ARTICLE 2178

APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 1172 – 1174 TO QUASI DELICT

AEJAY V. BARIAS
PHILIPPINE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW
ARTICLE 2178

Art. 2178.  The provisions of Articles

1172 to 1174 are also applicable to a
quasi-delict.
Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from
negligence in the performance of every
kind of obligation is also demandable,
but such liability may be regulated by
the courts, according to the
circumstances.
Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the
obligor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is required by the nature of
the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time and
of the place. When negligence shows bad
faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201,
paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the
diligence which is to be observed in the
• Like fraud, negligence results in improper
performance. But it is characterized by
lack of care, unlike fraud which is
characterized by malice.

• Lack of care means lack of due diligence or

the care of a good father of the family
(bonus paterfamilias) under Article 1163.

• In English law, due diligence is called the

diligence of a prudent businessman, since
they are more commerce-oriented.
2 TYPES OF NEGLIGENCE

• Simple- may in certain cases be excused or

mitigated

• Gross- can never be excused in advance for this

would be contrary to public policy
The determination of due diligence is always
relative. It will depend on

• The nature of the obligation

• Nature of the circumstances of:

Person
Time
Place
EFFECTS OF NEGLIGENCE (ARTICLES 1170, 1172)

• Creditor may insist on proper substitute or

specific performance (Article 1233); or

• Rescission/Resolution (Article 1191)

• Damages in either case (Article 1170)

 Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly
specified by the law, or when it is
otherwise declared by stipulation, or when
the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could
not be foreseen, or which, though
foreseen, were inevitable.
REQUISITES (NAKPIL VS. CA)
 The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or the
failure to comply with his obligations, must be independent of the
human will
 It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitute the caso
fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid
 The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the
debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner
 The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation
of the injury resulting to the creditor
General Rule: When a debtor is unable to fulfill his obligation because
of a fortuitous event or force majeure, he cannot be held liable for
damages or non-performance.

Exceptions:
• When the law so provides (i.e. Article 1165)
• When there is express stipulation
• Fortuitous event yields to contrary stipulation.
• When the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk (i.e.
insurance contracts)

 GENERAL RULE

Pre existing contract between the parties

bar the applicability of the law on quasi-delict.
PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
VS COURT OF APPEALS

The relationship between the educational institution and

the deceased arose from a contract. Therefore, the former
cannot be held liable under Art. 2180 of the New Civil Code,
as the said provision governs quasi-delicts, which is extra-
contractual.
 EXCEPTIONS

The mere existence of a contract does not

automatically negate the existence of quasi-
delict
END OF REPORT

THANK YOU