Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
◦ 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.
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
probability.
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
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
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
test
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
TESTS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE ▪ hindsight test
• “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
2202).
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
law.
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
of.
Effect of Death:
Circumstances affecting civil liability:
• JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art, 11, • Death of the person liable after the final
judgment extinguishes the criminal liability
RPC)
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
action
• 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
◦ 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)
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