46 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES damage claim ia preted soley on their contract felatonship. Withost such agreement, the act OF ‘mission complained of cannot by itself be held to Stand’ aa a separate. cause of sction or aa an independent actionable tore Cleary, an action for claims under quasi-delict is possibie despite the existence of a contact, if compliance or non-compliance by the defendatt is tended by grote Renlnence Gr bad faith not hecessariy’ due to breach in periorming, one’s contractual obligations. * CHAPTER TWO QUASL-DELICT Quasi-detiet ARTICLE 2176. 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 negigence, f there is no pre-existing ‘contractual relation between the partes, is called a ‘quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. Requisites for Quasi delict ‘Under Article 2176 ofthe Civil Code, the requisites to establish a quasi-delict case are: (a) fault oF negligence: (b) bby actor omission ofthe defendant or by some person for whose acts the defendant is responsible; (6) resulting injury or damage to the plaintiff; (a) the connection of cause and effect between such negligence and the damage; and (@) no prior pre-existing contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. a48 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES Discussion of the Elements and Jurisprudence ‘on Quast-Delict, 4) Act or Omission Act ~ is the performance of an act or conduct beyond one's scope or authority. Doing an action that is patently wrong or unlawful, It is an entirely wrongful act which the defendant has no legal right to do, that affects, interrupts or interfere performance of basic human conduct. An act Which the defendant ought not to do or without any authority.<© Omission ~ applies to the failure to perform some act/s which there is a legal or moral ‘obligation to perform. It is also the failure or want of care, prudence and diligence given a particular situation. Omission is also present when a person js remiss in his duty when he failed to exercise diligence in ensuring compliance with basic requirements demanded by the law, rules, and regulations.**(Ex: Failure of a doctor to check the correct dosage before administering a drug or the omission of a driver o observe proper speed limi) ) Fault or negligence Negligence is any conduct that falls below a reasonable standard of care. It includes want of diligence and prudence for the safety and welfare of others. A defendant who is negligent need not “Deeper ys Hing E249, 149 vn 940 ‘Sree Sanam, 8 beo29:50, a0) (CHAPTER TWO 49 ‘QUASI-DELICT Intend to cause harm, but shall still be held legally accountable for the results of his reckless actions that injure another. Fault is of two (2) kinds: 1) Substantive and independent fault is a type of fault, that results in tort actions where there is no pre-existing relation. This is the fault referred under Article 2176 of the Civil Code a8 source of an obligation, which is also known as culpa extra contractual or culpa aquiliana. 2) Fault as an incident in the performance of ‘a prior existing obligation is known as Contractual fault or culpa contractual, ‘which is governed by Article 1170-1173 of the Civil Code. Fault or Negligence as an element of quasi delict is distinct from criminal negligence under the Revised Penal Code, In the case of Eleano vs. HIlls? the Supreme Court reiterated, that Article 2176, where it refers to “fault or negligencia covers rot only acts "not punishable by law’ but also acts riminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, @ separate Civil action lies against the offender in a criminal ‘act, whether of not he is eriminally prosecuted and. {ound guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is actually charged also ‘criminally, to recover damages on both scores, andso ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES would be entitled in such eventuality only to the Digger award of the two, assuming the awards ‘made in the two cases vary.*# (Pull discussion on Negligence in the next Chapter) 6) Resulting injury or damage 1k pertains to the resulting injury, harm, o deterioration on the part of the victim as a direct or proximate raul of negligence committed by the defendant. To prove compensable damage sch {acts may be determined by ordinary applieation of common sense or trough expert testimony. The Seis of ompenetng the teultng. damage or harm was dlacuesed by the Supreme Court under the following cases: » ‘Thus, in the case of Air France vs. The Court Of Appeais” the Supreme Court ruled: “It is essential that before an award of damages, the claimant must satisfactorily prove during trial the existence of a factual basis of the damages and its causal connection to defendant's act":© White, in the case of Banzon vs, The Court of Appeais: the Highest Tribunal decreed: "Moreover, ‘under the Civil Code, the damages for which a defendant may be held liable are those which are the natural and probable consequences of the act of omission complained of ‘CHAPTER TWO sn ‘Quasi-DELICT In the case of Cinco vs. Canonoy,®? the ‘Supreme Court explained, that it bears emphasizing that petitioner's cause of action is based on quasi- delict. The concept of quasi-delica as enunciated in Article 2176 of the Civil Code is so broad that it includes not only injuries to persons but also damage to property. It makes no distinction between “damage to persons" on the one hand and ‘damage to property" on the other. Indeed, the word “damage” is used in two concepts: the "harm" done ‘and "reparation" for the harm done, And with respect to harm, it includes both injuries to person and property since “harm” is not limited to personal but also to property injuries, In fact, examples of quasi-delict in the law itself include damage to property. An instance is Article 2191(2) of the Civil Code which holds proprietors responsible for damages caused by excessive smoke which may be harmful to persons or property 4) Proximate cause Proximate cause is a cause which in natural ‘and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new ‘and independent cause, produced the plaintiff's injuries, and without which the injuries would not hhave occurred, and one from which a person of ordinary prudence could have reasonably foreseen that such a result, or some similar injurious result, ‘was probable under the facts as they existed.* Neigh Sako, yan Can, ber Gain a te, ‘pent Saar. tl, Rempndenta No. 31252, Department32 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES between the fault or neqligence of the defendant and the resulting harm or injury sustained by the plaintiff. To determine that the act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the harm sustained by the plaintiff, such alleged issue must be proven by all probable applicable evidence. Thus, in a foreign case of Pugh vs. Smith, decided by the Supreme Court of North Carolina, it stated and instructed the jury on determination of 8 proximate cause as follows: ‘A party seeking damages as a result of negligence has the burden of proving not only the negligence, but also that ‘such negligence was a proximate cause of the injury. Proximate cause is @ real cause ~ a cause without which the claimed injury would not have occurred, and fone which @ reasonably careful and prudent person could foresee would probably produce Such injury or some similar injurious result, ‘There may be more than one proximate cause of ‘an injury. Therefore, the party seeking damages ‘eed not prove that the other party's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the injury. He ‘must prove, "by the greater weight of the evidence, only that the other party's negligence ‘was a proximate cause.> mn our jurisdiction, the Supreme Court discussed the definition of proximate cause in the case of Lasam vs. Spouses Ramolete,*" wherein, Editha CHAPTER TWO sa (QuaSt-DELICT Ramolete, who was three (3) months pregnant, was Drought to Lorma Medical Center (LMC) in San Fernando, La Union due to vaginal bleeding. Editha was atimitted to the LMC on the same day. {A pelvic sonogram was then conducted on Editha, revealing that the fetus had weak cardiac pulsation. ‘The following day, Editha’s second pelvic sonogram showed, that aside from the fetus weak cardiac pulsation, there was also absence of any fetal movement. Due to persistent and profuse vaginal Dleeding, petitioner advised her to undergo a Dilatation and Curettage procedure (raspa). She was discharged the following day due to her insistence. Moreover, Editha was asked by the petitioner to return for @ check-up on August 4, 1994, which was four (4) days after her procedure. However, Editha did not show up for her supposed check-up and only returned on September 16, 1994, when Editha suffered vomiting and severe ‘Mayo allegedly informed ‘a dead fetus in her womb, ‘After undergoing a laparotomy, Editha was found to have massive intra-abdominal hemorrhage and f@ ruptured uterus, Thus, she had to undergo hysterectomy and as a result, she no longer had any chances of bearing achild. Bditha and her ‘husband filed a complaint for gross negligence and ‘malpractice against Dr, Fe Cayao-Lasam. ‘The Supreme Court held that Editha was the proximate cause of her own injury. Proximate bi fi ‘which, in intervening cause, produces injury, and without ‘would not have occurred. An injury4 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES cor damage is proximately caused by an act or a failure to act, whenever it appears from the evidence in the case that the act or omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually ‘causing the injury or damage, and that the injury ‘or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the act or omission. American cou eral tests to deter ‘existence of proximate cause: ‘The “butfor' test or ‘eine qua non rule" - The defendasits act oF omission is not a cause of the event, if the said event would not have happened ‘without jt. This is the test widely used in foreign courts. The general test for causation is the "but Jor test which requires the plaintiff to show that the injury would not occur "but for” the negligence of the defendant. The "but for’ test will be applied in circumstances where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s tortious act was both necessary land sufficient to cause his or her injuries. The "but {for test requires the plaintiff to establish this causal link on a balance of probabilties.s8 The "but for" test is used in most medical negligence cases in assessing whether there is a causal link between. an alleged breach in the standard of care owed toa plaintiffand the damages suffered by the plaintiff. oc ESS DDS RESES go tone ae uate he Bet ro Rann hd of For Vel 7, Pod Ua “thar Eastin nase gig, Maren Quer LLP Yes ee Coninang tn han Sey Bo (CHAPTER TWO 5s ‘QuASI-DELICT The foresceability test - This test pertains to harm or injury which could have been rationalh foreseen at the time the alleged misconduct wa committed by the defendant. The harm sought to bbe compensated should be a foreseen hazard or possible consequence for which the defendant must be held legally accountable, Accordingly, this test ig formulated on the basis that said foreseeable peril is a consequence which is probable to occur At the time of the defendant's delinguency. ‘Thus, in the case of Ramos vs. Court of Appeals; Erlinda Ramos underwent a surgical [procedure to remove stone from her gall bladder (cholecystectomy). They hired Dr. Hosaka, a surgeon, ‘to conduct the surgery at the De Los Santos Medical Center (DLSMC). Dr. Hosaka assured them that he would find a good anesthesiologist. But the ‘operation did not go as planned, Dr. Hosaka arrived ‘at the hospital lat. Dr. Gutierez, the anesthesiologist, Started to intubate Erlinda when Herminda (Erlinda’s sister-in-law) heard her say that intubating Erlinda is quite dificult and there were complications. ‘This prompt Dr. Osaka to order a call to another anesthesiologist, who successfully intubated Ertinda. ‘The patient's nails became bluish, and the patient was placed in a Trendelenburg position. After the operation, Erlinda was diagnosed to be suffering from diffuse cerebral parenchymal damage and that the petitioner alleged that this was due to lack. of oxygen supply to Erlinda’s brain which resulted from the intubation, GR Ne A954 0H56 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES: ‘The family of Ramos (petitioners) sued the hospital, the surgeon and the anesthesiologist for damages. The petitioners showed expert testimony ‘showing that Erlinda’s condition was caused by the anesthesiologist in not exercising reasonable care in “intubating” Erlinda. The Supreme Court held, in view of the evidence at hand, we are inclined to believe petitioners’ stand that it was the faulty intubation which was the proximate cause of Erlinda’s comatose condition. Proximate_cause_has_been_defined_as_that ‘which. in nt nt ‘by any efficient interening cause, produces injury, ‘and without which the result would not have ‘ccuiTed, An injury or damage is proximately caused by an act or a failure to act, whenever it appears fiom the evidence in the case, that the act or omission played @ substantial part in bringing about or ‘causing the injury or damage; and that the injury for damage was either a direct result of a reasonably probable consequence of the act or omission. It is the dominant, moving or producing cause. Applying the above definition in relation to the evidence at hand, faulty intubation is undeniably the proximate cause which triggered the chain of events leading to Erlinda's brain damage and, ultimately, her comatose condition, ‘To further explain proximate cause, in the case of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital ve. Capanzana,\ Regina Capanzana went into active labor and was brought to petitioner hospital, Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital. She frst underwent a preoperative "GW 99008, March 23, 2017 CHAPTER TWO 87 (QUASL-DELICT physical examination by Dr. Santos. She was found fit for anesthesia after she responded negatively to questions about tuberculosis, rheumatic fever, and cardiac diseases. On that same day, she gave birth to a baby boy. After her operation, Regina complained of headache, chilly sensation, reslessness and shortness of breath. She asked for oxygen and Jater became cyanotic. After undergoing an X-ray, she was found to be suffering from pulmonary edema Regina, then, was wansferred to the Cardinal Santos Hospital, The doctors thereat found that she was suffering from Rheumatic Heart Disease, Mitral Stenosis with mild pulmonary hypertension, which contributed to the onset of fluids in her tung tissue, These resulted in cardiopulmonary arrest land brain damage. Regina lost the use of her speech, fyesight, hearing and timbs. She was ‘while stil in a vegetave state. A complaint for Gamages against petitioner hospital, her doctors, fend the nurses on duty. Respondents, imputed negligence to Drs, Ramos and Santos for the latter's failure to detect the heart disease of Regina. They further stated that the nuraes were negigent for not having promptly gen oxygen, and that the hospital ‘was equally negligent for not making available and Bccessible the oxygen Unit on that same hospital floor at the ime. ‘The Supreme Court held that a failure to act may be the proximate case ist plays a substantial part in bringing about an injury. Note also, tha the omission to perform a duty may also constitute the proximate cause of an injury, but only where the omission would have prevented the injury. Thesa ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES Court also emphasizes that the injury need only be a reasonably probable consequence of the failure to act In other words, there is no need for absolute certainty that the injury is a consequence of the ‘omission.* Hence, applying the above definition to ‘the facts in the present case, the omission of the rnurses, their fallure to check on Regina and to refer her to the resident doctor and, thereafter, to ‘immediately provide oxygen, was clearly the proximate ‘cause that led to the brain damage suffered by the patient. As the trial court and the CA both held, had the nurses promptly responded, oxygen would hhave been immediately administered to her and the risk of brain damage lessened, if not avoided.©* While, in Vda, De Bataclan vs. Medina,*° the Supreme explained that the actual or immediate cause may not be the proximate cause of the injury. On September 13, 1952, Juan Bataclan was ‘among the 18 passengers of Medina Transportation, ‘who was traveling from Cavite to Pasay City. The bus was driven by Conrado Saylon. Along the way, fone of the front tires of the bus burst and the vehicle began to zigzag, until it fell into a canal or ditch on the right side of the road and turned. turtle. Some of the passengers managed to leave the bus, others had’ to be helped or pulled out. Heeding’the shouts of help by Bataclan and the rest, ten (10) men, one (1) of whom was carrying a lighted torch fueled by petroleum, approached the overturned bus. Immediately, a fierce fire started ono OY asi, Cgaon OF, Mo 88 (CHAPTER TWO 39 ‘Quast DELICT burning and consuming the bus, including the passengers trapped inside. Bataclan and the four (4) passengers died ‘The Supreme Court held, proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous ‘sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening, cause, produces the injury. In the present case, the Court held that the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan was the overturning of the bus, this for the reason that the coming of the men with, the torch was to be expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning of the bus, the trapping of some of its passengers and the call for outside help. The coming of the men with a lighted torch vas in response to the callfor help, made not only by the passengers, but most probably, by the driver and the conductor themselves, and that Decause it was dark (about 2:30 in the morning), the rescuers had to carry a lighted torch with them, and coming as they did from a rural area where lanterns and flashlights were not available. ©) No Pre-existing Contractual Relation It simply means that the obligation to compensate ‘a misconduct does not arise in any previous Juridical tie. There is no contractual relation between the plaintiff and defendant in this case, land the person responsible (tortfeasor) is liable ‘even if the identity were not known to each other. Hence, in the case of Huang vs. Philippine Hoteller Ine,7 this Court finds it significant to ea Ge 9 Pe60 ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES take note of the following differences between. ‘quasi-elict (culpa aquilina) and breach of contract {culpa contractual). In quasicdelict, negligence is direc, substantive and independent, while in breach of contract, negligence is merely incidental to the Performance of the contractual obligation; there is 4 pre-existing contract or obligation. In quasi- delice, the defense of “good father of a family" is a complete and proper defense insofar as parents, guardians and employers are concerned, while in breach of contract, such is not a complete and proper defense in the selection and supervision of employees, In quasi- delict, there is no presumption ‘of negligence and itis incumbent upon the injured arty to prove the negligence of the defendant, otherwise, the former's complaint will be dismissed, while in breach of contract, negligence is presumed 0 long as it can be proved that there was breach of the contract and the burden is on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence in the ‘carrying out ofthe terms ofthe contract. ‘The Prohibition Against Double Recovery Article 2177. Responsibly for fault_or nealaence under the preceding aie ts entirely separate and distin fromthe cil tasty arising from neaigence under the Penal Code. Et the plant earnet recover damages tice Jor the stn actor omission af the defendant ‘An act or omission causing damage to another ‘may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender, ie, (1) civil ability ex delicto, under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code; and (2) independent civil liabilities, such as those (a) CHAPTER TWO 61 ‘Quast-DELICT not arising from an act or omission complained of fs a felony, e.g, culpa contractual or obligations arising from law under Article 31 of the Civil Code, intentional torte under Articles 32 and 34, and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code; or (6) where the injured party is granted a Tight to file an action independent and distinct from ‘the criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code, Either 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 fact or omission or under both causes. ‘As can be seen, the latest iteration of Rule 111 (Section 3), unlike the predecessor, mo. longer inchudes the independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code as requiring Hor reservation to be made in # previously instituted criminal action, ‘Thus in the case of Spouses Padua vs. Robles and Bay Taxi Cab the facts and decision are as follows: ‘The Paduas sued the driver and the taxicab company for damages resulting fom the death of their son who was run over by a taxi operated by said company. Likewise, by information ed with the same court, the fiscal charged the driver with homicide through reckless imprudence. n the civil case, the Court adjudged tual moral and exemplary damages, plus attomey’s fees, against the driver, and dismissed the complaint insofar asoe ‘TORTS AND DAMAGES the company was concerned. Almost a year later, the driver was convicted and the decretal portion of the judgment on the civil ibility of the driver resulting from his criminal conviction state that “the civil liability of the accused has already been. determined and assessed” in the prior civil case. When the judgment in the eivil ease became final, the Paduas sought execution thereof, but this proved futile. Hence, they instituted an action in the same court against the owner of the taxicab company to enforce the latter's subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. On ‘motion ofthe owner, the court a quo dismissed the fulton he ground that the complaint stated no ‘cause of action. According to the Supreme Court, eli bility coexist wl Sriminal responsi ky nealence saves, the offended party (or hist) has the Sptin beeween an acon fr enforcement of ctl Itty based on culpa cin Goser article 100 of the Revoed nal Cade and an action for Tecovery of damages based on culpa aquliana Under rice 217 ote Ci Coe. Te action for fnlorcement of cl tablty based on culpa Griminal soon 1 of ue 11 ofthe les of Court is deem amutancounyintuted with Ue erin scone epreniy waned or reseed or 8 Separate application bythe offended party Arile 2177 of the Civil Code," however, precludes Tecovery of damages twice for the wane negligent Shor oniaden, CHAPTER THREE NEGLIGENCE Definition Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that egree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. Under Article 1173 of the Civil Code, it consists of the “omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances fof the person, of the time and of the place.®? Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, uided upon those ‘considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. ‘The whole theory of negligence presuppose ‘some uniform standard of behavior which must be an external and objective one rather than the individual judgment good or bad of the particular tortfeasor. It must be, as far as possible, the same {or all persons and at the same time make proper allowance for the risk apparent to the tortfeasor for hhis capacity to meet it, and for the circumstances under which he must act. The question as to what 6