Does one have the duty to perform

an act for the benefit of another?

Generally no. Exceptionally, law sometimes imposes

affirmative duties. These include those that are imposed
because of the public interest involved or the special
relationship between certain individuals.
 AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES
1. Misfeasance & Non-feasance
2. Duty to Rescue
3. Rules as to Owners
4. Employers & Employees
MISFEASANCE
Is the improper performance of some act which
might lawfully be done.

Article 204 – The Revised Penal Code Criminal law-

Any judge who shall knowingly render to an unjust
judgments in any case submitted to him for decision,
shall be punished by prison mayor and perpetual
absolute disqualification.
ELEMENTS:
1 .That the offender is judge;
2. That he renders a judgments in a case submitted to him
for decision;
3. That the judge knows that his judgment is unjust.

Judgment is the final consideration and determination

of a court of competent jurisdiction upon the matters
submitted to it, in an action or proceeding.

Unjust judgment is one which is one which is

contrary to law, or is not supported by the evidence or
both.
NONFEASANCE
Is the omission of some act which ought to be
performed.

ARTICLE 208-Prosecution of offenses; negligence

and tolerance. The penalty of prison correctional in
its minimum period and suspension shall be
imposed upon public officers or officer of the law,
who in dereliction of the duties of his office, shall
maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for
the punishment of violators of the law or shall
tolerate the commission of an offense…
 Elements
1. That the offender is a public officer of the law
who has a duty to cause the persecution
2. That there is dereliction of the duties of his office
that is knowing the commission of the crime, he
does not cause the prosecution of the criminal or
knowing that a crime is about to be committed, he
tolerate its commission.
3. That the offender acts with malice and deliberate
intent to favor the violator of the law.
 US vs. Taylor

Facts:
A libel case was filed against Taylor who was the acting
editor proprietor manager and printer of a Manila Day
Bulletin. The complaint alleges that he on September
25, 1913 intended to impeach the honesty virtue and
reputation of Ramon Sotelo as well as to expose him to
public hatred contempt and ridicule by composing
printing editing publishing circulating and or procuring
to compose an article which they have alleged to be
false and to be malicious defamation and libel of
Ramon Sotelo. according to the article.
Entitled Owners fired building to collect insurance,
criminal charges follows civil suit, there was a
conspiracy to defraud the insurance company. The
house in Calle O’ Donnel was intentionally burnt and
claims were made from the insurance companies. In
this conspiracy the name of ramon Sotelo was
implicated and was therefore charged with conspiracy
and fraud. Taylor was found guilty and sentenced to
pay a fine of 200. He then appealed and made
assignmnet of errors.
Issues:

Whether or not the defendant was responsible

for and guilty of alleged libel.

Whether or not the defendant is the proprietor

and publisher of Manila Daily Bulletin.
Ruling:

The court ruled in favor of the defendant and

ordered that the ruling of the lower court be
reversed. According to Act. No. 227 section six, every
author editor or proprietor of any book newspaper or
serial publication is chargeable with the publication
of any word contained in any part of said book or
number of each newspaper or serial as fully as if he
were the author of the same. However in this case
the Solicitor General said that no one is represented
to be the author editor proprietor. It only mentioned
that the defendant was the manager.
There was no proof that he as the manager was
directly responsible for writing editing or publishing
the contents in the alleged libelous article. The
prosecution only represented the newspaper to show
the relationship of the defendant and the publication.
In the absence of proof of a single letter showing the
direct relationship and role of the defendant on the
publication of the said article presumption of his
involvement would be unwarranted and unjust.
DUTY TO RESCUE

TWO SIDES:

1. DUTY TO THE RESCUER

2. DUTY TO RESCUE
DUTY TO THE RESCUER

• We have “ an innate repugnance at seeing

a fellow creature suffer. It is this
compassion that hurries us without
reflection to the relief of those who are in
distress”

• SC recognized the liability to a rescuer in

Santiago v. DeLeon G.R. No. 16180-R,
March 21, 1960.
 REQUISITES:
1. The defendant tortfeasor was negligent to the
person rescued and such negligence caused the
peril or appearance of peril to the person rescued.
2. The peril or appearance of peril was imminent.

3. A reasonably prudent person who would have

concluded such peril existent.
4. The rescuer acted with reasonable care in
effectuating the rescue.
DUTY TO RESCUE

• The other side of this issue is the question of

liability on the part of persons who should have
acted in a manner that is consistent with man’s
natural compassion.

• Is a person who did not rescue another who is in

distress liable to the latter? Is there a general
duty to rescue?
• NO. In the Philippines there is no general duty to
rescue. A person is not liable for quasidelict even if
he did not help a person in distress.

• However it admits certain exceptions.

EXCEPTIONS under the Revised Penal Code and
Special Law

Art. 275. Abandonment of persons in danger and

abandonment of one’s own victim.

1. Anyone who shall fail to render assistance to

any person whom he shall find in an
uninhabited place wounded or in danger of
dying, when he can render such assistance
without detriment to himself, unless such
omission shall constitute a more serious
offense;
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance
to another whom he has accidentally wounded
or injured.
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child
under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said
child to the authorities or to his family, or shall fail
to take him to a safe place.
Sec. 55 of the Land Transportation and Traffic
Code. Duty of driver in case of accident.
No driver of a motor vehicle concerned in a vehicular
accident shall leave the scene of the accident without
aiding the victim, except under the following
circumstances.
1. If he is in imminent danger of being seriously
harmed by any person or persons by reason of
the accident.
2. If he reports the accident to the nearest officer of
the law; or
3. If he has to summon a physician or nurse to aid the
victim.
 OWNERS,PROPRIETORS AND POSSESSORS

The owner has the right to enjoy, dispose of, and

recover his property. Generally, the owner is not
liable to any person who might be damaged if he is
merely exercising his right as such. For instance, the
owner has no duty to take reasonable care towards
a trespasser for his protection or even to protect
him from concealed danger.
EXCEPTIONS

• TOLERATED POSSESSOR – Rodrigueza v.

Manila Railroad Co.,
• ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE RULE – Hidalgo
Enterprises v. Balandan, 91 Phil.488
• STATE OF NECESSITY
• LIABILITY TO NEIGHBORS AND THIRD PERSONS
• LIABILITY OF PROPRIETORS OF BUILDINGS
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES

EMPLOYERS

The owners and managers of an establishment

or enterprise are responsible for the damages
caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or
on the occasion of their functions.
Art. 2180 of the Civil Code
“Employers shall be liable for the damages
caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry.”
Employers are primarily liable for the
negligence either in the selection or supervision
of their employees.
In the selection of prospective employees,
employers are required to examine them as to
their qualifications, experience, & service
records.

With respect to the supervision of employees,

employers should formulate standard operating
procedures, monitor their implementation, and
impose disciplinary actions for breaches
thereof.
Lanuzo vs. Ping (Court applied Art. 2180 of the
Civil Code
It is necessary to establish the employer-
employee relationship. One this is done, the
plaintiff must show that the employee was
acting within the scope of his assigned task
when the tort complained was committed in
order to make him liable.

Martin vs CA
Art. 103 of the RPC: An employer may be held
subsidiarily liable for the felony committed by
his employee in the discharge of his duty. This
liability attaches when the employee is
convicted of a crime done in the performance
of his work and is found to be insolvent that
renders him unable to properly respond to the
civil liability adjudged.

Calang vs. People

EMPLOYEE
Employees are bound to exercise due care in
the performace of their functions for the
employers. Absence such due care the
employee may be held liable. The liability will
be based on the negligence committed while in
the performance of the duties of the employee.

Araneta vs. De Joya