Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 33

Torts & Damages

AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

CHAPTER 1 concept of obligations arising from non-

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS contractual negligence.
◦ Intentional acts (considered torts in
Torts – (Fr) torquere; to twist Anglo American law) are intended to be
– common law: unlawful violation of private governed by the RPC in the Philippines
right, not created by contract, and which
gives rise to an action for damages. Art. 19, 20, & 21 of the NCC enlarge the concept of
– An act or omission producing an injury to tortious acts and embody in our law the Anglo-
another, without any previous legal relation American concept of tort. They are “catch-all”
of which the said act or omission may be provisions that serve as basis for any imaginable
said to be a natural outgrowth or incident. tort action.
– Private or civil wrong or injury, other than
breach of contract. Art. 20 is the general sanction for all other
– Can be based on all 5 sources of obligation provisions of law which do not especially provide
as enumerated in Art. 1157, NCC their own sanctions and is broad enough to cover
– genus; involves any violation of a right all legal wrongs which do not constitute violation of
Classes of torts: • Defamation
• Intentional torts – conduct where the • fraud
actor desires to cause the consequences • physical injuries
of his acts or believes that consequences • violation of constitutional rights
are substantially certain to result from it. • negligence
◦ Battery, assault, false imprisonment, • interference with contractual relations
defamation, invasion of privacy, • violation of privacy
interference of property • malicious prosecution
• Negligence – voluntary acts or omissions • product liability
which result in injury to another without • strict liability for possession of animals
intending to cause the same. The actor • abuse of right (Art. 19, NCC)
fails to exercise due care in performing • acts which violate good morals and
such acts or omissions customs (Art. 21, NCC)
• strict liability – the person is made liable
independent of fault or negligence upon Art. 1902 of the old Civil Code covers the broad
submission of proofs of certain facts. concept of torts prior to the NCC.
Philippine Tort Law Art. 2176 of NCC covers quasi-delict, which as
• Obligations based on law & quasi-delict observed by the SC in numerous cases includes
• Sources intentional acts.
◦ New Civil Code
▪ Roman Law Culpa aquiliana includes acts which are criminal in
▪ Spanish character or in violation of the penal law, whether
▪ French voluntary or negligent.
▪ Anglo-American Law
• Scope And Applicable Laws Purposes of Tort Law:
◦ the Code Commission uses the word General purpose: Protect different interests in the
“quasi-delict” instead of torts because society, specifically to:
torts in Angle American law is much • provide a peaceful means for adjusting the
broader than the Spanish-Philippine rights of parties who might otherwise take
the law in their hands

jmvdg 1 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

• deter wrongful conduct institutions

• encourage socially responsible behavior ▪ retributive – sanctions or penalties
• restore the injured parties to their original that are applied to those who
condition, insofar as that law can do this, engage in cetain kinds of antisocial
by compensating them for their injury. behavior
• Reduce the risks and burden of living in the ◦ individual
society and to allocate them among the ▪ compensatory – a person who
members of the society wrongfully inflicts harm on another
or that person's property must
The study of law of torts is therefore a study of the repay or repair the damage
extent to which the law will shift from the person ▪ commutative – fairness of a private
affected to the shoulder of him who caused the bargain or exchange
loss.(Wright, Cases on Law on Torts, p.1) • equity is defined as justice according to
natural law and right.
Although tort law is mainly concerned with ◦ Justice outside legality
providing compensation for personal injury and ◦ invoked in justifying the rule regarding
property damage caused by negligence, it also mitigation of liability if the plaintiff was
protects other interests such as reputation, guilty of contributory negligence
personal freedom, enjoyment of property, and
commercial interests. DEMOCRACY
• democracy being more than a mere form of
Fundamental principles: government, affecting as it does, the very
These purposes of tort law are sought to be foundations of human life and happiness,
achieved in the pursuit of fundamental principles cannot be overlooked by an integral civil
upheld under the NCC. code.
• Art. 32 provides for independent civil
EQUITY & JUSTICE actions for damages against any public
• NCC upholds the “spirit that giveth life officer or employee, or any private
rather than the letter that killeth” individual, who directly or indirectly
• Art. 21 & 26 of NCC obstructs, defeats, violates, or in any
• justice and equity demand that persons manner impedes or impairs the civil rights
who may have damaged by the wrongful or and liberties of another person.
negligent act of another are compensated.
• Acting with justice involves the duty to RESPECT FOR HUMAN DIGNITY
indemnify for damages caused under Arts. • Art. 26 and the provisions on moral
20,21,28,27; to indemnify by reason of damages are included in order to remedy
unjust enrichment under Arts. 22 & 23; and defects in old CC in so far as it did not
to protect the weaker party under Art. 24 properly exalt human personality.
• “the precepts of law are these, to live • The touchstone of every system of laws, of
honestly, not to injure others, and to give the culture and civilization of every country,
each one his due.” is how far it dignifies man.
• “Justice is a steady and unceasing
disposition to render every man his due.” Justification of Tort Liability: in cases of non-
• 2 levels of justice contractual obligations, it is the wrongful or
◦ social negligent act or omission itself which creates the
▪ distributive – address the allocation vinculum juris whereas in contractual relations the
of social goods and bads vinculum exists independently of the breach of the
• concern of our democratic voluntary duty assumed by the parties.

jmvdg 2 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

• Moral perspective Preventive remedy is available in some cases.

◦ tort liability may be justified because
the conduct is considered moral wrong. Alternative compensation schemes include
◦ The law of torts abounds in moral insurance & work employees compensation
phraseology it has much to say of
wrongs, malice, fraud, intent and CHAPTER 2
negligence. Hence, it may naturally be NEGLIGENCE
supposed that the risk of man's Kinds of Negligence:
conduct is thrown upon him as a result • culpa contractual (contractual negligence)
of some moral shortcomings. • culpa aquiliana (quasi-delict)
◦ Ubi jus ibi remedium (there is no wrong • culpa criminal (criminal negligence)
without remedy)
◦ moral turpitude was considered the Quasi-Delict
outstanding though not exclusive • used by the Code Commission to
principle of tortious liability. designate negligence as a separate source
of obligation because it more nearly
• social and economic perspective corresponds to the Roman Law
◦ liability may be provided for certain classification and is in harmony with the
tortious conduct because of the good nature of this kind of liability.
that it will do to the society as a whole • fault or negligence of a person who, by his
and its function of encouraging socially acts or omission, connected or
responsible behavior. unconnected with, but independent from,
◦ Economic analysis of tort law focuses any contractual relation, causes damage to
on the allocation of the risks of loss due another person. (Art. 2176 of the CC)
to the destruction of property or injury • covers not only those that are not punished
to persons created by those activities. by law but also those acts which are
voluntary and negligent
Plaintiff: • Requisites:
• Any person who had been injured by ◦ act or omission constituting fault or
reason of a tortious conduct can sue the negligence
tortfeasor. ◦ damage caused by the said act or
• Plaintiff can be a natural person or juridical omission
person. ◦ causal relation between the damage
• An unborn child is not entitled to damages. and the act or omission
But the bereaved parents may be entitled ◦ absence of contractual relation
to damages, on damages inflicted directly between plaintiff and defendant. (no
upon them. (Geluz vs. CA, 2 SCRA 802) longer cited because an action based
on quasi-delict can be maintained even
Defendant: if there is an existing contractual
• may be held liable even if he does not relation between the parties)
know the identity of the plaintiff at the time
of the accident. Delict
• Can either be a natural or juridical being • criminal negligence; covered by Art. 365 of
The primary purpose of a tort action is to provide • elements:
compensation to a person who was injured by the ◦ offender does or fails to do an act
tortious conduct of the defendant. ◦ that the doing or the failure to do the
act is voluntary

jmvdg 3 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

◦ that it be without malice Includes all acts which Punishes only those
◦ that material damages results from the any kind of fault or covered by penal laws
reckless imprudence negligence intervenes
◦ there is an inexcusable lack of
Liability of employer is Liability of employer is
precaution on the part of the offender,
direct and primary subsidiary
taking into consideration his
employment or occupation, degree of
intelligence, physical condition, and A single act or omission can give rise to 2 or more
other circumstances causes of action.

Contract Whenever a contractual obligation can be

• governed by CC provisions on Obligations breached by a tort, it is also possible that two
and Contracts particularly Arts. 1170-1174 persons are liable for such breach even of there is
only one act or omission that causes the injury.
• by express provision Arts. 2178, 1172 to
1174 are applicable to quasi-delict cases
Art. 2194 applies when there are two persons
Culpa aquiliana vs Culpa
contractual Limitation imposed by law is the proscription
Separate source Foundation of against double recovery provided under Art. 2177
of oligation liability is contract of the NCC.
independent of
contract Although an act can give rise to 2 causes of action,
the plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same act
Substantive and Incident of the or omission of the defendant.
independent performance of an
obligation Negligence – omission of that degree of diligence
There may or may Party Pre-existing which is required by the nature of the obligation
not be a pre- contractual and corresponding to the circumstances of time,
existing relation persons, and place. (Art. 1173)
contractual – omission to do something which a
relationship reasonable man, guided by those
Source of considerations which ordinarily regulate the
Defendant's Breach of contract
obligation conduct of human affairs, world do.
negligent act or
(Black's Law Dictionary)
– failure to observe for the protection of
Negligence of the What needs Existence of the
to be
interests of another person, that degree of
defendant proven contract and its care, precaution, and vigilance which the
breach circumstances justly demands. (Judge
Prof of diligence is Availability Proof of diligence Cooley)
of diligence – want of care required by the circumstances
a valid defense is not a defense
(Valenzuela vs CA)
– failure to observe that degree of care,
Culpa aquiliana Crimes precaution and vigilance which the
Affects private concerns Affects public interest circumstances justly demands whereby
such other person suffers injury.
CC merely repairs RPC punishes or
(Valenzuela vs CA)
damages by means of corrects criminal act

jmvdg 4 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

test of negligence: • social value it seeks to advance

Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent • alternative course of action, dangers
act use that reasonable care and caution which an and advantages to the person or
ordinary prudent person would have used in the property of the actor himself and to the
same situation? others.

Test of what a reasonable ordinary man requires Degree of diligence required in ever situation:
tha application of the test of foreseeability • Art. 1173, NCC – depends upon the nature
of the obligation and corresponds to the
Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent circumstances of person, time and place
man in the position of the tortfeasor would have • Art. 365, RPC – employment of the actor,
foreseen that an effect harmful to another was degree of diligence, physical condition and
sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the other circumstances regarding persons,
conduct or guarding against the consequences. time, and place.
Negligence is conduct which creates an undue risk Circumstances to consider in determining the
of harm to others existence of negligence:
1. Time
State of mind of the actor is not so important; good 2. Place
faith or use of sound judgment is immaterial. 3. Emergency
• emergency rule - the law takes stock of
Motive is not material in negligence cases. impulses of humanity when placed in a
threatening or dangerous situations
Only juridical fault is subject to liability and not and does not require the same
moral fault. standard of thoughtful and reflective
care from persons confronted by
Unreasonable risk means a danger which is unusual and often time threatening
apparent, or should be apparent, to one in the situations
position of the actor 4. Gravity of harm to be avoided
• even if the odds that an injury will result
the determination of negligence is a question of
is not high, harm may still be
foresight on the part of the actor of a probable
considered foreseeable if the gravity of
harm to another person.
the harm to be avoided is great.
5. Alternative cause of action
If there is a great probability and risk that damage
• if the alternative presented to the actor
will result, a person is negligent if he did not
is too costly, the harm that may result
exercise due diligence in the face of such great
may still be considered unforeseeable
to a reasonable man, more so if there
is no alternative thereto.
Risk-benefit analysis – balancing the risk, in the
6. Social value or utility of activity
light of the social value of the interests threatened,
and the probability and extent of harm against the • the diligence which the law requires an
value of eh interest which the actor is seeking to individual to observe and exercise
protect, and the expedience of the course pursued. varies according to the nature of the
situation which he happens to be in,
– common sense intuitive interpretation
and the importance of the act which he
(under rule in the Philippines)
has to perform.
– Considerations:
• Any act which subjects an innocent
• gravity of the harm to be avoided
person to an unnecessary risk is a

jmvdg 5 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

negligent act if the risk outweighs the ◦ if the child is under 9 years, it is no
advantage accruing to the actor and longer necessary to determine his
even to the innocent person himself. maturity and capacity because he is
7. Person exposed to the risk conclusively presumed to be incapable
• a higher degree of diligence is required of negligence.
if the person involved is a child. ◦ If the child is above 9-15, he is
disputably presumed to be incapable of
Paterfamilias – diligence of a good father of a negligence but the opposing party can
family prove that the child is at such stage of
• reasonable man; ordinary prudent man maturity and capacity that he can
• one objective standard: already determine what a reasonable
man would do under the same
Circumstances To Prove Negligence circumstances.
➢ knowledge and experience of the actor ◦ liability of children
• the prudent man is expected to act ▪ absence of negligence does not
according to the circumstances that necessarily mean absence of
appear to him at the time of the incident liability.
and he is not judged based on his ▪ A child who is 9 yrs. old can still be
knowledge or experience after the subsidiarily liable with his
event. properties. (Art. 101, RPC)
• A reasonable man is also deemed to ▪ absence of negligence or intent on
have knowledge of facts that a man the part of the child may not excuse
should be expected to know based on the parents from their vicarious
ordinary human experience. liability under Art. 2180 of CC or
• A prudent man is expected to know Art. 221 of FC (because they are
basic laws of nature and physics. liable for their own negligence in
the supervision of their child)
➢ children ▪ child shall be answerable with his
◦ the action of the child will not own property in an action against
necessarily be judged according to the him if he has no parent or guardian.
standard of an ordinary adult. ▪ The effect of the circumstances that
◦ The care and caution required of a the actor is a child would vary if the
child is according to his maturity and child is the defendant-actor or the
capacity only and this is to be plaintiff
determined in each case by the
circumstance of the case. ➢ physical disability
◦ The law fixes no arbitrary age at which ◦ weakness of a person will not be an
a minor can be said to have the excuse in negligent cases (common
necessary capacity to understand and law)
appreciate the nature and ◦ the Constitution mandates the creation
consequences of his acts, so as to of a special agency for disabled
make it negligence on his part to persons for their rehabilitation, self-
exercise due care and precaution in the development and self-reliance, and
commission of such act their integration in the mainstream of
◦ question of negligence necessarily the society. (Sec. 13, Art. XIII)
depends on the ability of the minor to ◦ the standard of conduct to which a
understand the character of his own disabled person must conform to avoid
acts and their consequences being negligent is that of a reasonable

jmvdg 6 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

person under like disability. ➢ Insanity

◦ RPC: insane persons are exempted
➢ experts & professionals from criminal liability.
◦ when a person holds himself out as ▪ In case of lunatic and demented
being competent to do things requiring person, they may still be liable with
professional skills, he will be held liable their property for the consequences
for negligence if he fails to exhibit the of their acts, even though they be
care and skill of one ordinary skilled in performed unwittingly
the particular work which he attempted ◦ Civil Code: The insanity of the person
to do. (Culion Ice, Fish & Electric Co., does not excuse him or his guardian
vs Phil Motors Corp.) from liability based on quasi-delict (Art.
◦ an act may be negligent if it is done 2180 & 2182, NCC)
without the competence that a ◦ bases for holding a permanently insane
reasonable person in the position of the person liable for his torts
actor would recognize as necessary to ▪ where 1 of 2 innocent persons must
prevent it from creating an suffer a loss it should be borne by
unreasonable risk of harm to another. the 1 who occasioned it.
(Far Eastern Shipping Co. vs CA) ▪ To induce those interested in the
◦ the care required must be estate of the insane person who
commensurate with the danger restrain and control him.
involved and skill employed must ▪ The fear that an insanity defense
correspond with the superior would lead to false claim of insanity
knowledge of the business which the to avoid liability.
law demands.
➢ Women
➢ nature of activity ◦ Dean Guido Calabrese: there should
◦ persons impose upon themselves be uniform standard of care for men &
certain obligations and non-compliance women
therewith will be considered
negligence. ➢ Others
◦ There are activities which by nature ◦ Violation of Rules & Statutes
impose duties to exercise a higher
▪ statutes & ordinance
degree of diligence. (e.g. banks &
• violation of these will be either
common carriers)
treated as:
◦ circumstance that establish
➢ intoxication
◦ mere intoxication is not negligence, nor
◦ negligence per se (+)
does the mere fact of intoxication
establish want of ordinary care. ◦ circumstance that should
be taken as an evidence of
◦ If one's conduct is characterized by a
proper degree of care and prudence, it
is immaterial whether he is drunk or • the statute or ordinance
sober. (Wright vs. MERALCO) becomes the standard of care
or conduct to which the
◦ intoxication is of little consequence in
reasonably prudent person is
negligence cases if it was not shown
that such drunkenness contributed to
the accident or that the accident would • Since negligence is a breach of
have been avoided had he been sober. legal duty, the violator of a

jmvdg 7 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

statute is the negligent as a “The weight of authority is the

matter of law. violation of statute is negligence per
• When the legislature has se. although it is argued that the better
spoken, the standard of care rule is to consider these statutes or
required is no longer what the ordinances as circumstances that give
reasonable prudent man would rise to a presumption of negligence
do under the circumstances but unless the law provides otherwise”
what the Legislature has
commanded. ◦ Practice & Customs
• Art. 2184 & 2185; presumption ▪ “What is usually done may be
of the negligence of a motor evidence of what ought to be done,
driver; but what ought to be done is fixed
▪ administrative rule by a standard of reasonable
• violation of this is not prudence, whether it usually is
negligence per se but it may be complied with or not.”- Justice
an evidence of negligence. Holmes
▪ private rules of conduct ▪ one who performs an act so
• same rules applies to rules inherently dangerous cannot, when
imposed by private individuals an accident occurs, take refuge
like an employer. behind the plea that other have
• The order or prohibition of an performed the same act safely
employer couldn't be of greater (Yamada vs Manila Raillroad Co.
obligation than the rule of the [1915])
Commission or Board and ◦ Compliance With Rules & Statutes
violation thereof is merely a ▪ non-compliance to statute is not
possible evidence of sine qua non of negligence
negligence ▪ one cannot avoid a charge of
▪ proximate cause negligence by showing that the act
• the rule that no liability attaches or omission complained of was of
unless it appears that there was itself lawful or not violative of any
a causal connection between statute or ordinance.
the negligent act or omission ▪ Compliance to a statute or
charged and the injury is ordinance is not conclusive that
applicable where the act or there was no negligence
omission complained of
constitutes a violation of some STANDARD vs. SPECIFIC RULES
statute or ordinance even rules – legal norms that are formal & mechanical
though such violation
constitutes negligence per se or standards – flexible, context-sensitive legal norms
prima facie evidence of that require evaluative judgments in their
negligence. application; being followed in deciding negligence
▪ negligence per se rule cases.
• statutes may also provide
specific rules of conducts to be The courts in each case must balance all
observed in a given situation conflicting interests and consider all the
and may even impose penal circumstances.
sanctions in case the rule is not

jmvdg 8 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

Degrees of Negligence responsible is eliminated.

• ordinary negligence • Applied in conjunction with the doctrine of
• Gross negligence common knowledge.
◦ recognized in Art. 2231 of the Civil • Theoretically based on necessity (some
Code evidence may not be available)
◦ where there is want of even slight care
and diligence. (Amadeo vs Olabarrieta) CHAPTER 3
◦ implying conscious indifference to AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES
consequences; pursuing a course of AND MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
conduct which would naturally and
probably result to injury; 1. DUTY TO RESCUE
◦ utter disregard of consequences • duty to the rescuer
◦ basis for the award of exemplary ◦ we have an innate repugnance at
damages seeing a fellow creature suffer
burden of proof – the duty of a party to present ◦ courts make defendants liable for the
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to injuries to persons who rescue people
establish his claim or defenses by the amount of in distress because of the acts or
evidence required by law [preponderance of omission of said defendant.
evidence]. (Sec. 1, Rule 131, Revised Rules of ◦ One who was hurt while trying to
Court) rescue another who was injured
through negligence may recover
Presumption of Negligence damages.
• Art. 2184 & 2185; presumption of the • duty to rescue
negligence of a motor driver; ◦ there is no general duty to rescue
• Art. 2188; possession of deadly weapon ◦ a person is not liable for quasi-delict
• presumption of negligence may also even if he did not help a person in
arise because of certain contractual distress.
relationship between the parties ◦ Except: Art. 275, RPC; Sec, 55, RA
(example: contract of carriage) 4136
◦ there are individuals who are required
Res Ipsa Loquitur by law to take care another person,
• the thing speaks for itself hence, they are legally compelled to
• function: aid plaintiff in proving elements of rescue the other person under their
a negligence case by circumstantial care or custody
• merely a mode of proof or procedural
-damage to any person resulting from the
convenience, not a rule of substantive law
exercise of any of the rights of ownership is
• requisites:
damage without injury (damnum absque
◦ the accident is of a kind which injuria)
ordinarily does not occur in the
• trespassers
absence of someone's negligence
◦ trespassers comes on to the
◦ it is caused by an instrumentality within premises at his own risk.
the exclusive control of the defendant ◦ The owner has no duty to maintain
or defendants his property in such a danger-free
◦ the possibility of contributing conduct state just to prevent trespassers
which would make the plaintiff from being injured

jmvdg 9 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

▪ tolerated possession children

• owner is liable if the plaintiff ▪ state of necessity
is inside his property by • owners and possessors of
tolerance or by implied real estate also owes duty
permission to allow trespassers, who
▪ visitors are in a state of necessity,
owners of a building or premises to enter their properties
owe a duty of care to visitors • Art. 432, CC & Art. 11, RPC
• common carriers • state of necessity – a
◦ common carriers may situation of present danger
be held liable for to legally protected
negligence to persons interests, in which there is
who stay in their no other remedy than the
premises even if they injuring of another's also
are not passengers. legally protected interest.
◦ The person who • use of property that injures others
purchases a ticket from ◦ Art. 431, CC, “an owner cannot use
the carrier must present his property in such a manner as to
himself at the proper injure the rights of others.
place and in the proper • liability of proprietors of buildings
manner to be ◦ 3rd persons who suffered damages
transported. may proceed only against the
▪ children and attractive nuisance engineer or architect or contractor if
rule the damage referred to in Art. 2190
• an owner is liable if he & 2191 should be the result of any
maintains in his premises defect in construction.
dangerous instrumentalities
or appliances of a character 3. EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES
likely to lure children in play • Employer
if he fails to exercise ◦ failure of the employer to comply
ordinary care to prevent with the mandatory provisions of
children of tender age from the Labor Code with regard the
playing therewith or proper maintenance of the
resorting thereto. workplace or the provision on
• Liability exists even if the adequate facilities to ensure the
child is a trespasser so long safety of the employees may be
as he is not of sufficient age considered negligence per se.
or discretion ◦ degree of care owed by employers
• nuisance vs attractive to their employees has been
nuisance modified by Art. 1711 & 1712, NCC.
◦ nuisance – by its very • Employee
nature, harmful to the ◦ employees are bound to exercise
community or to certain due care in the performance of their
persons functions for the employers
◦ attractive nuisance – ◦ the existence of the contract
considered nuisance constitutes no bar to the
only because it attracts commission of torts by one against
certain kind of persons - the other and the consequent

jmvdg 10 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

recovery of damages to be that of an average

specialist, not that of an
4. BANKS average physician.
• business of banks is one affected with ▪ Advances of the profession is
public interest taken into account in either
• a bank is under obligation to treat the case
accounts of its depositors with • captain of the ship doctrine
meticulous care, always having in mind ◦ doctor as head of the surgical team
the fiduciary nature of their ◦ he has the responsibility to it that
relationships those under him perfrom the task in
the proper manner.
5. COMMON CARRIERS ◦ The doctor is likened to a captain of
• Arts. 1733 & 1755, NCC: carriers, by the ship who must not only be
reason of public policy and the nature responsible for the safety of the
of their business, are bound to observe crew but also of the passengers of
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance the vessel.
over the goods and for the safety of • Physicians are not warrantors
passengers transported by them ◦ difficulties and uncertainties in the
according to all circumstances of each practice of the profession are such
case. that no practitioner can guarantee
• Presumption: common carriers have results
been at fault or have acted negligently • Proof
• the case against common carrier is for ◦ there is a presumption that in
the enforcement of an obligation from proper cases, the physician takes
breach of contract. the necessary precaution and
employs the best of his knowledge
6. DOCTORS and skills in attending to his clients.
they are required to exercise utmost diligence ◦ Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is
in the performance of their work. limited to cases where the court
• standard of care from its fund of common knowledge
◦ medical malpractice – form of can determine the standard of care
negligence which consists in the required.
failure of a physician or surgeon to • liability of hospital and consultants
apply to his practice of medicine ◦ in cases of consultants, the hospital
that degree of skill and care which itself is not liable under Art. 2180,
is ordinarily employed by the CC in the absence of employer-
profession generally under similar employee relationship
conditions and in like surrounding
circumstances. 7. LAWYERS
◦ General Practitioners vs Specialist • conduct of lawyers is governed by the
▪ standard of care demanded Code of Professional responsibility
from a general practitioner is • Canon 18
ordinary care and diligence in • a lawyer is not bound to exercise
the application of his extraordinary diligence, but a
knowledge and skill in the reasonable degree of care and skill,
practice of a profession. having reference to the character f the
▪ A specialist's legal duty to the business he undertakes to do.
patient is generally considered

jmvdg 11 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

CHAPTER 4 part of the person for whom the plaintiff is


***either partial defenses or complete defenses 3. FORTUITOUS EVENTS

• caso fortuito; an event which could not be
1. PLAINTIFF'S CONDUCT AND foreseen, or which though foreseen, was
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE inevitable. (Art. 2181)
the victim of negligence is likewise required to • a person is not liable if the cause of the
exercise due care in avoiding injury to himself damage was fortuitous (Art. 1174)
Art. 2179 • characteristics of fortuitous event:
• Plaintiff's own negligence as the proximate ◦ the cause of the unforeseen and
cause bars him from recovering anything unexpected occurrence, or of the
• contributory negligence of the victim has failure of the debtor to comply with his
the effect of mitigating or reducing the obligation, must be independent of the
damages that the victim may recover (Art. human will
2179 & Art. 2174) ◦ must be impossible to foresee the event
• contributory negligence – conduct on the or if it is foreseen, it must be impossible
part of the injured party, contributing as to avoid
legal cause to the harm he has suffered, ◦ occurrence must be such as to render it
which falls below the standard to which he impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
is required to conform for his own obligation in a normal manner
protection. ◦ obligor must be free from any
• rule of comparative negligence – any participation in the aggravation of the
rule under which the relative degree of injury resulting to the creditor
negligence of the parties is considered in • the negligence of the defendant which
determining whether, and to what degree, occurred with the fortuitous event or which
either should be responsible for his resulted in the aggravation of the injury of
negligence. the plaintiff will make him liable even if
◦ Apportionment of damages there was a fortuitous event.
◦ pure type of comparative negligence – • Nevertheless, even if the defendant is still
plaintiff's contributory negligence does liable, courts may equitably mitigate the
not operate to bar his recovery damages if the loss, even in part, would
altogether but does serve to reduce his have resulted in any event because of the
damage in proportion to his fault. fortuitous event
• Prevailing doctrine
◦ Time of Civil Code: contributory 4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK
negligence • consistent with the maxim, volenti non fit
◦ 1991: comparative negligence injuria
• The court is free to determine the extent of • requisites
the mitigation of the defendant's liability ◦ plaintiff must know that the risk is
depending on the circumstances. present
◦ he must further understand its nature
2. IMPUTED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ◦ his choice to incur it is free and
• negligence is imputed if the actor is different voluntary
from the person who is being made liable. • plaintiff is excused from the force of the rule
• Effect: mitigated liability if an emergency is found to exist or if the
• applicable where the negligence was on the life or property of another is in peril or when

jmvdg 12 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

he seeks to rescue his endangered (common carriage)

property. ▪ dangerous activities
• kinds • persons who voluntarily
◦ express waiver of right to recover participate in dangerous
▪ there is assumption of risk if the activities assume the risk which
plaintiff in advance has expressly are usually present in such
waived his right to recover activities.
damages for the negligent act of • Awareness of the risk is not to
the defendant. be determined in a vacuum but
▪ A person cannot contract away his must be assessed against the
right to recover damages resulting background of the skill and
from negligence; the same is experience of the particular
contrary to public policy plaintiff.
(Pleasantville Dev't Corp vs CA, ▪ defendant's negligence
253 SCRA 10) • plaintiff is aware of the risk
▪ waiver here is the waiver of the right created by the defendant's
to recover BEFORE the negligent negligence, yet he voluntarily
act was committed. decided to proceed to
▪ if the waiver was made after the encounter it.
cause of action has accrued, the
waiver is valid and may be 5. DEATH
construed as condonation of the • death of the defendant will not extinguish
obligation. the obligation based on quasi-delict.
◦ implied assumption • The case will continue through the legal
▪ dangerous conditions representative who will substitute the
• a person who knowing that he is deceased.
exposed to a dangerous
condition, voluntarily assumes 6. PRESCRIPTION
the risk of such dangerous • action based on quasi delicts prescribes in
condition may not recover from 4 years, counted from the date of the
the defendant who maintained accident (Art. 1146)
such dangerous conditions. • relations back doctrine – an act done at one
▪ contractual relations time is considered by fiction of law to have
• by entering into a contractual been done at some antecedent period.
relationship freely and • Acquisitive prescription vs. extinctive
voluntarily where the prescription
negligence of the defendant is
obvious, the plaintiff may be 7. INVOLUNTARINESS
found to accept and consent to • believed to be a complete defense in a
it, and to undertake to look out quasi-delict case
for himself and yo relieve the
defendant of the duty. CHAPTER 5
• This is a defense of an CAUSATION
employer in a tort case filed by
his employee. PROXIMATE CAUSE
• There is assumption of risk • cause which, in natural and continuous
involved in transportation of sequence, unbroken by any efficient
goods and passengers intervening cause, produces the injury, and

jmvdg 13 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

without which the result would not have • policy tests of negligence
occurred. ◦ if the damage or injury to the plaintiff is
• not necessarily the last link in the chain of beyond the limit of the liability fixed by
events but that which is the procuring law, the defendant's conduct cannot be
efficient and predominant cause. considered the proximate cause of the
• Not necessarily the sole cause of the damage
accident ◦ foresight perspective – the defendant is
not liable for the unforseeable
Remote cause – cause which some independent consequences of his act.
force merely took advantage of to accomplish ▪ foreseeablity test
something not the natural effect thereof. ▪ natural and probable consequences
Concurrent cause
▪ natural and ordinary or direct
• intervening cause which merely cooperated consequences test
with the primary cause and which did nit
break the chain of causation. ◦ directness perspective – makes the
defendant liable for damages which are
• The joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable
beyond the risk
• “cause-in-fact test” ▪ orbit of risk test
◦ it is necessary that there be proof that ▪ substantial factor test
defendant's conduct is a factor in
causing plaintiff's damage the definition of proximate cause which includes
the element of foreseeability is not consistent with
◦ “but for” test or sine qua non test
the express provision of the New Civil Code (Art.
▪ defendant's conduct is the cause in
fact of the injury under this test if
the damage would not have
“natural and probable consequences of the act or
resulted had there been negligence
omission complained for” (Art. 2202)
on the part of the defendant.
• involves 2 things: (Reyes & Puno)
▪ This is the test commonly applied in
◦ causality
Philippine jurisdiction
▪ damage would not have resulted
◦ substantial factor test
without the fault or negligence of
▪ the causes set in motion by the
the defendant
defendant must continue until the
◦ adequacy
moment of the damage or at least
down the setting in motion of the ▪ the fault of the defendant would
final active injurious force which normally result in the damage
immediately produced or preceded suffered by the obligee
the damage.
moral damages & purely economic loss are
▪ Important in cases where there are
recoverable under the Philippine jurisdiction on
concurrent causes
Torts cases. Moreover, the defendant can also be
◦ NESS test
made liable even to those who may be considered
▪ the act or omission is the cause in unforeseeable plaintiffs.
fact if it is a necessary element of a
sufficient set CAUSE AND CONDITION
• it is no longer practicable to distinguish
between cause and condition (Phoenix

jmvdg 14 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

Construction vs IAC) the result.

• if no danger existed in the condition except • Equivalent to the pre-emptive cause
because of the independent cause, such referred to in the NESS test of Professor
condition was not the proximate cause Wright
• if an independent negligent act or defective • the test for efficient intervening cause is
condition sets in the operation the found in the nature and manner in which it
circumstances which result in the injury affects the continuity of operation of the
because the prior defective condition, such primary cause or the connection between it
subsequent act or condition is the and the injury
proximate cause. • such intervening cause must be:
• Even if the defendant had only created a ◦ new
condition, he may be held liable for ◦ independent or one not under the
damages if such condition resulted in harm control of the official wrongdoer
to either person or property. ◦ one which by the exercise of
• Types of dangerous conditions reasonable foresight and diligence, he
◦ inherently dangerous should have anticipated and guarded
▪ they retain their potential energy in against it
full, even if they are stored or ◦ it must break the continuity of causal
handled with utmost care. connection between the original
◦ in a dangerous position negligent act or omission and the injury
▪ like the case of Phoenix so that the former cannot be said to
Construction vs. IAC have been the efficient cause of the
▪ includes cases where the object is latter
placed in an unstable position • a cause is not an intervening cause if it is
where the application of small force already in operation at the time the
will permit the release of some negligent act is committed.
greater force. • Foreseeable intervening cause
◦ defective products ◦ cannot be considered sufficient
▪ the thing itself is not supposed to intervening causes.
be dangerous but it was negligently • A medical treatment is an intervening cause
or erroneously produced or • the intervention of an unforeseen and
constructed unexpected cause, is not sufficient to
▪ i.e defective buildings relieve a wrongdoer from consequences of
negligence, if such negligence directly and
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE proximately cooperates with the
• one that destroys the causal connection independent cause in the resulting injury.
between the negligent act and injury and ◦ An unforeseen and unexpected act of a
thereby negatives liability 3rd person may not be considered
• novuc actus interviens efficient intervening cause of it is
• there is no efficient intervening cause if the duplicative in nature or it merely
force created by the negligent act or aggravated the injury that resulted
omission have either: because of the prior cause.
◦ remained active itself
◦ created another force which remained CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
active until it directly caused the result • conduct on the part of the injured party,
◦ created a new active risk of being acted contributing as a legal cause to the harm
upon by the active force that caused he has suffered, which falls below the

jmvdg 15 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

standard to which he is required to conform ◦ Picart vs. Smith; PBCom vs CA;

for his own protection • cases where doctrine is inapplicable
• the reduction of the liability of the defendant ◦ when only the defendant was negligent
cannot be more than 50% because such ◦ where the party charged is required to
reduction by more than 50% is no longer act instantaneously; or if the injury
consistent with a finding that the cannot be avoided by the application of
defendant's negligence was the proximate all means at hand
cause of the damage or injury ◦ if the defendant's negligence is a
• if the defendant's negligence caused the concurrent cause and which was still in
injury but the plaintiff's negligence may operation up to the time the injury was
have increased or aggravated the resulting inflicted. (joint tortfeasors or between
damage or injury, the liability of the defendants)
defendant should also be mitigated. ◦ when plaintiff, a passenger, filed an
action against a carrier based on
• Requisites: ◦ if the actor was not aware of the danger
◦ Plaintiff was in a position of danger by his or risk brought about by prior fraud or
own negligence negligent act
◦ Defendant knew of such position of the
plaintiff CHAPTER 6
◦ Defendant had the least clear chance to HUMAN RELATIONS: INTENTIONAL TORTS
avoid the accident by exercise of ordinary
care but failed to exercise such last clear CATCH ALL PROVISIONS:
chance and Art. 19, NCC
◦ Accident occurred as proximate cause of • believed to be a mere declaration of
such failure principles which is being implemented by
• Views: other provisions
◦ prevailing view • abuse of rights, elements:
▪ the person who has the last fair ◦ there is a legal right or duty
chance to avoid the impending ◦ such right or duty was exercised in bad
harm and fails to do so is faith
chargeable with the consequences, ◦ for the sole intent of prejudicing or
without reference to the prior injuring another
negligence of the other party. • sets certain standards which may be
◦ minority view observed not only in the exercise of one's
▪ the doctrine is not applicable in the rights but also in the performance of one's
jurisdiction where the common law duties
doctrine of contributory negligence ◦ to act with justice
(which bars recovery) has been ◦ to give everyone his due
rejected ◦ to observe honesty and good faith
◦ 3 view

▪ the rule of comparative negligence Art. 20, NCC

and last clear chance are not • renders it impossible that a person who
considered inconsistent in any way suffers damage because another has
• cases where doctrine is applied violated some legal provision, should find
◦ the doctrine is being applied for the himself without relief
purpose of determining the proximate
cause of the accident

jmvdg 16 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

Art. 21, NCC liable for damages

• gives flesh to the provisions of Art. 19 ◦ basis of liability: Arts. 1701 and Art. 21
• acts contra bonus mores, elements of NCC
◦ there is an act which is legal ◦ Globe Mackay vs CA, GR 81262,
◦ such act is contrary to morals, good August 25, 1989
customs, public order or public policy • malicious prosecution
◦ one with intent to injure ◦ an action for damages brought by one
• breach of promise to marry against another whom a criminal
◦ by itself is not actionable unless there prosecution, civil suit, or other legal
are other acts that make it fall under proceedings has been instituted
Art. 19, 20, 21 of the Civil Code maliciously and without probable
cause, after the termination of such
▪ financial damage
prosecution, suit or proceeding in favor
▪ social humiliation caused to one of
of the defendant therein
the parties
◦ the action terminated should be one
▪ when there is a moral seduction
begun in malice without probable
• seduction by itself is an act cause to belive the charges thereon
which is contrary to morals, can be sustained and is instituted with
good customs, and public the intention of injuring another and
policy which terminates in favor of the person
• one is liable if he employed prosecuted.
deceit, enticement, superior ◦ Elements;
power or abuse of confidence
▪ malice
in successfully having sexual
• acting with inexusable ntent to
intercourse with another.
injure, oppress, vex, annoy or
• Desertion by a spouse
◦ if a spouse does not perform hir or her
▪ absence of probable cause
duty to the other, he may be held liable
• probable cause – existence of
for damages for such omission
such facts and circumstances
because the same is contrary to law,
as would excite the belief of the
morals and good customs
prosecutor, that the person
◦ (Tenchaves vs Escano, GR L-19671,
charged is guilty of the crime
July 26, 1966)
for which he was prosecuted
• trespass and deprivation of property
▪ acquittal
◦ real property
• presupposes that a criminal
◦ personal property information is filed in court and
• abortion and wrongful death final judgment is rendered
◦ a doctor who performs an illegal dismissing the case against the
abortion is criminally liable under Art. accused
259 of the RPC • public humiliation
◦ Geluz vs CA, 2 SCRA 802 [1961] ◦ plaintiff suffered humiliation through the
• illegal dismissal positive acts of the defendant directed
◦ employer has a right to dismiss an against the plaintiff
employee in the manner and on the
grounds provided for An action can only prosper when damage, material
◦ if the dismissal is in non-compliance or otherwise, was suffered by the plaintiff.
with the principles provided in Art. 19
and 21, the employer may be held

jmvdg 17 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

CHAPTER 7 invoked only by the person whose privacy

HUMAN DIGNITY is claimed to have been violated.
◦ May be waived
Privacy ◦ ceases upon the death of the person.
a)constitutional right to privacy • The standard to be applied in determining if
• rights included there was violation of the right is that of a
◦ right against unreasonable search and person of ordinary sensibilities. It is relative
seizures (Sec. 2, Constitution) to customs of time and place and is
◦ the right to privacy of one's determined by the norm of an ordinary
communication and correspondence person.
(Sec. 3 (1), Constitution)
◦ right against self incrimination (Sec. 17, Violation of privacy recognized in our
Constitution) jurisdiction:
• the Court ruled that in passing laws and • intrusion
rules, adequate safeguards should be ◦ protect a person's sense of locational
maintained regarding the people's and psychological privacy
expectancy of privacy. ◦ forms of intrusion:
• 2 part-test ▪ prying into the privacy of another's
◦ whether by his conduct, the individual residence (Art. 26 (a), NCC)
has exhibited an expectation of privacy ▪ criminal trespass (Art. 280, RPC)
◦ whether this expectation is one that ◦ generally, there is no invasion of the
society recognizes as reasonable right to privacy when a journalist
• special laws records, photographs, or writes about
◦ Anti Wiretapping Law something that occurs in public places.
◦ Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act Except: when such constitutes
◦ Intellectual Property Code harassment or overzealous shadowing.
• violation of the constitutional right to privacy
that causes damage to another makes the • publication of private facts
actor liable under Art. 32, NCC ◦ the interest sought to be protected is
the right to be free from unwarranted
b) Violation of the Right to Privacy as publicity, from the wrongful publicizing
Independent Tort of the private affairs and activities of an
• According to Prosser violations of privacy individual which are outside the realm
create 4 different kinds of tort. of legitimate public concern
◦ intrusion upon plaintiff’s seclusion or ◦ elements: (American Jurisprudence)
solitude ▪ there must be a public disclosure
◦ public disclosure of private ▪ the facts disclosed must be private
embarrassing facts facts
◦ publicity that places one in a bad light ▪ the matter must be one which
◦ appropriation, for the defendant’s would be offensive and
advantage of the plaintiff’s name or objectionable to a reasonable
likeness. person of ordinary sensibilities
• The right to privacy can be invoked only by ◦ elements: (Cordero vs. Buigasco)
natural persons because the basis of the ▪ publicity is given to any private or
right to privacy is an injury to the feelings purely personal information about a
and sensibilities of the party. person
• Purely personal in nature and may be ▪ such publication is without the

jmvdg 18 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

latter's consent ◦ unwarranted publication of a person's

▪ regardless of WON such publicity name or the unauthorized use of his
constitutes a criminal offense photograph or likeness for commercial
▪ publication made for profit or with purposes
intent to gain aggravates the ◦ right to publicity: protection of one's
violation of the right. economic interest; they treat their
◦ Newsworthiness names and likeness as property which
▪ the claim of newsworthiness can be cannot be encroached by another.
sustained if the facts to be ◦ 3 policy consideration
published are strange and unusual ▪ right to publicity vindicates the
◦ official proceedings economic interests of celebrities,
▪ the publication of facts derived form enabling those whose
the records of official proceedings, achievements have imbued their
which are not otherwise declared identities with pecuniary value to
by law as confidential, cannot be profit from their fame.
considered tortious. ▪ Right of publicity fosters thr
◦ official functions production of intellectual and
▪ the right to privacy belongs to the creative works by providing the
individual acting in his private financial incentives for individuals
capacity and not to governmental to expend the time and resources
agency or officers tasked with, and necessary to produce them.
acting in, the discharge of public ▪ Right of publicity serves both the
duties individual and societal interest by
preventing wrongful misconduct,
• false light unjust enrichment and deceptive
◦ the interest to be protected in this tort is trade practices.
the interest of the individual in not
being made to appear before the public Interference With Family Life And Other
in an objectionable false position Relations
• alienation of affection
False light Defamation
◦ consists of depriving one spouse of the
Gravamen is the Gravamen is affection, society, companionship and
embarrassment of a reputational harm comfort of the other
person being made into ◦ the gist is an interference with one
something he is not. spouse's mental attitude toward the
The statement should Publication is satisfied if other and the conjugal kindness of
be made actually public. a letter is sent to a 3rd marital relations resulting in some
person actual conduct which materially affects
Affects the relationship What is published
of the plaintiff with his lowers the esteem in Vexation and Humiliation
environment which the plaintiff is • infliction of emotional distress
◦ elements:
▪ the conduct of the defendant was
• commercial appropriation of likeness intentional or in reckless disregard
◦ held to protect aspects of an of the plaintiff
individual's identity from commercial ▪ the conduct was extreme and
exploitation outrageous

jmvdg 19 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

• conduct that is so outrageous in AIDS Victims)

character and so extreme in ▪ RA 8972 (Discrimination against
degree, as to go beyond all solo parent)
possible bounds of decency, • sexual harassment
and to be regarded as atrocious ◦ RA 7877, Anti-Sexual Harassment Act
and utterly intolerable in of 1995
civilized society ◦ policy: value the digity of every
▪ there was a causal connection individual, enhance the development of
between the defendant's conduct its human resources, guarantee full
and the plaintiff's mental distress respet for human rights, and uphold the
▪ plaintiff's mental distress is extreme dignity of works, employees, applicants
and severe for employment, students or those
◦ emotional distress undergoing training
▪ highly unpleasant mental reaction ◦ may be committed by one having
▪ parasitic damages on emotional authority, influence or moral
distress – depend on the existence ascendancy over another in a work,
of another tort instead of an education, or training setting
independent tort for intentional ▪ quid pro quo cases
infliction of emotional distress • defendant condition
Emotional distress Defamation employment benefits, onors,
awards, or privileges on sexual
Personal in nature favors
Belongs to the reactive Calls for the application ▪ hostile environment case
harm of the relational harm • involve the allegation that
principle employees or students
Publication not Publication is necessary work/study in an offensive or
necessary abusive environment
• test: Won an ordinary prudent
person would engage in the
• Discrimination allegedly harassing conduct
◦ laws against discrimination • elements:
▪ Universal Declaration Of Human ◦ plaintiff was subjected to
Rights sexual advances, requests
▪ International Convention On for sexual favors, or other
Economic, Social, And Cultural verbal or physical conduct
Rights of sexual nature
▪ International Convention On The ◦ that the defendant's
Ekements Of All Forms Of Racial conduct was unwelcome
Discrimination ◦ that the conduct was
▪ Convention Agaisnt Discrimination sufficiently sever or
In Education pervasive to alter the
▪ Convention Concerning conditions of the victim's
Discrimination In Respect Of employment and create an
Employment And Occupation abusing work environment
▪ Art. 135, Labor Code ◦ punishment: imprisonment of 1mo. to
▪ RA 7277, Magna Carta For 6mo. or a fine of 10k-20k
Disabled Persons ◦ 3 years prescriptive period
▪ RA 8504 (discrimination Against

jmvdg 20 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

CHAPTER 8 public official, especially when he is of

TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION high rank, no criminal action was thus
filed by the prosecuting attorney
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION ◦ the requirement of proof beyond
• violation of civil rights reasonable doubt often prevented the
• violation of political rights appropriate punishment
• defamation ◦ direct and open violation of the Penal
• fraud Code trampling upon the freedom
• physical injuries named are not so frequent as those
• neglect of public officers subtle,clever and indirect ways which
do not come within the pale of penal
examples: laws
• Art. 32, NCC • normally involves intentional acts but can
• Art. 33, NCC also be committed through negligence,
thus good faith on the part of the defendant
• Art. 34, NCC
does not necessarily excuse such violation
• Art. 135 of the Labor Code
• liability for violation of any of these rights
• Section 5 of the Anti-Sexual Harassment
are directed against public officers or
employees and private individuals
• a person may also be liable whether his
participation is direct or indirect.
“The underlying principle under consideration is to
allow the citizen to enforce his rights in a private • The doctrine of state immunity applies
action brought by him regardless of the action of only if the acts involved are act done by
the State Attorney. x x x while the State is the officers in the performance of official duties
complainant in the criminal case, the injured within the ambit of their powers.
individuals is the most concerned because it is he • Examples of violations:
who has suffered directly. He should be permitted ◦ due process
to demand reparation for the wrong which ◦ search and seizure
particularly affects him.” - (Report, p. 46, Civil Code
Commission) ARTICLE 33: DEFAMATION, FRAUD, and
2 views: • Defamation
• Tolentino ◦ invasion of the interests in reputation
◦ the civil actions are ex-delicto (civil and good name, by communication to
liability arising from delict) others which tends to diminish the
• Caguioa esteem in which the plaintiff s held, or
to excite adverse feelings or opinions
◦ the tortious of the actions are more of
against him. (Prosser)
culpa aquiliana
◦ publication of statement which tends to
ARTICLE 32 lower a person in the estomation of
right-thinking members of society
• provides for an independent civil action for
generally or which tends to make them
violation of civil and political rights.
shun or avoid that person
• Rationale:
◦ because the Fiscal is burdened with too ◦ liability is brought about by the desire to
many caseso bacause he belived the protect the reputation of every
evidence was insufficient, as as to individual
disinclination to prosecute a fellow ◦ requisites:

jmvdg 21 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

▪ it must defamatory from arrest while the Congress

▪ it must be malicious is in session. No member shall
• prompted by ill-will or spite and be questioned nor be held
speaks not in response to a liable in any other place for any
duty but merely to injure the speech or debate in the
reputation of the person who Congress or in any committee
claims to have been defamed thereof. (Constitution)
• malice in law or malice in fact ▪ qualified privilege
▪ it must be given publicity • a private communication made
• communication to a single by any person to another in the
individual is sufficient performance of any legal,
▪ the victim must be identifiable moral, or social duty;
• includes natural and juridical ◦ complaints against public
persons officials
• groups libel – statements ◦ report to a superior officer
directed against a fairly large ◦ allegations in pleadings
group ◦ publication of pleadings
• in our jurisdiction, the relatives ◦
of the deceased can file an • a fair and true report, made in
action for damage to the good faith, without any
reputation of the latter. comments or remarks of any
◦ a man's reputation is not the good judicial, legislative, or other
opinion he has of himself, but the official proceedings which are
estimation in which others hold him. not confidential in nature, or of
◦ Kinds: any statement, report, or
▪ slander or oral defamation speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act
▪ libel or written defamation
performed by public officers in
◦ persons liable: (Art. 360, RPC)
the exercise of their functions
▪ any person who shall publish,
◦ fair comment – when the
exhibit, or cause the publication or
discretable imputation is
directed against a public
▪ author or editor of the book or person in his public
pamphlet capacity, it is not
▪ editor or business manager of a necessarily actionable
daily newspaper, magazine, or • Fraud
serial publication
◦ elements of deceit (English Law)
◦ every defamatory imputation is
▪ the defendant must have made
presumed to be malicious even if it be
false representation to the plaintiff
true (Art. 354, RPC)
◦ Defenses: ▪ the representation must be one of
▪ absolutely privileged matters
▪ the defendant must know that the
• Section 11. A Senator or representation is false or be
Member of the House of reckless about whether it is false
Representatives shall, in all
▪ the defendant must have acted on
offenses punishable by not
the false representation
more than six years
▪ the plaintiff must have suffered
imprisonment, be privileged

jmvdg 22 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

damages as a result of acting on

the representation Exceptions:
◦ includes the crime of Estafa under the • contravention of ordinance
RPC • violation of game laws
◦ includes misrepresentation made by • infraction of the rules of traffic when nobody
sellers and manufacturers is hurt
• Physical Injuries • treason
◦ include the crime of battery (an • rebellion
intentional infliction of harmful or • espionage
offensive bodily contact) • contempt, etc.
◦ includes bodily injuries causing death
The presence of civil liability in offenses is not
ARTICLE 34: NEGLECT OF DUTY determined by the fact that the crime is public or
• intended to afford a remedy agaisnt police private.
officers who connive with bad elements,
are afraid of them or are simply indifferent Persons liable: (RPC & NCC)
to duty • principals
• the subsidiary liability of cities and • accomplices
municipalities, is imposed so that they will • accessories
exercise great care in selecting
conscientious and duly qualified policeman “Art. 109. Share of each person
and exercise supervision over them in the civilly liable. — If there are two or more
performance of their duties as peace persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts
officers shall determine the amount for which each
must respond.
CHAPTER 9 Art. 110. Several and
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM DELICT subsidiary liability of principals,
accomplices and accessories of a felony —
dual character of a crime: Preference in payment. — Notwithstanding
the provisions of the next preceding article,
• offense against the State for the
the principals, accomplices, and
disturbance of the social order accessories, each within their respective
• offense against the person injured by the class, shall be liable severally (in solidum)
crime. among themselves for their quotas, and
subsidiaries for those of the other persons
Art. 100, RPC. Every person criminally liable.
liable is also civilly liable. The subsidiary liability shall be
enforced, first against the property of the
ARTICLE 1161. Civil obligations arising from principals; next, against that of the
criminal offenses shall be governed by the accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the
penal laws, subject to the provisions of accessories.
article 2177, and of the pertinent provisions Whenever the liability in solidum
of Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, on Human or the subsidiary liability has been
Relations, and of Title XVIII of this Book, enforced, the person by whom payment
regulating damages. has been made shall have a right of action
against the others for the amount of their
What gives rise to the civil liability is really the respective shares.”
obligation of everyone to repair or to make whole
Each of the persons liable shall be subsidiarily
the damage caused to another by reason of his act
liable for the other's share in case of the latter's
or omission, whether done intentionally or
negligently and whether or not punishable by law.

jmvdg 23 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

Civil liability includes restitution, reparation of the
damages caused, and indemnification for Modes to extinguish liability:
consequential damages. (Art. 104, RPC; see Art. • payment
105, 106, 107 and 111 of RPC) • loss of the thing due
• condonation or remission of the debt
Art. 2202 of the NCC provides that in crime and • confusion or merger
quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all • compensation
the damages which are natural and probable
• novation
consequences of the act or omission complained
• prescription
Effect of Death:
Circumstances affecting civil liability:
• JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art, 11, • Death of the person liable after the final
judgment extinguishes the criminal liability
but will not extinguish the civil liability. The
◦ make the act of the accused legal
obligation to make restoration and
◦ exception: general rule will not apply to reparation for damages ad indemnification
persons who obtained benefit because for consequential damages devolves upon
he performed an act in a state of he heirs of the person liable.
necessity. (Art. 101, RPC)
◦ civil liability when there is justifying
• Death of the accused before the final
judgment relieves the accused of both
circumstances is present only in the
criminal and civil liability arising from the
situation contemplated in paragraph 4
criminal liability.
of Art. 11.
◦ Aggrieved party in a libel or physical
injuries case (including homicide or
• EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 12, murder) who initially opted to claim
RPC) damages in the criminal case can file
◦ exempt the person from punishment another case to enforce his claim under
◦ no civil liability if Art. 33, NCC
▪ the crime was committed by any
person who while performing a Pardon does not erase civil liability because it is
lawful act with due care, causes an not one of the grounds recognized by the civil code
injury by mere accident without that extinguishes civil liability.
fault or intention of causing it.
▪ Crime was committed by any Civil liability arising from crime is impliedly
person who fails to perform an act instituted with the criminal action but a separate
required by law, when presented by case may be filed to enforce the same.
some lawful or insuperable cause. • Civil action filed ahead of the criminal
• MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 13, • filing of civil action has been reserved
RPC) (in both case the civil action is dependent on the
◦ reduces the criminal liability criminal action)

• AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. section 1 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Revised Rules on
14, RPC) Criminal Procedures indicates that the action to
◦ compels the court to impose the enforce civil liability based on Arts. 2176, 32, 33,
penalty to the maximum provided by and 34 of NCC are not deemed instituted and what
is deemed instituted only is the action to enforce

jmvdg 24 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

civil liability arising from criminal liability. Joint tort-feasors

• their liability is solidary (Art. 2194, NCC)
The right to file an independent action is even ◦ motor vehicle mishaps – owner is
available to the accused in the criminal case. solidarily liable with his driver if the
former who was in the vehicle, could
Prejudicial question have, by the use of due diligence,
• matter that may suspend the civil action prevented the misfortune (Art. 2184)
that is deemed instituted with the criminal ◦ test of negligence: omission to do
case which the evidence of his own senses
• elements: tell him he should do in order to avoid
◦ previously instituted civil action involves the accident.
an issue similar or intimately related to
the issue raised in the criminal action Vicarious liability
◦ the resolution of such issue determines • a person is not only liable for torts
whether or not the criminal action may committed by himself, but also for torts
proceed. committed by others with whom he has a
certain relationship and for whom he is
CHAPTER 10 responsible.
THE DEFENDANTS • Doctrine of imputed negligence
• the person is being made liable not only
Doctrine of Respondeat Superior – the liability is because of the negligent or wrongful act of
strictly imputed, the employer is liable not because the person for whom they are responsible
of his act or omission but because of the act or but also because for their own negligence
omission of the employee; employer cannot • legal bases:
escape liability by claiming that he exercised due
◦ Civil Code: Art. 2180 to 2182 of NCC;
diligence in the selection or supervision of the
Art. 58, Child and Youth Welfare Code;
Arts. 219, 221, and 236 of the Family
GENERAL RULE: Vicarious liability in the
Philippines is not governed by the doctrine of
◦ Revised Penal Code: Arts. 101, 102
respondeat superior; employers or parents are
and 103
made liable not only because of the negligent or
wrongful act of the person for whom they are
Parents and other person exercising Parental
responsible but also because of their own
1) Liability is imposed on the employer • the basis of their liability is the parental
because he failed to exercise due diligence authority that they exercise over the minor
in the selection or supervision of the children.
employee • The parents exercise their authority jointly
2) Parents are made liable because and in the absence or death of either
they failed to exercise due diligence parent, the parent present shall continue
EXCEPTION: Doctrine of respondeat superior is exercising parental authority.
applicable in: • The same parental authority is terminated
1) liability of employers under Article upon adoption of the child and shall be
103 of the RPC vested in the adopters.
2) liability of a partnership for the tort • In default of parents or a judicially
committed by a partner appointed guardian, the ffg. shall exercise
substitute parental authority
both natural and juridical persons may be held ◦ surviving grandparents
liable for quasi-delict.

jmvdg 25 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

◦ oldest brother or sister over 21 years of liable, the parents are subsidiarily liable
age • responsibility and authority of the school
◦ child's actual custodian over 21 years and other persons exercising special
of age parental authority shall apply to all
• with the enactment of the Family Code, the authorized activities whether inside or
alternative obligation of parents under Art. outside the premises of the school, entity
2180 is now inoperative. Both parents are or institution.
primarily liable for the damages caused by • Art. 2180 of the Civil Code applied if the
their child student is not a minor, apply Art. 218 of
• parents or guardian are liable only if the Family Code if the involved is a minor.
minor is living in their company • Basis of liability may be:
• under Art. 101 of RPC, parents are ◦ negligence
primarily liable for the civil liability arising ◦ contract
from criminal offense committed by their
minor children under their legal authority or Employers
control who live in their company • the responsibility of employers for the
• defense of due diligence of a good father of negligence of their employees in the
a family is a valid defense performance of their duties is primary
• due care that parents and guardians are • Civil Code
supposed to exercise is a question of ◦ Art. 2180 of the Civil Code provides
foreseeability that the employer's liability is direct and
• in guardianship, even if the ward is already primary
of age, guardians have the same liability as ▪ the employer can escape this
persons exercising parental authority. liability by proving that he exercised
• Procedure for appointment of guardians is due diligence in the selection and
governed by Rule 92, Rules of Court supervision of the employee
• special parental authority vs. substitute • formulating SOP, monitoring
parental authority. their implementation, and
• Parents are held vicariously liable because imposing discipline for
they are the persons who are financially breaches thereof.
capable of satisfying any judgment ▪ presence of employer-employee
obligation. (deep pocket principle) relationship must be proven
• control test – person for whom
Schools, Teachers and Administrators the services are to be
• Art. 218, Family Code: schools, its performed controls not just the
administrators, and teachers or the result but also the means and
individual, entity or institution engaged in manner to achieve such end or
child care shall have special parental result
authority and responsibility over the minor ▪ if only the employer is sued, he
child under their supervision, instruction, or may recover from the employee
custody. what he has paid or delivered in
• They are principally and solidarily liable for satisfaction of the claim. If only the
damages caused by the acts or omissions employee is sued, no right of
of the unemancipated minor reimbursement accrues.
• defense: due diligence of a good father of a ◦ it is not necessary that the employer is
family engaged in some kind of industry or
• if the persons enumerated herein are made work (Castillex vs. Vasquez)

jmvdg 26 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

◦ the vicarious liability of the employer ▪ employer is engaged in any kind of

attaches only when the tortious conduct industry
of the employee relates to, or is in the • industry – any department or
course of his employment branch of arts, occupation or
▪ test: whether, at the time of the business especially one which
damage or injury, the employer is employs such labor and capital
engaged in he affairs or concerns and is a distinct branch of trade
of the employer, or independently, ▪ employee was convicted of the
in that of his own offense in the discharge of his
◦ presumption of negligence of the duties
employer is only juris tantum and not • conviction is condition sine qua
juris et de jure non. If no criminal action was
◦ for the presumption of negligence to instituted, the employer's
operate, the negligence of the liability will nit be predicated on
employee must first be established. Art. 103, RPC
◦ Registered owner rule • the acquittal of the employee
▪ the person who is the registered wipes out not just the
owner of a vehicle is liable for any employee's primary liability but
damages caused by the negligent the subsidiary liability as well
operation of the vehicle driver ▪ employee is insolvent
although the same was already • insolvency - inability or the lack
sold or conveyed to another at the of means to pay one's debt as
time of the accident. they fall due
▪ This rule had been applied to cases ◦ the controlling view is that the
involving the enforcement of liability subsidiary liability of the employer can
against an employer under Art. be enforced in the same criminal case
2180, NCC even if the employer is where the employee was convicted. All
not engaged in business. that is necessary is the filing of a
▪ Exception: if the vehicle was stolen motion for a subsidiary writ of execution
from or taken without the consent
and knowledge of the registered Innkeepers and Hotelkeepers
owner. • their liability is based on Art. 102 of RPC
▪ This rule applies when ever the Partnership
persons involved are engaged in
• each partner is an agent of the other
what is known as the “kabit system”
partners and the partnership for acts done
• arrangement whereby a person
within the apparent scope of business of
who has been granted a
the latter.
certificate of public
• The partnership or every member of a
convenience allows other
partnership is liable for torts committed by
persons who own motor
one of the members acting within the
vehicles to operate under his
scope of the firm's business though they do
license, sometimes for a fee or
not participate in, ratify, or have knowledge
percentage of the earnings.
of such torts.
• Revised Penal Code
• Test: WON the wrong was committed in
◦ Art. 103, RPC, the liability imposed is
behalf of the partnership and within the
reasonable scope of its business.
◦ requisites
• Vicarious liability is similar to the common

jmvdg 27 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

law rule on respondeat superior CHAPTER 11

Spouses strict liability
• Absolute Community of Property • if one is made liable independent of fault,
◦ default marriage settlement negligence or intent after establishing
◦ all the properties of the marriage are certain facts specified by law.
jointly owned by the spouses • Can be committed even if reasonable care
◦ vicarious liability based on paragraph was exercised and regardless of the state
(9), Art. 94, Family Code of mind of the actor at that time.
• Conjugal Partnership of Gains • Liability without fault.
◦ default marriage settlement prior to the
effectivity of the Family Code ANIMALS
◦ pecuniary indemnities imposed upon • Art. 2183, NCC
the husband or wife are not chargeable “The possessor of an animal or whoever may
make use of the same is responsible for the
against the conjugal partnership but damage which it may cause, although it may
against the separate properties of the escape or be lost. This responsibility shall
wrongdoer. cease only in case the damage should come
• Regime of separation of property from force majeure or from the fault of the
person who has suffered damage. (1905)”
◦ Art. 145, Family Code
◦ each spouse shall own, dispose of ,
possess, administer and enjoy his or
her own separate estate. • Art. 2193, NCC
“The head of a family that lives in a building or a
◦ Each spouse is responsible for his or part thereof, is responsible for damages caused
her own obligation. by things thrown or falling from the same. (1910)”
• the liability imposed is absolute; it does not
State indicate a presumption or admit of proof of
• 5th paragraph of Art. 2180, NCC which is care.
limited to acts of special agents • The term “head of a family” is not limited to
◦ special agent – one who receives the owner of the building and it may even
definite and fixed order or commission, include the lessee thereof.
foreign to the exercise of the duties of
his office if he is a special official. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS
• Art. 1171, NCC
Municipal Corporations “Owners of enterprises and other employers are
• liability of municipal corps for damages obliged to pay compensation for the death of or
injuries to their laborers, workmen, mechanics or
arising from injuries suffered by other employees, even though the event may
pedestrians from the defective conditions have been purely accidental or entirely due to a
of roads is expressed in Art. 2189, NCC fortuitous cause, if the death or personal injury
• the article only requires that either control arose out of and in the course of the employment.
or supervision is exercised over the The employer is also liable for compensation if the
employee contracts any illness or disease caused
defective road or street.
by such employment or as the result of the nature
of the employment. If the mishap was due to the
Public officers employee's own notorious negligence, or
• public officers who are guilty of tortious acts voluntary act, or drunkenness, the employer shall
are personally liable for their actions. not be liable for compensation. When the
employee's lack of due care contributed to his
• Section 38, Administrative Code of 1987 death or injury, the compensation shall be
equitably reduced.”

jmvdg 28 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

NUISANCE ▪ remedies
• ARTICLE 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, • civil action
establishment, business, condition of property, or
anything else which:
• abatement without judicial
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety proceedings
of others; or • remove or destroy the thing
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or which constitutes the nuisance
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or (must be with the assistance of
morality; or the local police)
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free
passage of any public highway or street, or any ◦ nuisance per se
body of water; or ▪ nuisance under any and al
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property. circumstances
• Anything that injures health, endangers life, ◦ nuisance per accidens
offends the senses or produces discomfort ▪ becomes nuisance under certain
to the community (Section 84, Code of conditions and circumstances
Sanitation of the Phil.) • there is strict liability on the part of the
• protection against nuisance is a legal owner or possessor of the property where
easement a nuisance is found because he is obliged
• kinds to abate the same irrespective of the
◦ public presence or absence of fault or negligence.
▪ affects a community or • Private person or public official
neighborhood or any considerable extraordinarily abating a nuisance shall be
number of persons although the liable for damages in 2 cases:
extent of annoyance, danger or ◦ if he causes unnecessary injury
damage upon individuals may be ◦ if an alleged nuisance is later declared
unequal by the courts to be not a real nuisance.
▪ remedies • The action to abate a nuisance is
• prosecution under the RPC imprescriptible
• civil action for abatement • it is believed that the only effect of estoppel
without judicial proceedings at most is that the private party who is so
▪ a private person may file an action estopped may be deemed to have waived
on account of a public nuisance, if it his or her rights to damages.
is specially injurious to himself with
the following requisites: CHAPTER 12
• that demand be first made upon PRODUCT AND SERICE LIABILITY
the owner or possessor of the
property to abate the nuisance Product Liability
• that such demand has been • law which governs the liability of
rejected manufacturers and sellers for damages
• that the abatement must be resulting from defective products
approved by the district health • statutory basis: Consumer Act of the
officer and executed with the Philippines
assistance of the local police; • alternative theories:
• that the value of the destruction ◦ fraud or misrepresentation
does not exceed P3k ▪ may be based on Art. 33, NCC
◦ private usual exaggeration in trade are not
▪ anything that is not included in the actionable misrepresentations
foregoing ◦ breach of warranty

jmvdg 29 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

▪ warranty is any affirmation of fact or ordinary prudent man was not

any promise by the seller relating to exercised in manufacturing,
the thing which induces the buyer packaging, marketing or distributing
to purchase the same and the the product
buyer purchases relying thereon ▪ there is negligence per se if the
▪ warranty may be express or implied manufactures products do not
▪ warranty shall be operative from the comply with the safety standards
moment of sale (Art. 68 [b], promulgated by appropriate
Consumer Act) government agencies specified
▪ other implied warranty shall endure under the Consumer Act.
not less that 60 days nor more than ▪ Safety and quality standards for
1 year consumer act
▪ distributors and retailers are • requirements to performance,
required to keep a record of all composition, contents, design,
purchases covered by a warranty construction, finish, packaging
or guarantee for such a period of of a consumer product
time • requirements as to kind, class,
▪ warranty registration – report made grade, dimensions, weight,
in accordance with Art. 68, par 1 of material
Consumer Act. • requirements as to method of
▪ The retailer shall be subsidiarily sampling, tests and codes used
liable under the warranty in case of to check the quality of the
failure of both the manufacturer and products
distributor to honor the warranty • requirements as to precautions
▪ Del Rosario vs CA: privity is not in storage, transporting and
necessary in successfully pursuing packaging
an action for breach of warranty • requirements that a consumer
▪ see the coverage of the Consumer product be marked with or
Act accompanied by clear and
• De Guzman vs Toyota(2006): a adequate safety.
car is impliedly a consumer ◦ civil liability arising from criminal liability
product ◦ strict liability***
▪ hierarchy of liable individuals ▪ Article 2187, NCC
• Manufacturer ▪ privity of contract is not required
• distributor under Art. 2187 because it
• retailer expressly allows recovery although
▪ joint manufacturer are jointly liable no contractual relation exists.
▪ remedies ▪ The duty to warn is primarily
• express: goods repaired; refund imposed on the manufacturer but
purchase price exceptionally, the wholesaler or
retailer may have such obligation if
• implied: retain the goods+
damages; reject the
goods+rescind the • are engaged in the packaging
contract+recover what has or labeling of such products
been paid • prescribe or specify by means
◦ negligence the manner in which such
products are packaged or
▪ liability will result if due care of an

jmvdg 30 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

• having knowledge, refuse to ◦ knowledge on the part of th e3rd

disclose the source of the person of the existence of the contract
mislabeled or mispackaged ◦ interference by a 3rd person without
products legal cause
▪ minimum labeling requirements • Daywalt vs. La Corporacion De los Padres
• WON it is flammable Agustinos Recoletos et al.: malice in the
• directions for use sense of ill will or spite is immaterial as
• warning of toxicity opposed with the case of So Ping Bun vs.
• wattage, voltage or amperes CA: lack of malice precludes damages but
• process of manufacture use if a permanent injunction against the 3rd
necessary person shall be the proper remedy.
▪ failure of the manufacturer to • mere competition is not sufficient unless it
comply with the affirmative duties is considered unfair competition or the
imposed by law not only exposes dominant purpose is to inflict harm or injury
him to civil liability for damages but • privileges to interfere afforded in business
also to criminal liability competition
▪ available defenses ◦ the defendant's purpose is a justifiable
• that it did not place the product one
on the market ◦ the actor employs no means of fraud or
• although it did place the product deception which are regarded unfair
on the market such products • the stranger cannot become more
has no defect extensively liable in damages for the non
• the consumer or 3rd party is performance of the contract than the party
solely at fault in whose behalf he intermeddles.
• there is no defect in the • See Article 2202, NCC
services rendered (supplier)
Interference With Prospective Advantage
CHAPTER 13 • there is no contract yet and the defendant
BUSINESS TORTS is only being sued for inducing another to
enter into a contract with the plaintiff
“ARTICLE 1314. Any third person who induces
another to violate his contract shall be liable for Unfair Competition
damages to the other contracting party. (n)” • Art. 28, NCC
• see Article 186, RPC; Section 2 of Art. XIV,
Interference With Contractual Relations Constitution; Section 168 (Sec. 168.2 and
• general rule: only parties to a contract ae 168.3 [a] and [b]), IPCode;
bound by the terms of the contract and only • includes the cases involving the tort of
a party can file an action for breach of interference with contractual relations and
contract or for rescission or annulment interference with prospective advantage
thereof • also present is the defendant committed
• considered tortious because it violates the fraudulent appropriation against
rights of the contracting parties to fulfill the competition
contract and to have it fulfilled to reap the • also present in the case of predatory
benefits resulting therefrom and to compel pricing
the performance by the other party ◦ practice of selling below costs in the
• elements short run in the hoe of obtaining
◦ existence of a valid contract monopoly gains later, after driving the

jmvdg 31 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

competition from the market. psychologically incapacitated;

award of moral damages is
Securities Related Fraud improper
• implicit from any violation of the Securities ◦ WON a juridical entity is capable of
Regulations Code (RA 8799) is the liability being awarded an award for moral
for damages caused by such violation. damages: Generally NO.
• Sec. 26, RA 8799 enumerates the Exception: Besmirched reputation
fraudulent transactions. (Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Jan
• Sec. 58, RA 8799 17, 2005:libel and defamation with
• the essential objectives of securities moral damages)
legislation is to protect those who do not • exemplary
know market conditions from the ◦ corrective damages
overrechings of those who do. ◦ Art. 2229, NCC
◦ in addition to the other forms of
CHAPTER 14 damages
DAMAGES ◦ bad faith, gross negligence or malice
on the part of the defendant
Justice Regalado • nominal
injury – legal invasion of a right; ◦ “stand alone” award of damages
damage – lost, hurt or harm
damages – compensation of the lost, hurt or harm
◦ Cathay Pacific vs. Vasquez; passenger
moved from economy class to business
caused by the legal invasion of a right
damages shall be awarded in legal tender ◦ Agabon vs NLRC: reverted to the
Wenphil doctrine(?) with regard to
damnum absque injuria – damages without award of backwages; there is valid
injury; one who exercise a right does no injury ground to dismiss the employee; right
except is the provisions on human relations apply to due process was violated; nominal
(Art. 19-21, NCC) damages was awarded
read the case of Custodio vs CA (property case) • temperate
◦ award of damage sustained cannot be
types of damages:(mental) determined with reasonable certainty
• moral ◦ Ramos vs CA; medical
◦ awarded to afford plaintiff the means of malpractice;captain of the ship
diversion or to alleviate moral doctrine; 1.5M award of temperate
sufferings damages
◦ malice on the part of the defendant • actual/compensatory damages
should be proven ◦ the 2 are treated the same
▪ Bagumbayan Corp. vs IAC: juice ◦ doctrine of foreseeability of the injury
was spilled to one patron of a ◦ plaintiff has to prove his cause of action
restaurant; no ground to award ◦ types
moral damages ▪ danjo emergente – loss of what the
▪ Sps. Herbosa vs PBE, January 25, plaintiff has
2002; videography of a wedding; ▪ lucro cessante – loss of profit; loss
moral damages was awarded of earning capacity
▪ Buenaventura vs Buenaventura, ◦ legal interest
March 21, 2005: moral damages ▪ Eastern Shipping vs CA (Vitug)
against a spouse who is ▪ distinguish obligation from a loan or

jmvdg 32 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011

Torts & Damages
AUF School of Law Atty. Saben C. Loyola

forbearance of money and from

those which are not.
• Loan: Legal interest is 12%
which commence on the day of Source:
delay TORTS AND DAMAGES by Timoteo B. Aquino, 2nd
• 6% if the amount claimed edition, 2005
cannot be determined with
reasonable certainty which
commence on the day the
Court rendered judgment on
the amount of claim
▪ General rule: the stipulated interest
in the contract shall be the basis of
exception: in cases where the
source of an obligation is not a
◦ ICTSI vs FGU insurance (March 2009)
▪ cargo owner; subrogation; 6%
interest applied (Resolution)
◦ P50k award in case of death

◦ formula for loss of earning capacity:

2/3 x 80 (life expectancy of Filipinos) – actual
age x gross annual income – living expenses
(50% of gross annual income)
◦ PP vs Claudio Teehankee, Jr.:
compensation for damages for loss of
capacity is awarded even to those who
are NOT gainfully employed
◦ Mercury Drug vs Huang: student who
was awarded damages for earning
◦ Attorney's fees
▪ belongs to the client not to counsel
▪ not automatically awarded to
winning litigant
▪ usually is 10%
▪ basis for the award must be
explained in the dispositive portion
of the decision
▪ avoidable consequences (Art.
2203, NCC)
• liquidated
◦ specific amount stipulated with regard
to damage
◦ General rule: respected by court
except: if the amount is unconscionable

jmvdg 33 1st Sem/ A.Y. 2010-2011