TORTS AND

DAMAGES (II)
Prepared by: Victor Kenner S. Galang
NEGLIGENCE
NEGLIGENCE
ARTICLE 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 performance, that which is expected of a
good father of a family shall be required.
NEGLIGENCE
• Negligencehas been defined as the failure to
observe for the protection of the interests of
another person that degree of care,
precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand, whereby such
other person suffers injury.
NEGLIGENCE
Ordinary Prudent Man

Test of Negligence - Did the defendant in doing the alleged

negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same
situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence (Aquino, p.
47).
DEGREES OF
NEGLIGENCE
DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE
SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE
•  Theelements of simple negligence: are (1) that
there is lack of precaution on the part of the
offender; and (2) that the damage impending to be
caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly
manifest. (Gaid v. People, G.R. No. 171636, [April 7,
2009], 602 PHIL 858-876)
DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE
Gross negligence is one that is characterized
by the want of even slight care, acting or
omitting to act in a situation where there is a
duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully
and intentionally with a conscious
indifference to consequences insofar as other
persons may be affected.
CAUSALITY
CAUSALITY
PROXIMATE CAUSE - Proximate cause is
defined as that cause, which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would
not have occurred.
CAUSALITY
And more comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is
that acting first and producing the injury, either
immediately or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each
having a close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately
effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of
the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that
the person responsible for the first event should, as an
ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable
ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an
injury to some person might probably result therefrom.)
REMOTE CAUSE
Hence, liability for the accident, whether caused by
the negligence of the minor driver or mechanical
detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep,
must be pinned on the minor's parents primarily.
The negligence of petitioner St. Mary's Academy
was only a remote cause of the accident. Between
the remote cause and the injury, there intervened
the negligence of the minor's parents or the
detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep.
(St. Mary's Academy v. Carpitanos, G.R. No. 143363,
[February 6, 2002], 426 PHIL 878-887)
REMOTE CAUSE
Considering that the negligence of the minor driver
or the detachment of the steering wheel guide of
the jeep owned by respondent Villanueva was an
event over which petitioner St. Mary's Academy
had no control, and which was the
proximate cause of the accident, petitioner may not
be held liable for the death resulting from such
accident. (St. Mary's Academy v. Carpitanos, G.R. No.
143363, [February 6, 2002], 426 PHIL 878-887)
CONCURRENT CAUSE
According to the great weight of authority, where
the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of
two or more persons, although acting independently of each
other, are, in combination, the direct and proximate cause of
a single injury to a third person and it is impossible to
determine in what proportion each contributed to the
injury, either is responsible for the whole injury, even
though his act alone might not have caused the entire
injury, or the same damage might have resulted from the
acts of the other tort-feasor. (Sabido v. Custodio, G.R. No. L-
21512, [August 31, 1966], 124 PHIL 516-521)
CONCURRENT CAUSE
According to the great weight of authority, where
the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of
two or more persons, although acting independently of each
other, are, in combination, the direct and proximate cause of
a single injury to a third person and it is impossible to
determine in what proportion each contributed to the
injury, either is responsible for the whole injury, even
though his act alone might not have caused the entire
injury, or the same damage might have resulted from the
acts of the other tort-feasor. (Sabido v. Custodio, G.R. No. L-
21512, [August 31, 1966], 124 PHIL 516-521)
CONCURRENT CAUSE
ARTICLE 2194. The responsibility
of two or more persons who are
liable for quasi-delict is solidary.
CONCURRENT CAUSE
ARTICLE 1217. Payment made by one of the solidary debtors
extinguishes the obligation. If two or more solidary debtors offer to pay,
the creditor may choose which offer to accept.

He who made the payment may claim from his co-debtors only the
share which corresponds to each, with the interest for the payment
already made. If the payment is made before the debt is due, no interest
for the intervening period may be demanded.

When one of the solidary debtors cannot, because of his insolvency,

reimburse his share to the debtor paying the obligation, such share shall
be borne by all his co-debtors, in proportion to the debt of each. (1145a)
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an
action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish
the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury
was made possible, if there intervened between such prior
or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive,
unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, 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, such condition
was not the proximate cause. And if an independent
negligent act or defective condition sets into operation the
circumstances, which result in injury because of the prior
defective condition, such subsequent act or condition is the
proximate cause. (Urbano v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.
No. 72964, [January 7, 1988], 241 PHIL 1-14)
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
The medical findings, however, lead us to a
distinct possibility that the infection of the
wound by tetanus was
an efficient intervening cause later or
between the time Javier was wounded to the
time of his death. (Urbano v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72964, [January 7,
1988], 241 PHIL 1-14)
PROOF OF
NEGLIGENCE
PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
Preponderance of evidence - It refers to the
weight, credit and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually
considered to be synonymous with the term
"greater weight of evidence" or "greater
weight of the credible evidence."
PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
 
In some cases where negligence is difficult to
prove, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
permits an inference of negligence on the
part of the defendant or some other person
who is charged with negligence where the
thing or transaction speaks for itself.
PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
 
The procedural effect of res ipsa loquitur in
quasi-delict cases is that the defendant's
negligence is presumed. In other words, the
burden of evidence shifts to the defendant to
prove that he did not act with negligence.
PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
 
For this doctrine to apply, the complainant must show that:
 
1. the accident is of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have
happened except for the defendant's negligence;
2. the accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the
exclusive management or control of the person charged with the negligence
complained of; and
3. the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the
part of the person injured.
 
4. There exists a fourth requisite under American jurisprudence, that is, that the
defendant fails to offer any explanation tending to show that the injury was caused by
his or her want of due care.
DEFENSES
DEFENSES
FORTUITOUS EVENT
 
Article 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.
 
DEFENSES
Jurisprudence defines the elements of a "fortuitous event" as follows:
(CIRP)
 
(a) the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence must be
independent of human will;
(b) It must be impossible to foresee the event which constitutes the
caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid;
(c)The occurrence must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor
to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and
(d) The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation
of the injury resulting to the creditor.
 
In other words, there must be an entire exclusion of human agency from
the cause of injury or loss.
DEFENSES
ASSUMPTION OF RISK
 
The doctrine of assumption of risk means
that one who voluntarily exposes himself to
an obvious, known and appreciated danger
assumes the risk of injury that may result
therefrom.
DEFENSES
As a defense in negligence cases, therefore, the
doctrine requires the concurrence of three
elements, namely:
1. the plaintiff must know that the risk is present;
2. he must further understand its nature; and
3. his choice to incur it must be free and
voluntary. "Knowledge of the risk is the
watchword of assumption of risk." (Abrogar v.
Cosmos Bottling Co., G.R. No. 164749, [March 15,
2017])
DEFENSES
As a defense in negligence cases, therefore, the
doctrine requires the concurrence of three
elements, namely:
1. the plaintiff must know that the risk is present;
2. he must further understand its nature; and
3. his choice to incur it must be free and
voluntary. "Knowledge of the risk is the
watchword of assumption of risk." (Abrogar v.
Cosmos Bottling Co., G.R. No. 164749, [March 15,
2017])
DEFENSES
NOTE: A person is excused from the force of the
rule, that when he voluntarily assents to a known
danger he must abide by the consequences, if an
emergency is found to exist or if the life or
property of another is in peril, or when he seeks to
rescue his endangered property. Clearly, an
emergency was at hand as the deceased's property,
a source of her livelihood, was faced with an
impending loss. (Ilocos Norte Electric Co. v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 53401, [November 6, 1989],
258-A PHIL 565-583)
DEFENSES
Under the "emergency rule" adopted, an
individual who suddenly finds himself in a
situation of danger and is required to act
without much time to consider the best means
that may be adopted to avoid the impending
danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to
undertake what subsequently and upon
reflection may appear to be a better solution,
unless the emergency was brought by his own
negligence.
DEFENSES
DUE DILIGENCE
 
Generally, when an injury is caused by the
negligence of a servant or employee, there instantly
arises a presumption of law that there was
negligence on the part of the master or employer
either in the selection of the servant or employee
(culpa in eligiendo) or in the supervision over him
after the selection (culpa vigilando), or both. The
presumption is juris tantum and not juris et de jure;
consequently, it may be rebutted.
DEFENSES
PRESCRIPTION
 
Art. 1146. The following actions must be
instituted within four years: (1) Upon an
injury to the rights of the plaintiff; (2) Upon a
quasi-delict;
DEFENSES
Relations Back Doctrine
 
That principle of law by which an act done at one time is
considered by a fiction of law to have been done at some
antecedent period. It is a doctrine which, although of equitable
origin, has a well recognized application to proceedings at law; a
legal fiction invented to promote the ends of justice or to prevent
injustice end the occurrence of injuries where otherwise there
would be no remedy. The doctrine, when invoked, must have
connection with actual fact, must be based on some antecedent
lawful rights. It has also been referred to as "the doctrine of relation
back." (2 CJS 1310). (Allied Banking Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 85868, [October 13, 1989], 258-A PHIL 306-316)
DEFENSES
Article 2179. When the plaintiff's own
negligence was the immediate and
proximate cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages. But if his negligence was
only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff
may recover damages, but the courts shall
mitigate the damages to be awarded. (n)
DEFENSES
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
 
The doctrine, in essence, is to the effect that where
both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of
one is appreciably later in time than that of the other,
or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or
negligence should be attributed to the incident, the
one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable
with the consequences thereof (see Picart vs. Smith,
37 Phil. 809).
DEFENSES
DOCTRINE OF ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE
 
One who maintains on his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character
likely to attract children in play, and who fails
to exercise ordinary care to prevent children
from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is
liable to a child of tender years who is injured
thereby, even if the child is technically a
trespasser in the premises.
CULPA CONTRACTULA,
CRIMINAL & AQUILIANA
CULPA AQUILIANA
• CULPA AQUILIANA (CULPA EXTRA
CONTRACTUAL/QUASI DELICT) – the wrongful or
negligent act or omission creates the vinculum juris and
gives rise to an obligation even between two persons not
formally bound by any other obligation.

• Violation of a pre-existing obligation (the general duty or

obligation to observe the standards of care set by society in
dealing with other persons).
CULPA CONTRACTUAL
• CULPA CONTRACTUAL – it presupposes a pre-existing
vinculum juris that was previously created by virtue of the
agreement. It is negligence that is incident in the
performance of an obligation (which already existed) and
which increases the liability from such already existing
obligation.
• Culpa criminal is governed by the Civil code provisions on
Obligations and Contracts (Arts. 1170 to 1174).
• Actions for damages based on contracts are not tort actions.
For example, common carrier cases.
CULPA CONTRACTUAL
• Inculpa contractual, the mere proof of the
existence of the contract and the failure of its
compliance justify, prima facie, a
corresponding right of relief. The law,
recognizing the obligatory force of contracts,
will not permit a party
CULPA CRIMINAL
• The civil liability arising from the crime or CULPA
CRIMINAL
• Legal basis: Article 100 of the RPC, “Every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable.”
• A negligent act gives rise to at least two separate and
independent kinds of liabilities, (1) the civil liability arising
from the crime or CULPA CRIMINAL and (2) the liability
arising from civil negligence or the so-called CULPA
AQUILIANA.
CULPA CRIMINAL
• 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.
• Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the
offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally
prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the
offended party is not allowed, if he is actually charged also
criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would
be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of
the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary
PRINCIPLES IN CULPA CRIMINAL
• They can be prosecuted separately and
independently of each other.
• Article2177 of the Civil Code precludes recovery of
damages twice for the same negligent act or
omission, which means that should there be
varying amounts awarded in two separates cases,
the plaintiff may recover, in effect, only the bigger
amount.
PRINCIPLES IN CULPA CRIMINAL
• The extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e)
of Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil
liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised
Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same
act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a
crime is not estinguished even by a declaration in
the criminal case that the criminal act charged has
not happened or has not been committed by the
accused. (Elcano v. Hill, G.R. No. L-24803, [May 26,
1977], 167 PHIL 462-475)
PRINCIPLES IN CULPA CRIMINAL
• Ifan accused is acquitted based on reasonable
doubt on his guilt, his civil liability arising from the
crime may be proved by preponderance of evidence
only.
• If
an accused is acquitted on the basis that he was
not the author of the act or omission complained
of (or that there is declaration in a final judgment
that the fact from which the civil might arise did not
exist), said acquittal closes the door to civil liability
based on the crime or ex delicto
PRINCIPLES IN CULPA CRIMINAL
• Asregards civil liability arising from quasi-delict or
culpa aquiliana, same will not be extinguished by
an acquittal, whether it be on ground of reasonable
doubt or that accused was not the author of the act
or omission complained of (or that there is
declaration in a final judgment that the fact from
which the civil liability might arise did not exist).
RULE 111 OF THE RULES OF COURT
•  Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil
actions. – (a) When a criminal action is instituted,
the civil action for the recovery of civil liability
arising from the offense charged shall be deemed
instituted with the criminal action unless the
offended party waives the civil action, reserves the
right to institute it separately or institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action.
RULE 111 OF THE RULES OF COURT
•   Section
2 – x x x The extinction of the penal action
does not carry with it extinction of the civil action.
However, the civil action based on delict shall be
deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final
judgment in the criminal action that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise
did not exist. 
RULE 111 OF THE RULES OF COURT
•  Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed
independently. – In the cases provided in Articles
32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, the independent civil action may be
brought by the offended party. It shall proceed
independently of the criminal action and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence. In no
case, however, may the offended party recover
damages twice for the same act or omission
charged in the criminal action. 
CONCURRENCE OF CAUSES OF
ACTION
An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to
two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender, i.e., (1) civil
liability ex delicto, under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code;
and (2) independent civil liabilities, such as those (a) not arising
from an act or omission complained of as a felony, e.g., culpa
contractual or obligations arising from law under Article 31 of the
Civil Code, intentional torts under Articles 32 and 34, and culpa
aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code; or (b) where the
injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and
distinct from the criminal action under Article 33 of the Civil Code.
Either of these liabilities may be enforced against the offender
subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the
plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant and the similar proscription against
double recovery under the Rules above-quoted.
PROSCRIPTION AGAINST DOUBLE
RECOVERY
•  Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed
independently. – In the cases provided in Articles
32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, the independent civil action may be
brought by the offended party. It shall proceed
independently of the criminal action and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence. In no
case, however, may the offended party recover
damages twice for the same act or omission
charged in the criminal action. 
TORTIOUS
CONTRACTUAL
INTERFERENCE
TORTIOUS CONTRACTUAL
INTERFERENCE
• Art.1314. Any third person who induces another to
violate his contract shall be liable for damages to
the other contracting party.
• ELEMENTS: (1) existence of a valid contract; (2)
knowledge on the part of the third person of the
existence of the contract; and (3) interference of the
third person without legal justification or excuse.
(Inocencio v. Hospicio de San Jose, G.R. No. 201787,
[September 25, 2013], 718 PHIL 399-414)
TORTIOUS CONTRACTUAL
INTERFERENCE
• Theinterference is penalized because it violates the
property rights of a party in a contract to reap the
benefits that should result therefrom. (Lagon v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119107, [March 18, 2005],
493 PHIL 739-751)
TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT
CIVIL ACTIONS
VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND
POLITICAL RIGHTS
• ARTICLE 22 OF THE CIVIL CODE
• Rationale: The citizen may bring an independent
civil action to obtain damages regardless of attitude
of the fiscal.
• It involves intentional or negligent acts.
• Good faith is not a defense.
DEFAMATION, FRAUD AND
PHYSICAL INJURIES
• ARTICLE 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and
physical injuries, a civil action for damages,
entirely separate and distinct from the criminal
action, may be brought by the injured party.
Such civil action shall proceed independently of the
criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.
DEFAMATION, FRAUD AND
PHYSICAL INJURIES
DEFAMATION – the offense of injuring a person’s
character, fame or reputation through false or
malicious statements. It includes the crimes of libel
and slander.
• LIBEL – written defamation
• SLANDER – oral defamation
DEFAMATION, FRAUD AND
PHYSICAL INJURIES
REQUISITES FOR DEFAMATION
1. The imputataion of a descritable act or condition
to another;
2. The publication of the imputation;
3. Identity of the person defined and
4. Existence of malice
DEFAMATION, FRAUD AND
PHYSICAL INJURIES
“Defamation requires that something be
communicated to a third person that may affect the
opinion others may have of the plaintiff. The
unprivileged communication must be shown of a
statement that would tend to hurt plaintiff’s
reputation, to impair plaintiff’s standing in the
community”
DEFAMATION, FRAUD AND
PHYSICAL INJURIES
Doctrine of Fair Comment – fair commentaries on
matters of public interest are privileged and
constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or
slander. When the discreditable imputation is
directed against a public person in his public
capacity, it is not necessarily actionable.
NEGLECT OF DUTY
ARTICLE 34. When a member of a city or municipal
police force refuses or fails to render aid or
protection to any person in case of danger to life or
property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable
for damages, and the city or municipality shall be
subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action
herein recognized shall be independent of any
criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of
evidence shall suffice to support such action.
NEGLECT OF DUTY
ARTICLE 34. When a member of a city or municipal
police force refuses or fails to render aid or
protection to any person in case of danger to life or
property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable
for damages, and the city or municipality shall be
subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action
herein recognized shall be independent of any
criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of
evidence shall suffice to support such action.
HUMAN DIGNITY
ARTICLE 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and
similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall
produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence (NOT LIMITED TO
RESIDENCE);
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of
another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs,
lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal
condition. 
Legal basis for damages –
Article 32
RIGHT TO INFORMATIONAL
PRIVACY ON FACEBOOK
The concept of privacy has, through time, greatly evolved,
with technological advancements having an influential part
therein. This evolution was briefly recounted in former Chief
Justice Reynato S. Puno's speech, The Common Right to
Privacy,  where he explained the three strands of the right to
privacy, viz.: (1) locational or situational privacy; (2)
informational privacy; and (3) decisional privacy.  Of the
three, what is relevant to the case at bar is the right to
informational privacy — usually defined as the right of
individuals to control information about themselves.
 (Vivares v. St. Theresa's College, G.R. No. 202666,
[September 29, 2014], 744 PHIL 451-480)
CASE OF “Vivares v. St. Theresa's
College”
In other words, utilization of these
privacy tools is the manifestation, in
cyber world, of the user's invocation
of his or her right to informational
privacy. (Vivares v. St. Theresa's
College, G.R. No. 202666, [September
29, 2014], 744 PHIL 451-480)
DAMAGES
KINDS OF DAMAGES
ARTICLE 2197. Damages may be:
(1) Actual or compensatory;
(2) Moral;
(3) Nominal;
(4) Temperate or moderate;
(5) Liquidated; or
(6) Exemplary or corrective.
ACTUAL DAMAGES
ARTICLE 2199. Except as provided by law or by
stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered
by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is
referred to as actual or compensatory damages.
ARTICLE 2200. Indemnification for damages shall
comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered
(damnum emergens), but also that of the profits
(lucrum cessans) which the obligee failed to obtain.
(1106)
ACTUAL DAMAGES
ARTICLE 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which
the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the
natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and
which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the
time the obligation was constituted.
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be
responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the
non-performance of the obligation. (1107a)
ARTICLE 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable
for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the
act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have
been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. 
ACTUAL DAMAGES
ARTICLE 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by
a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos,
even though there may have been mitigating circumstances.
In addition:
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning
capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to
the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be
assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on
account of permanent physical disability not caused by the
defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death;
ACTUAL DAMAGES
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to
the provisions of Article 291, the recipient who is not an heir
called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or
intestate succession, may demand support from the person
causing the death, for a period not exceeding five years, the
exact duration to be fixed by the court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and
ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for
mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. cdta
ACTUAL DAMAGES
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to
the provisions of Article 291, the recipient who is not an heir
called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or
intestate succession, may demand support from the person
causing the death, for a period not exceeding five years, the
exact duration to be fixed by the court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and
ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for
mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. cdta
ACTUAL DAMAGES
For those crimes like, Murder, Parricide, Serious Intentional
Mutilation, Infanticide, and other crimes involving death of a
victim where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced
to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity — P100,000.00
b. Moral damages — P100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages — P100,000.00
(People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, [April 5, 2016])
SUBROGATION
ARTICLE 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been
insured, and he has received indemnity from the
insurance company for the injury or loss arising out
of the wrong or breach of contract complained of,
the insurance company shall be subrogated to the
rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the
person who has violated the contract. If the amount
paid by the insurance company does not fully cover
the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be
entitled to recover the deficiency from the person
causing the loss or injury.
ATTORNEY’S FEES
ARTICLE 2208. In the absence of stipulation,
attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than
judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has
compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons
or to incur expenses to protect his interest; 
ATTORNEY’S FEES
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against
the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or
proceeding against the plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident
bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly
valid, just and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
ATTORNEY’S FEES
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household
helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's
compensation and employer's liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability
arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
ATTORNEY’S FEES
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just
and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation must be reasonable.
MORAL DAMAGES
Moral damages include physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of
pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant's wrongful act or omission.
ARTICLE 2218. In the adjudication of moral
damages, the sentimental value of property, real or
personal, may be considered.
MORAL DAMAGES
Moral damages are not punitive in nature but are
designed to compensate and alleviate in some way
the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury unjustly caused to a person. Although
incapable of pecuniary computation, moral
damages, nevertheless, must somehow be
proportional to and in approximation of the
suffering inflicted. (ExpertTravel & Tours, Inc. v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 130030, [June 25, 1999], 368 PHIL
444-450)
MORAL DAMAGES
(1) First, there must be an injury, whether physical,
mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the
claimant;
(2) second, there must be a culpable act or omission
factually established;
(3) third, the wrongful act or omission of the
defendant is the proximate cause of the injury
sustained by the claimant; and
(4) fourth, the award of damages is predicated on
any of the cases stated in Article 2219. 
MORAL DAMAGES
(1) First, there must be an injury, whether physical,
mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the
claimant;
(2) second, there must be a culpable act or omission
factually established;
(3) third, the wrongful act or omission of the
defendant is the proximate cause of the injury
sustained by the claimant; and
(4) fourth, the award of damages is predicated on
any of the cases stated in Article 2219. 
MORAL DAMAGES
ARTICLE 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in
the following and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious
acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
MORAL DAMAGES
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. 
MORAL DAMAGES
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35. 
MORAL DAMAGES
Under the provisions of this law, in culpa
contractual or breach of contract, moral damages
may be recovered when the defendant acted in bad
faith or was guilty of gross negligence (amounting to
bad faith) or in wanton disregard of his contractual
obligation and, exceptionally, when the act of breach
of contract itself is constitutive of tort resulting in
physical injuries. By special rule in Article 1764, in
relation to Article 2206, of the Civil Code, moral
damages may also be awarded in case the death of a
passenger results from a breach of carriage. 
MORAL DAMAGES
In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict, (a) when an act
or omission causes physical injuries, or (b) where the
defendant is guilty of intentional tort,  moral
damages may aptly be recovered. This rule also
applies, as aforestated, to contracts when breached
by tort. 
MORAL DAMAGES
In culpa criminal, moral damages could be lawfully
due when the accused is found guilty of physical
injuries, lascivious acts, adultery or concubinage,
illegal or arbitrary detention, illegal arrest, illegal
search, or defamation.
MORAL DAMAGES
Malicious prosecution can also give rise to a claim
for moral damages. The term "analogous cases,"
referred to in Article 2219, following the ejusdem
generis rule, must be held similar to those expressly
enumerated by the law.  (ExpertTravel & Tours, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130030, [June 25, 1999], 368
PHIL 444-450)
NOMINAL DAMAGES
ARTICLE 2221.  Nominal damages are
adjudicated in order that a right of the
plaintiff, which has been violated or
invaded by the defendant, may be
vindicated or recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for
any loss suffered by him. 
NOMINAL DAMAGES
ARTICLE 2222. The court may award nominal
damages in every obligation arising from any source
enumerated in article 1157, or in every case where
any property right has been invaded.
ARTICLE 2223. The adjudication of nominal
damages shall preclude further contest upon the
right involved and all accessory questions, as
between the parties to the suit, or their respective
heirs and assigns. 
NOMINAL DAMAGES
NATURE: Nominal damage is a substantial claim
based upon the violation of a legal right where the
law presumes damage although actual or
compensatory damages are not proven.
They are damages IN NAME ONLY AND NOT IN
FACT.
It is not equivalent to a wrong inflicted but simply
in recognition of the existence of a TECHNICAL
INJURY.
NOMINAL DAMAGES
• NOMINAL DAMAGES cannot co-exist
with ACTUAL or COMPENSATORY
DAMAGES because an award of the
latter is already a vindication of right
and the award of the former shall
already be unnecessary.
NOMINAL DAMAGES
• NOMINAL DAMAGES cannot co-exist
with ACTUAL or COMPENSATORY
DAMAGES because an award of the
latter is already a vindication of right
and the award of the former shall
already be unnecessary.
TEMPERATE DAMAGES
• ARTICLE 2224. Temperate or moderate
damages, which are more than nominal but
less than compensatory damages, may be
recovered when the court finds that some
pecuniary loss has been suffered but its
amount cannot, from the nature of the case,
be proved with certainty.
• ARTICLE 2225. Temperate damages must be
reasonable under the circumstances.
TEMPERATE DAMAGES
• ACTUAL
DAMAGES AND TEMPERATE
DAMAGES MAY CO-EXIST
• Temperate damages may be awarded on top
of actual damages in instances where the
injury is CHRONIC and CONTINNUING.
• Actualdamages may be awarded for future
medical expenses if there is proof of such
expenses.
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
• ARTICLE 2226. Liquidated damages are
those agreed upon by the parties to a
contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof. 
• ARTICLE 2227. Liquidated damages,
whether intended as an indemnity or a
penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they
are iniquitous or unconscionable.
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
• ARTICLE 2228. When the breach of the
contract committed by the defendant is not
the one contemplated by the parties in
agreeing upon the liquidated damages, the
law shall determine the measure of damages,
and not the stipulation.
EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE
DAMAGES
• ARTICLE 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages
are imposed, by way of example or correction for
the public good, in addition to the moral,
temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
• ARTICLE 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary
damages as a part of the civil liability may be
imposed when the crime was committed with one
or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages
are separate and distinct from fines and shall be
paid to the offended party.
EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE
DAMAGES
• ARTICLE 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary
damages may be granted if the defendant acted
with gross negligence.
• ARTICLE 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts,
the court may award exemplary damages if the
defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oppressive, or malevolent manner.
• ARTICLE 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be
recovered as a matter of right; the court will decide
whether or not they should be adjudicated. 
EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE
DAMAGES
• ARTICLE 2234. While the amount of the exemplary
damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must show that
he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory
damages before the court may consider the question of
whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded.
• In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon,
although no proof of loss is necessary in order that such
liquidated damages may be recovered, nevertheless, before
the court may consider the question of granting exemplary
in addition to the liquidated damages, the plaintiff must
show that he would be entitled to moral, temperate or
compensatory damages were it not for the stipulation for
liquidated damages. 
EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE
DAMAGES
• ARTICLE 2235. A stipulation whereby
exemplary damages are renounced in
advance shall be null and void.