victor filed an action for damages against both Silvestre and
Avis, based on quasi-delict. Avis filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against it on
the ground of failure to state a cause of action. Resolve the motion. (2000 Bar)
A: The motion to dismiss should be granted, AVIS is not the employer of Silvestre;
hence, there is no right of action against AVIS under Art. 2180. Not being the employer,
AVIS has no duty to supervise Silvestre. Neither has AVIS the duty to observe due
diligence in the selection of its customers. Besides, it was given in the problem that the
cause of the accident was the negligence ofSilvestre.
6
Q: Mabuhay Elementary School organized a field trip for its Grade VI students in Fort
Santiago, Manila Zoo, and Star City. To be able to join, the parents of the students had
to sign a piece of paper that reads as follows: "I allow my child (name of student), Grade
– Section, to join the school’s field trip on February 14, 2014. I will not file any claim
against the school, administrator or teacher in case something happens to my child
during the trip." Joey, a 7-year-old student of Mabuhay Elementary School was bitten by
a snake while the group was touring Manila Zoo. The parents of Joey sued the school for
damages. The school, as a defense, presented the waiver signed by Joey’s parents. Was
there a valid waiver of right to sue the school? Why? (2014 Bar)
A: No, there was no valid waiver of the right to sue the school. A waiver to be valid
must have three requisites: 1) existence of the right; 2) legal capacity of the person
waiving the right and 3) the waiver must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order or public policy or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by
law. In the case presented, the waiver may be considered contrary to public policy as it
exonerates the school from liability for future negligence. The waiver in effect allows
the school to not exercise even ordinary diligence.
Q: Arturo sold his Pajero to Benjamin for P1 Million. Benjamin took the vehicle but did
not register the sale with the Land Transportation Office. He allowed his son Carlos, a
minor who did not have a driver's license, to drive the car to buy pan de sal in a bakery.
On the way, Carlos driving in a reckless manner, sideswiped Dennis, then riding a
bicycle. As a result, he suffered serious physical injuries. Dennis filed a criminal
complaint against Carlos for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.
1. Can Dennis file an independent civil action against Carlos and his father Benjamin for
damages based on quasidelict? Explain. 2. Assuming Dennis' action is tenable, can
Benjamin raise the defense that he is not liable because the vehicle is not registered in
his name? Explain.(2006 BAR)
A:
1. Yes, Dennis can file an independent civil action against Carlos and his father for
damages based on quasi-delict there being an act or omission causing damage to another
without contractual obligation. Under Sec. 1 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure, what is deemed instituted with the criminal action is only the action to
recover civil liability arising from the act or omission punished by law. An action based
on quasi-delict is no longer deemed instituted and may be filed separately. (Sec. 3, Rule
111, Rules of Criminal Procedure)
2. No, Benjamin cannot raise the defense that the vehicle is not registered in his name.
His liability, vicarious in character, is based on Art. 2180 because he is the father of a
minor who caused damage due to negligence. While the suit will prosper against the
registered owner, it is the actual owner of the private vehicle who is ultimately liable.
(See Duavit v. CA, G.R. No. L29759, May 18, 1989)
The purpose of car registration is to reduce difficulty in identifying the party liable in
case of accidents. (Villanueva v. Domingo, G.R. No. 144274, September14, 2004).
Q: As a result of a collision between the taxicab owned by A and another taxicab owned
by B, X, a passenger of the first taxicab, was seriously injured. X later filed a criminal
action against both drivers. 1. May both taxicab owners raise the defense of due
diligence in the selection and supervision of their drivers to be absolved from liability
for damages to X? Reason. 2. Is it necessary for X to reserve his right to institute a civil
action for damages against both taxicab owners before he can file a civil action for
damages against them? Why? (1992, 1997, 2003 Bar)
A:
1. It depends. If the civil action is based on a quasi-delict the taxicab owners may raise
the defense of diligence of agood father of a family in the selection and supervision of
the driver; if the action against is based on culpa contractual or civil liability arising
from a crime, they cannot raise the defense.
2. It depends. If the separate civil action is to recover damages arising from the criminal
act, reservation is necessary. If the civil action against the taxicab owners is based on
culpa contractual, or on quasi-delict, there is no needfor reservation.
Q: Primo owns a pet iguana which he keeps in a man-made pond enclosed by a fence
situated in his residential lot. A typhoon knocked down the fence of the pond and the
iguana crawled out of the gate of Primo’s residence. N, a neighbor who was passing by,
started throwing stones at the iguana, drawing the iguana to move toward him. N
panicked and ran but tripped on something and suffered a broken leg. Is anyone liable
for N’s injuries? Explain. (2010Bar)
A: No one is liable. The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is
responsible for the damage it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This
responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or
from the fault of the person who has suffered damage. (Art. 2183)
Q: A driver of a bus owned by company Z ran over a boy who died instantly. A criminal
case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed against the driver. He was
convicted and was ordered to pay P2 Million in actual and moral damages to the parents
of the boy who was an honor student and had a bright future. Without even trying to find
out if the driver had assets or means to pay the award of damages, the parents of the boy
filed a civil action against the bus company to make it directly liable for thedamages. 1.
Will their action prosper? 2. If the parents of the boy do not wish to file a separate civil
action against the bus company, can they still make the bus company liable if the driver
cannot' pay the award for damages? If so, what is the nature of the employer's liability
and how may civil damages be satisfied? (2015 Bar)
A:
1. Yes, the action will prosper. The liability of the employer in this case may be based
on quasi-delict and is included within the coverage of independent civil action. It is not
necessary to enforce the civil liability based on culpa aquiliana that the driver or
employee be proven to be insolvent since the liability of the employer for the
quasidelicts committed by their employees is direct and primary subject to the defense of
due diligence on their part. (Art. 2176; Art. 2180)
2. Yes, the parents of the boy can enforce the subsidiary liability of the employer in the
criminal case against the driver. The conviction of the driver is a condition sine qua non
for the subsidiary liability of the employer to attach. Proof must be shown thatthedriver
is insolvent.(Art. 103, RPC)
Q: A Gallant driven by John and owned by Art, and a Corolla driven by its owner, Gina,
collided somewhere along Adriatico Street. As a result of the accident, Gina had a
concussion. Subsequently, Gina brought an action for damages against John and Art.
There is no doubt that the collision is due to John's negligence. Can Art, who was in the
vehicle at the time of the accident, be held solidarily liable with his driver, John? (1996,
1998, 2002 Bar)
A: Yes. Art may be held solidary liable with John, if it was proven that the former could
have prevented the misfortune with the use of due diligence. In motor mishaps, the
owner is solidary liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could
have, by the use of due diligence, prevented the misfortune. (Art. 2184)
Q: On May 5, 1989, 16-year-old Rozanno, who was issued a student permit, drove to
school a car, a gift from his parents. On even date, as his class was scheduled to go on a
field trip, his teacher requested him to accommodate in his car, as he did, four (4) of his
classmates because the van rented by the school was too crowded. On the way to a
museum which the students were scheduled to visit, Rozanno made a wrong maneuver,
causing a collision with a jeepney. One of his classmates died. He and the three (3)
others were badlyinjured. 1. Who is liable for the death of Rozanno’s classmate and the
injuries suffered by Rozanno and his 3 other classmates? Explain. 2. How about the
damage to the jeepney? Explain. 3. Under the same facts, except the date of occurrence
of the incident, this time in mid-1994, what would be your answer? Explain. (2010 Bar)

Q: Romano was bumped by a minivan owned by the Solomon School of Practical Arts
(SSPA). The minivan was driven by Peter, a student assistant whose assignment was to
clean the school passageways daily one hour before and one hour after regular classes, in
exchange for free tuition. Peter was able to drive the school vehicle after persuading the
regular driver, Paul, to turn over the wheel to him (Peter). Romano suffered serious
physical injuries. The accident happened at night when only one headlight of the vehicle
was functioning, and Peter only had a student driver's permit. As a consequence, Peter
was convicted in the criminal case. Thereafter, Romano sued for damages against Peter
and SSPA. 1. Will the action for damages against Peter and SSPA prosper? 2. Will your
answer be the same if, Paul, the regular driver, was impleaded as party defendant for
allowing Peter to drive the minivan without a regular driver's license? 3. Is the exercise
of due diligence in the selection and supervision of Peter and Paul a material issue to be
resolved in this case? (1991 Bar)
A:
1. Yes. It will prosper (Art. 2180) because at the time he drove the vehicle, he was not
performing his assigned tasks as provided for by Art. 2180. With respect to SSPA, it is
not liable for the acts of Peter because the latter was not an employee as held by
Supreme Court in Filamer Christian Institute v. CA, (G.R. No. 75112, August 17, 1991).
Peter belongs to a special category of students who render service to the school in
exchange for free tuitionfees.
2. I would maintain the same answer because the incident did not occur while the
employee was in the performance of his duty as such employee. The incident occurred at
nighttime, and in any case, there was no indication in the problem that he was
performinghisduties as a driver.
3. In the case of Peter, if he were to be considered as employee, the exercise of due
diligence in the selection and supervision of peter would not be a material issue since the
conviction of Peter would result in a subsidiary liability where the defense would not be
available by theemployer. In the case of Paul, since the basis of subsidiary liability is the
pater familias rule under Art. 2180, the defense of selection and supervision of the
employee would be a valid defense.
A:
1. At the time the incident occurred in May 1989, Rozanno was still a minor. Being a
minor, Art. 218, (FC) applies. Pursuant to Art. 218, the school, its administrators and
teachers shall be liable for the acts of minor Rozanno because of the special parental
authority and responsibility that they exercise over him. The authority applies to all
authorized activities, whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or
institution. The field trip on which occasion Rozanno drove the car, was an authorized
activity, and, thus, covered by the provision. Furthermore, the parents of Rozanno are
subsidiarily liable pursuant to Art. 219 (FC), and principally liable under Art. 221 (FC),
if they are negligent.
2. With respect to the damages caused to the jeepney, only Rozanno should be held
liable because his negligence or tortuous act was the sole, proximate and immediate
cause thereof.
3. Since Rozanno was 16 years old in 1989, if the incident happened sometime in the
middle of 1994, Rozanno have been 21 years old at the time. Hence, he was already of
legal age. The law reducing the age of majority to 18 years took effect in December
1989. Being of legal age, Arts. 218, 219, and 221 (FC), are no longer applicable. In such
case, only Rozanno will be personally responsible for all the consequences ofhis act
unless his school or his parents were themselves also negligent and such negligence
contributed to the happening of the incident. In that event, the school or his parents are
not liable under Art. 218, 218 or 221 (FC), but will be liable under general provision on
the Civil Code on quasi-delict.

Q: After working overtime up to midnight, Alberto, an executive of an insurance

company drove a company vehicle to a favorite Videoke bar where he had some drinks
and sang some songs with friends to "unwind". At 2:00 a.m., he drove home, but in
doing so, he bumped a tricycle, resulting in the death of its driver. May the insurance
company be held liable for the negligent act of Alberto? Why? (2001 BAR)
A: The insurance company is not liable because when the accident occurred, Alberto
was not acting within the assigned tasks of his employment. It is true that under Art.
2180 (par. 5), employers are liable for damages caused by their employees who were
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks. However, the mere fact that Alberto was
using a service vehicle of the employer at the time of the injurious accident does not
necessarily mean that he was operating the vehicle within the scope of his employment.
In Castilex Industrial Corp. v. Vasquez Jr (G.R. No. 132266, December 21, 1999) the
Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the fact that the employee did some overtime
work for the company, the former was, nevertheless, engaged in his own affairs or
carrying out a personal purpose when he went to a restaurant at 2:00 a.m. after coming
out from work. The time of the accident (also 2:00 a. m.) was outside normal working
hours.

Q: Under the law on quasi-delict, aside from the persons who caused injury to persons,
who else are liable under the following circumstances: 1. When a 7-year-old boy injures
his playmate while playing with his father's rifle. Explain. 2. When a domestic helper,
while haggling for a lower price with a fish vendor in the course of buying foodstuffs for
her employer's family, slaps the fish vendor, causing her to fall and sustain injuries.
Explain. 3. A carpenter in a construction company accidentally hits the right foot of his
coworker with a hammer. Explain. 4. A 15-year-old high school student stabs his
classmate who is his rival for a girl while they were going out of the classroom after
their last class.Explain. 5. What defense, if any, is available to them? (2005 Bar)
A:
1. The parents of the 7-year-old boy who caused injury to his playmate are liable under
Art. 219, FC, in relation to Art. 2180 of the Civil Code since they exercise parental
authority over the person of the boy. (Tamargo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85044,
June 3, 1992; Elcano v. Hill, G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977)
2. Employer of the domestic helper who slappeda fishvendor. Under Art. 2180, par. 5,
"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 businessor industry."
3. The owner of the construction company. Art. 2180, par. 4 states that "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."
4. The school, teacher and administrator as they exercise special parental authority. (Art.
2180, par. 7 of the Civil Code in relation to Art. 218 and Art. 219, FC)
5. The defense that might be available to them is the observance of a good father of the
family to prevent the damage. (Last par., Art. 2180)