This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
CASE Naguiat v. NLRC
IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Taxi drivers claiming TORT: consists in the violation of a right separation pay; given or the omission of a duty imposed by operation of taxi law; breach of a legal duty services within Clark Air Base Re-classification of cigarettes
SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S
Concept of a tort
Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune
Not bound by the definition because it is OBITER; definition is very broad - any crime or breach of contract may be included; we cannot consider every crime a tort because in some crimes, no single individual is injured whereas in tort, there should be a person injured TORT: a wrong, a tortious act which has been Definition is overly broad; also OBITER defined as the commission or omission of an act by one, without right, whereby another receives some injury, directly or indirectly, in person, property, or reputation A quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict or crime Barredo doctrine not needed anymore because of Article 2177:
Concept of a QD
Barredo v. Garcia
Collision of taxi and caretela; employer of taxi driver sued for civil liability
Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under The same negligent act causing damages the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover may produce civil liability arising from a crime damages twice for the same act or omission of the under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, defendant. or create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra-contractual under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. The Court so holds to make the father liable. The doctrine is intended to plug the hole in Article 2180
Concept of a QD
Elcano v. Hill
Minor killed another; parents of victim sued both minor and father
Concept of a QD
Cinco v. Canonoy
Concept of a QD
Baksh v. CA
Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligence" covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent Recovery of The concept of quasi-delict as enunciated in damages due to Article 2176 of the Civil Code, is so broad that vehicular accident; it includes not only injuries to persons but suspension of civil also damage to property. It makes no case pending final distinction between "damage to persons" on determination of the one hand and "damage to property" on criminal case the other Action for damages Article 2176 is limited to negligent acts or for breach of promise omissions and excludes the notion of to marry against willfulness or intent Iranian
Court used Article 2191(2) to illustrate damage to property but said Article pertains to Strict Liability, not QD - Strict Liab because whether or not there is negligence, proprietor is still liable
Not necessary because discussion is an OBITER. QD still includes intentional acts
TOPIC Concept of a QD
CASE Coca-Cola Bottlers v. CA
IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Discovery of fiber-like material and other foreign substances in Coke and Sprite Works made by the Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette caused damage to adjacent land of the Andamos Article 2176 is homologous but not identical to tort under the common law, which includes not only negligence, but also intentional criminal acts, such as assault and battery, false imprisonment and deceit ELEMENTS of QD: 1) damages suffered by the plaintiff 2) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond 3) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff The acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely irrelevant in the civil case, unless in the event of an acquittal where the court has declared that the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist, in which case the extinction of the criminal liability would carry with it the extinction of the civil liability
SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S
Elements of QD and Tort
Andamo v. IAC
Elements part of RATIO #1 and 3 elements should be DAMAGE, not DAMAGES #2 element contemplates Article 2180
Elements of QD and Tort
PNR v. Brunty
Rhonda Brunty going to Baguio, the car she was riding collided with PNR train
Elements of QD and Tort
BPI v. Lifetime
REQUISITES of QD must concur: Tama na yong word - DAMAGE 1) damage to plaintiff 2) negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant, or some person for whose acts he must respond was guilty 3) connection of cause and effect between such negligence and damage After the deposit slips ELEMENTS of QD: Same with Andamo - bumalik sa DAMAGES were machine1) fault or negligence of the defendant, or validated, agent SC equated Tort with QD some other person for whose acts he must requested teller to respond reverse the 2) damages suffered by the plaintiff transactions 3) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff
TOPIC Elements of QD and Tort
CASE Garcia v. Salvador
IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Wrong result from Hepatitis test
SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S
ELEMENTS of an ACTIONABLE CONDUCT: Elements of an actionable conduct, not of QD 1) duty 2) breach 3) injury 4) proximate causation In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence: 1) damages suffered by him 2) fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person to whose act he must respond 3) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred 4) that there must be no preexisting contractual relation between the parties Actions filed under Article 2176 considered as a tort case Added another element - no preexisting contractual relation between the parties These are the elements of QD
Elements of QD and Tort
Gregorio v. CA
Gregorio charged with 3 counts of violation of BP 22; complainant desisted because Gregorio was not one of the signatories
Elements of QD and Tort
Ocean Builders v. Spouses Antonio
Employee contracted To successfully prosecute an action anchored Lumped two elements in #3 chicken pox and died on torts, three ELEMENTS must be present: These elements are usually for medical negligence 1) duty cases 2) breach 3) injury and proximate causation No statutory support to sue based on Torts Article 2176 only and correctly applies to QD; pwede may tort sa Article 2176 first sentece but the problem is the elements See Crime vs QD tab See Crime vs QD tab
Distinguishing Tort, QD from Delict Distinguishing Tort, QD from Delict Distinguishing Tort, QD from Delict
Barredo v. Garcia Elcano v. Hill Andamo v. IAC
See Crime vs QD tab See Crime vs QD tab
It is possible to have BoC and Culpa Aquiliana at When such a contractual relation exists the the same time. intentional torts. was direct and immediate. Philadelfa Driver committed suicide after hitting a 7-year old child.immediately attaches. Once negligence of employees is proven. arm was amputated See QD vs BoC tab Negligence of employees should not be employer's defense because even if it is proven that employees are negligent. extra-contractual liability to such person. QD from Delict CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender: 1) civil liability ex delicto 2) independent civil liabilities: (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as felony (e.TOPIC Distinguishing Tort. slipped from the train. obligor may break the contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes the source of an extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed between the parties. QD from BoC Cangco v. culpa aquiliana) (b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action Victims of negligence or their heirs have a choice between an action to enforce the civil liability arising from culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. Duty of defendant. feet hit a sack of watermelon. culpa contractual or obligations arising from law.g. Foods v. it employer. Two fields are concentric . the presumption that employer is negligent comprising the whole extent of juridical human relations. and its nonperformance could not be excused by proof that the fault was morally imputable to defendant's servants . parents of victim sued LG Foods (employer) Distinguishing Tort. and an action for quasi-delict under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S L. Employer should prove that it exercised due diligence in the selection and the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from supervision of its employees. Manila Railroad Clerk of Manila Railroad Company.G. being contractual. that will not absolve The field of non-contractual obligation is broader than that of contractual obligations.
TOPIC Distinguishing Tort.interest in having restored to him any benefit that he has conferred on the other party DEFENSE: 1) proof of his exercise of due diligence (diligence of a good father of a family or by stipulation or by law. that of extraordinary diligence) 2) attendance of fortuitous event. QD from BoC CASE FGU Insurance v. Remedy serves to preserve the interests of the promisee: 1) expectation interest . San Pedro Survey of land. QD from BoC Batal v. Sarmiento IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Delivery of refrigerators SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S CULPA CONTRACTUAL: mere proof of the Due diligence different from due diligence in the existence of the contract and the failure of selection and supervision of employees its compliance justify. to excuse him from his ensuing liability Distinguishing Tort.interest in having the benefit of his bargain by being put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract been performed 2) reliance interest . It could have been culpa aquiliana . See QD vs BoC tab spouses Batal contracted to determine boundaries of lot.interest in being reimbursed for loss caused by reliance on the contract by being put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract not been made 3) restitution interest . prima facie. a corresponding right of relief. placed the wrong markings Frank's negligence could be beyond contract.
The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation between him and another party. QD from BoC Distinguishing Tort.TOPIC Distinguishing Tort. an act or omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself. CA Moral damages in breach of contract Filipino ousted from first class seat to accommodate white man Credit card became hot card. without a pre-existing contract between two parties. QD from BoC Far East v. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Extension seat Doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delict. But. CA Student stabbed to death inside PSBA Should the act which breaches a contract be done in bad faith and be violative of Article 21. Miranda Air France v. where there is a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Distinguishing Tort. QD from BoC PSBA v. Carrascoso Distinguishing Tort. restaurant did not honor the credit card payment See QD vs BoC tab The act that breaks the contract may be also a tort Culpa contractual easy in terms of proof.QD should be independent of BoC Distinguishing Tort. In such a case. and the function of the law is merely to regulate the relation thus created. not QD TEST whether a QD can be deemed to underlie the BoC: Where. then there is a cause to view the act as constituting a quasi-delict SC tried to temper the Air France doctrine by limiting its applicability by these tests: 1) Was it done in bad faith which will limit it to NCC Art 21? 2) Can the negligence still subsist without the contract? . it is the parties themselves who create the obligation. Common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence. not in actions involving breach of contract. but difficult for moral damages to be awarded Does not contradict Article 2176 because this is a tort. QD from BoC Fores v. QD from BoC CASE Calalas v. the fact that the parties are contractually bound is no bar to the application of quasi-delict provisions to the case See QD vs BoC tab Far East qualified Air France doctrine . the obligation is created by law itself.
but if there is a contract and negligence is proven. It would only be culpa aquiliana if there was no contract Rule of priority .kung may contract. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Vault containing the coffin had a hole at the bottom SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S RULE: There may be culpa aquiliana in a contractual obligation. Navidad Drunk LRT passenger. QD from BoC Light Rail Transit v. thereby allowing the rules on tort to apply.TOPIC Distinguishing Tort. killed by moving train When an act which constitutes a breach of contract would have itself constituted the source of a quasi-delictual liability had no contract existed between the parties. QD from BoC CASE Syquia v. sue based on contract muna Distinguishing Tort. A common carrier is liable for death of or injury to passengers a) through the negligence or wilful acts of its employees b) on account of wilful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers if the common carrier’s employees through the exercise of due diligence could have prevented or stopped the act or omission Distinguishing Tort. fist fight with security guard. fell on the LRT tracks. then it's culpa contractual. the contract can be said to have been breached by tort. QD from BoC Consolidated Bank v. CA Passbook given to another person See QD vs BoC tab The law on QD is generally applicable when there is no pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties Petitioner bound by the negligence of its employees under the principle of respondeat superior or command responsibility .
guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs. Brunty IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE NEGLIGENCE: the omission to do something which a reasonable man. defective "Stop. precaution.TOPIC Concept of Negligence CASE PNR v. It is a relative or comparative. would do. want of the care required by the circumstances. Look and Listen" sign NEGLIGENCE: failure to observe. that degree of care. for the protection of the interests of another person. term and its application depends upon the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably require Employed PICART Test 1 SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Concept of Negligence PNR v. not an absolute. whereby such other person suffers injury No hard and fast rule whereby such degree of care and vigilance is calibrated. or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. it is dependent upon the circumstances in which a person finds himself. CA Driver of car stopped then proceeded accordingly. and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand. All that the law requires is that it is perpetually compelling upon a person to use that care and diligence expected of sensible men under comparable circumstances .
the negligence must amount to a reckless disregard of the safety of person or property SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S If the act is dangerous per se and he still did it.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Seaman jumped into "Notorious negligence" has been held to be the water to retrieve 2. and is indifferent. Rio Degrees of Diligence Marinduque v.tantamount to "gross negligence" peso bill GROSS NEGLIGENCE: 1) want of even slight care and diligence 2) such entire want of care as to raise a presumption that the person in fault is conscious of the probable consequences of carelessness. it's gross negligence What determines if an act is negligent is the danger of an act . or worse. but it may be evidence of negligence . to the danger of injury to person or property of others.the nature of the act of jumping into the sea involves danger Degrees of Diligence Amedo v. Workmen’s Hitched a ride in the company's hauling truck which hit a coconut tree Notorious negligence = gross negligence GROSS NEGLIGENCE: implying 1) conscious indifference to consequences 2) pursuing a course of conduct which would naturally and probably result in injury 3) utter disregard of consequences Violation of a rule promulgated by a commission or board is not negligence per se.
one of many standards Standard of Conduct . acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act. operation was only to determine infertility. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them. not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected STANDARD supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law Conduct of a prudent man determined in the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case TESTS: 1) Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? 2) Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against its consequences SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Same with Amedo: whether the act in question is dangerous per se (here.Picart v.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Doctor did not arrive on time to perform operation. or the entire absence of care. Smith In General Horse on the wrong side of the bridge Paterfamilias . It is characterized by want of even slight care. Ronquillo Standard of Conduct . just got back from honeymoon in Hawaii GROSS NEGLIGENCE: implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence. Jorge In General Pawnshop robbed The diligence with which the law requires the individual at all times to govern his conduct varies with the nature of the situation in which he is placed and the importance of the act which he is to perform .Sicam v. not to cure a life-threatening disease) Degrees of Diligence Ilao-Oreta v.
he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work which he attempts to do . In General Spouses Tanjangco Standard of Conduct . knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances Standard of Conduct .Ylarde v.Culion v. Manila Children Railroad Standard of Conduct .Pacis v.Corinthian Gardens v. CA Children Gift-wrapping counter Conclusive presumption that favors children fell on a 6-year old below nine years old in that they are child incapable of contributory negligence Child was pinned by a boulder The standard of conduct to which a child must conform for his own protection is that degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same age. and it is fortified by the fact that usually more will be required of a motorist than a bicyclist in discharging his duty of care to the other because of the physical advantages the automobile has over the bicycle Accidental discharge A higher degree of care is required of of a defective firearm someone who has in his possession or inside a gun store under his control an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character. capacity.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Subdivsion lot owners built house on a lot owned by another Collision of taxi and bicycle Same standard as in Picart v.Heirs of Completo v. Philippine Experts in General Motors Back fire occurred in When a person holds himself out as being the cylinder chamber competent to do things requiring professional skill. and this is to be determined in each case by the circumstances of the case Standard of Conduct .Taylor v. Special Circumstance Albayda Standard of Conduct .Jarco Marketing v. such as dangerous weapons or substances Child lost his eye due to explosion of fulminating caps found in the premises of Manila Railroad The care and caution required of a child is according to his maturity and capacity only. Aquino Children Standard of Conduct . discretion. Morales Special Circumstance The bicycle occupies a legal position that is at least equal to that of other vehicles lawfully on the highway. Smith = discreet paterfamilias SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Standard of Conduct .
" "care of a special high degree. no blood supply.US v. in the generality of cases.Cruz v. a matter of expert opinion. no antibiotics. The responsibility of the druggist to use care has been variously qualified as "ordinary care." "the highest degree of care known to practical men. and the skill employed must correspond with the superior knowledge of the business which the law demands Mistake is negligence and care is no defense SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Standard of Conduct . Needs expert testimony to establish the standard of care exercised by doctors in good standing.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Pineda sold barium chlorate (poisonous) instead of potassium chlorate which killed two horses The profession of pharmacy is one demanding care and skill." The care required must be commensurate with the danger involved. to determine if medical procedure perfromed according to the standard. to determine if the breach of duty is the proximate causation of the injury Standard of Conduct . and the most exact and reliable safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct of the business. no oxygen supply . For whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his patient is. so that human life may not constantly be exposed to the danger flowing from the substitution of deadly poisons for harmless medicines Whether or not a physician has committed an "inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of his patient is to be determined according to the standard of care observed by other members of the profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of the profession at the time of treatment or the present state of medical science. Pineda Pharmacists Standard of Conduct . De Pharmacists Leon Mercury Drug gave ear drops instead of eye drops Druggists must exercise the highest practicable degree of prudence and vigilance. CA Medical Professionals Clinic untidy.Mercury Drug v.
a physician is under a duty to exercise that degree of care. Stated otherwise. Left 2 sponges in the Medical Agana body of Agana.Professional Services v.Cayao-Lasam v. no expert testimony Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally. Dr. The emerging trend is to hold the hospital responsible where the hospital has failed to monitor and review medical services being provided within its walls. and that failure or action caused injury to the patient. Medical Spouses Ramolete Professionals Ectopic pregnancy. a No need for expert testimony because it is already obvious (RIL) patient must only prove that a health care provider either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done. the physician has the duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably competent physician would use to treat the condition under similar circumstances. patient did not return for a follow up check up Standard of Conduct . skill and diligence which physicians in the same general neighborhood and in the same general line of practice ordinarily possess and exercise in like cases. .Lucas v.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Standard of Conduct . or that he did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done. and in like surrounding circumstances In treating his patient. under similar conditions. Standard of Conduct . was given Maxitrol. Professionals doctor did not inform her To successfully pursue this kind of case. Tuano Medical Professionals Eye problem.
RIL not applicable because there is direct evidence Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant. cannot be availed of.can only be invoked when direct evidence is absent and not readily available. that the accident arose from want of care. it was defendant who raised the doctrine) Can defendant really raise RIL? IMPOSSIBLE Notes of KatM: Only allowed if the defendant is pursuing a counterclaim RIL . in the absence of an explanation by the defendant. not a rule of substantive law but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience. IAC IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Repairing tire of cargo truck which was parked along the right side of the national highway. RIL . it affords reasonable evidence. and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care.rule of evidence peculiar to the law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence. not the defendant (in this case. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S The one who usually raises RIL is the party injured.TOPIC Res Ipsa Loquitor CASE Layugan v. or is overcome 1) where plaintiff has knowledge and testifies or presents evidence as to the specific act of negligence which is the cause of the injury complained of 2) where there is direct evidence as to the precise cause of the accident and all the facts and circumstances attendant on the occurrence clearly appear 3) once the actual cause of injury is established beyond controversy . hit by another truck.
or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case. custody and control of his physician Simply a recognition that. applied in conjunction with the doctrine of common knowledge . Bridwell . as a matter of 2) physician had complete and exclusive control common knowledge and experience.no operation happened.this is how you draw the line: 1) delivered his person over to the care. wrong intubation by anaesthesiologist RIL .the fact of the occurrence of an injury. may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence.TOPIC Res Ipsa Loquitor CASE Ramos v. taken with the surrounding circumstances. the very over him nature of certain types of occurrences may 3) operation was never performed 4) at the time of submission he was neurologically justify an inference of negligence on the sound and physically fit in mind and body part of the person who controls the 5) injury was one which does not ordinarily occur in instrumentality causing the injury in the the absence of negligence absence of some explanation by the defendant who is charged with negligence. and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S What is involved here is pre-operation . CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Doctor late. the qualifications of the physician was not involved Similar with Voss vs.
the need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence When RIL is appropriate. caused by burn from droplight Why expert testimony was dispensed with? Because injury was not connected to the procedure. decisions you make prior to operation constitutes contribution . Go Gave birth. 2) It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants. fresh Requisites .pls see above RIL should not have been applied here. JAM Transit Jitney loaded with quail eggs and duck eggs. need only establish that the driver of JAM was negligent because he was violating traffic regulation Even if there is evidence.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Malpractice suits: REQUISITES OF RIL: General Rule: Expert testimony needed 1) The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s Exception: Case can be gleaned from knowledge negligence. all that the patient must do is prove a nexus between the particular act or omission complained of and the injury sustained while under the custody and management of the defendant without need to produce expert medical testimony to establish the standard of care Res Ipsa Loquitor Tan v.pls see above gaping wound on the arm.not a proper application. JAM Transit collided with jitney Requisites . merely incidental Application for #3 requisite (could not have contributed to the injury because she was unconscious) . provided it is not clear and convincing to say that a person is negligent. RIL still applies Res Ipsa Loquitor Cantre v. and 3) The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated When RIL is availed by the plaintiff.
REQUISITES for the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur: 1) the occurrence of an injury 2) the thing which caused the injury was under the control and management of the defendant 3) the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things. that the accident arose from want of care. in the absence of an explanation by the defendant. Where the thing which causes injury is shown doctor left rubber to be under the management of the glove inside the body defendant. would not have happened if those who had control or management used proper care 4) the absence of explanation by the defendant Of the foregoing requisites. the most instrumental is the “control and management of the thing which caused the injury" SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Why is there no expert testimony when this pertains to a medical operation? Leaving a foreign thing inside the human body speaks for itself that doctor in charge is negligent. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Caesarian operation.TOPIC Res Ipsa Loquitor CASE Batiquin v. and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen in those who have the management use proper care. it affords reasonable evidence. See above Agana Control also pertains to constructive control . RIL applies Res Ipsa Loquitor Professional Services v.
It is not for the defendant to explain or prove its defense to prevent the presumption or inference from arising. Once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of all the elements. such as that of due care or innocence. comes into play only after the circumstances for the application of the doctrine has been established. whether culpable or innocent. under appropriate circumstances a disputable presumption. the burden then shifts to defendant to explain. or that the party to be charged with negligence has superior knowledge or opportunity for explanation of the accident. Evidence by the defendant of say.TOPIC Res Ipsa Loquitor CASE DM Consunji v. may outweigh the inference. due care. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Construction worker fell 14 floors The inference which the doctrine permits is grounded upon the fact that the chief evidence of the true cause. Some courts add to the three prerequisites for the application of the RIL doctrine the further requirement that for the doctrine to apply. is practically accessible to the defendant but inaccessible to the injured person. it must appear that the injured party had no knowledge or means of knowledge as to the cause of the accident. The presumption or inference may be rebutted or overcome by other evidence and. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S .
by his own carelessness contributes to the principal occurrence.pls see above SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Merong testimony/evidence .TOPIC Res Ipsa Loquitor CASE College Assurance v. This is equally true of the defendant. RIL will not apply Defenses against Bernardo v. as one of the determining causes thereof. neither can recover. he cannot recover. contributed to the determining cause of the accident.ch Plaintiffs' jeep ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench. RIL still applies If direct evidence of negligence is present. Legaspi charge of negligence plaintiff's negligence is proximate cause Where the plaintiff in a negligence action. not proof of negligence. Belfranlt IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Fire due to coffee perculator Requisites . CA charge of negligence plaintiff's negligence is proximate cause . to the accident. they pass the area/road frequently. and as both of them. by their negligent acts. he has no right to recover damages for the injuries he suffered Defenses against PLDT v. that is. As long as there's no direct evidence as to the negligence of the defendant. accident caused by the abrupt swerving of the jeep from the inside lane Where the plaintiff's negligence was not merely contributory but goes to the very cause of the accident.why is RIL applied? The evidence pertains to the source of the fire.
charge of negligence . and efficient cause of the injury. if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct. unrelated.would have been the proximate basis of an action if such remote cause did cause if not for the intervening cause nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible. And if an independent negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the circumstances which result in injury because of the prior defective condition. even though such injury would not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed in the condition except because of the independent cause. successive. such condition was not the proximate cause. . such subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Repair of the media agua SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Defenses against Manila Electric v.Remoquillo plaintiff's negligence is proximate cause A prior and remote cause cannot be made the Remote cause .
as one of its determining factors.negligence which aggravates the injury own injury. CA charge of negligence contributory negligence of plaintiff Rig overtaking another rig hit an old woman. Heirs of charge of negligence . . which falls below the standard which he is required to conform for his own protection. Defenses against Genobiagon v.H. On warning signs (Ma-ao Sugar Central ): To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries. defense was old woman's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident The defense of contributory negligence does What about proximate cause? Can it be a defense? not apply in criminal cases committed through YES. CA reckless imprudence. Where. There is contributory negligence when the party’s act showed lack of ordinary care and foresight that such act could cause him harm or put his life in danger. concurring with the defendant’s negligence. he contributes only to his CN . citing Cruz v. in conjunction with the occurrence. It is an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured which. Rakes v.Atlantic contributory negligence of plaintiff Where he contributes to the principal Proximate cause . contributing as a proximate cause legal cause to the harm he has suffered. since one cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence Defenses against M. he may recover the amount that the defendant responsible for the event should pay for such injury.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Defenses against NPC v. is the proximate cause of the injury. less a sum deemed a suitable equivalent for his own imprudence.Casionan contributory negligence of plaintiff Pocket miner carrying Contributory negligence is conduct on the Definition of CN problematic because it makes CN bamboo electrocuted part of the injured party. it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warnings or signs on an impending danger to health and body. accident he can not recover. The charge of negligence .negligence which caused the occurrence.
negligence is contributory only when it contributes proximately to the injury. In a legal sense. which falls Hindi si Rhonda ang may CN below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection. To prove contributory negligence.Castillon contributory negligence of plaintiff The underlying precept on contributory The court held 50-50. and not simply a condition for its occurrence. contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Riding a motorcycle. it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warning or signs of an impending danger to health and body. imbibed one or two bottles of beer SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Defenses against Lambert v. between the negligence of the party and the succeeding injury. Contributory negligence is conduct on the part Doctrine is contradictory of the injured party. The only effect such contributory negligence could have is to mitigate liability Defenses against PNR v. The defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence. tailgating Tamaraw. although not proximate. Heirs of Ray charge of negligence . The determination of the mitigation of the defendant’s liability varies depending on the circumstances of each case. Brunty charge of negligence contributory negligence of plaintiff See above . To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries. it is still necessary to establish a causal link. speeding. It would make CN equal to negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly proximate cause responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence.
or neglect. Paras. epidemics.. it must be impossible to avoid 3) The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner 4) The obligor (debtor) must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Necesito. or if it can be foreseen.When the effect is found to be partly the result of the participation of man — whether it be from active intervention. floods. governmental prohibitions.. v. with regard to inspection and application of the necessary tests All the requisites must concur before defense of FE is available Defenses against Juntilla v. An act of God cannot be invoked for the protection of a person who has been guilty of gross negligence in not trying to forestall its possible adverse consequences. could be simultaneous negligence Not necessary gross negligence . et al. attack by bandits. must be independent of the human will 2) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the caso fortuito. Not necessary previous negligence.: A passenger is entitled to recover damages from a carrier for an injury.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Tire of jeep blew up Essential characteristics of caso fortuito: causing the vehicle to 1) The cause of the unforeseen and fall on its side unexpected occurrence. and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God.. storms.. or (2) by the act of man. roof of school was ripped off and blown away. Fontanar charge of negligence fortuitous event Defenses against Southeastern College charge of negligence fortuitous event Due to a storm. robbery In order that a fortuitous event may exempt a person from liability. it is necessary that he be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by reason of which the loss may have been occasioned. such as an armed invasion.whenever it appears that the defect would have been discovered by the carrier if it had exercised the degree of care which under the circumstances was incumbent upon it. such as earthquakes. destroying the roof of Dimaanos FE may be produced by two general causes: (1) by nature. or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation. et al. or failure to act — the whole occurrence is hereby humanized. fires.
Hisole charge of negligence plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria Defenses against Ilocos Norte v. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S The very measures which petitioners had allegedly adopted show that to them the possibility of robbery was not only foreseeable. CA charge of negligence plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria Caretaker of It was the caretaker's business to try to carabaos gored by prevent the animal from causing injury or one of them and died damage to anyone. It is akin to arguing that the injuries to the many victims of the tragedies in our seas should not be compensated merely because those passengers assumed a greater risk of drowning by boarding an overloaded ferry. VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA .applies to noncontractual relations REQUISITES: 1) plaintiff had actual knowledge of the damage 2) he understood and appreciated the risk from danger 3) he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk .TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE See above Fortuitous events by definition are extraordinary events not foreseeable or avoidable.only makes the defense available to the negligent which in effect makes it impossible to raise as a defense Robbery is a FE but the defense of FE may or may not be available Defenses against Sicam v. but actually foreseen and anticipated. It is therefore. Jorge charge of negligence fortuitous event Defenses against Afialda v. Petitioner Sicam’s testimony contradicts petitioners’ defense of fortuitous event. including himself. not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or anticipated. CA charge of negligence plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria Defenses against Calalas v. SIR: Act of taking measures should not bar the defense of FE . as is commonly believed but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences. Old woman A person is excused from the force of the electrocuted while rule. And being injured by the animal under those circumstances. The mere difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same. that when he voluntarily assents to a she was going to her known danger he must abide by the store to check her consequences: merchandise 1) if an emergency is found to exist 2) if the life or property of another is in peril 3) when he seeks to rescue his endangered property See above Hard to give serious thought to contention that taking an "extension seat" amounted to an implied assumption of risk.
were still under obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to unnecessary ridicule and shame. other tourists got irritated Collision of two sea vessels Why different from Nikko Hotel? Pantaleon's cause of action is BoC. . which is the time when the cause of action arises. credit Same with Nikko Hotel but in this case. Roberto charge of negligence . not Articles 19-21 Under Article 1146 of the Civil Code. even if he is not negligent in doing so. The prescriptive period begins from the day the quasi-delict is committed. under Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code. however. the card company took doctrine is applicable long to approve transaction. an If multiple collision or oil spill where there are many action based upon a quasi-delict must be ships . Prescriptive period must be counted from the time of the commission of an act or omission violative of the right of the plaintiff.it is reasonable to wait for the BMI's findings instituted within four years. CA charge of negligence prescription European tour.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Gatecrasher during the birthday party of the manager of Nikko Hotel The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria ("to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury") refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger. American charge of negligence .Express plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria Defenses against Kramer v. petitioners. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Defenses against Nikko Hotel v.Reyes plaintiff's assumption of risk / volenti non fit injuria Defenses against Pantaleon v. As formulated by petitioners. this doctrine does not find application to the case at bar because even if respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave the party.
produces the injury. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person. in natural and continuous sequence. and without which the result would not have occurred SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Regardless of proximate cause. each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor.TOPIC Proximate Cause CASE Bataclan v. all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events. apply Pilipinas Bank definition the result complained of and without which would not have occurred and from which it ought to have been forseen or reasonably anticipated by a person of ordinary case that the injury complained of or some similar injury. Medina IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Bus turned turtle. carrier is still liable. caught fire. upon a combined consideration of logic. They had to discuss proximate PROXIMATE LEGAL CAUSE: that acting first cause to make carrier liable for the death of the and producing the injury. the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted. policy. gasoline leaked. defendant would only be liable for physical injuries. under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should. Proximate Cause Mercury Drug v. either immediately victims . deposit posted in another account . and precedent. have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom Proximate cause is determined from the facts of each case.to increase damages or by setting other events in motion. which. Proximate cause does not matter is BoC Why did Court discuss proximate cause? Because under BoC. Baking Given a potent sleeping tablet Proximate Cause Pilipinas Bank v. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. produces If there's a case similar to Pilipinas Bank. would result therefrom as a natural and probable consequence. passengers who were stuck inside were charred to death PROXIMATE CAUSE: that cause. CA Wrong account number. in natural and continuous sequence. Foreseeability should not be a factor PROXIMATE CAUSE: any cause which. common sense.
the injury may be attributed to all or any of the causes and recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons although under the circumstances of the case. See above See above Remote Cause Manila Electric v. and that the duty owed by them to the injured person was not the same. Remoquillo See above . without the negligence or wrongful acts of the other concurrent tortfeasor. Araneta Horse nakawala No actor's negligence ceases to be a proximate cause merely because it does not exceed the negligence of other actors. An appreciable interval of time elapsed before It was broken by an efficient intervening cause the horse started on his career up the street. it may appear that one of them was more culpable. Where several causes producing an injury are concurrent and each is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have happened. a person is not relieved from liability because he is responsible for only one of them.TOPIC Concurrent Cause CASE Far Eastern v. it being sufficient that the negligence of the person charged with injury is an efficient cause without which the injury would not have resulted to as great an extent. and that such cause is not attributable to the person injured. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Berthing of vessel Where several causes combine to produce injuries. the degree of participation does not matter What is the rule on liability? Liability is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury Remote Cause Gabeto v. It is no defense to one of the concurrent tortfeasors that the injury would not have resulted from his negligence alone. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S If the concurrent act was the proximate cause. It is therefore evident that the stopping of the Prove chronology of events to determine proximate rig by Agaton Araneta in the middle of the cause street was too remote from the accident that presently ensued to be considered the legal or proximate cause thereof. Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the injury.
the defendant may be negligence among other reasons. Plaintiff must. because of failure to guard against it. otherwise. establish a sufficient link between the act or omission and the damage or injury. common sense. Came home from a IAC cocktail party. The damage or injury must be a natural and probable result of the act or omission. or the defendant may be negligent only for that reason. no headlights probably because driver has no pass. Tests to Determine Proximate Cause Dy Teban v. truck parked askew If the intervening cause is one which in When does it become an efficient intervening ordinary human experience is reasonably to cause? Should not be foreseeable be anticipated or one which the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances. Foreseeable intervening forces are within the scope original risk. Jose Ching Prime mover parked askew There is no exact mathematical formula to determine proximate cause. policy and precedent. and hence of the defendant's negligence.TOPIC Intervening Cause CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Phoenix Construction v. . to which the defendant has subjected the plaintiff has indeed come to pass. The defendant cannot be relieved from liability by the fact that the risk or a substantial and important part of the risk. It is based upon mixed considerations of logic. That link must not be remote or farfetched. no liability will attach. however.
. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Phoenix Construction v. particularly since. without reference to the prior negligence of the other party. Smith See above The person who has the last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the consequences." It is quite impossible to distinguish between active forces and passive situations. as is invariably the case. It is not the distinction between "cause" and "condition" which is important but the nature of the risk and the character of the intervening cause. Even the lapse of a considerable time during which the "condition" remains static will not necessarily affect liability. See above IAC Last Clear Chance Picart v.TOPIC Tests to Determine Proximate Cause CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE The distinctions between "cause" and "condition" have already been "almost entirely discredited. the latter are the result of other active forces which have gone before.
CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Collision between truck and bus. As against third persons. use LCC Issue of control is secondary. is only one of the relevant factors that may be taken into account. the task of a court. It does not arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations. as the petitioners seem to imply by the use of terms like "last" or "intervening" or "immediate.TOPIC Last Clear Chance CASE Bustamante v. kapag may CN plaintiff cannot recover) LCC not applicable in our jurisdiction because of Article 2179 ." The relative location in the continuum of time of the plaintiff's and the defendant's negligent acts or omissions. That task is not simply or even primarily an exercise in chronology or physics.reason for the rule does not exist in our jurisdiction LCC . See above IAC Under Article 2179. For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence. heirs of passengers sued owners of colliding vehicles The principle of LCC applies in a suit between the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles. in technical terms. Common law . Of more fundamental importance are the nature of the negligent act or omission of each party and the character and gravity of the risks created by such act or omission for the rest of the community. is to determine whose negligence was the legal or proximate cause of the injury. person who is last in control may be applied . and it cannot be invoked as between defendants concurrently negligent. first is nature of negligent act.sort of back up to determine proximate cause. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S This is not a suit between the owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles Last Clear Chance Phoenix Construction v. if you cannot BUT-FOR to determine PC. As between defendants. a negligent actor cannot defend by pleading that another had negligently failed to take action which could have avoided the injury. the doctrine cannot be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors as a test of whether only one of them should be held liable to the injured person by reason of his discovery of the latter's peril.LCC tempers contributory negligence of plaintiff such that he can recover provided defendant has the last clear chance to avoid the accident (sa US kasi. If nature of negligent act is relatively the same.
For LCC to be applicable. Smith. altered the second one Last Clear Chance Glan v. with the exercise of due care. have been aware of it Last Clear Chance Pantrangco v. The rule would also mean that an antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for the supervening negligence of.TOPIC Last Clear Chance CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE LCC states that where both parties are negligent. could have avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Commercial transactions are repetitive . it is necessary to Vda de Bonifacio . Baesa Two families on their way to celebrate wedding anniversary of the other couple . or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident. CA with funds deposits money in the bank account of husband. or bar a defense against liability sought by another. accomplished two deposit slips.motorist in proper lane entitled show that the person who allegedly had the to assume that approaching vehicle coming from last opportunity to avert the accident was wrong side will return to proper lane aware of the existence of the peril or should.LCC as valid and complete a defense to accident applicable in our jurisdiction liability today as it did when invoked and applied in the 1918 case of Picart vs. who had the last fair chance. IAC Collision between jeep and truck The doctrine of the last clear chance provides Doctrine here counteracts Phoenix .difficult to determine what's the first negligent act Problematic: 1) there was already a breach of contract 2) Court already determined proximate cause 3) they still applied CN after applying LCC Phil Bank of Commerce Secretary entrusted v. the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof. if the latter. but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other.
EMERGENCY RULE . Brunty See above . CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Mortgage executed by impostor LCC . SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Last Clear Chance Consolidated Bank v. Last Clear Chance Engada v. is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom. he cannot be held to the same standard of conduct as one who had an opportunity to reflect. would exonerate the defendant from liability. even though it later appears that he made the wrong decision. the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so. we hold that the above doctrine finds no application in the instant case. Thus. or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident. The proximate cause of the injury having been established to be the negligence of petitioner. neither the contributory LCC does not apply in BoC negligence of the plaintiff nor his last clear chance to avoid the loss.TOPIC Last Clear Chance CASE Canlas v. CA See above In culpa contractual. CA Emergency rule Last Clear Chance PNR v.where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other. who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. Such contributory negligence or last clear chance by the plaintiff merely serves to reduce the recovery of damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from his breach of contract. The rule is that the antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude recovery of damages caused by the supervening negligence of the latter.a person who is confronted with a sudden emergency might have no time for thought. and he must make a prompt decision based largely upon impulse or instinct.
However. Under Article 2180. This was amplified by the Child and Youth Welfare Code which provides that the same shall devolve upon the father and. IAC Why was LCC applied here when the Court ruled that both were equally negligent? Shouldn't there have been concurrent negligence? Sweethearts killed. in case of her death or incapacity. without such alternative qualification. the mother. unless it is proven that the former acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such damages.Persons Exercising Parental Authority Libi v. not alternative girlfriend and also offenses committed by their minor children killed himself using under their legal authority or control. but the liability may also be voluntarily assumed by a relative or family friend of the youthful offender. upon the mother or. this civil liability is now. under the Family Code. . ex. the enforcement of such liability shall be effected against the father and. the responsibility of the parents and those who exercise parental authority over the minor offender. or who gun of the father live in their company.TOPIC Last Clear Chance CASE Lapanday v.Parents are and should be held primarily Family Code amended Article 2180 such that boyfriend killed exliable for the civil liability arising from criminal parents are equally liable. in case of his death or incapacity. in case of his death or incapacity. Angala IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Persons Vicariously Liable . upon the guardian.
including recess time . Article 221 of the FC has similarly insisted upon the requisite that the child. shall have been in the actual custody of the parents sought to be held liable for the ensuing damage. of course. The civil law assumes that when an unemancipated child living with its parents commits a tortious acts. Persons Vicariously Liable Teachers/School Palisoc v. control of parent may be seen to be based upon the parental authority vested by the Civil Code upon such parents. the parents were negligent in the performance of their legal and natural duty to closely supervise the child who is in their custody and control. doer of the tortious act.TOPIC Persons Vicariously Liable . The parental dereliction is. only presumed and the presumption can be overtuned under Article 2180 of the Civil Code by proof that the parents had exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. Brillantes Contention was students were not living and boarding with teacher or school official (based on Mercado ruling) "so long as (the students) remain in their custody" means the protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long as they are at attendance in the school.Persons Exercising Parental Authority CASE Tamargo v. Parental liability is. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Parental authority contested if it lies with adoptive or natural parents SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S The civil liability imposed upon parents for the Law presumes minor living with parent is under the torts of their minor children living with them. in other words. anchored upon parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompanying such authority.
not over the person injured is technical in nature. or the area within which the school activity is conducted The mere fact of being enrolled or being in the premises of a school without more does not constitute "attending school" or being in the "protective and supervisory custody" of the school. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S About to graduate. Persons Vicariously Liable Teachers/School St.TOPIC Persons Vicariously Liable Teachers/School CASE Amadora v. Teachers in general shall be liable for the Issue should be custody over the person causing shot by fellow student acts of their students except where the school the injury. Carpitanos Enrolment campaign There must be a finding that the act or drive omission considered as negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the negligence must have a causal connection to the accident Applying Article 218. in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. QD because it requires proximate cause To determine when liability arises: 1) Look at person who caused the injury 2) Is he within custody? 3) Was he negligent? 4) Was negligence proximate cause of the injury? . Persons Vicariously Liable Teachers/School Salvosa v. Mary’s Academy v. "in the custody" .as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its premises. IAC Student and at the same time armorer A student not "at attendance in the school" cannot be in "recess" thereat RECESS . whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended.contemplates a situation of temporary adjournment of school activities where the student still remains within call of his mentor and is not permitted to leave the school premises.
a presumption instantly arises of the actor. vehicle owned by another person Doctrine of vicarious liability is not applicable in cases wherein there is no employeremployee relationship REQUISITES to sustain claims against employers for the acts of their employees: 1) That the employee was chosen by the employer personally or through another 2) That the service to be rendered in accordance with orders which the employer has the authority to give at all times 3) That the illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to him To make the employer liable under paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 2180. it must be established that the injurious or tortuous act was committed at the time the employee was performing his functions Persons Vicariously Spouses Jayme v. not of the employer that the employer was negligent in the selection and/or supervision of said employee.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Persons Vicariously Lampesa v. Liable Apostol Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Four-fold Test to determine the existence of an employment relationship: 1) the employer’s power of selection 2) payment of wages or other remuneration 3) the employer’s right to control the method of doing the work 4) the employer’s right of suspension or dismissal . Mayor on board vehicle on their way to airport. driver employee of the municipality. De Vera Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Left middle finger cut Once negligence on the part of the employee Proximate cause should go into the the negligence off is established. the employer must present adequate and convincing proof that he exercised care and diligence in the selection and supervision of his employees. To rebut this presumption.
TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Fuente Osmena Rotunda in Cebu Filamer doctrine Operation of Employer’s Motor Vehicle in Going to or from Meals NOT ordinarily acting within the scope of his employment in the absence of evidence of some special business benefit to the employer (Example: by using the employer’s vehicle to go to and from meals. or to go to and from his home to various outside places of work. Vasquez Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers . When employer liable: 1) As when the employer benefits from having the employee at work earlier and. an employee is enabled to reduce his time-off and so devote more time to the performance of his duties) Operation of Employer’s Vehicle in Going to or from Work In the absence of some special benefit to the employer other than the mere performance of the services available at the place where he is needed. the employee is not acting within the scope of his employment. and his employer furnishes him with a vehicle to use in his work (“special errand” or “roving commission” rule) under which it can be found that the employee continues in the service of his employer until he actually reaches home SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Persons Vicariously Castilex v. presumably. spending more time at his actual duties 2) Where the employee’s duties require him to circulate in a general area with no fixed place or hours of work.
CA Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Article 2180 of the Civil Code and not the To give laborers relief in cases of labor disputes Labor Code will determine the liability of a kaya sila considered as employees principal contractor in a civil suit for damages instituted by an injured person for any negligent act of the employees of the "labor only" contractor. including the latter's workers. This is consistent with the ruling that a finding that a contractor was a "labor-only" contractor is equivalent to a finding that an employer-employee relationship existed between the owner (principal contractor) and the "labor-only" contractor. in furtherance of the interests of the employer or for the account of the employer at the time of the infliction of the injury or damage Labor only SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Persons Vicariously Filamer v. the employee has left the direct route to his work or back home and is pursuing a personal errand of his own. IAC Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Persons Vicariously NPC v. Use of Employer’s Vehicle Outside Regular Working Hours Generally not liable for the employee’s negligent operation of the vehicle during the period of permissive use. includes any act done by an employee. even where the employer contemplates that a regularly assigned motor vehicle will be used by the employee for personal as well as business purposes and there is some incidental benefit to the employer "within the scope of their assigned tasks" for purposes of raising the presumption of liability of an employer.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE However. . even if the employee be deemed to be acting within the scope of his employment in going to or from work in his employer’s vehicle. the employer is not liable for his negligence where at the time of the accident.
the provision for the unlimited use of a company car therefore principally serves the business and goodwill of a company and only incidentally the private purposes of the individual who actually uses the car. See above Liable Agana Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Refer to KatM's notes Ramos ruling . in providing for a company car for business use and/or for the purpose of furthering the company’s image. a company owes a responsibility to the public to see to it that the managerial or other employees to whom it entrusts virtually unlimited use of a company issued car are able to use the company issue capably and responsibly. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Persons Vicariously Valenzuela v.there is ER-EE relationship between Medical City and Dr.to enable its managerial and other employees of rank or its sales agents to reach clients conveniently Since important business transactions and decisions may occur at all hours in all sorts of situations and under all kinds of guises. Ampil Refer to KatM's notes Ramos doctrine stays . the managerial employee or company sales agent. CA Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Persons Vicariously Professional Services v.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Flat tire Company-issued car serves important business purpose: 1) Related to the image of success an entity intends to present to its clients and to the public in general 2) For practical and utilitarian reasons . See above Liable Agana Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Persons Vicariously Professional Services v. As such.
To establish compliance with these requirements. 2180 of the Civil Code is direct or immediate. the employer is required to examine them as to their qualifications. and impose disciplinary measures for their breach. or a prior showing of insolvency of such employee. To be relieved of liability. and service records.doctors are merely consultants without any ER-EE relationship Persons Vicariously Professional Services v. including documentary evidence. in the selection of its prospective employees. With respect to the supervision of its employees. Huang Liable Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Collision between truck owned by Mercury Drug and Toyota Corolla dirven by Huang. both in the selection of the employee and in the supervision of the performance of his duties. . See above Liable Agana Owners/Managers of Establishments/Empl oyers Persons Vicariously Mercury Drug v. the employer should show that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family. Ampil . It is also joint and solidary with the employee. Huang paralyzed The liability of the employer under Art. employers must submit concrete proof. It is not conditioned on a prior recourse against the negligent employee.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Refer to KatM's notes SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S No EE-ER relationship between Medical City and Dr. monitor their implementation. experience. the employer should formulate standard operating procedures. Thus.
one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission. and not where the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to a public official charged with some administrative or technical office who can be held to the proper responsibility in the manner laid down by the law of civil responsibility. Government IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Collision between motorcycle and PGH ambulance. 1) pubic official performing other task duly empowered by a definite order or 2) private individual perfroming governmental task commission to perform some act or charged with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim. Government passed an Act authorizing Meritt to sue the Government SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S The responsibility of the state is limited to that Special agent which it contracts through a special agent.State CASE Meritt v.TOPIC Persons Vicariously Liable . SPECIAL AGENT . foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official .
State CASE Rosete v. the word official comprises all officials and employees of the government who exercise duties of their respective public offices. caught fire The Civil Code distinguishes the special agent from the official with specific duty or duties to perform. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Persons Vicariously Liable . All others who are acting by commission of the government belong to the class of special agents. unless expressly made so by statute. In so far as its governmental functions are concerned. regardless of department or branch. In qualifying the special agent with the adjective "special".State Mendoza v.TOPIC Persons Vicariously Liable . . imposed upon them by law. There cannot be any dispute that all persons in the active service of the government. because its authors could not miss the fact that the official is also an agent. All of them are properly designated as servants of the people. Auditor General IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Emergency Control Administration stored gasoline in a warehouse. Servants are agents. a municipality is not liable at all. whether individual or juridical bodies. Under the meaning of the paragraph. nor are its officers. which refers to all officers and employees in the public service. the Civil Code aimed at distinguishing it from the regular or ordinary agent of government. De Leon Council members revoked a lease for an exclusive ferry privilege awarded to Mendoza and gave it to someone else It is the well-settled rule that the state is not liable to private persons who suffer injuries through the negligence of its officers — and the rule extends to township and cities — while in the performance of state functions. are agents of the State or of the people. so long as they perform their duties honestly and in good faith. The Civil Code uses the adjective "special". violating an ordinance.
It is for these purposes that the municipality is made liable to suits in the courts. validly entered into. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S . Its contracts. it is to be regarded as a private corporation or individual so far as its liability to third persons on contract or in tort is concerned.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE A municipality is not exempt from liability for the negligent performance of its corporate or proprietary or business functions. In the administration of its patrimonial property. may be enforced and damages may be collected from it for the torts of its officers or agents within the scope of their employment in precisely the same manner and to the same extent as those of private corporations or individuals. As to such matters the principles of respondeat superior applies.
if a public official. Where the government commissions a private individual for a special governmental task. it is acting through a special agent within the meaning of the provision. it may be held liable for the damages caused by the negligent act of its driver who was not its special agent. If the State's agent is not a public official. the State has voluntarily assumed liability for acts done through special agents. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Persons Vicariously Liable .State CASE Fontanilla v. . Maliaman Motion for Recon NIA is a government agency with a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government. It is not a mere agency of the government but a corporate body performing proprietary functions. must not only be specially commissioned to do a particular task but that such task must be foreign to said official's usual governmental functions. Therefore.TOPIC Persons Vicariously Liable . then the State assumes the role of an ordinary employer and will be held liable as such for its agent's tort. The State's agent. Maliaman IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Pickup owned by NIA The liability of the State has two aspects: bumped a bicycle 1) Its public or governmental aspects where it ridden by Fontanilla is liable for the tortious acts of special agents only 2) Its private or business aspects (as when it engages in private enterprises) where it becomes liable as an ordinary employer Under Art. 2180(6).State Fontanilla v. and is commissioned to perform non-governmental functions.
TOPIC Persons Specifically Liable . It is based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility. The law does not speak only of vicious animals but covers even tame ones as long as they cause injury. And it does not matter either that. pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such animal may cause. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S . the dog was tame and was merely provoked by the child into biting her. as the petitioners also contend. IAC IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Little girl bitten by dog Article 2183 of the Civil Code holds the possessor liable even if the animal should "escape or be lost" and so be removed from his control.Possessors of Animals CASE Vestil v. According to Manresa the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal causing the damage.
although present therein at the time the act was committed. .Owner of Motor Vehicles CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Chapman v. the owner of the automobile. if the driver. and permits his driver to continue in a circumstance violation of the law by the performance of negligent acts. after he has had a reasonable Nearly impossible. therefor. On the other hand. The act complained of must be continued in the presence of the owner for such a length a time that the owner. depends on his vehicle.TOPIC Persons Specifically Liable . gamitin na lang ang Article 2180 opportunity to observe them and to direct that the driver cease therefrom. becomes himself responsible for such acts. either civilly or criminally. by a sudden act of negligence. or other Diligence required . is not responsible. makes his driver's act his own. injures a person or violates the criminal law. Underwood Single-track street car line An owner who sits in his automobile.subjective. by his acquiescence. and without the owner having a reasonable opportunity to prevent the acts or its continuance.
is his omission to do that which the evidence of his own senses tells him he should do in order to avoid the accident. if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction by him. Yu Khe Thai IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE One car on the way to the airport. Kanaan Water dripping from a hotel room . necessarily subjective. reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent injury or damage. Car owners are not held to a uniform and inflexible standard of diligence as are professional drivers. to a great degree. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Persons Specifically Liable .Owner of Motor Vehicles CASE Caedo v. the other one to Wack Wack to play golf The test of imputed negligence under Article 2184 of the Civil Code is. Do not apply but-for. Municipalities Persons Specifically Liable . transformed/characterized Article 2189 as QD because of proximate cause and basis of moral damages Strict liability. The article only requires that either control or supervision is exercised over the defective road or street. city or municipality for liability to attach.Provincies. Decara Dingcong v.Provincies.proximate cause of injury SC required negligence. The law does not require that a person must possess a certain measure of skill or proficiency either in the mechanics of driving or in the observance of traffic rules before he may own a motor vehicle. The basis of the master's liability in civil law is not respondent superior but rather the relationship of paterfamilias. intervening cause Persons Specifically Liable . Cities. Dagupan It is not even necessary for the defective road Article 2189 not QD or street to belong to the province. Rammed into pile of earth/diggings QC negligent for not putting any warning or barricade . Municipalities Guilatco v. The theory is that ultimately the negligence of the servant.TOPIC Persons Specifically Liable . within the meaning of Article 2184. The test of his intelligence. not QD. Cities.Head of a Family for things thrown/falling Quezon City v.
and are descriptive of its character "in the course of" refer to the time. Singer Sewing Riding a bicycle from "arising out of" refer to the origin or cause Machine making collections of the accident. that it was received the employee while engaged in or about the furtherance of the affairs of the employer. If it be conceded that the injury originated in the work. To come within the term "injury received in the course of employment " it must be shown that the injury originated in the work.Owners of Enterprise/Other Employers CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Afable v. but only for such injuries arising from or growing out of the risks peculiar to the nature of the work in the scope of the workman's employment of incidental to such employment. place.TOPIC Persons Specifically Liable . and accidents in which it is possible to trace the injury to some risk or hazard to which the employee is exposed in a special degree by reason of such employment. Risks to which all persons similarly situated are equally exposed and not traceable in some special degree to the particular employment are excluded. it would still be necessary. and. . and circumstances under which the accident takes place By the use of these words it was not the intention of the legislature to make the employer an insurer against all accidental injuries which might happen to an employee while in the course of the employment. further. to show that the employee was engaged in the furtherance of his employer's business. in our opinion.
To make such a requisite would defeat the main purpose of Article 32 which is the effective protection of individual rights.Owners of Enterprise/Other Employers CASE Alarcon v. The very nature of Article 32 is that the wrong may be civil or criminal. Public officials in the past have abused their powers on the pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the performance of their duties. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Independent Civil MHP Garments v.TOPIC Persons Specifically Liable . it is not the actor alone who must answer for damages under Article 32. requiring its managers to contract the services of laborers. Precisely.Violation of Civil and Political Rights . the person indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party. Thus. Alarcon IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Dig a well Under the principle of ejusdem generis. It is not necessary therefore that there should be malice or bad faith. such as those operating a business or engaged in a particular industry or trade. the object of the Article is to put an end to official abuse by plea of the good faith. The law speaks of an officer or employee or person "directly or indirectly" responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. workers and/or employees. CA Actions . said "other employers" must be construed to refer to persons who belong to a class analogous to "owners of enterprises".
An individual can hold a public officer personally liable for damages on account of an act or omission that violates a constitutional right only if it results in a particular wrong or injury to the former While a separate and independent civil action for damages may be brought against the employee under Article 33 of the Civil Code. The complaint in the instant case was brought under Article 32 of the Civil Code.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE The Code Commission thus deemed it necessary to hold not only public officers but also private individuals civilly liable for violation of rights enumerated in Article 32 of the Civil Code. which is the effective protection of individual rights. otherwise. Actions . no such action may be filed against the employer on the latter's subsidiary civil liability because such liability is governed not by the Civil Code but by the Penal Code. That is why it is not even necessary that the defendant under this Article should have acted with malice or bad faith. Soluta Actions .Defamation. Fraud. It suffices that there is a violation of the constitutional right of the plaintiff.Violation of Civil and Political Rights Independent Civil Vinzons-Chato v. under which conviction of the employee is a condition sine qua non for the employer's subsidiary liability. Physical Injuries .Violation of Fortune Civil and Political Rights Independent Civil Joaquin v.Violation of Fortune Civil and Political Rights Independent Civil Vinzons-Chato v. the failure to specifically allege the same will not amount to failure to state a cause of action. Aniceto Actions . it would defeat its main purpose. Considering that bad faith and malice are not necessary in an action based on Article 32 of the Civil Code. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Independent Civil Silahis v. Actions .
or physical injuries. Fraud. It is not the crime of physical injuries defined in the Revised Penal Code. The present articles creates an exception to this rule when the offense is defamation. The term "physical injuries" is used in a generic sense.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Death because of appendectomy The civil action for damages which it allows to be instituted is ex-delicto. frustrated and attempted homicide. This is manifest from the provision which uses the expressions "criminal action" and "criminal prosecution. and after a criminal action has been commenced. the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action. even if there has been no reservation made by the injured party. no civil action arising from the same offense can be prosecuted. Physical Injuries .Defamation. the law itself in this article makes such reservation. unless the offended party reserves his right to institute it separately. The general rule is that when a criminal action is instituted. It includes not only physical injuries but consummated. Caro Actions . fraud. In these cases. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Independent Civil Madeja v. a civil action may be filed independently of the criminal action.
Fraud. . pendency or result of the criminal action because it is governed by the provisions of the New Civil Code and not by the Revised Penal Code governing the criminal offense charged and the civil liability arising therefrom. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Independent Civil Arafiles v. Physical Injuries Independent Civil Capuno v.Defamation. The term "physical injuries" in Article 33 includes bodily injuries causing death. as to the question of when been governed by Article 1146. Islamic Actions ." which means from the day the quasi-delict occurred or was committed The institution of a criminal action cannot have the effect of interrupting the institution of a civil action based on a quasi-delict. Physical Injuries Muslims treat pigs as Defamation of a large group does not give sacred rise to a cause of action on the part of an individual unless it can be shown that he is the target of the defamatory matter BP 22 The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. Physical Injuries Independent Civil MVRS v.Defamation. Fraud. Elvin Actions .Defamation. An action based on a QD is governed by Article 33 not QD.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE News report about Article 33 contemplates a civil action for the Arafiles being a rapist recovery of damages that is entirely unrelated to the purely criminal aspect of the case. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. Chan Fraud. "from the day (the action) may be brought. Phil Actions . par 1 the prescriptive period of four years shall begin to run. Prescriptive period should have Article 1150 of CC. A civil action for libel under this article shall be instituted and prosecuted to final judgment and proved by preponderance of evidence separately from and entirely independent of the institution. Journalists Fraud. that is. Pepsi Cola Actions .Defamation. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed. Physical Injuries Independent Civil Heirs of Simon v.
Article 33 of the Civil Code assumes a defamation. Physical Injuries Independent Civil Actions . to give the injured party personally the initiative to demand damages by an Criminal negligence.Defamation. is not one of the three crimes a dead person can no longer personally.Defamation. Paje Actions . 33 is used in a generic sense. fraud. Zosa Jervoso v. Fraud. of an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages. that is. CA Lawyer and security guard Velayo v. which shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall be proved only by a preponderance of evidence. It includes consummated. Fraud. Fraud. for the reason that imprudence. necessarily extinguished also the civil action for damages based upon the same act.Defamation. such declaration is implemented by Article 21 Forgoing rule would vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide for specifically in the statutes . frustrated. Physical Injuries FOOTNOTE: Physical Injuries is to be understood in its ordinary meaning and does not include homicide or murder because where physical injuries result in homicide or murder.Defamation. reckless independent civil action) ceases. that damages. through mentioned in Article 33 which authorizes the his lawyer institute an independent civil action for institution of an independent civil action.Abuse of Rights Bonite v. is. Physical Injuries Independent Civil Actions . The term "physical injuries" in Art. or attempted homicide Independent Civil Actions . or physical injuries intentionally committed. the reason for the law (namely. Physical Injuries Human Relation Torts . SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Independent Civil Corpus v. Shell Transferred credit to Shell US Article 19 only contains a mere declaration of principles and while such statement may be essentially correct. People Dulay v.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Criminal negligence The extinction of the criminal action by acquittal of the defendant on the ground that the criminal act charged against him did not exist. Fraud.
TOPIC Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights
CASE Globe Mackay v. CA
IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE "Crook" and "swindler"
SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S
When a right is exercised in a manner which Damnum absque injuria does not apply when there does not conform with the norms enshrined in is an abuse of right Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the government of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper. In determining whether or not the principle of abuse of rights may be invoked, there is no rigid test which can be applied - depends on the circumstances of each case.
The right of the employer to dismiss an employee should not be confused with the manner in which the right is exercised and the effects flowing therefrom. If the dismissal is done abusively, then the employer is liable for damages to the employee Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights Albenson v. CA Person sued for insufficient check was the wrong person; it was the father who was sued (namesake) Right suspended by TRO The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19: 1) There is a legal right or duty 2) Which is exercised in bad faith 3) For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it disappears when it is abused, especially to the prejudice of others. Article 19 - act must be intentional Article 20 - either intentional or unintentional Article 21 - intentional
Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights
Amonoy v. Gutierrez
Damnum absque injuria does not apply when there is an abuse of right Strange because there is no right already
TOPIC Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights
CASE UE v. Jader
IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Law student not able to take the bar because she got a 5 for which she was not informed on time
SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S
Absence of good faith must be sufficiently In determining applicability of Article 19: established for a successful prosecution by 1) Apply words of provision the aggrieved party in a suit for abuse of right 2) See if elements are present under Article 19 of the Civil Code. Good faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking undue advantage of another, even though the forms and technicalities of the law, together with the absence of all information or belief of facts, would render the transaction unconscientious. No abuse of right Test of Abuse of Right - There is undoubtedly an abuse of right when it is exercised for the only purpose of prejudicing or injuring another. The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established, and must not be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to injure another. Good faith refers to the state of the mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. Good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment to simple negligence, dishonest purpose or some moral obloquy and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or ill-will that partakes of the nature of fraud. Malice connotes ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive.
Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights
Collection for a sum of money
Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights
Diaz v. Davao Light
Theft of electricity
TOPIC Human Relation Torts - Abuse of Rights Human Relation Torts - Illegal Acts
CASE Pantaleon v. American Express Garcia v. Salvador
IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE
SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S No abuse of right
Wrong hepatitis test result
Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores
Velayo v. Shell
Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores
Albenson v. CA
Article 20 provides the legal basis for the award of damages to a party who suffers damage whenever one commits an act in violation of some legal provision. This was incorporated by the Code Commission to provide relief to a person who suffers damage because another has violated some legal provision. Every good law draws its breath of life from morals, from those principles which are written with words of fire in the conscience of man. If this premises is admitted, then the proposed rule is a prudent earnest of justice in the face of the impossibility of enumerating, one by one, all wrongs which cause damages. Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the following elements: 1) There is an act which is legal 2) But which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy 3) And it is done with intent to injure.
From Albenson : Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own sanction. Thus, anyone who, whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall indemnify his victim for injuries suffered thereby.
Human Relation Torts - Acts Contra Bonus Mores
Wassmer v. Velez
Groom to be went to Mindanao a day before the wedding
There is a common element under Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act must be intentional. This is not a case of mere breach of promise Humiliation + Expenses - basis of damages to marry. Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the abovedescribed preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21.
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 which followed thereafter.TOPIC Human Relation Torts . CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Woman got pregnant To constitute seduction there must in all cases be some sufficient promise or inducement and the woman must yield because of the promise or other inducement. that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals. however. which are calculated to have and do have that effect. and the defendant merely affords her the needed opportunity for the commission of the act. CA BAKSH RULE: Where a man's promise to Article 21 does not require proximate cause marry is in fact the proximate cause of the because it is not QD acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress. . It is not seduction where the willingness arises out of sexual desire or curiosity of the female. no intention of 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. She must be induced to depart from the path of virtue by the use of some species of arts. It is essential. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Human Relation Torts .Acts Contra Bonus Mores Baksh v. in reality. and which result in her ultimately submitting her person to the sexual embraces of her seducer. proof that he had.Acts Contra Bonus Mores CASE Tanjanco v. good customs or public policy. If she consents merely from carnal lust and the intercourse is from mutual desire. persuasions and wiles. there is no seduction.
that it was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless. daughter and man eloped The wrong he has caused her and her family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact that he is a married man. acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor. there must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person. tarnished their reputation No moral seduction Human Relation Torts . Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief. in a reasonable mind. IAC Stop payment order One cannot be held liable in damages for because goods were maliciously instituting a prosecution where he defective acted with probable cause. the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not make one liable for malicious prosecution Dismissal of the case does not automatically give rise to a cause of action for malicious prosecution Presence of probable cause signifies as a legal consequence absence of malice .TOPIC Human Relation Torts .Acts Contra Bonus Mores Que v. that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which be was prosecuted To constitute malicious prosecution.Acts Contra Bonus Mores CASE Pe v. Concededly. good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the new Civil Code. SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Pe took advantage of their family. He has committed an injury to Lolita's family in a manner contrary to morals. Pe IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Man is married.
One begun in malice without probable cause to believe the charges can be sustained. the prosecutor acted without probable cause 3) that the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice. CA IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Coup d'etat American Jurisdiction .Acts Contra Bonus Mores CASE Drilon v. or other legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause. 35.An action for damages brought by one against whom a criminal prosecution. 29.TOPIC Human Relation Torts . For this injury an action on the case lies. and which terminates in favor of the person prosecuted. The gist of the action is the putting of legal process in force. suit. called the action of malicious prosecution Phil Jurisdiction . 2217 and 2219 (8) . 33. regularly. 21. that is by improper or sinister motive The statutory basis for a civil action for damages for malicious prosecution are Articles 19. after the termination of such prosecution. 32. for the mere purpose of vexation or injury SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S For a malicious prosecution suit to prosper. or other proceeding in favor of the defendant therein. all three elements must concur: 1) the fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the defendant was himself the prosecutor and that the action finally terminated with an acquittal 2) that in bringing the action. 20. Instituted with intention of injuring defendant and without probable cause. civil suit. 26.
the term has been expanded to include unfounded civil suits instituted just to vex and humiliate the defendant despite the absence of a cause of action or probable cause. why base policy to humiliate. good customs and public Very easy to decide based on Article 19. but the deliberate initiation of an action with the knowledge that the charges were false and groundless Four elements: 1) the prosecution did occur. and the defendant was himself the prosecutor or that he instigated its commencement. . And one must act with justice. give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith (Article 19. Espino Accused of shoplifting Mere filing of a suit does not render a person liable for malicious prosecution should he be unsuccessful.While generally associated with unfounded criminal actions. Gravamen . embarrass and degrade it on Article 21? Why add Article 26? the dignity of a person. the prosecutor acted without probable cause 4) the prosecution was impelled by legal malice -. Civil Code). for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.Acts Contra Bonus Mores CASE Magbanua v. Civil Code). personality. privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons (Article 26. Junsay IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Household helper accomplice in the theft MP .not the filing of a complaint based on the wrong provision of law. 2) the criminal action finally ended with an acquittal 3) in bringing the action. It is against morals.Acts Contra Bonus Mores Grand Union v. Everyone must respect the dignity.an improper or a sinister motive SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Human Relation Torts .TOPIC Human Relation Torts .
personality. is provided in article 2219. Makati Shangri-la . then the respondents violated article 1701 of the Civil Code which prohibits acts of oppression by either capital or labor against the other. the sanction for which. no.Violation of Human Dignity Human Relation Torts .Acts Contra Bonus Mores CASE Carpio v. and article 21. and other relief in cases of breach.TOPIC Human Relation Torts . by any standard or principle of law is impermissible. prevention. Internal auditor constructively dismissed If the dismissal was done anti-socially or oppressively. though not necessarily constituting a criminal offense. Petitioner had willfully caused injury to respondent in a manner which is contrary to morals and good customs. which makes a person liable for damages if he wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals.Acts Contra Bonus Mores Quisaba v. 10. Valmonte IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Wedding coordinator True.Violation of Human Dignity Spouses Guanio v. but to malign diamond jewelry respondent without an iota of proof that she was the one who actually stole the jewelry is an act which. privacy and peace of mind. by way of moral damages. Respondent’s lack of prudence is an affront to this right. CA Article 26 grants a cause of action for damages. Sta Ines Human Relation Torts . Human Relation Torts . as the complaint alleges. CA Mix up of houses Under which situation does it fall? Gregorio v. good customs or public policy. petitioner had the right to ascertain the accused of stealing identity of the malefactor.Violation of Human Dignity St Louis v. Article 26 merely invoked SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Human Relation Torts . of the following rights: 1) right to personal dignity 2) right to personal security 3) right to family relations 4) right to social intercourse 5) right to privacy 6) right to peace of mind Bad service for wedding reception The Court recognizes that every person is entitled to respect of his dignity.
for he acts in selfprotection SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Interference with Gilchrist v. CA Contractual Relations Warehouse . unless some superior right by contract or otherwise is interfered with. or the exercise of like rights by others. If disturbance or loss come as a result of competition. not merely de minimis. He has no right to be free from malicious and wanton interference. Cuddy Contractual Relations Interference with So Ping Bun v. skill and credit.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Lease of film Everyone has a right to enjoy the fruits and advantages of his own enterprise. industry. The elements of tort interference are: 1) existence of a valid contract 2) knowledge on the part of the third person of the existence of contract 3) interference of the third person is without legal justification or excuse Justification exists where the actor's motive is to benefit himself Justification does not exist where his sole motive is to cause harm to the other Not necessary: 1) that the interferer's interest outweigh that of the party whose rights are invaded 2) that an individual acts under an economic interest that is substantial. such that wrongful and malicious motives are negatived. it is damnum absque injuria. disturbance or annoyance.
Interference with Go v. a contracting party may sue a third person not for breach but for inducing another to commit such breach. Ballesteros . It is sufficient if the impetus of his conduct lies in a proper business interest rather than in wrongful motives. Lack of malice precludes damages but does not relieve him of legal liability for entering into contracts and causing breach SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Interference with Lagon v. or satisfaction for an injury sustained. or as otherwise expressed. the pecuniary consequences which the law imposes for the breach of some duty or the violation of some right.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE Justification for protecting one's financial position should not be made to depend on a comparison of his economic interest in the subject matter with that of others. Cordero Contractual Relations Sea vessel Concept of Damages People v. CA Contractual Relations Rental “induce” refers to situations where a person causes another to choose one course of conduct by persuasion or intimidation While it is true that a third person cannot possibly be sued for breach of contract because only parties can breach contractual provisions. recompense. Damages may be defined as the pecuniary compensation.
since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong Injury . or damage without wrong.TOPIC CASE IMPORTANT FACTS DOCTRINE To warrant the recovery of damages. there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant.loss. CA . hurt.recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered SIR CASIS’ COMMENT/S Concept of Damages Custodio v. does not constitute a cause of action. and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom.illegal invasion of a legal right Damage . or harm which results from the injury Damages . Wrong without damage.
because Include all acts in which "any kind of fault or the former are punished only if there is a penal negligence intervenes" law clearly covering them Violation of the criminal law Of ancient origin. Hill L. the only one with locus standi is the injured party QD has a punitive aspect in that there are punitive kinds of damages .exemplary and nominal Penal Code punishes or corrects the criminal act Civil Code.in QD. subject to the employee employer’s defense of exercise of the diligence of a good father of the family . state agents Difference really is STANDING TO SUE . merely repairs the damage Elcano vs. Philadelfa Delicts are not as broad as quasi-delicts. by means of indemnification.REFERENCE Barredo vs Garcia CRIMES Affect the public interest QUASI-DELICTS Affect only that of private concern SIR CASIS' COMMENTS QD has public concern under Article 2180 which embodies state interest in teacher and students. parent and child. having always had its own foundation and individuality.G. Foods v. separate from criminal negligence Plaintiff can hold the employer subsidiarily liable Plaintiff may hold the employer liable for the only upon proof of prior conviction of its negligent act of its employee.
are to be governed by the Revised Penal Code while negligent acts or omissions are to be covered by Article 2176 of the Civil Code Offense against the public at large. state will bring proceedings (criminal prosecution) Purpose of proceeding is to protect an vindicate interests of the public as a whole Criminal prosecution is not concerned directly with compensation of injured individual against whom the crime is committed Victim's part . with certain exceptions. CA TORTS An Anglo-American or common law concept Much broader than culpa aquiliana because it includes not only negligence.REFERENCE Baksh vs.accuser and witness of state . but international criminal acts as well such as assault and battery. false imprisonment and deceit Commenced and maintained by injured person State can never sue in tort in its political or government capacity although it may do so as owner of property Primary purpose is to compensate for damage suffered at the expense of the wrongdoer Prosser and Keeton QUASI-DELICTS A civil law concept Intentional and malicious acts.
Sarmiento What a plaintiff needs to prove Defense Batal v. negligence need not be proved FGU Insurance v. Manila Railroad Liability of defendant employer Defendant employer's defense QUASI-DELICTS Presumptive liability Rebut presumption through proof of the exercise of due care in selection and supervision Created by the wrongful or negligent act/omission BREACH OF CONTRACT Direct and immediate Prove performance of contract or contributory negligence? SIR CASIS' COMMENTS Liability both direct and primary Vinculum juris (legal tie) Independent of the breach of duty assumed by the parties What a plaintiff needs to prove Defendant's fault or negligence The contract and its nonperformance.REFERENCE Cangco v. that of extraordinary diligence) 2) Attendance of fortuitous event. to excuse him from his ensuing liability Wrongful or negligent act or Fault or negligence incident in the omission which creates a performance of an obligation vinculum juris and gives rise to an which already existed. San Pedro Definition Governing law Mere proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance 1) Proof of his exercise of due Due diligence different from due diligence (diligence of a good diligence in the selection and father of a family or by stipulation supervision of employees or by law. and which obligation between two persons increases the liability from such not formally bound by any other already existing obligation obligation Article 2176 of the Civil Code and Articles 1170-1174 of the Civil the immediately following Articles Code .
no need to prove that it was carrier's fault Recoverable for QD causing Recoverable only if passenger physical injuries (Article 2219. as to approximate malice reckless. Miranda Proximate cause Moral damages Defendant carrier's defense Applicable Recoverable for QD causing physical injuries (Article 2219. par dies or if there is malice or bad 2) faith If the defendant is shown to have If the defendant is found to have been so guilty of gross negligence acted in a wanton. there is a presumption that the defendant was at fault or negligent.Calalas v. CA Source Has as its source the negligence of the tortfeasor Negligence or fault should be clearly established because it is the basis of the action What a plaintiff needs to prove Premised upon the negligence in the performance of a contractual obligation Action can be prosecuted merely by proving the existence of the contract and the fact that the obligor failed to fulfill his obligation Fores v. unlike in culpa aquiliana Contributory negligence and last clear chance Complete defense Merely serve to reduce the recovery of damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the defendant from his breach of contract . The burden is on the defendant to prove that he was not at fault or negligent Not a complete defense Consolidated Bank v. CA Moral damages Exemplary damages Not applicable Recoverable only if passenger dies or if there is malice or bad faith Proof of due diligence in selection and supervision of employees not available Carrier's fault or negligence Injury to passenger. fraudulent. par 2) Proof of due diligence in selection and supervision of employees What a plaintiff needs to prove Far East v. CA Proof required Defense of exercising the required diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is not a complete defense in culpa contractual. oppressive. or malevolent manner The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant was negligent Once the plaintiff proves a breach of contract.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.