Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Chapter 1

    Uploaded by

    Precious Grace Follero Peregrino
    6 views24 pages
    fff

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    fff

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views24 pages

    Chapter 1

    Uploaded by

    Precious Grace Follero Peregrino
    fff

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 24
    ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS. General Principles in the “Award of Damages... ‘Actual Damages Damnum Emergens and ‘Lucrum Cessans. ‘Actual Damages for Violation of Contract and Quasi-contract. ‘Actual Damages for Delict and ‘Quasi-delice, Duty to Exercise Diligence "To Minimize the Damages.. Loss of Earning Capacity Right of Subrogation, [Attomey's Fees. Interest : Contributory Negligence ‘Mitigation of Damages. ‘Moral Damages vr ‘Nominal Damages... ‘Temperate of Moderate Damages... Liquidated Damages Exemplary or Corrective Damages... soca 321 322 324 B24 24 327 328 331 332 335, 342 342 343 350 351 352 353 CHAPTER ONE GENERAL PRINCIPLES History Most tort law in various jurisdictions took their origin from the Roman law. In civil law Jurisdictions, which they derived the provisions on. tort in their respective civil codes, from the concepts of Roman law as regards contractual and delictual liability. In common law countries, it is apparent that they took and adopted the customary English tort law concepts. In Scots and Roman Dutch laws, they are similar to tort law in common law Jjurisdictions, in which they resolve conflicts using. established case precedents, rather than the strict ‘application of the code provisions. ‘The development of tort law around the world resulted to various causes of action, remedied ty evar of cl damages ean om paca mle, emotional, economic harm, besmirched reputation, Violations of privacy, property or constitutional rights. Modern tort law’ were formulated to include ‘automobile accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, ‘product liability, copyright infringement, and toxic 2 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES (CHAPTER ONE a Modern tort cases are heavily affected by ingurance and insurance laws, as many cases are settled through claims adjustment rather than by ‘tial, and are defended by insurance lawyers, with the insurance policy, setting a ceiling on the possible indemnity ‘Tarough the years, lw of torts evolved and branched fo various special torts, ke. damages train from medial malpractice casa, Since hurean ie is inviolable and health services are a public feod, fin a sacrosanct policy of every state to Enact laws to protect thie matter that fs imbued wih ti ndret Considering thi, pheicane fre facing stngent challenges in initating, Changes that lead to the delivery of beter health care services land undertake greater accountability, ike being invoedin medical malpractice Itgations, in which an award of damages the ved i neitable> In most juriadictions, another emerging tort is privacy tort, arising ffom invasion of one’s priva ‘A peroon has an actionable right to be free from invasion of privacy. An actionable invasion of the right of privacy is the unwarranted appropriation or exnlotation of one’s personality, the publicizing of one’s private affairs with which the public has'na legitimate concern, or the wrongful intrusion into one’s private activites in such a manner a8 to ‘outage or cause mental suring, shame or huation toa person of ordinary sensibilities.” In some countries with advanced business practices, they apply tort in business and related transactional activities. Business tort may include a restraint of trade, when the defendant in the case ‘might not have caused the immediate financial loss, ‘but caused a larger hindrance that prevents = business from continuing in a normal manner. This may also involve theft of trade secrets, when fone party tales the proprietary information from a Dusiness, with the intent of gaining a competitive advantage unfairly. Damages may also be filed due to fraudulent misrepresentation, when two parties ‘agree through a contract or to an agreement in goodiaith, but fail to comply one’s obligations in a contract in bad faith In common, civil, and mixed law jurisdictions, the main remedy available to plaintiffs under tort law is economic compensation. Further, in the case of a continuing tort, or even where harm is ‘merely threatened, the courts will sometimes grant fn injunction or restraining the continuance or ‘threat of harm, In some countries, injunctions will not impose positive obligations on tortfeasors, but fan order for specific performance to ensure that the defendant carries out their legal obligations, especially in relation to nuisance matters.° At the ‘same time, the legal systems from various jurisdictions also provided for possible defenses available among defendants charged with tort lability. Se 8 Seen BM, La, Nn Tams 4 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES In some jurisdictions, tort law may include not only in the concept of negligence or those harm ‘unintentionally committed but may also refer to intentional tort. Usually, in the absence of other alternative modes of resolving disputes, most jurisdictions usually adopt the procedural rule, that an aggrieved party initiates an action by filing ‘lawsuit, seeking a legal remedy from the court. If the plaintiff is successful in proving his/her claim, the court will enter judgment for the plaintiff and fssue a court order for damages, The party against whom the complaint is directed is the defendant. Hence, in litigation, cases are identified by citing the plaintiff frst; ‘thus, a lawsuit is cited as “Plaintiff us. Defendant”* ‘Tort Law in Various Jurisdictions England and Wales ‘The legal system operating in England and Wales is @ common law system. The essential Giflerence between a common law system and civil law system (the predominant legal system in, Europe] is that in the former, judicial decisions are binding both on lower courte and on the court that hhas made the decision. This is called a system of precedent. Tort law is concerned with civil wrongs. Undoubtedly, the largest area of law within tortie the law of negligence. In the context of personal injury claims, the injured person will most likely sue in negligence. Negligence is a relatively new tort, and it has been largely developed by the Judiciary. Its expansion throughout the late’ 19th CHAPTER ONE s ‘and 20th century reflects the pressures, which the rise of industrial and urban society has brought to bear upon the traditional categories of legal redress {or interference with protected interests.” For the ‘court to make a finding of negligence, the claimant ust prove the following: cowed tie ‘claimant a duty of care, The duty of SSibie tate secon care avid acs or Smlaiona which you can reasonably foresee that would be Hay to injure your neighbor A court wil ind a duty of are ithe claimant can Show that he damage he sured was forseesbi that there was prosimiy between himself and the defendant; and thet ll the creumatancee it would be fai jst and reasonable to impone labltyon te defendant face Determining whether the defendant was at {Eu in a. two-stage process, First the court Iust determine the sandard of care thatthe Gstendant owed the ciamant. The standard of are wil be the simdard that the Teasonable fers” would adopt inthe pression, occupation ervnctiyy in" question, indetrmining. this Standard, the courte wil often balance ‘the degree of foreseabilty or sak of harm against {he cot of avicing the harm, and the benefits to society foregone if the actin. question is fot eared on The econd stage i forthe court “Denny Janae, oan, 20, Men an 6 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES to determine whether the actions of the defendant ‘himeelf reached this standard. This is a question ‘of fact, The claimant must then show that the defendant's breach of duty caused the damage that he sulfered. The test is a ‘but-for test ~ but {or the defendant's tort, would the claimant have ssulfered the loss or damage? ) Finally, the damage suffered by the ‘laimant must be a iype of damage that can be recovered under the law on negligence.” United States of America ‘The primary aims of tort law in the U.S. are to provide reli to injured partes for harms caused by ‘others, to impose liability on parties responsible for ‘the harm, and to deter others from committing harmful acts.t0 Torts can shift the burden of loss from the injured party to the party who is at fault or better suited t0 bear the burden of the loss. Typically, a party secking redress through tort law will asle for amages, in the form of monetary compensation. Less common remedies include injunction and restitution. ‘The boundaries of tort law are defined by ‘common law and state statutory law. American Judges, in interpreting the language of statutes, have wide latitude in determining which actions qualify as legally cognizable wrongs, which defenses may override any given claim, and the appropriate ‘measure of damages, "gl frag nwt, Tar, Crmll Law Schl, Cae ning ip ota corset sd a (CHAPTER ONE, 7 ‘Tort_law_in_the US fall_into_three_general ‘categories: intentional torts (intentionally hitting a person); negligent torts (causing an accident by failing to obey traffic rules); and strict liability torts or product lability (ibility for making and selling defective products). Japan ‘The provision on tort under the Civil Code of Japan (Act No. 89, enacted on April 27, 1896) [Article 709: A person who has intentionally or regigenty infringed any right of others, or legally protected interest of others, shal be table to compensate ‘any damages resuling in consequence. ‘Tort liability in Japan requires three conditions: negligence, infingoment of rights and «causal link between the action and the damage, It is necessary for the vietim (plaintiff) to demonstrate that through the defendant's negligent action his rights were infringed and thereby the damage was caused, The defendant should be judged to be liable ifthe court finds that he was negligent in his ‘conduct and consequently injured the plaintiff, in ‘which the alleged harm is of the type which must bbe protected by law. At the same time, the court determines the sum of money that the defendant shall be ordered to pay the victim. ses a tan as Ne a ep yee Sepa Law Sew 8 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES Canada Im most provinces in Canada, a tort is a civil ‘wrong for which a legal remedy exists. The wrong relates to harm or losses occurring to a person oF their property because of deliberate action or carelessness of another, which forms the basis of the claim by the plaintiff in most civil legal claims. Breach of contract issues are separate from torts. However, it is noteworthy, the concept of a tort does not apply in Québec. ‘An absolute right to a jury is available to plaintiffs in a civil action oniy in Saskatchewan. Traditionally, civil actions in the other common W provinces and territories are heard by a judge alone, but in recent years there has been an increasing trend toward jury trials.'® Definition of Tort It originated from the Latin word “torqueo” or “torquere’, meaning to turn, twist or bend. In common law, tort is an unlawful violation ‘of private right, not created by contract, and which gives rise to an action for damages. It is an act or omission producing an injury to another, without any previous existing lawful relation of which the ‘said act or omission maybe said to be a natural outgrowth or incident." amu, (B06, law of Dec in Que’ The Canaan "sesso 0.01220, CAR (21 (CHAPTER ONE 9 Tort is also defined as a “private or civil wrong or injury, other than breach of contract,” for which the court will provide a remedy in the form of an. action for damages. It isa violation of a duty imposed by general law or otherwise upon all persons ‘occupying the relation to each other which is involved in each transaction, There must always be violation of some duty that must arse by operation of law and not by mere agreement of the parties. ‘A tort is an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability Purposes of Tort Cases @) To compensate the agarieved party in_the form of monetary awards. The remedy sought in a tort action does not involve incarceration or the payment ofa fine tothe victim, but rather payment of ‘damages to the aggrieved party as imposed by courts, in a private case. Tort cases authorize recovery of damages grounded in determinations of plaintiffs ‘actual or consequential losses."* b) Asa form ofc indemnification. The purpose of tort ‘cases is to economically indemnify an fsegrieved party for the direct and consequential damage, as result ofa tortious act or omission. ©) Gil redress, Tort cases empower individual Vietims of tortious acts to seck redress, through Judicial actions against those who have wronged them, Tort law addresses a question about whose 10 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES problem it is when things go wrong by generating, land enforcing a remedial structure within which those ‘who have been wronged can claim a remedy from the person who has wronged them. To establish the remedial claim, the plaintiff must establish that the act of the alleged defendant satisfies each of the elements of the tort of whieh they complain. (7 4) Loss allocation or redistribution. For assigning, losses or payment of damages, not only against principal offenders, but to other parties who ‘maybe vicariously oF solidary liable, as to claim for fair and complete compensation of the losses suffered by the victim. €) Deterrence in_the commission _of similar offense/s. Tort cases and the resulting decisions by courts awarding compensation to the victims, promote optimum deterrence in the commission of ‘same or similar acts or omission, resulting to an orderly society. The possibilty of recovering damages in tort law gives potential plaintiffs an incentive to pursue claims against the tortfeasors at whose hands they have suffered. The risk of tort liability Creates an incentive to take steps to avoid injuring ‘others. In that sense, tort law, particularly negligence law (which subjects agents to liability for harms they have proximately caused), creates'a tacit form of private risk policing."* "Dr B, 015) The Ste aT Lam, Reis The Polen corte esponja Save fo tae CHAPTER ONE u (GENERAL PRINCIPLES | Promotes a_civlized_societu_and_qualitu approach. Tort is a method of regulating safety by warning people to take precautions against the risk of injury. The study of tort law creates an optimum standard governing human conduct and. relations, with an objective to promote the exercise of the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise in various circumstances.2 A) As conectve justice and retribution for losses Courts determine the civil abilities to be awarded. among aggrieved persons who have been wronged, hence, provides an avenue of recourse through which’ they can proceed against tortfeasors. ‘Types of Tort 1) Intentional Tort - are intentional actions that result in harm to the plaintiff. The harm need not be intended, but the act must be intentional, ot merely a product of one's carelessness or reckless acts, In common law countries, some {intentional tort offenses are as follows: + Battery ~ battery is when a person intentionally eauises a victim to have harmful for offensive contact with something else. ‘This includes the intentional act of touching, another person, without the latter's consent. + Assault assault occurs when a person imputes fear or apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. Employing unreasonable threat or fear to his victim. 12 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES + False imprisonment - false imprisonment is ‘when an offender, without any legal authority, restraine or limits a vietim’s ability to move freely from one area to another. + Trespass to land — trespass to land is when a. person intentionally enters someone else’s property. The person does not have to damage ‘anything for it to be trespass. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IED) ~ this occurs when one acts abominabiy or outrageously with intent to cause another tw suffer severe emotional distress, such as issuing the threat of future harm. + Conversion — this occurs when a person takes the chattel property of another with the intent to deprive them of said property. “+ Defamation false statement of facts made to another person, 2). Unintentional Tort or Nealizence - It presupposes, the failure to observe the reasonable standard of care and diligence, which other people of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same ‘cccasion oF circumstances. Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and Vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury 2° 3) Strict Liability Tort - also called a product liability, imputing liability to a defendant, provided the plaintiff proves that the product is ‘defective, "nC Otaano, Oo. 296492047 CHAPTER ONE 13 (GENERAL PRINCIPLES rogardiess of the defendant's intent to commit an error or harm. It is not a defense that the ‘manufacturer or producer exercised great care or caution, if there is a defect in the product that ‘causes harm, the former shall be liable for it. ‘Various Tort Liabilities a) Primary Liability - the basis of claims under this liability is Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which provides: Whoever by act or mission causes damage fo another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done, Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relaion between the parties, is called a quasi-detict x x x. 1). Solidary Liability ~ the basis of claims under this lability is under Article 2194 of the Civil Code: Article 2194. The responsibility of 00 oF more persons who are lable for quastdelict 5 solidary €} Vicarious tiabilty ~ it comes from the word “vicartus" or “vicar,” which means @ substitute. The basis of claims under this liability is Article 2180 of the Civil Code, that refers to a situation where ‘someone is held responsible for the acts or omissions of another person. It means representative, deputy for substitute, anyone acting “in the person of o ‘agent of a superior. In the context of the workplace, the employer ean be held responsible for the acts of omissions of its employees, provided it can be shown that it tool place in the course of their employment. This ‘may also include the civil 14 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES, liabilities of parents on behalf oftheir minor children ‘committing harmful acts. 44)_Strct Hability ~ the basis of claims under ‘his aby is the strict standards among manufacturers, producers and providers of goods and services. In tort law, there are {wo broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable ~a) possession of certain animals and b) abnormally. dangerous activities. Additionally, in the area of torts known as products liability, there is a sub- category known as strict products liability which applies when a defective product for which an ‘appropriate defendant holds responsibility causes injury to an appropriate plaintiff.29 Distinctions Between Tort and Quasi-delict Tort is an Anglo-American and common law {in concept, that inciudes both intentional and ‘unintentional torts. On the other hand, quasi- ddlict is civil law in origin, based on Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which has its original term from ‘Spanish treatises as *culpa-aquiliana,” that is only limited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes the notion of willftiness or intent. ‘Tort, as previously discussed, is much broader than quasidelict because it inchades not only nesligence, ‘but intentional criminal offenses of assault, battery, fraud, trespass to dwelling, intentional infliction of ‘emotional distress and false imprisonment. While ‘quasi-delict only includes negligence, "ap ifrmaton ne, Care Law Scheel (CHAPTER ONE. 15 GENERAL PRINCIPLES However, on the issue, whether quasidelict may involve acts intentionally committed, the provision of Article 2176 of the Civil Code was supplied with the application on the provisions on Human Relations, particularly Articles 19, 20, 21, 32, 33 and 34, to include intentional acts as basis for civil claims, Human Relations ARTICLE 19. Buen) person must, in the ‘exercise of his rights and inthe performance of his duties, act with justice, qive everuone his ‘due, and observe honesty and good faith ARTICLE 20, Bvery person who, contrary to tans uahaly or neg causes carage fo tater shal denny the later or the same ARTICLE 21. Any person who willy cases toss or nh to another in @ manner tha Contrary to morals, good custome or ube obey shal componsite te later forthe damage ARTICLE 92. Any pub offer o” emolouee, or ar prow inivicl, who, dethy oF Seine obatract, defects, oles 0” i a tanner pads or impairs a ofthe lia Tints and iberties of onather perso" shall be Tote othe lator for damages: (1) Freedom of religion: (2) Freedom of speech; (3) Freedom to write for the press or to ‘maintain a periodical publication; (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention: 16 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES CHAPTER ONE 7 GENERAL PRINCIPLES (5) Freedom of suffiage: (6) The right against deprivation of property ‘without due process of lau; (7) The right to a just compensation when _Private property is taken for public use; (6) The right to the equal protection of the laws; (9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against. unreasonable Searches and setzures; (1 tery faba ef cringe same (11) The, pruacy of communication and comespndenc (12) The taht t9 become a member of tbooditons or sodetce for‘ purpones” no ‘contrary to law; f * (13) The rat t take part in a peaceable caer eto he Contest eaboos Foronces (14 Teri be fe fom nha ser jin any form; ” “e (15) The right ofthe accused against excessive (25) The right o agai (16) The rt of the accused to be heard bi himself and course, to be informed of the ative an cause of the scctstion against him, to have a speedy and public re, oo ast the’ witnesses ce to face, and ts hase Compulsory press 1 secure the atenderice Gfustnese hie behais 117) Freedom from being compelied to be a witness against one's sel, or from being forced {0 confess quilt, or from being induced by a ‘promise of immunity or reward to make such Confession, except when the person confessing becomes @ Stave witness; (18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel andt unusual’ punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a Statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional, and (19) Freedom of access tothe courts. In any of the cases referred 10 in this article, ‘whether or not the defendant's act or omission ‘constitutes criminal offense, the aggrieved ‘party has @ right fo commence an entirely Separate and distinet cil action for damages, ‘and for other relief. Such civil action shall progeed Independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be proved by ‘a preponderance of evidence. ‘The indemnity shall inchude moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. The responsibilty herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or fmisoion constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. ARTICLE 22. in cases of defumason, fraud ‘and phusical injuries, a cil action for damages, ‘entirely separate and distinct from the eriminat ‘action, may be brought by the injured party. 18 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES ‘Such civil action shalt proceed independently Of the criminal prosecution, and shall require ‘only @ preponderance of evidence ARTICLE 34. When a member of a city or ‘municipal police fore refuses or fais to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger 10 life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or ‘municipality shall be subsidiarity responsible therefor. The civil action herain recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence Shall sufce to support such action. ‘Thus, in the case of Gashem Shookat Baksh ws. Court of Appeais, an Iranian citizen residing at the Lozano Apartments, Guilig, Dagupan City, and is an exchange student taking, a medical course at the Lyceum Northwestern Colleges in. Dagupan City, courted and proposed to marry Marilou Gonzaies. Marilou accepted his love on the condition that they would get married. ‘They therefore agreed to get married after the end of the school semester. The petitioner forced her to live with him in the Lozano Apartments. Marilou was & virgin before she began living with him, Defendant ‘would tie plaintiff's hands and feet while he went to school, and he even gave her medicine at 4 o'clock in the morning that made her sleep. the whole day and night until the following day. As a result of this livein relationship, plaintiff became pregnant, but defendant gave her some medicine to abort the fetus. Still, plaintiff continued to live CHAPTER ONE 19 with defendant and kept reminding him of his promise to mary her until he told her that he ‘Could not do so because he was already married to girl in Bacolod City ‘The Supreme Court held thet the Defendant is liable, even though the act was intentionally committe. ‘The Civil Code contains a provision, Anicle 21, which is designed to expand the ‘concept ot’ tons or quastdetictin thle jurisdiction by adequate legal remedy Tor the untold Sumber of moral wrongs whichis impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and Punish in the statute books. Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which defines 2 quastdelict thus: 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 's.no preexisting contractual relation between the partes, is called «quasi detict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. Article 2176 is limited to negligent acts or omissions and excludes the notion of wilfulness or intent, Quasi-delict, known in Spanish legal \weatises as culpa aquiliana, is @ civil law concept, ‘while forts isan “Anglo-American or common Taw concept. Torts is “much broader than culpa aquikana because it includes not only negligence, but international criminal acts as well such 88 ‘assault and atery, false imprisonment and decet. Jn the general scheme of the Philippine legal 20 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES system envisioned by the Commission responsible for drafting the New Civil Code, intentional and ‘malicious acts, with certain exceptions, are to be governed by the Revised Penal Code, while Deglgent acts or omissions are to be covered by Article 2176 of the Civil Code. In between these opposite spectrums are injurious acts which, in the absence of Article 21, would have been beyond redress, Thus, Article 21 fills that vacuum, It is ‘even postulated that together with Articles 19 ‘and.20 of the Civil Code, Article 21 has greatly ‘broadened the scope of the law on civil wrongs: izhas become much more supple and adaptable ‘han the Anglo-American law on torts In the light of the above laudable purpose of ‘Amicle 21, We are of the opinion, and 0 hold, that where a man's promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfil that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the ging of herself unto him in a sexual ‘congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of manying 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 willl injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. IU is essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. (CHAPTER ONE. a (GENERAL PRINCIPLES Distinctions Between Quasi-delict and Culpa Criminal. ‘There are distinctions between quasi-delict from culpa criminal. In the case of Barredo vs. Gareta, involves head-on collision between a taxi and a carretela, The carretela overturned, and one of its passengers, euflered injuries from which he died two days later, The driver of the taxi was convicted, The court in the criminal case granted the petition that the right to bring a separate civil faction be reserved. The pivotal question in this case whether the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus making him primarily and directly responsible under the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla. In this case, the Supreme Court explained the distinctions between the two causes of action, particularly stating that: Some of the differences between crimes under the Penal Code and the culpa aquiliana or cuasi- delito (quasi-delict) under the Civil Code are: 1) That crimes affect the public interest, while cuasi-delitos (quasidelict) are only of private concern, 2) That, consequently, the Penal Code punishes for corrects the criminal act, while the Civil Code, by means of indemnification, merely repairs the damage. 2 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES 3) That delicts are not as broad as quasi- elicts, because the former is punished only if there is a penal law clearly covering them, while the latter, cuasi-delitos (quasi elie), include all acts in which “any kind of fault or negligence intervenes." However, it should be noted that not all violations of the penal law produce civil responsibility, ‘such as begging in contravention af ordinances, violation of the game laws, infraction of the ‘rules of traffic when nobody is hurt.2° In addition, the following are the distinctions: 4) To find the accused liable for culpa ‘criminal, his guilt in a criminal case, proof ‘of guilt Beyond reasonable doubt is required. While in a civil case of culpa aquiliana, ‘mere preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. 5) To find the tortfeasor liable for damages, criminal intent is not necessary for quasi- delict to exist. Fault or negligence without intent will suffice. While in culpa criminal, criminal intent is essential for criminal ‘and civil lability (0 exit, 6) Negligent acts can produce civil tiabilities among tortfeasor, awarded by courts. in favor of an aggrieved party. On the other hhand, not all criminal acts produce civil liabilities. CHAPTER ONE, 23 (GENERAL PRINCIPLES In summary, it is implied that our laws and Jurisprudence recognize the distinctions between Criminal and civil abilities. A crime is a liability against the state. It is prosecuted by and for the State. Acts considered criminal are penalized by law, as a means, to protect the society from dangerous transgressions. As criminal liability Involves a penalty affecting a person's liberty, acts are only treated criminal when the law clearly says 0. On the other hand, civil liabilities take a less public and more private nature. Civil liabilities are Claimed through civil actions, as means to enforce or protect a right or prevent or redress a wrong. They do not carry with them the imposition of imprisonment as a penalty. Instead, civil liabilities fare compensated in the form of damages. ‘The effects offing a separate dl action for damages ‘arising from deli: Thus, the law provides that a person criminally Hable for a felony is also civilly liable (Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code). This civil liability ex delicto may be recovered through a civil action which, under our Rules of Court, is deemed instituted with the criminal action. While they are factions mandatorily fused, they are, in truth, ‘separate actions whose existence are not dependent fon each other. Under the Rules of Court, it states: 24 ‘TORTS AXD DAMAGES RULE 111 Prosecution of Civil Action Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil ‘actions. —" (a) When a criminal action is {nsttuted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended Party wales the cil action, reserves the 10 i separately or institutes the civil action prior tothe eximinal action. ‘The reservation of the right to institute ‘separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable ‘opportunity to make such reservation. When the offended party seeks to enforce civil lability against the accused by Way ‘of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint of information, the fling fees thereof shall constitute first lien on the judgment awarding stich damages ‘Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is speciied in the complaint or information, the corresponding. fling fees shall be paid by the offended party ‘upon the fling thereaf in court. CHAPTER ONE, (GENERAL PRINCIPLES Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual damages, No counterclaim, cross-claim or third- party complaint’ may be filed by the ‘ecused in the criminal case, but any ‘catise of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action Where the civil scion hasbeen fied Separately and tral thereof hae not yet Scmmenced, it may be consolidated wth the criminal action upon application with the court tying the latter case. If the pplication is granted, the tal of both Ekone shall proceed in accordance with Secon 2 ofthis Fle governing consodetion Ftc cel and criminal actions. Section 2. When separate civil action is Suspended. — After the criminal action hhas been commenced, the separate civil ‘ction arising therefrom cannot be instituted tuntl Binal judgment has been entered in the criminal action. If the criminal action is filed alter the said. civil action has already been {nstituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension Shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the vil action, the same may, upon motion 25 26 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES. of the offended party, be consolidated ‘with the criminal action in the court trying ‘the criminal action. In ease of consolidation, the evidence already adduced in the civil ‘action shall be deemed automatically ‘reproduced in the eriminal action without prejudice to the right of the prosecution ‘to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the offended party in the criminal case sand of the parties to present additional fvidence. The consolidated criminal and (ul actions shall be tied and decided joint Dring the pendency of the criminal action, the running of the period of prescription of the civl action which “cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding, hhas been suspended shal be tolled. ‘The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil Action. However, the civil action based on. Gelice shall be ‘deemed extinguished if there is @ finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil lisbility may arise did not exist To explain, in the case Dy vs. People of the Mandy Commodities Co, Ine, represented by William Mandy, filed a case for Bstafa against Gloria Dy, before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. On March 3, 2004, an Information w filed against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Manila. After a full-blown trial, the RTC ER Wo, 16981 2016) CHAPTER ONE a (GENERAL PRINCIPLES Manila rendered a decision acquitting petitioner. ‘Thus, it held that the prosecution failed to establish fan important element of the crime of estafe— misappropriation or conversion. However, while the RTC Manila acquitted petitioner, it ordered her to pay the amount of the checks. Petitioner raised the ‘civil award, contending that her guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.28 ‘The Supreme Court reiterated, thus, while an ‘act considered criminal is a breach of law against the State, our legal system allows for the recovery ‘of civil damages where there is a private person Injured by a criminal act. Itis in recognition of this dual nature of a criminal act that our Revised Penal Code provides that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. This is the concept of civil ability ex delioto2 The law and the rules of procedure provide for a precise mechanism in instituting & civil action pertaining to an act or ‘omission which is also subject of a criminal case. ‘Our Rules of Court prescribes a kind of fusion such that, subject to certain defined qualifications, when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense is deemed instituted as well However, there is an important difference between civil and criminal proceedings that require & fine distinction as to how these twin actions shall proceed, These two proceedings involve two diferent standards of proof. A criminal action requires 28 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES: ‘proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt while a civil ‘ction requires a lesser quantum of proof, that of preponderance of evidence. This distinction also agrees with the essential principle in our legal system that while a criminal liability carries with it 8 conesponding civil lability, they are nevertheless separate and distinct. In other words, these two liabilities may covexist, but their existence is not dependent on each other, ‘The Civil Code states that when an accused in 4 criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for ‘the same act or omission may be filed. In the latter ‘case, only preponderance of evidence is required, This is supported by the Rules of Court which provides that the extinction of the criminal action does not result in the extinction of the corresponding civil action. The latter may only be extinguished when there is a ‘finding in a final judgment in the ‘criminal action that the act or omission from which ‘the civil ability may arise did not exist.” Consistent with this, the Rules of Court requires that in judgments of acquittal the court must state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act oF ‘omission from which the civil lability might arise did not exist.2° (CHAPTER ONE. 29 [GENERAL PRINCIPLES Similarly, in the case of Lumantas vs. Calapiz,*" Spouses Calapiz brought their 8-year- old son, Hanz Calapiz (Hanz), to the Misamis Occidental Provincial Hospital, Oroquieta City, for fan emergency appendectomy. Hanz was attended to by petitioner Dr. Encarnacion Lumantas, who ‘suggested to the parents that Hanz also undergo circumcision at no added cost to spare him the pain. With the parents’ consent, the petitioner performed the coronal type of circumcision on Hanz after his appendectomy. On the following day, Hanz complained of pain in his penis, which ‘exhibited blisters. His testicles were swollen. The parents noticed that the child urinated abnormally after the petitioner forcibly removed the catheter, but ‘the petitioner dismissed the abnormality as normal. ‘On January 30, 1995, Hanz was discharged from ‘the hospital over his parents’ protestations and ‘was directed to continue taking antibiotics. On February 8, 1995, Hanz was confined in a hospital because of the abscess formation between the base and the shaft of his penis. Presuming that the ulceration was brought about by Hanz's ‘appendicitis, the petitioner referred him to Dr. Henry Go, @ urologist, who diagnosed the boy to hhave a damaged urethra. Thus, Hanz underwent ‘eystostomy, and thereafter was operated on three times to repair his damaged urethra. When his damaged urethra could not be fully repaired and reconstructed, Hanz’s parents brought a ‘criminal charge against the petitioner for reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries. Tan No 759 OTe) 20 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES ‘The trial court acquitted the accused for insufficiency of evidence, but ordered him to pay Hanz Calapiz 50,000.00 as moral damages. An appeal was filed fon the basis that petitioner cannot be civilly liable after her acquittal According to the Supreme Court, it is axiomatic that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Nevertheless, the acquittal of an accused of the crime charged does not necessarily extinguish his civil lability. The Court elucidates ‘on the two kinds of acquittal recognized by our law f5 well a8 on the different effects of acquittal on. the civil lability of the accused, viz: ur law recognizes {wo kinds of acquittal, with diferent effects on the civil lability of the accused. Hirst, isan acquittal on the ground that the ‘accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. This instance closes the door to ‘lvl lability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or ‘omission. There being no delict, civil ability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on. grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. The second instance is an acquittal ‘based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he Js not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. (CHAPTER ONE at ‘The Rules of Court requires that in case of an acquittal, the judgment shall state "whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed (0 prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed t0 prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, In either fase, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise ddid not exist.” Conformably with the foregoing, therefore, the ‘acquittal of an accused does not prevent a judgment from still being rendered against him on the civil aspect of the criminal case unless the court finds fand declares that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. Although it found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction against the petitioner for the crime charged, the RIC did not err in determining and adjudging his civil liability for the ‘same act complained of based on mere preponderance of evidence." Glearty, the Rules of Court and jurisprudence provides forthe following 2) Generally, an aggrieved party can file a criminal case, in which the civil action for damages is deemed instituted. b) Nevertheless, an aggrieved party has an option to file a separate civil action for damages arising from delict, in which case, reservation in the eriminal case is required (Section 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court) 9 a a ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES. If an accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, f civil action for damages for the same act, fr omission may be filed. In the latter case, only preponderance of evidence is required. However, it bars fing a case for civil liability arising from delict and the right to file/proceed as separate action maybe extinguished if the court hearing the criminal case issued a “finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the fact or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.” That, clearly shows that the accused is not the author ofthe erime charged. Based on ‘c" and “d’, it is inferred, that our laws recognize two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil lability of the accused arising from the crime committed. Eirst, is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. This instance loses the door to civil lability, for a Person who has been found ta be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no deliet, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be stituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the n CHAPTER ONE 33 (GENERAL PRINCIPLES. Rules of Court. The second instance is an fcqulttal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this caue, even if'ite guilt of the accused has not been Satisfactory established, he is not exempt from ea at whi ay be proved by ontderance of evidence only. Tis isthe Eitteton contemplated in Arcie 29 of the Gis Code, where. the cil action for damages is "or the same act or omission. ‘After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom Cannot be instituted until final judgment hhas been entered in the criminal action, If the criminal action is led after the said Gul action has already been. instituted, the later sal be suapended in whatever Stage ft may be found before judgment on the merit, The suspension shailiastuntl inal [Rtdgment ig rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal fetion in the court trying the criminal ‘ection. In case of consolidation, the evidence ‘lready adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the Criminal action without prejudice to the Hight of the prosecution to cross-examine the witnesece. presented by the offended party in the criminal case and of the 34 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES parties to present additional evidence. The Consolidated criminal and civil actions ‘shall be tried and decided jointly. The effects of fling an independent civil action for damages under quast-delict. ‘The requirement for the reservation of the civil action does not anymore apply to the independent, civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code. Such action may be filed anytime, provided the plaintiff does not recover twice upon. the same act or omission. Provided further, that the action is filed within the prescriptive period of four (4) years. ‘The procedural rules to support the _non- reservation requirement for quasi-delict actions, ‘ven ifit stems from same criminal act or omission is Section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, thus! Section 3. When cil action may proceed independent. — Inthe cases proved. for in ‘Article 32, $3, $4 and 2176 of the Civil Code of i Pilipines, the Independent cl action may ought by the offended party. It shall proceed Jndepeneniy of the eriminal ‘action and shall require oniy'a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover amages' twice Tor the same act or omission charged in the criminal ection Hence, if the action is based on a quasi-delict, the failure of the claimant to reserve his right to file @ separate civil case and his intervention in the criminal case will not bar him from ‘fling @ separate civil action for damages, CHAPTER ONE. 35 (GENERAL PRINCIPLES In Supreme Transportation Liner, Inc. vs. San Andres,» Ernesto Belchez was driving a passenger bus, Mabel Tours Bus. While traversing. Maharlika Highway, the Mabel Tours Bus sideswiped Toyota Revo it was overtaking. The Mabel Tours Bus immediately swerved to the left lane but in the process, it hit head-on the Supreme Bus owned and registered in the name of Supreme Bus Transportation Line, Inc., and driven by Felix G. Ruz, that was negotiating in the opposite lane. Because of the strong impact of the incident, the ‘Supreme Bus was pushed to the side of the road and the Mabel Tours Bus continuously moved until it hit a passenger jeepney that was parked on the side of the road which later on fell on the canal. Nobody died but all the vehicles were damaged. ‘A. complaint for damages before the RTC ‘abate Ciy was inetd by respondent Antonio Sem Andres against (pttioner) alleging actual damage to Mabel Tours Bus and unrealized profits icra he aa our Bs te me ie underwent repair, Subsequendy, [petiloners fed tel Answer th Counterclai, Tey alleged mong others that painif has no ease of a ‘gaint her; the proximate eaue ofthe vehicular siistent ie the “reckons impradence of the [reepandents driver, EmestoBelches operated the Nabe! Tours Bus eckieely and in volaton of rai laws: By way of counterclaim, [eutione] Supreme Trnnaportation Liner, Ine aleged that sullered damages in the aggregate amount of PS00,000.00 Send another P10 00000 forthe medical expenses of ie employees and. passengers. During ‘il 36 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES CHAPTER ONE a GENERAL PRINCIPLES. Jessi Alvarez stated that he filed a criminal ‘complaint for Reckless Imprudence resulting to ‘damage to property against Emesto Belchez before the RTC Candelaria, Quezon, which the criminal ‘case was terminated, and the accused was convicted because of his admission of the crime charged. In the said criminal complaint, he did not reserve their civil claim or asked the fiscal to reserve it, Which, if itemized, would also be the amount of their counterclaim in the present civil action filed by [respondent]. The RTC Tabaco City dismissed the counterclaim on the ground that to allow their counterclaim was tantamount to double recovery of damages, considering that the same was not prosecuted ‘in the criminal action against the respondent's diver. ‘The Supreme Court ruled, the latest iteration ‘of Rule 111, unlike the predecessor, no longer includes the independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code as requiring prior feservation to be made in @ previously instituted criminal aetion,2* ‘The error committed by the CA emanated from failure to take into consideration that the ‘omission of the driver in violation of Article 365 of, the Revised Penal Code could give rise not only to the obligation ex delicto, but also to the obligation based on culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Under the factual antecedents herein, oth obligations rested on the common element of negligence. Article 2177 of the Civil Code and Section 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court allow the injured party to prosecute both criminal and civil actions simultaneously. As clarified in Casupanan , Laroya:®= sone ae art Bin ares Si ne RS er Sino ie ce 8 sata ari Secharen a See hse cet sete openers eer 3 Eras reine a iB wit pie Shs Ea naar Sa Sea Sd hima ttce nd rans eerea gee ae sree SS cv magne sats el Berl sae ene Sipe gens ae abe testi amare ‘he foregoing notwithstanding, the petitioners as the injured parties have to choose the remedy {) which to enforce their claim in the event of fevorable decisions in both action, Tis is because Avice 2177 of the Ciel Code bare them rom Tecovering damages twice upon the same act or omission. Ae ruled in Safeguard Secunty Agency, the. v Tangoose 38 TORTS AND DAMAGES: ‘An act or omission causing damage to ‘another may give rise to two separate ‘vil Habilties on the part of the offender, ie, (1) civil ability ex deticto, under Artiele 100 of the Revised Penal Code; and (2) independent civil liabilities, such as those (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of fs a felony, eg, culpa contractual or obligations ‘arising from law under Article 31 of the Civil Code, intentional torts under Articles 32 and 34, and ‘culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code; or (6) where the injured party is granted a right to file fan action independent and distinct from the criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code. Bither of these liabilities may be enforced against the offender subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission or ‘under both causes ‘As can be seen, the latest iteration of Rule 111, unlike the predecessor, no longer includes the independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code as requiring prior reservation to be made in a previously instituted

    You might also like