TORTS AND DAMAGES

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE WORD TORT?
The word tort is taken directly from the
French and is a derivation of the Latin word
torquere meaning to twist.
HOW IS TORT DEFINED IN COMMON LAW?

In common law, tort is an unlawful violation
of rivate right, not created !y contract, and
which gives rise to an action for damages. It is an
act or omission roducing in"ury to another,
without any revious e#isting lawful relation of
which said act or omission may !e said to !e a
natural outgrowth or incident.
It is a rivate or civil wrong or in"ury, other
than !reach of contract, for which the court will
rovide a remedy in the form of an action for
damages. It is a violation of a duty imosed !y
general law or otherwise uon all ersons
occuying the relation to each other which is
involved in a given transaction. There must
always !e violation of some duty that must give
rise y oeration of law and not !y mere
agreement of the arties.
$ tort is a wrong indeendent of a contract,
which arises from an act or omission of a erson
which causes some in"ury or damage directly or
indirectly to another erson. It may either !e %&' a
direct invasion of some legal right of the
individual( %)' the infraction of some u!lic duty
!y which secial damage accrues to the
individual( %*' the violation of some rivate
o!ligation !y which like damage accrues to the
individual.
WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF TORTS IN COMMON
LAW?
Tort in common law includes+
&. I,T-,TI.,$L T./T0 which include conduct where
the actor desires to cause the conse1uences of
his act or !elieves the conse1uences are
su!stantially certain to result from it. It
includes assault, !attery, false imrisonment,
defamation, invasion of rivacy and
interference of roerty.
). ,-2LI2-,3- involves voluntary acts or omissions
which result in in"ury to others, without
intending to cause the same. The actor fails to
e#ercise due care in erforming such acts or
omissions.
*. 0T/I3T LI$4ILIT5 I, T./T where the erson is made
lia!le indeendent of fault or negligence uon
su!mission of roof of certain facts.
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF TORT?
There are three most imortant elements of
tort+
&. /ight and duty(
). $ct or omission( and
*. 6amage
WHAT IS QUASI-DELICT?
7hoever !y act or omission causes damage
to another, there !eing fault or negligence is
o!liged to ay for the damage done. 0uch fault or
negligence, if there is no re8e#isting contractual
relation !etween the arties, is called quasi-delict
and is governed !y the rovisions of $rticle )&9:
of the 3ivil 3ode.
HOW IS TORT DISTINGUISHED FROM QUASI-
DELICT?
Quasi-delict is what is known as T./T in
$nglo8$merican law. Tort is !roader than the
0anish8;hiliine concet of quasi-delict which is
/oman in origin. Tort in $nglo8$merican Law
includes not only negligence !ut also intentional
criminal acts, such as assault and !attery, false
imrisonment and deceit. Quasi-delict, on the
other hand, covers only acts or omissions which
cause damage to another !ecause of fault or
negligence, there !eing no re8e#isting
contractual relation !etween the arties. This is
referred to as non8contractual negligence.
The concet of tort came to our legal
system after the ;hiliines !ecame a colony of
the <nited 0tates of $merica as a result of the
Treaty of ;aris signed on 6ecem!er &=, &>?>.
The 3ode commission deli!erately used the
term quasi-delicts to designate those
o!ligations which do not arise from law, contracts,
quasi-contracts, or criminal o@enses, !ecause this
term more nearly corresonds to the /oman law
classiAcation of o!ligations and is in harmony with
the nature of this kind of lia!ility. It re"ected to use
the term Tort, which is !roader, !ecause in the
general lan of the ;hiliine legal system,
intentional and malicious acts, which certain
e#cetions, are governed !y the ;enal 3ode.
WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THE LAW ON
TORTS AND DAMAGES?
The law on Torts and 6amages is !ased on
several articles sread in the ,ew 3ivil 3ode and
secial laws, articularly the following+
&. 3hater on Quasi-Delicts %$rticles )&9: to
)&?B'
). 3hater on Quasi-Contracts %$rticles )&BB,
)&BC, )&B:, )&B9, )&B>, )&C=, )&C& and
)&C?'
*. 3hater on Duman /elations %$rticles &? to
*:'
B. $rticles &&9) to &&9B of the ,ew 3ivil 3ode
which are made alica!le to quasi-delicts
%0ee $rticle )&9>'
2
C. $rticle &9)*, ,ew 3ivil 3ode %0ee $rticle
)&?)'
:. $rticle *=?, ,ew 3ivil 3ode %0ee $rticle
))&? E?F'
9. $rticle &*&B ,33 %3ontractual Interference'
>. Family 3ode of the ;hiliines
?. $rticles &== to &=* of the /evised ;enal
3ode %see $rticle )&99, ,33'
&=. Title GHIII %6amages' covering $rticles
)&?C to ))*C, ,33.
&&. 3hater on ,uisance %$rticles :?B to
9=9, ,33'
&). 3hater III, 0ection B %3ommon
3arriers' covering $rticles &9CC to &9:*,
,33
&*. /.$. ,o. 9>99 %$nti80e#ual
Darassment $ct'
&B. 0ureme 3ourt decisions
&C. $merican law and "urisrudence( and
&:. .inion of legal authors
WHAT ARE THE MAJOR PURPOSES OF TORT LAW?
The ma"or uroses of tort law include the
following+
&. To rovide a eaceful means for ad"usting
the rights of arties who might otherwise
take the law into their own hands(
). 6eter wrongful conduct(
*. To encourage socially resonsi!le !ehavior(
and
B. To restore in"ured arties to their original
condition, insofar as the law can do this, !y
comensating them from their in"ury
WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF INTERESTS
PROTECTED BY TORT LAWS UNDER THE CIVIL CODE
AND WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS WHICH
PROTECT SUCH INTEREST?
I,T-/-0T ;/.T-3T-6 T./T0 $,6 ;/.HI0I.,0
I,H.LH-6
;erson
&. Freedom from
contract and of
movement
). Freedom from
distress
&. ;hysical In"uries
%$rt. *)', Quasi
Delict %$rt. )&9:'
). Ioral 6amages
%$rts. ))&98)))='
6ignity
&. /eutation
). ;rivacy
*. Freedom from
wrongful actions
&. 6efamation %$rt.
**'
). Hiolation of
;rivacy %$rt. ):'
*. Ialicious
;rosecution %$rts.
)=, )&'
;roerty
&. /eal roerty &. ,uisance %$rts.
:?B899=', Quasi
Delict %$rticle )&9:'
-conomicJ;ecuniary
&. 3ontracts
). Freedom form
&. Interference with
contractual rights
%$rt. &*&B'
3
decetion ). Fraud %$rt. **
WHAT ARE THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN CULPA
CONTRACTUAL, CULPA AQUILIANA AND CULPA
CRIMINAL?
CULPA
CONTRACTUAL
CULPA
AQUILIANA
CULPA
CRIMINAL
There is a re8
e#isting
o!ligation %a
contract, either
e#ressed or
imlied'
There is no re8
e#isting
o!ligation.
There is nor
re8e#isting
contractual
o!ligation.
;reonderance
of evidence is
re1uired.
;reonderance
of evidence is
needed.
The crime
must !e
roven
!eyond
reasona!le
dou!t.
6efense of good
father of a
family in the
selection and
suervision of
emloyees is not
a roer and
comlete
defense !ut this
can mitigate
lia!ility for
damages
6efense of a
good father of
a family in the
selection of the
emloyees is a
roer defense
of the
emloyer.
This defense
cannot !e
interosed. If
the emloyee
is insolvent or
incaa!le to
ay the civil
asect or
lia!ility, the
emloyer is
su!sidiarily
lia!le
The e#istence of The fault or The
a contract must
!e roven. If it is
roven and it is
also roven that
the contract was
not comlied
with, it is
resumed that
the de!tor is at
fault.
negligence of
the defendant
must !e
roven.
innocence of
the accused is
resumed
until the
contrary is
roven.
,egligence is
only incidental
to the
erformance of
an e#isting
o!ligation !ased
on contract.
,egligence is
direct,
su!stantive
and
indeendent.
,egligence is
direct,
su!stantive
and
indeendent.
HOW IS QUASI-DELICT DISTINGUISHED FROM
DELICT OR CRIME?
4$0I0 K<$0I86-LI3T 6-LI3T ./
3/II-
&. Legal
!asis of
lia!ility
There can !e a
quasi-delict as
long as there is
fault or
negligence
resulting in
damage or in"ury
to another. It is
!roader in scoe
There can !e no
crime unless
there is a law
unishing the
act.
4
than crime.
). 3riminal
intent
3riminal intent is
no necessary for
quasi-delict to
e#ist. Fault or
negligence
without intent
will suLce.
3riminal intent
is essential for
criminal lia!ility
to e#ist.
*. ,ature of
right
violated
/ight violated is
a rivate right.
Quasi-delict is a
wrongful act
against a rivate
individual.
/ight violated is
a u!lic one.
3rime is a
wrong against
the 0tate.
B. Lia!ility
for damages
-very quasi-
delict gives rise
to lia!ility for
damages.
0ome crimes
%like contemt,
illegal
ossession of
Arearm' do not
give rise to
lia!ility for
damages.
C. ;roofs
needed
;roof of the fault
or negligence
re1uires only
reonderance
of evidence.
The guilt of the
accused must
!e roved
!eyond
reasona!le
dou!t.
:. 0anction
or enalty
/earation or
indemniAcation
of the in"ury or
damage.
;unishment is
either
imrisonment,
Ane or !oth(
sometimes
other accessory
enalties are
imosed.
HOW IS QUASI-DELICT DISTINGUISHED FROM
CULPA CONTRACTUAL?
4$0I0 Kuasi86elict 3ula
3ontractual
&. ,ature of
negligence
,egligence is
direct,
su!stantive
and
indeendent
%Rakes vs.
Atlantic ! P"il.
#$%'
,egligence is
merely
incidental to
the
erformance of
the contractual
o!ligation.
There is a re8
e#isting
contract or
o!ligation.
%Rakes vs.
Atlantic su&ra'
). 6efense of
good father of
a family
This is a
comlete and
roer defense
insofar as
arents,
guardians,
emloyers are
concerned %$rt.
)&>=, last ar.'
This is not a
comlete and
roer defense
in the selection
and suervision
of emloyees.
%Can'co vs.
MRC in(ra.'
*. ;resumtion
of negligence
There is no
resumtion of
There is
resumtion of
5
negligence.
The in"ured
arty must
rove the
negligence of
the defendant
%Can'co vs.
MRC #) P"il.
!*)'.
.therwise, the
comlaint of
in"ured arty
will !e
dismissed.
negligence as
long as it can
!e roved that
there was
!reach of the
contract. The
defendant
must rove
that there was
no negligence
in the carrying
out of the
terms of the
contract.
%Can'co vs.
MRC su&ra'

APPLICATION:
F$3T0+
G, I,3. M ;<4LI3 <TILIT5 3.I;$,5
5 M 4<0 6/IH-/, /-3NL-00 6/IHI,2
O M ;$00-,2-/ I,P</-6
3$<0-0 .F $3TI.,+
1. Cul&a contractual M negligence !ased on
contract
2. Cul&a aquiliana M negligence !ased on tort
3. Cul&a cri+inal M negligence !ased on a
crime
3<L;$ 3.,T/$3T<$L
In the contract of carriage of assengers, it
is the o!ligation of the carrier to convey the
assengers safely to the oint of destination. In
case a assenger is not !rought safely thereto,
there will !e a !reach of contract. $ny case
!rought !ased on cul&a contractual will !e
cationed Passen'er , vs. - Inc !ecause the
contract is !etween them. The driver is not to !e
included as a arty to the action, !ecause he is
not a arty to the contract. $s to him, there is no
rivity.
3<L;$ $K<ILI$,$
6amage caused to another due to
negligence. The case will !e entitled Passen'er ,
vs. - Inc. and Driver ./ %the defendants will !e
solidarily lia!le as "oint8tortfeasors'
3<L;$ 3/III,$L
The drivers act may amount to a crime
%hysical in"uries through reckless imrudence'.
The case will !e entitled Peo&le o( t"e P"ili&&ines
vs. Driver ./ and if the latter is convicted !ut is
insolvent, ;assenger O may ursue against G, Inc.
to enforce the latters su!sidiary lia!ility.
,$T</- .F TD- 3$0-0+
6
The weakest cause of action is cul&a
aquiliana where the emloyer may raise the
defense of due diligence in the selection and
suervision of the driver. Cul&a cri+inal is a
stronger cause of action !ecause as to the
comanys su!sidiary lia!ility the latters defense
are limited, however the 1uantum of evidence
needed to convict the emloyee would have to !e
guilt !eyond reasona!le dou!t.
Cul&a contractual %!reach of contractual of
carriage' is a stronger cause of action !ecause if
death or in"ury occurs, the resumtion of
negligence automatically arises and the common
carrier can !e held lia!le if he fails to rove the
e#tra8ordinary diligence for the duration of the
carriage.
II. QUASI-DELICT UNDER THE CIVIL CODE
1. ARTICLE 1!"
$rticle )&9: 8 7hoever !y act or
omission causes damage to another, there
!eing fault or negligence, is o!liged to ay for
the damage done. 0uch fault or negligence, if
there is no re8e#isting contractual relation
!etween the arties, is called a 1uasi8delict
and is governed !y the rovisions of this
3hater.
The article covers all wrongful acts or
omissions as along as M

&. They are not constitutive of !reach of
contract( and
). They are not unisha!le as o@enses.
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICT?
&. $ct or omission(
). ;resence of fault or negligence
*. 6amage su@ered !y the lainti@(
B. 3ausal connection !etween the fault or
negligence and the damage
C. ,o re8e#isting contractual relation
1. ACT OR OMISSION
WHAT IS ACT OR OMISSION?
7hen a erson !y reason of his act or
omission causes damage or re"udice to another,
a "uridical relation is created !y virtue of which
the in"ured erson ac1uires a right to !e
indemniAed and the erson causing the damage is
charged with the corresonding duty of reairing
the damaged.
. FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE
A. NEGLIGENCE
WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE?
$rticle &&9* of the ,ew 3ivil 3ode e#lains
negligence as follows M
7
$rt. &&9*. The fault or negligence of
the o!ligor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is re1uired !y the nature of
the o!ligation and corresonds with the
circumstances of the ersons, of the time and
of the lace.
G G G
If the law or contract does not state
the diligence which is to !e o!served in the
erformance, that which I e#ected of a good
father of a family shall !e re1uired.
The 0ureme 3ourt has deAned negligence
as the failure to o!serve for the rotection of the
interests of another erson, that degree of care,
recaution and vigilance which the circumstances
"ustly demand, where!y such other erson su@ers
in"ury %United 0tates vs. Arias 1# P"il. 2#23 4an
vs. Court o( A&&eals 5*% 0CRA #!)'
WHAT IS THE DEGREE OF CARE OF DILIGENCE
REQUIRED?
4ased on the deAnition of $rticle &&9*, the
degree of care, recaution, and vigilance that
should !e o!served deends on the circumstance
of a' ersons, !' lace, and c' time. That which
may !e considered therefore as suLcient care
and recaution in a set of circumstances, may !e
insuLcient in another set of circumstances that
confront the same individual.
WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF CARE OR
DILIGENCE REQUIRED?
The standard or degree of care or diligence
that should !e o!served is that which is e#ected
of a good father of a family unless the law or
stiulation of the arties re1uires another
standard of care.
The 0ureme 3ourt e#lained in Picart vs.
0+it" in(ra that the standard of conduct used in
the ;hiliines is that of &ater (a+ilias in /oman
law or that what is referred to in $rticle &&9* of
the ,33, in relation to $rticle )&9> as a good
father of a family. 7hat should !e determined in
negligence cases is what is foreseea!le to a good
father of a family. $ good father of a family is
likewise referred to as the reasona!le man, a man
of ordinary intelligence and rudence, or ordinary
reasona!le rudent man.
WHAT ARE E#AMPLES OF PROVISIONS OF LAW
THAT REQUIRES ANOTHER STANDARD OF CARE?
a. $rticle &9** rovides that common carriers
are !ound to o!serve e#traordinary
diligence according to all circumstances of
each case.
!. $rticle &9CC rovides that common carrier
is !ound to carry the assenger safely as
far as human care and foresight can
rovide, suing the utmost diligence of very
8
cautious ersons, with due regard for all the
circumstances.
c. Dighest degree of diligence is re1uired in
ractice of medicine Elikened to the
diligence re1uired of a common carrierF
%Ra+os vs. CA Au'ust 55 1661' Res i&sa
loquitor doctrine is alica!le to ractice of
medicine.
CAN THERE BE A TORT IN MALPRACTICE IN LAW?
5es, while lawyers are no re1uired to
e#ercise the e#traordinary diligence of a common
carrier, they must e#ercise diligence not lesser
than the diligence of a good father of a family in
handling of cases which they acceted from
clients. %7entilla vs. Centeno 5 0CRA 15%
&
' In
fact, a lawyer commits the crime of !etrayal of
trust if he would maliciously !reach his
rofessional duty, or is guilty of ine#cusa!le
negligence or ignorance to the re"udice of his
client. %$rticle )=?, /;3'
WHAT IS THE TEST OF DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE?
In Picart vs. 0+it" #! P"il. )6$, the test of
negligence is casuliQed as follows M
7ould a rudent man, in the osition of the
erson to whom negligence is attri!uted, foresee
harm to the erson in"ured as a reasona!le
1
$ lawyer was made lia!le for nominal damages for
failure to erfect an aeal.
conse1uence of the course a!out to !e ursuedR
If so, the law imosed a duty on the actor to
refrain from the course or take recaution against
its mischievous results, and failure to do so
constitutes negligence.
WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF ACTIONABLE
NEGLIGENCE?
$ctiona!le negligence may either !e a'
cul&a contractual, !' cul&a aquiliana, and c'
criminal negligence. Thus an action fro damages
for the negligent acts of the defendant may !e
!ased on contract, delict, or quasi-delict. The
!ases of lia!ility are searate and distinct from
each other even if only one act or omission is
involved.
WHAT IS THE COVERAGE OF NEGLIGENCE IN
ARTICLE 1!"?
$rticle )&9:, whenever it refers to fault or
negligence, covers not only acts not unisha!le
!y law !ut also acts criminal in character,
whether intentional or voluntary or negligent.
3onse1uently, a searate civil action lies against
the o@ender in a criminal act, whether or not he is
criminally rosecuted and found guilty or
ac1uitted, rovided that the o@ended arty is not
allowed %if the torfeasor is actually charged also
criminally', to recover damages on !oth scores,
and would !e entitled in such eventuality only to
the !igger award of the two, assuming the awards
9
made in the two cases vary %Anda+o vs. IAC 5$5
0CRA 161'.
WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE?
&. Time
). ;lace
*. -mergency
B. 2ravity of harm to !e avoided
C. $lternative cause of action
:. 0ocial value or utility of activity
9. ;erson e#osed to the risk
.TD-/ F$3T./0 T. 3.,0I6-/ I, 6-T-/II,I,2
,-2LI2-,3-+
a. Hiolation of rules and statutes
!. ;ractice and custom
c. 3omliance with rules and statutes
WHAT ARE THE DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE?
a. .rdinary negligence
!. 2ross negligence
This is recogniQed in $rticle ))*& of the ,33
which rovides that in quasi-delicts e#emlary
damages may !e granted if the defendant acted
with gross negligence
2ross negligence is deAned as want of
even slight care of diligence. It is also
characteriQed as imlying conscious indi@erence
to conse1uence( ursuing a course of conduct
which would naturally and ro!a!ly result to
in"ury( utter disregard of conse1uences.
PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
$. B%&'() *+ ,&**+
WHO HAS THE BUDEN TO PROVE NEGLIGENCE?
The lainti@ must rove the elements of a
quasi-delict, the most imortant of which is the
element of fault or negligence attri!uta!le to the
defendant. If this is not roven, the lainti@
cannot recover damages from the defendant. It is
even resumed that a erson takes ordinary care
of his concerns. The 1uantum of roof re1uired is
reonderance of evidence.
B. PRESUMPTIONS
WHAT ARE THE PRESUMPTIONS UNDER THE
CIVIL CODE ON NEGLIGENCE?
The 3ivil 3ode rovides for the following
cases when the e#istence of negligence is
resumed.
&. $rticle )&>B. It is disuta!ly resumed
that a driver was negligent, if he had
!een found guilty of reckless driving
or violating traLc regulations at least
10
twice within the ne#t receding two
months.
). $rticle )&>C. <nless there is roof to
the contrary, it is resumed that a
erson driving a motor vehicle has
!een negligent if at the time of the
misha, he was violating any traLc
regulation.
*. $rticle )&>>. There is &ri+a (acie
resumtion of negligence on the art
of the defendant if the death or in"ury
results from his ossession of
dangerous weaons or su!stances,
such as Arearm and oison, e#cet
when the ossession or use thereof is
indisensa!le in his occuation or
!usiness.
B. ;resumtion of negligence may also
arise !ecause of certain contractual
relationshi !etween the arties. Thus
the 3ivil 3ode rovides for a
resumtion of negligence in case a
assenger was in"ured in an accident
involving his carrier. %$rticle &9*C'
C. RES IPSA LOQUITOR.
WHAT IS RES IPSA LOQUITOR?
This is one of the rules relied uon in
negligence cases M the thing seaks for itself. Its
function is to aid the lainti@ in roving the
elements of a negligence case !y circumstantial
evidence.
In t"e case o( 0&ouses 8erna9e A(rica and
0oledad C. A(rica vs. CALT:- ;P"il.< Inc., 2./. ,o.
L8&)?>:, Iarch *&, &?::,
)
the 0ureme 3ourt
alied the resumtion of negligence under the
doctrine of Res I&sa Loquitur S 7here the thing
which caused the in"ury comlained of is shown to
!e under the management defendant or his
servants and the accident is such as in the
ordinary course of things does not haen if those
who have its management or control use roer
care, it a@ords reasona!le evidence, in a!sence of
e#lanation !y defendant, that the accident arose
from want of care.
B. FAULT
WHAT IS FAULT?
It is that condition where a erson acts in a
way or manner contrary to what normally should
have done. Fault is negligence, !reach of statutory
duty or other act or omission which gives rise to a
2
The gasoline station, with all its aliances,
e1uiment and emloyees, was under the control of
aellees. $ Are occurred therein and sread to and !urned
the neigh!oring houses. The ersons who knew or could
have known how the Are started were aellees and their
emloyees, !ut they gave no e#lanation thereof
whatsoever. It is a fair and reasona!le inference that the
incident haened !ecause of want of care.

11
lia!ility in torts or would, aart from this act, give
rise to the defense of contri!utory negligence
WHAT ARE THE TWO KINDS OF FAULT?
&. F$<LT 0<40T$,TIH- $,6 I,6-;-,6-,T, which on
account of its origin, gives rise to an
o!ligation !etween two ersons not
similarly !ound !y any o!ligation, or
). $0 I, I,3I6-,T I, TD- ;-/F./I$,3- .F $,
.4LI2$TI., 7DI3D $L/-$65 -GI0T-6, which
cannot !e resumed to e#ist without the
other, and which increases the lia!ility
arising from the already e#isting o!ligation.
WHAT KIND OF FAULT IS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE
1!"?
The fault referred to in $rticle )&9: is fault
su!stantive and indeendent and which in itself
a source of o!ligation.
-. DAMAGE
WHAT IS DAMAGE?
6amage is the loss, hurt or harm which
results from in"ury. It di@ers from da+a'es which
term refers to the recomense or comensation
awarded for the damage su@ered %0o Pin' 8un vs.
CA #52 0CRA !%5'
.. CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FAULT OR
NEGLIGENCE AND THE DAMAGE
WHAT IS CAUSAL CONNECTION?
The fault or negligence of the defendant
must !e the ro#imate cause of the in"ury of the
lainti@. If the cause of the in"ury is due to the
lainti@s sole negligence, he cannot recover.
There must !e clear evidence that the cause of
the damage is the fault or negligence of the
defendant.
WHAT IS PRO#IMATE CAUSE?
The ro#imate cause of in"ury is that cause
which, in natural and continuous se1uence,
un!roken !y any eLcient intervening cause,
roduces the in"ury, and without which the result
would not have occurred.
Iore comrehensively, the ro#imate legal
cause is that acting Arst and roducing the in"ury,
either immediately or !y setting other events in
motion, all constituting a natural and continuous
chain of events, each having a close causal
connection with the redecessor, the Anal event in
the chain immediately e@ecting the in"ury as a
natural and ro!a!le result of the cause which
Arst acted, under such circumstance, that the
erson resonsi!le for the Arst event should, as
an ordinarily rudent and intelligent erson, have
reasona!le ground to e#ect at the moment of his
act or default that an in"ury to some erson might
12
ro!a!ly result therefrom. %7da De 8ataclan vs.
Medina 561 P"il. 5)53 Tea'ue vs. =ernande> %5
0CRA 5)5'.
/. NO PRE0E#ISTING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES
STATE THE GENERAL RULE AS TO CONTRACTUAL
RELATION OF THE PARTIES.
If there is re8e#isting contractual relation
!etween the arties and the same is violated, the
roer cause of action is not anchored on quasi-
delict !ut !reach of contract or cul&a-contractual.
WHAT IS THE E#CEPTION TO THE ABOVE RULE?
Dowever, there may !e cases of contractual
relations like a contract of carriage !y airlane
where quasi-delict may arise when the contract
was grossly violated %Air =rance vs. Carrascoso
5) 0CRA 5%%
*
'. The tort lia!ility here is not !ased
on the contract of carriage !ut on some other
!ases like deli!erate and malicious violation of the
contract.
3
In $ir France vs. 3arrascoso, a assenger was
ousted from his Arst class accommodation and was
comelled to take a seat in the tourist comartment. De was
allowed to recover damages from the carrier
notwithstanding the fact that the relation !etween the
carrier and the assenger is contractual !oth in origin and
nature. The 0ureme 3ourt held that the act itself of
!reaking the contract creates a tort lia!ility.
In other words, the e#istence of contract
does not !ar the commission of a tort !y one
against the other and the conse1uent recovery of
damages. 7here the act that !reaks the contract
may also !e a tort, the contractual relation of the
arties does not !ar the recovery of damages.
%0in'son vs. 8ank o( P.I. 5#1 P"il. %$!
B
'
B. ARTICLE 1!!
/esonsi!ility for fault or negligence
under the roceeding article is entirely
searate and distinct from the civil lia!ility
arising from negligence under the ;enal 3ode.
4ut the lainti@ cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of the
defendant.
WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE
MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 1!!?
4
In Pulian 3. 0ingson and /amona 6el 3astillo vs. 4;I
and 0antiago FreQas, the !ank clerk committed a mistake
that caused the freeQing of the current account of Pulian
0ingson. $s a result, his checks were dishonored. The !ank
aologiQed to 0ingson and restored the checking account.
,evertheless, 0ingson sued the !ank for damages. The !ank
interosed the defense that there could !e no lia!ility for
negligence or 1uasi8delict on account of the contractual
relations !etween the !ank and 0ingson, and that the error
was immediately corrected. The 0ureme 3ourt held that
0ingson can recover damages from the !ank desite the
e#istence of contractual relations !etween the arties
!ecause the act itself that !reaks the contract may also !e a
tort or 1uasi8delict.
13
The $rticle distinguishes two kinds of
negligence M
&. 3riminal negligence M is a violation of
criminal law
). 3ivil negligence M it is a distinct and
indeendent negligence which is cul&a
aquiliana or quasi-delict of ancient origin,
having always its own foundation, searate
from criminal negligence.
The article makes a distinction !etween a
civil lia!ility arising from a quasi-delict, and civil
lia!ility arising from a crime, that is, if the act or
omission is unisha!le !y the /evised ;enal 3ode,
or may create an action for quasi-delict or cul&a
e?tra-contractual under the 3ivil 3ode %Anda+o
vs. IAC 5$5 0CRA 5$%'.
WHAT ARE THE MODES OF ENFORCING CIVIL
LIABILITY DUE TO FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE UNDER THE
ARTICLE?
The in"ured arty has the otion M
&. To ursue a criminal action which includes
the claim for civil lia!ility arising from the
crime !ased on $rticle &== of the /evised
;enal 3ode( or
). To ursue an indeendent civil action !ased
on quasi-delict under $rticles )&9: to )&?B
of the ,ew 3ivil 3ode %:lcano vs. @ill !!
0CRA $)'.
If the action is Aled against the emloyer of
the negligent emloyee, the o@ended arty may
choose the remedy of rimary lia!ility allowed in
$rticle )&>= or the su!sidiary lia!ility under the
/evised ;enal 3ode. There is however, a limitation
M he cannot recover damages twice for the same
act or omission.
A,,123$42*):
B5 A FIVE YEAR0OLD0BOY5 WAS RUN OVER BY A
PASSENGER JEEPNEY RESULTING IN HIS DEATH. O IS
THE OWNER OF THE JEEPNEY. D IS THE DRIVER OF
THE JEEPNEY.
THE PARENTS OF B WANT TO SUE. WHAT ARE
THEIR OPTIONS?
1. They can sue 6 alone for homicide through
reckless imrudence( or
2. They can sue 5 for quasi-delict.
CAN D BE CONVICTED OF HOMICIDE THROUGH
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE5 AND AT THE SAME TIME5 BE
ORDERED TO INDEMNIFY THE PARENTS OF B?
5es, !ecause every erson criminally lia!ility
is civilly lia!le.
WHAT PROOF IS NEEDED TO SECURE
CONVICTION OF D?
14
The guilt of 6 should !e roven !eyond
reasona!le dou!t.
SUPPOSE THE GUILT OF D IS NOT PROVEN
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT5 AND HE IS ACQUITTED5
CAN THE PARENTS OF B STILL SUE D FOR QUASI-
DELICT?
5es. The ac1uittal of 6 is not a !ar to a
su!se1uent civil action. This is so !ecause the
evidence in the criminal case may not !e
suLcient for a conviction, !ut suLcient for a civil
lia!ility, where mere reonderance of evidence is
enough.
CAN THE PARENTS OF B SUE O AND Y FOR
QUASI-DELICT?
5es, !ut . can interose the defense that he
e#ercised due diligence in the selection and
suervision of 6. If . roves this, he will !e
e#cused from civil lia!ility.
SUPPOSE O WAS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE
E#ERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE IN THE SELECTION AND
SUPERVISION OF D5 CAN O STILL BE HELD LIABLE?
5es, if it was roven for instance, that . was
also in the "eeney at the time of accident, and he
could have, !y use of diligence, revented the
misfortune, !ut he did not. %7ide Arst ar, $rt.
)&>B'
IF D IS CONVICTED IN THE CRIMINAL CASE AND
A WRIT OF E#ECUTION WAS ISSUED AGAINST HIM
WITH RESPECT TO THE CIVIL LIABILITY5 BUT IT TURNED
OUT THAT D IS INSOLVENT5 CAN THE WRIT OF
E#ECUTION BE ENFORCED AGAINST O?
5es. The guilt of 6 is automatically the civil
guilt of ., if 6 is insolvent. . is su!sidiarily lia!le
as emloyer under $rticle &=* of the /evised
;enal 3ode and he cannot interose the defense
that he e#ercised due diligence in the selection
and suervision of his driver.
IF THEY OPT TO SUE FOR QUASI-DELICT, WHAT
PROOF IS NEEDED TO PROVE THEIR CASE AGAINST D
AND O?
The roof needed is a mere reonderance
of evidence.
$s against 6, the arents of 4 should rove
the fault or negligence of 6. In other words, the
elements of quasi-delict should !e roven. $s
against ., the arents of 4 should rove that .
has not e#ercised due diligence in the selection
and suervision of 6.
HOW CAN O BE E#CUSED FROM LIABILITY?
. can !e e#cused form lia!ility rovided he
roves that he e#ercised due diligence in the
selection and suervision of 6
15
CAN O STILL BE HELD LIABLE EVEN IF HE
PROVES DUE DILIGENCE IN THE SELECTION AND
SUPERVISION OF D?
5es, if it is roven that he was inside the
"eeney at the time of accident, and he could
have, !y use of diligence, revented the
misfortune, !ut which he did not e#ercise.
P&*3('%&$1 A6,(34 7C*)3%&&()3( *+ C$%6(6 *+
A342*) $)' R(8('2(69
-nforcement of the civil lia!ility arising from
crime is governed !y /ule &&& of the /evised
/ules of 3ourt e@ective 6ecem!er &, )===.
0ections &, ), * and C rovide as follows+
0ec. &. Institution o( cri+inal and civil
actions. M %a' 7hen a criminal action is
instituted, the civil action for the recovery of
civil lia!ility arising from the o@ense charged
shall !e deemed instituted with the criminal
action unless the o@ended arty waives the
civil action, reserves his right to institute it
searately, or institutes the civil action rior
to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute
searately the civil action shall !e made
!efore the rosecution starts resenting its
evidence and under circumstances a@ording
the o@ended arty a reasona!le oortunity
to make such reservation.
7hen the o@ended arty seeks to
enforce civil lia!ility against the accused !y
way of moral, nominal, temerate or
e#emlary damages without secifying the
amount thereof in the comlaint or
information, the Aling fees thereof shall
constitute a Arst lien on the "udgment
awarding such damages.

7here the amount of damages, other
that actual, is seciAed in the comlaint or
information, the corresonding Aling fees shall
!e aid !y the o@ended arty uon the Aling
thereof in court.
-#cet as otherwise rovided in these
rules, no Aling fees shall !e re1uired for actual
damages.
,o counterclaim, cross8claim or third8
arty comlaint may !e Aled !y the accused
in the criminal case, !ut any cause of action
which could have !een the su!"ect thereof
may !e litigated in a searate civil action.
%!' The criminal action for violation of
4atas ;am!ansa 4lg. )) shall !e deemed to
include the corresonding civil action. ,o
reservation to Ale such civil action searately
shall !e allowed.
<on Aling of the aforesaid "oint
criminal and civil action, the o@ended arty
shall ay in full the Aling fees !ased on the
amount of the check involved, which shall !e
considered as the actual damages claimed.
7here the comlaint or information also
seeks to recover li1uidated, moral, nominal
temerate or e#emlary damages, the
o@ended arty shall ay additional Aling fees
cased on the amounts alleged therein. If the
amount are so alleged !ut any of these
16
damages are su!se1uently awarded !y the
court, the Aling fees !ased on the amount
awarded shall constitute a Arst lien on the
"udgment.
7hen the civil action has !een Aled
searately and trial thereof has not yet
commenced, it may !e consolidated with the
criminal action uon alication with the court
trying the latter case. If the alication is
granted, the trial of !oth actions shall roceed
in accordance with section ) of this /ule
governing consolidation of the civil and
criminal action.
0ec. ). A"en se&arate civil action is
sus&ended. M $fter the criminal action has
!een commenced, the searate civil action
arising therefrom cannot !e instituted until
Anal "udgment has !een entered in the
criminal action.
If the criminal action is Aled after the
said civil action has already !een instituted,
the latter shall !e susended in whatever
stage it may !e found !efore "udgment on the
merits. The susension shall last until Anal
"udgment is rendered in the criminal action.
,evertheless, !efore "udgment on the merits
is rendered in the civil action, the same may,
uon motion of the o@ended arty, !e
consolidated with the criminal action in the
court trying the criminal action. In case of
consolidation, the evidence already adduced
in the civil action shall !e deemed
automatically reroduced in the criminal
action without re"udice to the right of the
rosecution to cross8e#amine the witnesses
resented !y the o@ended arty in the
criminal case and of the arties to resent
additional evidence. The consolidated criminal
and civil actions shall !e tried and decided
"ointly.
6uring the endency of the criminal
action, the running of the eriod of
rescrition of the civil action which cannot
!e instituted searately or whose roceeding
has !een susended shall !e tolled.
The e#tinction of the enal action does
not carry with it the e#tinction of the civil
action. Dowever, the civil action !ased on
delict shall !e deemed e#tinguished if there is
a Anding in a Anal "udgment in the criminal
action that the act or omission from which the
civil lia!ility may arise did not e#ist.
0ec. *. A"en civil action +aB &roceed
inde&endentlB. M In the cases rovided in
$rticles *), **, *B and )&9: of the 3ivil 3ode
of the ;hiliines, the indeendent civil action
may !e !rought !y the o@ended arty. It shall
roceed indeendently of the criminal action
and shall re1uire only a reonderance of
evidence. In no case, however, may the
o@ended arty recover damages twice for the
same act or omission charged in the criminal
action.
0ec. C. Cud'+ent in civil action not a
9ar. M $ Anal "udgment rendered in a civil
action a!solving the defendant from civil
lia!ility is not a !ar to a criminal action
against the defendant for the same act or
omission su!"ect of the civil action.
SIMPLIFICATION OF THE RULES
17
STATE THE RULE ON CONCURRENCE
OF ACTION.
7hen a criminal action is instituted, the civil
action for the recovery of civil lia!ility arising from
the o@ense charged shall !e deemed instituted
with the criminal action.
STATE THE E#CEPTIONS.
The civil lia!ility arising from the o@ense
charged shall not !e deemed instituted together
with the criminal action if+
&. The o@ended arty waives the civil action(
or
). If the o@ended arty reserves his right to
institute it searately( or
*. If the o@ended arty institutes the civil
action rior to the criminal action.
WHAT IS THE E#CEPTION TO THE E#CEPTION?
$fter the criminal action has !een
commenced, the searate civil action arising
therefrom cannot !e instituted until Anal
"udgment has !een entered in the criminal action.
PROVISO:
In the cases rovided in $rticles *), **, *B
and )&9: of the 3ivil 3ode of the ;hiliines, the
indeendent civil action may !e !rought !y the
o@ended arty. It shall roceed indeendently of
the criminal action and shall re1uire only a
reonderance of evidence. In no case, however,
may the o@ended arty recover damages twice
for the same act or omission charged in the
criminal action.
A,,123$42*):
AFTER A CRIMINAL ACTION HAS BEEN
COMMENCED5 IS IT STILL POSSIBLE THAT A CIVIL
ACTION CAN BE FILED BY THE INJURED PARTY?
5es, if the case to !e Aled falls under $rticles
*), **, *B and )&9: of the ,ew 3ivil 3ode.
IF THE CASE FALLS EITHER UNDER ANY OF THE
SITUATIONS REFERRED TO IN SAID ARTICLES AND THE
CRIMINAL ACTION HAS ALREADY COMMENCED5 WHEN
SHALL THE CIVIL ACTION BE FILED?
It may !e Aled during the endency of the
criminal case.
IF SAID CIVIL ACTION IS FILED DURING THE
PENDENCY OF THE CRIMINAL CASE5 CAN BOTH
ACTIONS BE TRIED AND HEARD INDEPENDENTLY OF
EACH OTHER?
5es, !y e#ress rovision of law which says
that such civil action ### shall roceed
indeendently of the criminal action, and shall
re1uire only a reonderance of evidence.
%0ection *, /ule &&&'
18
WHAT HAPPENS IF A CIVIL ACTION IS NOT
E#PRESSLY INSTITUTED?
The civil action shall !e imliedly "oined with
the criminal action. This means that the two
actions are "oined in one action as twins, and the
civil action may !e tried and rosecuted with all
the ancillary rocess rovided !y law.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE TRIAL COURT CONVICTS
THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME CHARGED BUT FAILS TO
DECIDE ON HIS CIVIL LIABILITY?
The civil lia!ility may !e imosed in a
su!se1uent roceeding without transgressing the
rohi!ition against dou!le "eoardy.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL OF THE
ACCUSED ON HIS CIVIL LIABILITY?
The ac1uittal of the accused in the criminal
case will not necessarily e#onerate him from civil
lia!ility %$rticle )?
C
'.
5
$/TI3L- )?. 7hen the accused in a criminal
rosecution is ac1uitted on the ground that his guilt has not
!een roved !eyond reasona!le dou!t, a civil action for
damages for the same act or omission may !e instituted.
0uch action re1uires only a reonderance of evidence.
<on motion of the defendant, the court may re1uire the
lainti@ to Ale a !ond to answer for damages in case the
comlaint should !e found to !e malicious.
If in a criminal case the "udgment of ac1uittal is
!ased uon reasona!le dou!t, the court shall so declare. In
The civil lia!ility which may arise from cul&a
aquiliana or quasi-delict was never intended !y
law to !e merged in the criminal action. The
criminal rosecution is not a condition recedent
to the enforcement of the civil rights.
To su!ordinate the civil action contemlated
in $rticle **
:
and )&99 to the result of the
criminal action would render meaningless the
indeendent civil action and the in"unction in
$rticle *&
9
that such civil action may roceed
indeendently of the criminal roceeding.
WHAT ARE THE E#CEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT
THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITAL DOES NOT NECESSARILY
E#TINGUISH THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE ACCUSED?
&. 7hen it declares that the facts from which
the civil lia!ility might arise did not e#ist(
the a!sence of any declaration to that e@ect, it may !e
inferred from the te#t of the decision whether or not the
ac1uittal is due to that ground.
6
$/TI3L- **. In cases of defamation, fraud, and
hysical in"uries a civil action for damages, entirely searate
and distinct from the criminal action, may !e !rought !y the
in"ured arty. 0uch civil action shall roceed indeendently
of the criminal rosecution, and shall re1uire only a
reonderance of evidence.
7
$/TI3L- *&. 7hen the civil action is !ased on an
o!ligation not arising from the act or omission comlained of
as a felony, such civil action may roceed indeendently of
the criminal roceedings and regardless of the result of the
latter. acd
19
). when it declares that the accused is not the
author of the crime(
*. when the "udgment e#ressly declares that
the lia!ility is only civil in nature(
B. 7here the civil lia!ility is not derived or
!ased on the criminal act of which the
accused was ac1uitted(
C. where the ac1uittal is !ased on reasona!le
dou!t( and
:. where the civil action has rescri!ed.
IF THERE IS NO SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION5 WHAT
SHOULD THE COURT TRYING THE CRIMINAL CASE FIND
OUT TO ENABLE IT TO DETERMINE FULLY THE CIVIL
LIABILITY OF THE OFFENDER?
The court should And out if there is evidence
to rove the civil lia!ility of the o@ender, and it
should also determine who the heirs of the
deceased are entitled to receive ayment of the
indemnity in case of conviction. This is necessary
to avoid ayment to wrong ersons.
WHAT SHOULD THE OFFENDED PARTY DO IN
THE CRIMINAL ACTION :WHERE CIVIL ACTION IS
IMPLIEDLY INSTITUTED; TO ENABLE HIM TO RECOVER?
The o@ended arty must resent evidence
in suort of his claim for damages. .therwise,
the court cannot award damages in the "udgment
of conviction.
SHOULD THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES BE ALLEGED
IN THE INFORMATION?
-ven without any allegation as to damages,
the o@ender shall !e lia!le for them if the
o@ended arty was a!le to rove that he is
entitled to damages. This is redicated on the
rincile that every erson criminally lia!le is also
civilly lia!le.
IF JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS RENDERED AND
THE ACCUSED DECIDES TO APPEAL THE SAME TO SEEK
A REVIEW OF HIS CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITY5
WHAT ARE THE COURSES OF ACTION?
De may aeal !oth with resect to the
"udgment in the civil and criminal lia!ility, or he
may aeal only with resect to the civil action or
criminal action.
WHAT DOES THE PHRASE IN NO CASE5
HOWEVER5 MAY THE OFFENDED PARTY RECOVER
DAMAGES TWICE FOR THE SAME ACT OR OMISSION
CHARGED IN THE CRIMINAL ACTION MEAN?
This means that if the lainti@ succeeded to
recover damages from the defendant the 3ivil
3ode, he can no longer recover damages for the
same negligent act under the /evised ;enal 3ode.
3onversely, if the o@ended arty takes the otion
of merely Aling a criminal case and su!mits his
damage claim for decision in the criminal action,
and thereafter, he succeeded to recover damages
20
from the accused in the civil action, he can no
longer recover damages from the accused in a
criminal action !ased on cul&a aquiliana or quasi-
delict.
IS RESERVATION REQUIRED IN THE CRIMINAL
CASE FOR THE FILING OF CIVIL ACTION ARISING FROM
QUASI-DELICT?
<nder the &?:B, &?>C and &?>>
amendments of the /evised /ules of 3riminal
rocedure, it was re1uired that the in"ured arty
must make a reservation in the criminal case for
the Aling of a civil action !ased on quasi-delict.
The failure to do so will result in the inclusion of
the claim for civil lia!ility in the criminal case and
!ars any searate civil action !ased on the same
act or omission. %7ideD Dam!on vs. 3$, 2./. ,o.
&))&C=, Iarch &9, )==*'
Dowever, under the )=== amendments of
the /evised /ules of 3riminal ;rocedure, the
reservation re1uired !efore was deleted. %7ide+
0ection *, /ule &&&' The new amendment now
conforms to the e#ress mandate of the ,ew 3ivil
3ode that a quasi-delict may !e rosecuted
searately and indeendently of the criminal case
arising from the same act or omission, "ust like the
other indeendent civil actions under $rticles *),
**, *B of the ,ew 3ivil 3ode %7ide+ $rticle )&99'.
MORE DISCUSSION:
$rticle )&99 of the 3ivil 3ode makes a
distinction !etween a civil lia!ility arising from a
quasi-delict, and civil lia!ility arising from a crime,
that is, an act or omission may !e unisha!le !y
the /evised ;enal 3ode, or may create an action
for quasi-delict or cul&a e?tra-contractual under
the 3ivil 3ode.
>
$rticle )&9: of the 3ivil 3ode
imoses a civil lia!ility on a erson for damage
caused !y his act or omission constituting fault or
negligence, and whenever $rticle )&9: refers to
Tfault or negligenceT, it covers not only acts Tnot
unisha!le !y lawT !ut also acts criminal in
character, whether intentional and voluntary or
negligent. 3onse1uently, a searate civil action
lies against the o@ender in a criminal act, whether
or not he is criminally rosecuted and found guilty
or ac1uitted, rovided that the o@ended arty is
not allowed, %if the tortfeasor is actually charged
also criminally', to recover damages on !oth
scores, and would !e entitled in such eventuality
only to the !igger award of the two, assuming the
awards made in the two cases vary.
?
The
0ureme 3ourt in the case of Anda+o vs. IAC
5$5 0CRA 5$% e#lained that+
$ccording to the /eort of the
3ode 3ommission, $rticle )&99 of
the 3ivil 3ode though at Arst sight
startling, is not so novel or
8
0ee+ $ndamo vs. I$3, &?& 03/$ &?C( /afael /eyes
Trucking 3or. vs. ;eole, *)? 03/$ :==
9
Hirata vs. .choa, 2./. ,o. L8B:&9?, Panuary *&, &?9>,
>& 03/$ B9)
21
e#traordinary when we consider the
e#act nature of criminal and civil
negligence. The former is a violation
of the criminal law, while the latter is
a distinct and indeendent
negligence, which is a Tcul&a
aquilianaT or quasi-delict, of ancient
origin, having always had its own
foundation and individuality,
searate from criminal negligence.
0uch distinction !etween criminal
negligence and Tcul&a e?tra-
contractualT or Tcuasi-delitoT has
!een sustained !y decisions of the
0ureme 3ourt of 0ain . . .
### ### ###
In $Qucena vs. ;otenciano, %C
03/$ B:>, B9=8B9&', the 3ourt
declared that in quasi-delicts, T%t'he
civil action is entirely indeendent of
the criminal case according to $rticles
** and )&99 of the 3ivil 3ode. There
can !e no logical conclusion than this,
for to su!ordinate the civil action
contemlated in the said articles to
the result of the criminal rosecution
S whether it !e conviction or ac1uittal
S would render meaningless the
indeendent character of the civil
action and the clear in"unction in
$rticle *&, that his action may roceed
indeendently of the criminal
roceedings and regardless of the
result of the latter.T
### ### ###
In the case of 3astillo vs. 3ourt
of $eals %&9: 03/$ C?&', this 3ourt
held that a quasi-delict or cul&a
aquiliana is a searate legal institution
under the 3ivil 3ode with a
su!stantivity all its own, and
individuality that is entirely aart and
indeendent from a delict or crime S
a distinction e#ists !etween the civil
lia!ility arising from a crime and the
resonsi!ility for quasi-delicts or cul&a
e?tra-contractual. The same
negligence causing damages may
roduce civil lia!ility arising from a
crime under the ;enal 3ode, or create
an action for quasi-delicts or cul&a
e?tra-contractual under the 3ivil
3ode. Therefore, the ac1uittal or
conviction in the criminal case is
entirely irrelevant in the civil case,
unless, of course, in the event of an
ac1uittal where the court has declared
that the fact from which the civil
action arose did not e#ist, in which
case the e#tinction of the criminal
lia!ility would carry with it the
e#tinction of the civil lia!ility.
22
The 0ureme 3ourt has already laid a
fundamental remise clearly enunciated as early
as the case of 4arredo vs. 2arcia, et al., 9* ;hil.
:=9 %&?B)', thus+
T$ distinction e#ists !etween the
civil lia!ility arising from a crime and
the resonsi!ility for cuasi-delitos or
cul&a-e?tra-contractual. The same
negligent act causing damages may
roduce civil lia!ility arising from a
crime under article &== of the /evised
;enal 3ode, or create an action for
cuasi-delito or cul&a e?tra-contractual
under articles &?=)8&?&= of the 3ivil
3ode. ;lainti@s were free to choose
which remedy to enforce.T
The otions of the lainti@s %o@ended
arties' therefore are+ %&' To ursue a criminal
action which includes the claim for civil lia!ility
arising from the crime !ased on $rticle &== of the
/evised ;enal 3ode( or %)' To ursue an
indeendent civil action !ased on quasi-delict
under $rticles )&9: to )&?B of the ,ew 3ivil 3ode.
&=
$s it is 1uite aarent that the lainti@s had
redicated their resent claim for damages on
quasi-delict, they are not !arred from roceeding
10
-lcano vs. Dill, 99 03/$ ?>( ce Daulers 3or. Hs. 3$,
**> 03/$ C9)( Hirata vs. .choa, >& 03/$ B9)
with this indeendent civil suit. The institution of a
criminal action cannot have the e@ect of
interruting the civil action !ased on quasi-delict.
&&
$nd the searate civil action for quasi-delict
may roceed indeendently and regardless of the
result of the criminal case,
&)
e#cet that the
lainti@s cannot recover damages twice for the
same act or commission of the defendant.
&*
The
civil action referred to in 0ections *%a' and %!' of
/ule &&& of the /ules of 3ourt, which should !e
susended after the institution of the criminal
action, is that arising from delict, and not the civil
action !ased on quasi-delict or cul&a aquiliana.
&B
The civil lia!ility which may arise from cul&a
aquiliana or quasi-delict was never intended !y
law to !e merged in the criminal action. The
criminal rosecution is not a condition recedent
to the enforcement of the civil rights.
&C
To
su!ordinate the civil action contemlated in
$rticle ** and )&99 to the result of the criminal
action would render meaningless the indeendent
civil action and the in"unction in $rticle *& that
such civil action may roceed indeendently of
the criminal roceeding.
&:
11
3auno vs. ;esi83ola 4ottling 3o., &* 03/$ :C>
%&?:C'.
12
3han vs. 5atco, &=* ;hil. &&): %&?C>'.
13
$rticle )&99, 3ivil 3ode.
14
Feli# LanuQo vs. 0y 4on ;ing and 0alvador IendoQa,
2./. ,o. L8C*=:B, 0etem!er )C, &?>=.
15
4LT4 vs. 3$, :B 03/$ B)9
16
$Qucena vs. ;otenciano, &&C ;hil B:C. 0ee also+
6yogi vs. 5atco, &== ;hil. &=?C( 4achrach Iotor 3o., Inc. vs.
23
<nder 0ection & of the resent /ule &&&, the
indeendent civil action in $rticles *), **, *B and
)&9: of the 3ivil 3ode is not deemed instituted
with the criminal action !ut may !e Aled
searately !y the o@ended arty even without
reservation. The commencement of the criminal
action does not susend the rosecution of the
indeendent civil action under these articles of
the 3ivil 3ode. The susension in 0ection ) of the
resent /ule &&& refers only to the civil action
arising from the crime, if such civil action is
reserved or Aled !efore the commencement of the
criminal action.
&9
Thus, the o@ended arty can Ale two
searate suits for the same act or omission. The
Arst a criminal case where the civil action to
recover civil lia!ility e?-delicto is deemed
instituted, and the other a civil case for quasi-
delict S without violating the rule on non8forum
shoing. The two cases can roceed
simultaneously and indeendently of each other.
The commencement or rosecution of the criminal
action will not susend the civil action for quasi-
delict. The only limitation is that the o@ended
2am!oa, &=& ;hil. &)&?( /oa vs. 6e la 3ruQ, &=9 ;hil. >(
0tandard Hacuum .il Ho. Hs. tan, &=9 ;hil. &=?( ;acholo vs.
5umangday, &=> ;hil. )*>( 3alo vs. ;eggy, &=* ;hil. &&&).
17
$velino 3asuanan and /o!erto 3aitulo vs. Iario
Llavore Laroya, 2./. ,o. &BC*?&, $ugust ):, )==).
arty cannot recover damages twice for the same
act or omission of the defendant.
&>
In P"ili&&ine Ra99it 8us Lines Inc. vs.
Peo&le o( t"e P"ili&&ines 4.R. No. 52!!6# A&ril
52 1662, the 0ureme 3ourt e#lained the
concet of indeendent civil action in this wise+
$t the outset, we must e#lain
that the )=== /ules of 3riminal
;rocedure has clariAed what civil
actions are deemed instituted in a
criminal rosecution. 0ection & of /ule
&&& of the current /ules of 3riminal
;rocedure rovides+ T7hen a criminal
action is instituted, the civil action for
the recovery of civil lia!ility arising
from the o@ense charged shall !e
deemed instituted with the criminal
action unless the o@ended arty
waives the civil action, reserves the
right to institute it searately or
institutes the civil action rior to the
criminal action.T ### ###
###T .nly the civil lia!ility of the
accused arising from the crime
charged is deemed imliedly
instituted in a criminal action( that is,
unless the o@ended arty waives the
civil action, reserves the right to
institute it searately, or institutes it
rior to the criminal action. ### ###
### It is clear that the )=== /ules
18
I!id.
24
deleted the re1uirement of reserving
indeendent civil actions and allowed
these to roceed searately from
criminal actions. Thus, the civil actions
referred to in $rticles *), **, *B and
)&9: of the 3ivil 3ode shall remain
Tsearate, distinct and indeendentT
of any criminal rosecution !ased on
the same act. Dere are some direct
conse1uences of such revision and
omission+ &. The right to !ring the
foregoing actions !ased on the 3ivil
3ode need not !e reserved in the
criminal rosecution, since they are
not deemed included therein. ). The
institution or the waiver of the right to
Ale a searate civil action arising from
the crime charged does not e#tinguish
the right to !ring such action. *. The
only limitation is that the o@ended
arty cannot recover more than once
for the same act or omission. 7hat is
deemed instituted in every criminal
rosecution is the civil lia!ility arising
from the crime or delict &er se %civil
lia!ility e? delicto', !ut not those
lia!ilities arising from quasi-delicts,
contracts or quasi-contracts. In fact,
even if a civil action is Aled
searately, the e? delicto civil lia!ility
in the criminal rosecution remains,
and the o@ended arty may S su!"ect
to the control of the rosecutor S still
intervene in the criminal action, in
comletely in accord with the /evised
;enal 3ode, which states that TEeFvery
erson criminally lia!le for a felony is
also civilly lia!le.T
C. ARTICLE 1!<
$/T. )&9>. The rovisions of $rticles
&&9) to &&9B are also alica!le to a quasi-
delict.
$/T. &&9). /esonsi!ility arising from
negligence in the erformance of every kind
of o!ligation is also demanda!le, !ut such
lia!ility may !e regulated !y the courts,
according to the circumstances.
$/T. &&9*. The fault or negligence of
the o!ligor consists in the omission of that
diligence which is re1uired !y the nature of
the o!ligation and corresonds with the
circumstances of the ersons, of the time and
of the lace. 7hen negligence shows !ad
faith, the rovisions of $rticles &&9& and
))=&, ar. ), shall aly.
$/T. &&9B. -#cet in case e#ressly
seciAed !y the law, or when it is otherwise
declared !y stiulation, or when the nature of
the o!ligation re1uires the assumtion of risk,
no erson shall !e resonsi!le for those
events which could not !e foreseen, or which
though foreseen, were inevita!le.
$/T. ))=&. ;ar. ). # # # In case of
fraud, !ad faith, malice or wanton attitude,
the o!ligor shall !e resonsi!le for all
25
damages which may !e reasona!ly attri!uted
to the non8erformance of the o!ligation.
$rticle &&9) rovides that one incurs a
resonsi!ility (or 9ein' ne'li'ent in t"e
&er(or+ance o( everB o9li'ation.
WHAT ARE THE TWO KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE
MENTIONED BY ARTICLE 11!?
&. 7hen an o!ligor does not o!serve
diligence which is re1uired !y the nature
of the o!ligation and corresonds with
the circumstances of the ersons, time
and lace, there is fault or negligence(
and
). In case of fraud, !ad faith, malice or
wanton attitude, the o!ligor shall !e
resonsi!le for all damages which may
!e reasona!ly attri!uted to the
erformance of the o!ligation. %$rticle
&&9* in relation to $rticle ))=&, last
aragrah'
A,,123$42*):
A.; A 4**= $) ABC >%6 >*%)' +*&
B%4%$) C24?. I) G2)@**@ C24?5 6$2' >%6
3*112'(' A24B $) #YC L2)(&. A A$6 B%&4.
1. WHAT CASE CAN A FILE AGAINST ABC?
This is a case of contractual
negligence or cul&a contractual. $
may Ale a civil case against $43
!ecause there is a contract of carriage
!etween him and $43.
. WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF ABC PROVES
THAT IT E#ERCISED DILIGENCE IN THE
SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF ITS
DRIVER?
-ven if $43 roves that it
e#ercised diligence in the selection
and suervision of its driver, $43 is
still lia!le. That defense is not a
roer and comlete defense in cul&a
contractual. Dowever, the diligence of
$43 makes it a de!tor in good faith,
and the damages would !e mitigated
%Can'co vs. MRL co. #) P"il. !*$'.
-. IS ABC LIABLE IF IT TURNED OUT THAT A
HAS NOT YET PAID HIS FARE AT THE TIME
OF THE ACCIDENT?
5es. This is a case of cul&a
contractual and for as long as $ was
a!le to rove that he was a assenger
of the !us at the time of the accident
and that he failed to reach his
destination safely, there is already a
!reach of the contract of carriage.
26
.. IS ABC LIABLE IF IT TURNED OUT THAT A
HAS JUST BOARDED THE BUS
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE SAID
ACCIDENT?
5es, for the same reason.
B.; A 4**= $) ABC >%6 >*%)' +*&
D$D$* C24?. T* $D*2' $ B($' *) 3*11262*)
A24B $) #YC L2)(&5 ABCE6 '&2D(&
6A(&D(' 4* 4B( &2@B4 3$%62)@ 24 4* B24 $
sari-sari 64*&(. A A$6 B%&4. # $)' Y AB*
A(&( 4$=2)@ 6)$3=6 2) 4B( sari-sari
64*&( A(&( $16* B24 $)' 4B(? '2('.
1. IS ABC LIABLE TO A FOR DAMAGES?
For as long as $ can rove that
he was a assenger of $43 at the time
of the accident and that he failed to
reach his destination safely, $43 is
lia!le. If $43 wants to escae lia!ility,
it should rove that its driver was
really careful and e#traordinary
diligent.
. IN THIS CASE5 IS ABC PRESUMED
NEGLIGENT?
$s a rule, a common carrier is
resumed negligent in case of death
or hysical in"uries to assengers
unless it roves the e#ercise of
e#traordinary diligence.
3. CAN # AND Y FILE A CASE OF CULPA
CONTRACTUAL AGAINST ABC?
,o. This is now a case of cul&a
aquiliana which can !e Aled !oth
against the driver and $43. G and 5
have the !urden of roving that the
driver was negligent and that $43 did
not e#ercise diligence in the selection
and suervision of its driver.
If $43 is a!le to rove that it
e#ercised diligence and suervision in
the selection and suervision of its
driver, it will !e e#emt from lia!ility.
This is a roer defense in cul&a
aquiliana.
If G and 5 fail to rove the
negligence of the driver, then there is
no cul&a aquiliana. The reason for this
is !ecause fault or negligence is an
essential element of a quasi-delict,
and if this is not roved, then there is
no quasi-delict.
C.; CAN THE PARTIES STIPULATE REGARDING
FUTURE NEGLIGENCE?
27
0imle negligence may in certain
cases !e e#cused or mitigated !ut gross
negligence can never !e e#cused in
advance !ecause this is contrary to u!lic
olicy.
1. A SHIPPED ITS GOODS TO A VESSEL
OWNED BY #YC5 INC. THERE APPEARS A
PROVISION IN THE BILL OF LADING
WHICH STATES THAT NO MATTER HOW
NEGLIGENT IS SAID VESSEL5 #YC5 INC.5
SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
DAMAGES CAUSED TO THE GOODS. A
SIGNED THE BILL OF LADING. IS SAID
STIPULATION VALID?
It is void, for !eing contrary to
u!lic olicy.
. SAME PARTIES BUT THE PROVISION IN
THE BILL OF LADING IS DIFFERENT. THIS
TIME5 THE PROVISION STATES THAT NO
MATTER HOW NEGLIGENT IS SAID VESSEL5
#YC5 INC.5 SHALL BE LIABLE ONLY FOR
P-FF.OO5 REGARDLESS OF THE VALUE
OF THE GOODS. IS THE STIPULATION
VALID?
It is also void. This kind of
stiulation is, in e@ect, allowing G5O,
Inc., to !e negligent knowing that its
lia!ility will !e limited to ;*==.==,
regardless of the amount of the
goods.
-. SAME PARTIES BUT THE PROVISION OF
THE BILL OF LADING STATES THAT THE
#YC5 INC.ES LIABILITY IS LIMITED TO
P-FF. FF5 NO MATTER HOW NEGLIGENT
IT IS5 UNLESS A DECLARES A HIGHER
VALUE AND PAYS A HIGHER COST OF
FREIGHT. IS THE STIPULATION VALID?
This time the stiulation is valid
!ecause the arties made an honest
deAnition of their resective
o!ligations and lia!ilities.
D. ARTICLE 1!G
7hen the lainti@s own negligence
was the immediate and ro#imate cause of
his in"ury, he cannot recover damages. 4ut if
his negligence was only contri!utory, the
immediate and ro#imate cause of the in"ury
!eing the defendants lack of due care, the
lainti@ may recover damages, !ut the courts
shall mitigate the damages to !e awarded.
WHAT ARE THE SITUATIONS COVERED BY THE
ARTICLE 1!G?
&. ;lainti@s own negligence was the
immediate and ro#imate cause of his
28
in"ury M he cannot recover damages.
%TaBlor vs. Meralco 5* P"il. )'
). ;lainti@s own negligence is only
contri!utory( and the immediate and
ro#imate cause of his in"ury is
defendants lack of due care M lainti@
can recover damages !ut the courts shall
mitigate the damages to !e awarded
%Rakes vs. Atlantic 4ul( and PaciEc Co. !
P"il. #%$'.
WHAT IS PRO#IMATE CAUSE?
$ ro#imate cause is that ade1uate and
eLcient cause which in the natural order of
events, and under the articular circumstances
surrounding the case would naturally roduce the
event.
In Hda de 4ataclan vs. Iedina, &=) ;hil.&>&
and Teague vs. FernandeQ, C& 03/$ &>&,
&?
the
ro#imate cause was deAned as the ro#imate
legal cause, acting Arst and roducing the in"ury,
either immediately or !y setting other events in
motion, all constituting a natural and continuous
chain of events, each having a close causal
connection with the redecessor, the Anal event
to the chain immediately e@ecting the in"ury as a
natural and ro!a!le circumstance, that the
erson resonsi!le for the Arst event should, as
an ordinarily rudent and intelligent erson, have
reasona!le ground to e#ect at the moment of his
19
0ee also+ ;3I4 vs. 3$, *C= 03/$ B:B.
act or default that an in"ury to some erson might
ro!a!ly result therefrom.
PRO#IMATE CAUSE DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER
TERMS
1. HOW IS PRO#IMATE CAUSE DISTINGUISHED
FROM IMMEDIATE CAUSE OR NEAREST CAUSE?
The ro#imate cause is not
necessarily the immediate cause( it is not
necessarily the nearest time, distance or
sace. $s distinguished from immeditate or
nearest cause, ro#imate cause is not
necessarily the last link in the chain of
events !ut that which is the rocuring
eLcient and redominant cause. The
re1uirement is that the act was the
ro#imate cause, not imlying, however, the
nearest in oint of time or relation, !ut
rather the eLcient cause, which may !e the
most remote of an oerative chain. It must
!e that which sets the others in motion and
is to !e distinguished from a mere re8
e#isting condition uon which the e@ective
cause oerates, and must have !een
ade1uate to roduce the resultant damage
with out the intervention of an indeendent
cause %T"e Atlantic 4ul( and PaciEc
Co+&anB vs. T"e 4overn+ent o( t"e
P"ili&&ine Islands 4.R. No. L-25$% =e9ruarB
5) 5$6)'.
29
. HOW IS PRO#IMATE CAUSE DISTINGUISHED
FROM PRIOR AND REMOTE CAUSE?
$ remote cause is that cause which
some indeendent force merely took
advantage of to accomlish something not
the natural e@ect thereof.
$ rior and remote cause can not !e
made the !asis of an action, if such remote
cause did nothing more than furnish the
condition or give rise to the occasion !y
which the in"ury was made ossi!le, if there
intervened !etween such rior or remote
cause and the in"ury, a distinct, successive,
unrelated, and eLcient cause of the in"ury,
even though such in"ury would not have
haened !ut for such condition of
occasion. If no damage e#isted in the
condition e#cet !ecause of the
indeendent cause, such condition was not
the ro#imate cause. $nd if an indeendent
negligent act or defective condition sets into
oeration the circumstances which results in
in"ury !ecause of the rior defective
condition, such act or condition is the
ro#imate cause.
-. HOW IS PRO#IMATE CAUSE DISTINGUISHED
FROM CONCURRENT CAUSES?
The ro#imate cause is not
necessarily the sole cause of the accident.
The defendant is still lia!le in case there are
concurrent causes !rought a!out !y acts or
omissions of third ersons. Thus, the
rimary cause remains the ro#imate cause
even if there is an intervening cause which
merely cooerated with the rimary cause
and which did not !reak the chain of
causation.
WHAT ARE THE TESTS OF PRO#IMATE CAUSE?
A. 3$<0-8I,8F$3T T-0T
In determining the ro#imate cause of the
in"ury, it is Arst necessary to determine if the
defendants negligence was the cause-in-(act of
the damage to the lainti@. If the defendants
negligence was not a cause8in8fact, the in1uiry
stos( !ut if it is a cause8in8fact, the in1uiry shifts
to the 1uestion of limit of lia!ility of the
defendant. The latter determination of the e#tent
of lia!ility involves a 1uestion of &olicB. In other
words, the 1uestion of ro#imate cause does not
only involve cause and e@ect analysis. It also
involves olicy considerations that limit the
lia!ility of the defendants in negligence cases. The
mere fact that the negligence of the defendant is
a factor in !ringing a!out the in"ury does not
necessarily means that he shall !e lia!le.
WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF CAUSE0IN0FACT
TESTS?
30
&. 0I,- K<$ ,., T-0T %4<T F./ T-0T' M this is a
1uestion of causal connection. 7here the
defendants own conduct will not !e
considered as ro#imate cause of the event
if the event "ust the same would have
occurred without it. 0imly stated,
defendants conduct is the cause in fact of
the in"ury under the !ut for test if the
damage would not have resulted had there
!een no negligence on the art of the
defendant. 3onversely, defendants
negligent conduct is not the cause in fact of
the lainti@s damage if the accident could
not have !een avoided in the a!sence
thereof.
). 0<40T$,TI$L F$3T./ T-0T M makes the
negligent conduct the cause in fact of the
damage if it was a su!stantial factor in
roducing the in"uries. This test is esecially
imortant where there are concurrent
causes. Dere, the issues are not factual !ut
concetual.
*. ,-00 T-0T M $ condition may still !e
considered a cause where it is shown to !e
a necessary element in "ust one of several
co8resent sets each indeendently
suLcient for the e@ect.
B. ;.LI35 T-0T0
WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF POLICY TESTS?
&. F./-0I2DT ;-/0;-3TIH-
It is a test that determines whether the
chain of events that in fact occurred was
suLciently foreseea!le, natural or ro!a!le
at the outset for the defendant to !e held lia!le.
WHAT ARE THE TESTS TO DETERMINE THE
E#TENT OF THE DEFENDANTES LIABILITY FOR
NEGLIGENCE UNDER THIS TEST?
&' F./0--$4ILIT5 T-0T M where the
articular harm was reasona!ly
foreseea!le at the time of the
defendants misconduct, his act or
omission is the legal cause thereof.
The defendant is not lia!le for
unforeseea!le conse1uences of his
act. The lia!ility is limited within
the risk created !y the defendants
negligence act.
)' ,$T</$L $,6 ;/.4$4L- 3.,0-K<-,3-
T-0TM where the defendants
lia!ility is recogniQed only if the
harm or in"ury su@ered is the
natural and ro!a!le conse1uence
of his act or omission comlained
of.
). 6I/-3T,-00 ;-/0;-3TIH-
It does not re1uire that the in"ury is within
the foreseea!le risk created !y the defendant.
This second aroach starts with the in"ury and
31
works towards the wrongful action of the
defendant, seeking to determine whether any act
of a third arty or the lainti@, or any event,
severed the causal connection !etween the harm
and the defendants wrongful conduct. Dere, the
1uestion is only whether, when all the evidence is
in, it is ermissi!le to say that the defendant did
it, that is, !rought a!out the lainti@s harm.
WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF TESTS UNDER THE
DIRECTNESS PERSPECTIVE?
&' ,$T</$L $,6 ./6I,$/5 ./ 6I/-3T
3.,0-K<-,3- T-0T M makes the
defendant lia!le for damages which
are !eyond the risk. 6irect
conse1uences are those that follow
in the se1uence from the e@ect of
the defendants act uon condition
e#isting and forces already in
oeration at the time, without the
intervention of any e#ternal forces,
which come into active oeration
later.
)' Dindsight test
*' .r!it of risk test
B' 0u!stantial factor test
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CAUSE AND CONDITION.
$ distinction is made !etween the active
cause of the harm or in"ury and the e#isting
conditions uon which that cause oerated. If
the defendant has created only a assive %not
active' static condition, which made the damage
ossi!le, he is not lia!le.
Iany courts have sought to distinguish
!etween the active TcauseT of the harm and the
e#isting TconditionsT uon which that cause
oerated. If the defendant has created only a
assive static condition which made the damage
ossi!le, the defendant is said not to !e lia!le.
4ut so far as the fact of causation is concerned, in
the sense of necessary antecedents which have
layed an imortant art in roducing the result,
it is 1uite imossi!le to distinguish !etween active
forces and assive situations, articularly since,
as is invaria!ly the case, the latter are the result
of other active forces which have gone !efore.
The defendant who sills gasoline a!out the
remises creates a Tcondition,T !ut the act may
!e cula!le !ecause of the danger of Are. 7hen a
sark ignites the gasoline, the condition has done
1uite as much to !ring a!out the Are as the sark(
and since that is the very risk which the defendant
has created, the defendant will not escae
resonsi!ility. -ven the lase of a considera!le
time during which the TconditionT remains static
will not necessarily a@ect lia!ility( one who digs a
trench in the highway may still !e lia!le to
another who falls into it a month afterward.
T3auseT and TconditionT still And occasional
mention in the decisions( !ut the distinction is
now almost entirely discredited. 0o far as it has
32
any validity at all, it must refer to the tye of case
where the forces set in oeration !y the
defendant have come to rest in a osition of
aarent safety, and some new force intervenes.
4ut even in such cases, it is not the distinction
!etween TcauseT and TconditionT which is
imortant, !ut the nature of the risk and the
character of the intervening causeT %P"oeni?
Construction vs. IAC 4.R. No. L-*%1$% Marc" 56
5$)!'.
WHAT IS EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE?
It is one that destroys the causal connection
!etween the negligent act and in"ury and there!y
negatives lia!ility. $n intervening cause will not !e
regarded as the ro#imate cause and the Arst
cause as too remote, where the chain of events is
so !roken that they !ecome indeendent and the
result cannot !e said to !e the conse1uence of
the rimary cause. Dowever, a cause is not an
intervening cause if it is already in oeration at
the time the negligent act is committed.
WHAT ARE FORESEEABLE INTERVENING
CAUSES?

If the intervening cause is one which in
ordinary human e#erience is reasona!ly to !e
anticiated, or one which the defendant has
reason to anticiate under the articular
circumstances, the defendant may !e negligent,
among other reasons, !ecause of failure to guard
against it( or the defendant may !e negligent only
for that reason. Thus one who sets a Are may !e
re1uired to foresee that an ordinary, usual and
customary wind arising later will sread it !eyond
the defendantUs own roerty, and therefore to
take recautions to revent that event. The
erson who leaves the com!usti!le or e#losive
material e#osed in a u!lic lace may foresee
the risk of Are from some indeendent source. . . .
In all of these cases there is an intervening cause
com!ining with the defendantUs conduct to
roduce the result, and in each case the
defendantUs negligence consists in failure to
rotect the lainti@ against that very risk %P"oeni?
Construction vs. IAC su&ra'.
IS A FORESEEABLE INTERVENING CAUSE
CONSIDERED A SUFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE?
$ (oreseea9le intervenin' cause however,
cannot !e considered suLcient intervening cause.
If the intervening cause is foreseea!le, the
defendant may still !e considered negligent
!ecause of the failure to guard against it.
$lso, the intervention of an un(oreseen and
une?&ected cause, is not suLcient to relieve a
wrongdoer from conse1uences of negligence, if
such negligence directly and ro#imately
cooerates with the indeendent cause in the
resulting in"ury %0&ouses 8erna9e A(rica vs.
Calte? su&ra'.
33
APPLICATION
# AND Y5 PASSENGERS OF JAM LINER5 INC.5
HAD A HEATED ALTERCATION INSIDE THE BUS
RESULTING IN A FIST FIGHT. IN THE PROCESS5 #
THREW A SOLID PUNCH AGAINST Y AND AS A RESULT5
Y FELL ON THE DRIVERES SCAT. THE DRIVER LOST
CONTROL OF THE WHEEL AND THE BUS HIT AN
ELECTRIC POST. WHAT IS THE PRO#IMATE CAUSE OF
THE ACCIDENT?
Dere, the ro#imate cause is the Ast Aght
!etween G and 5.
A WAS ON HIS WAY HOME5 AFTER A SHOT OR
TWO OF LIQUOR IN A BIRTHDAY PARTY. ON HIS WAY
HOME AFTER CROSSING AN INTERSECTION5 HIS CAR
HEADLIGHTS SUDDENLY FAILED. HE SWITCHED HIS
HEADLIGHTS TO BRIGHT5 AND THEN AND THERE5 HE
SAW A DUMP TRUCK WHICH IS ABOUT H METERS
AWAY FROM HIS CAR. A TRIED TO AVOID A COLLISION
BY SWERVING HIS CAR TO THE LEFT BUT TO NO AVAIL.
HIS CAR SMASHED INTO THE DUMP TRUCK. WHO IS
NEGLIGENT AND WHO IS THE IMMEDIATE AND
PRO#IMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY? :PHOENI#
CONSTRUCTION5 INC. VS. IAC5 G.R. NO. "/G/5
MARCH 1F5 1G<!;
4oth were negligent !ut the immediate and
ro#imate cause of the accident and of $s in"uries
was the wrongful and negligent manner in which
the truck was arked or the truck drivers lack of
due care.
The collision of $s car with the dum truck
was a natural and foreseea!le conse1uence of the
truck drivers negligence. The negligence of the
truck driver, far from !eing a assive and static
condition was an indisensa!le and eLcient
cause. The accident would not have occurred were
it not for the fact that it was arked askew and
without warning lights and reVector devices.
The imroer arking of the dum truck
created an unreasona!le risk of in"ury for anyone
driving, and for having created this risk, the truck
driver must !e held resonsi!le.
$s negligence, although later in oint of
time than the truck drivers negligence, is merely
contri!utory and the damages therefore that he
will recover is su!"ect to mitigation !y the courts,
in accordance with $rticle )&9? of the 3ivil 3ode.
.n the issue of damages M In a suit for
damages arising from a quasi-delict, where the
lainti@s negligence was contri!utory, the
demands of su!stantial "ustice may !e satisAed !y
allocating most of the damages on a )=8>= ratio.
4ased on this, the following were awarded+
&. )=W of the damages awarded !y the
aellate court shall !e !orne !y the
lainti@(
34
). >=W shall !e aid !y the driver and his
emloyer who shall !e solidarily lia!le to $(
and
*. The award of e#emlary damages shall !e
!orne e#clusively !y the defendant ;hoeni#.
WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE?
3ontri!utory negligence has !een deAned
as the act or omission amounting to want of
ordinary care on the art of the erson in"ured
which, concurring with the defendants
negligence, is the ro#imate cause of the in"ury.
To hold a erson as having contri!uted to
his in"uries, it must !e shown that he erformed
an act that !rought a!out his in"uries in disregard
of warnings or signs of an imending danger to
health and !ody %Mao-ao 0u'ar Central Co. Inc.
vs. CA 5)$ 0CRA $#3 MMTC vs. CA Au'ust 5
1661'.
ARE CHILDREN BELOW G YEARS CAPABLE OF
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE?
,o, a child under ? years of age is
conclusively resumed incaa!le of contri!utory
negligence as a matte of law.
In our "urisdiction, a erson under ? years of
age is conclusively resumed to have acted
without discernment, and is, on that account,
e#emt from criminal lia!ility. The same
resumtion and a like e#emtion from criminal
lia!ility o!tains in a case of a erson over ? and
under &C years of age, unless it is shown that he
has acted with discernment. 0ince negligence
may !e a felony and a quasi-delict and re1uired
discernment as a condition of lia!ility, either
criminal or civil, a child under ? years of age is, !y
analogy, conclusively resumed to !e incaa!le of
negligence( and that the resumtion of lack of
discernment or incaacity for negligence in the
case of a child over ? !ut under &C years of age is
a re!utta!le one, under our law. T"e rule
t"ere(ore is t"at a c"ild under $ Bears o( a'e
+ust 9e conclusivelB &resu+ed inca&a9le o(
contri9utorB ne'li'ence as a +atter o( laF. %Carco
Marketin' Cor&. vs. CA #15 0CRA #!!'
WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF PLAINTIFFES
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE?
If the ro#imate cause of the in"ury is the
contri!utory negligence of the lainti@, there can
!e no recovery for damages %TaBlor vs. Meralco
5* P"il. )'
$ lainti@ is !arred from recovering the
damages for loss or in"ury caused !y the
negligence of defendant only when lainti@s
negligence is the sole le'al cause of the damage,
or the negligence of the lainti@ and some erson
or ersons other that the defendant or defendants
was the sole cause of the damage.
35
If the lainti@ and the defendant are !oth at
fault, the former may recover, !ut the amount of
his recovery may only !e such roortion of the
entire damage lainti@ sustained as the
defendants negligence !ears to the com!ined
negligence of !oth the lainti@ and the defendant.
For e#amle, when it is found that the lainti@s
negligence is at least e1ual to that of the
defendant, the amount awarded to the lainti@
should !e reduced !y one8half from what it
otherwise would have !een entitled.
If the ro#imate cause of the in"uries is still
the negligence of the defendant, desite the
contri!utory negligence of the lainti@, the latter
can still recover damages from the former.
Dowever, damages will !e reduced due to the
contri!utory negligence of the lainti@ %/akes vs.
$tlantic, sura.'
This is aortionment of lia!ility also known
as the 6.3T/I,- .F 3.I;$/$TIH- ,-2LI2-,3-. <nder
said doctrine, the negligence of !oth the lainti@
and of the defendant are comared for the
urose of reaching an e1uita!le aortionment
of their resective lia!ilities for the damage
caused and su@ered !y the lainti@.
3ontri!utory negligence in common carriers
does not !ar recovery of damages if the
ro#imate cause of the death of the assenger is
the negligence of the common carrier M
$rt. &9:). The
contri!utory negligence of the
assenger does not !ar
recovery of damages fro the
death or in"uries, if the
ro#imate cause thereof is the
negligence of the common
carrier, !ut the amount of
damages shall !e e1uita!ly
reduced.
CAN THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE APPLY IN CRIMINAL CASES?
The rincile of contri!utory negligence
cannot !e sued as defense in criminal cases
through reckless imrudence !ecause one cannot
allege the negligence of another to evade the
e@ects of his own negligence. It may, however,
mitigate the civil lia!ility of the defendant !ut
cannot a@ect his criminal lia!ility.
IS THE PRINCIPLE OF PRO#IMATE CAUSE
APPLICABLE TO ACTIONS INVOLVING BREACH OF
CONTRACT?
The doctrine of ro#imate cause is
alica!le only for actions of quasi-delict, not in
actions involving !reach of contract. The doctrine
is a device for imuting lia!ility to a erson where
there is no relation !etween him and another
arty. In such a case, the o!ligation is created !y
the law itself. 4ut, where there is a re8e#isting
contractual relation !etween the arties, it is the
36
arties themselves who create the o!ligation, and
the function of the law is merely to regulate the
relation thus created.
E. ARTICLE 1<F
$rticle )&>=. The o!ligation imosed
!y article )&9: is demanda!le not only for
oneUs own acts or omissions, !ut also for
those of ersons for whom one is resonsi!le.
The father and, in case of his death or
incaacity, the mother, are resonsi!le for the
damages caused !y the minor children who
live in their comany.
2uardians are lia!le for damages
caused !y the minors or incaacitated
ersons who are under their authority and live
in their comany.
The owners and managers of an
esta!lishment or enterrise are likewise
resonsi!le for damages caused !y their
emloyees in the service of the !ranches in
which the latter are emloyed or on the
occasion of their functions.
-mloyers shall !e lia!le for the
damages caused !y their emloyees and
household helers acting within the scoe of
their assigned tasks, even though the former
are not engaged in any !usiness or industry.
The 0tate is resonsi!le in like manner
when it acts through a secial agent( !ut not
when the damage has !een caused !y the
oLcial to whom the task done roerly
ertains, in which case what is rovided in
article )&9: shall !e alica!le.
Lastly, teachers or heads of
esta!lishments of arts and trades shall !e
lia!le for damages caused !y their uils and
students or arentices, so long as they
remain in their custody.
The resonsi!ility treated of in this
article shall cease when the ersons herein
mentioned rove that they o!served all the
diligence of a good father of a family to
revent damage.
;.6. :=*, $/TI3L- C>.TortsM ;arents
and guardians are resonsi!le for the damage
caused !y the child under arental authority
in accordance with the 3ivil 3ode.
WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF VICARIOUS LIABLITY
OR IMPUTED LIABLITY?
The article rovides that one is not only
lia!le for his own quasi-delictual acts !ut also for
those ersons for whom he is resonsi!le under
the law.
WHAT IS THE BASIS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY?

The !asis of vicarious lia!ility under $rticle
)&>= is not res&ondeat su&erior, which under
$merican "urisrudence means that the
negligence of the servant is conclusively the
negligence of the master. /ather, the !asis of
37
$rticle )&>= is the rincile of &ater (a+ilias. The
reason for the masters lia!ility is negligence in
the suervision of his su!ordinates. The master,
however, in &ater (a+ilias under $rticle )&>= will
!e freed from lia!ility if he can rove that he had
o!served all the diligence of a good father of a
family to revent the damage.
IS THE ACTUAL TORTFEASOR :MINOR5 WARD5
EMPLOYEE5 SPECIAL AGENT5 PUPIL5 STUDENT OR
APPRENTICE; E#EMPT FROM LIABILITY?
,o, they are not e#emt from ersonal
resonsi!ility. They may !e sued and made lia!le
alone as when the erson resonsi!le for them or
the vicarious o!ligor roves that he e#ercised the
diligence re1uired of a good father of a family or
when the minor or insane erson has no arents
or guardians. In the latter instance, they are
answera!le with their own roerty %$rticle )&>)'.
WHAT IS THE DEFENSE AGAINST VICARIOUS
LIABILITY?
The resonsi!ility imosed !y $rticle )&>= is
not !ased on res&ondeat su&erior. It arises !y
virtue of a legal resumtion of negligence on the
art of the ersons made resonsi!le for the
tortious conduct if another. 0uch resumtion is
only Guris tantu+ not Guris et de Gure, and may !e
re!utted !y showing that they o!served all the
diligence of a good father of a family to revent
damage %last ar.', which in the case of
emloyers, means due diligence in the selection
and suervision of emloyees.
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF DILIGENCE OF A
GOOD FATHER OR A FAMILY?
The hrase may !e e1uated with ./6I,$/5
3$/- or that diligence which an average or a
reasona!ly rudent erson e#ercises over his own
a@airs. This standard of care is also referred to as
that a man of ordinary rudence, or a man
using ordinary care and skill.
WHAT PROVISION OF LAW GOVERNS THE
VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER FOR THE
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE OF HIS EMPLOYEE?
The vicarious lia!ility of the emloyer for
the criminal negligence of his emloyee is
governed !y $rticle &=* of the /evised ;enal
3ode. The conviction of the emloyee for criminal
negligence conclusively !inds the emloyer who is
automatically made su!sidiarily lia!le, to answer
for the damages awarded. The defense that the
emloyer e#ercised due diligence in the selection
and suervision of the emloyee is not availa!le
under said article.
0ince the emloyers civil lia!ility is
su!sidiary, and not direct, his resonsi!ility will
arise only if the emloyee cannot or is una!le to
ay the indemnity awarded. Furthermore, his
lia!ility cannot !e more than that of the
38
emloyee. The emloyer stands in the osition of
a guarantor. The in"ured arty, however, can sue
!oth at the same time, although he has a choice
of remedy either under the /evised ;enal 3ode or
under $rticle )&>=.
LIABILITY OF FATHERIMOTHER
WHAT IS THE REASON OF THE LAW IN MAKING
THEM LIABLE?
It is a necessary conse1uence of the
arents authority they e#ercise over their
children.
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES TO HOLD THE
PARENTS LIABLE UNDER ARTICLE 1<F?
&. The child is !elow )& years(
). The child committed a tortious act to the
damage and re"udice of another erson(
and
*. The child lives in the comany of the arent
concerned whether single or married.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE FATHER AND MOTHER?
Their resonsi!ility is not simultaneous, !ut
alternative, the father !eing rimarily resonsi!le,
and the mother answering only in case of death or
incaacity.
;6 :=*, $/TI3L- )=&. 3ivil
Lia!ility of 5outhful .@enders. S The civil
lia!ility for acts committed !y a youthful
o@ender shall devolve uon the o@enderUs
father and, in case of his death or incaacity,
uon the mother, or in case of her death or
incaacity, uon the guardian. 3ivil lia!ility
may also !e voluntarily assumed !y a relative
or family friend of the youthful o@ender.
Dowever, under the Family 3ode, this civil
lia!ility is now, without such alternative
1ualiAcation %Li9i vs. IAC 152 0CRA 5* H5$$1I<. In
other words, !oth arents are rimarily lia!le for
the damages caused !y their child.
The lia!ility is rimary and not su!sidiary.
WHAT IS THE E#TENT OF THE PARENTSE
LIABILITY?
;arents lia!ility e#tends to intentional
crimes committed !y their minor children.
/evised ;enal 3ode, $/TI3L- &=&.
/ules regarding civil lia!ility in certain
cases. S The e#emtion from criminal lia!ility
esta!lished in su!divisions &, ), *, C and : of
article &) and in su!division B of article && of
this 3ode does not include e#emtion from
civil lia!ility, which shall !e enforced su!"ect
to the following rules+
First. In cases of su!divisions &, ), and
* of article &), the civil lia!ility for acts
committed !y an im!ecile or insane erson,
and !y a erson under nine years of age, or
39
!y one over nine !ut under Afteen years of
age, who has acted without discernment, shall
devolve uon those having such erson under
their legal authority or control, unless it
aears that there was no fault or negligence
on their art.
0hould there !e no erson having such
insane, im!ecile or minor under his authority,
legal guardianshi, or control or if such erson
!e insolvent, said insane, im!ecile, or minor
shall resond with their own roerty,
e#ceting roerty e#emt from e#ecution, in
accordance with the civil law.
0econd. In cases falling within
su!division B of article &&, the ersons for
whose !eneAt the harm has !een revented
shall !e civilly lia!le in roortion to the
!eneAt which they may have received.
The courts shall determine, in their
sound discretion, the roortionate amount
for which each one shall !e lia!le.
7hen the resective shares cannot !e
e1uita!ly determined, even aro#imately, or
when the lia!ility also attaches to the
2overnment, or to the ma"ority of the
inha!itants of the town, and, in all events,
whenever the damage has !een caused with
the consent of the authorities or their agents,
indemniAcation shall !e made in the manner
rescri!ed !y secial laws or regulations.
Third. In cases falling within
su!divisions C and : of article &), the ersons
using violence or causing the fear shall !e
rimarily lia!le and secondarily, or, if there !e
no such ersons, those doing the act shall !e
lia!le, saving always to the latter that art of
their roerty e#emt from e#ecution.
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF MINORITY IN
PARAGRAPHS AND - OF THE ARTICLE?
Iinors in the said article refer to those
who are !elow twenty8one and not to those
!elow &> years. The law reducing the
ma"ority from )& to &> years did not amend
these aragrahs. $rticle )*: of the Family
3ode as amended !y /.$. ,o. :>=? rovides
M
$/TI3L- )*:. -manciation shall
terminate arental authority over the erson
and roerty of the child who shall then !e
1ualiAed and resonsi!le for all acts of civil
life, save the e#cetions esta!lished !y
e#isting laws in secial cases.
3ontracting marriage shall re1uire
arental consent until the age of twenty one.
,othing in this 3ode shall !e construed
to derogate from the duty or resonsi!ility of
arents and guardians for children and wards
!elow twenty one years of age mentioned in
the second and third aragrah of )&>= of the
3ivil 3ode %/.$. ,o. :>=?'.
ARE PARENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR MINOR
ADOPTED CHILDRENI ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN?
Pudicially adoted children are
considered legitimate children of their
40
adoting arents %0ection &9, /.$. ,o. >CC),
6omestic $dotion $ct of &?>>', thus the
adoters are civilly lia!le for their tortious
and criminal acts if the children live with
them and are !elow )& years.
If the child is illegitimate and
acknowledged !y the father and lives with
the latter, the father shall !e resonsi!le.
Dowever, an illegitimate child who is not
recogniQed !y the utative father !ut is
under the custody and suervision of the
mother, it is the latter who is vicariously
lia!le.
HOW CAN THE PARENTS AVOID CIVIL
LIABLITY?
4y leading and roving the defense
that there was no fault or negligence on
their art.
SHOULD THE MOTHER BE IMPLEADED AS CO0
DEFENDANT OF HER HUSBAND FOR THE NEGLIGENT
ACTS OR OMISSION OF THEIR CHILD?
,o. The mother is lia!le only if the father is
dead or incaacitated.
IS THE FATHER LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR THE
CRIME OF HIS MINOR SON WHO IS ALREADY MARRIED
BUT LIVING WITH AND RECEIVING SUPPORT FROM
HIM?
5es. The marriage of a minor child, while still
a minor, does not relieve the arents of the duty
to see to it that the child, while still a minor, does
not give cause to any litigation, in the same
manner that the arents are answera!le for the
!orrowings of money and alienation or
encum!ering of real roerty which cannot !e
done !y their minor married child without their
consent %:lcano vs. @ill !! 0CRA0 566'.
; LIABILITY OF GUARDIANS
The vicarious lia!ility of the guardians with
resect to their wards is governed !y the same
rule as in the lia!ility of arents with resect to
their children !elow twenty8one and who live with
them.
In guardianshi, however, the ward may !e
an adult or of age, like an incometent or
incaacitated adult. The age limit of !eing !elow
)& years does not aly. 7hat is imortant is that
the guardianshi is su!sisting.
If the ward has two %)' guardians, one over
his erson and the other over his roerty, only
the former shall !e lia!le !ecause he is under
o!ligation to suervise the ersonal acts of the
ward.
WHAT IS THE E#TENT OF RESPONISBILITY OF
GUARDIANS?
41
The resonsi!ility of guardians e#tends to
incaacitated ersons even if they are already of
age. 0ection ) of /ule ?) uses the word
incometent. It includes+
&. ;ersons su@ering the enalty of civil
interdiction
). DositaliQed leers
*. ;rodigals
B. 6eaf and dum! who are una!le to read and
write
C. Those who are of unsound mind, even
though they have lucid intervals
:. ;ersons not !eing of unsound mind, !ut !y
reason of age, disease, weak mind, and
other similar cases, cannot, without outside
aid, take care of themselves and manage
their roerty.
The guardians stand in loco &arentis
ARE GUARDIANS DE FACTO RESPONSIBLE?
If a erson is not legally aointed as
guardian, the de (acto guardian would generally
not !e resonsi!le, !ecause of the a!sence of one
of the !ases for the resonsi!ility, namely, the
duty to take care of the ward. 4ut if the in"ury
caused is the result of !ad education or training
!y the guardian de (acto, the latter should !e held
lia!le. It is !ut "ust that the law should !e alied
!y analogy. This is to comel them to e#ercise
control and suervision over the orhans whom
they voluntary assumed the duties of arenthood.
-; LIABILITY OF OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF
ESTABLISHMENT OR ENTERPRISE AND EMPLOYERS
ARE MANAGERS OF A CORPORATION INCLUDED
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERMS OWNERS AND
MANAGERS?
The terms owners and managers %ar. B'
and emloyer %ar. C' do not include the
manager of a cororation. The term manager
%director in the 0anish version' is used in the
sense of emloyer. Thus, a mere manager, who
does not own the !usiness is not to !e considered
an emloyer !ecause he is "ust an emloyee.
Dowever, a manager who is not an owner !ut who
assumes the resonsi!ility if suervision over the
emloyees of the owner may !e held lia!le for the
acts of the emloyees.
The e#istence of emloyer8emloyee
relationshi must !e esta!lished !y the lainti@
in a satisfactory manner. It cannot !e
resumed.
.ne who hires an indeendent contractor
!ut controls the latters work us resonsi!le also
for his negligence. $lso, negligence of a rofessor
is negligence of the school.
WHAT ARE THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PARS.
. AND /?
42
$. $rticle )&>= has a searate rovisions for
owners and managers of an esta!lishment
or enterrise %ar. B' and emloyers %ar.
C'. 4oth are emloyers, however, it is not
necessary that the emloyer under the C
th
aragrah !e engaged in any !usiness or
industry.
4. 4oth are made lia!le for damages if they are
caused !y their emloyees acting in their
service or on the occasion of their functions,
or acting within the scoe of their assigned
tasks at the time of the commission of the
tortious act or negligence.
3. The B
th
aragrah covers negligent acts of
emloyees committed either in the service
of the !ranches or on the occasion of their
functions, while the C
th
aragrah
encomasses negligent acts of emloyees
acting within the scoe of their assigned
task whether or not the emloyer is
engaged in an !usiness or industry . The
latter is an e#ansion of the former in !oth
emloyer coverage and acts included.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE LIABILITY OF THE
EMPLOYER?
The lia!ility of the emloyer is rimary and
solidary with the emloyee although the former
can recover from the latter whatever it ays to the
lainti@ %Article 15)6'
The resonsi!ility of the owner and manager
is only with resect to damages caused !y their
emloyees in the service of the !ranches or on
the occasion of their functions, and not with
resect to acts of strangers who committed
unauthoriQed acts and in doing so, caused
damages to others. The same thing is true with
resect to the emloyer in relation to the
unauthoriQed acts of strangers.
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES IN ORDER THAT AN
EMPLOYER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER PAR. .?
&. The emloyee was chosen !y the emloyer
ersonally or through another(
). The service is to !e rendered in accordance
with the orders which the emloyer has the
authority to give at all times(
*. The illicit act of the emloyee was on the
occasion or !y reason of the functions
entrusted to him( and at the time the
emloyee was erforming his functions.
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES IN ORDER THAT AN
EMPLOYER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER PAR. /?
&. The act was committed !y emloyees and
household helers %including family cooks,
gardeners, yayas, servants, etc.'(
). The said act was committed while they were
acting within their assigned tasks(
*. 6amage was caused as a result of said act.
43
WHAT IS THE PRESUMPTION CREATED BY LAW
IF AN INJURY OR DAMAGE IS CAUSED BY AN
EMPLOYEE? HOW CAN THE EMPLOYER REBUT THIS
PRESUMPTION?
If an in"ury or damage is caused !y an
emloyee, it is resumed that the emloyer %ars.
B and C' was negligent either in the selection of
the emloyee or in his suervision over him, or
!oth. The emloyer can overcome the
resumtion !y a clear showing that in the
selection and suervision he o!served all the
diligence of a good father of a family to revent
damage %last ar.' $llegations of negligence
against the emloyee and that of emloyer8
emloyee relations in the comlaint are enough to
make out a case of quasi-delict under $rticle
)&>=.
,ote that to !e e#emt from lia!ility, the
emloyer must esta!lish that he e#ercised due
care not only in the selection !ut also in the
suervision of the emloyee.
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PRIMARY LIABILITY AND
SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS. WHAT ARE THE
OPTIONS ON REMEDIES OF THE INJURED PARTY?
The in"ured arty has two %)' otions in
ursuing the civil lia!ility of the emloyer for the
acts of his emloyee+
$. If he chooses to Ale a civil action for
damages !ased on quasi-delict under article
)&>= and succeeds in roving the
negligence of the emloyee, the lia!ility of
the emloyer is rimary, direct and solidary.
It is not conditioned on the insolvency of the
emloyee.
The resonsi!ility of emloyers for the
negligence of their emloyees in the
erformance of their duties is rimary, that
is, the in"ured arty may recover from the
emloyers directly, regardless of the
solvency of their emloyees.
4. If he chooses to Ale a criminal case against
the o@ender and the o@ender was found
guilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t, the civil
lia!ility of the emloyer is su!sidiary. The
emloyer cannot use as a defense the
e#ercise of the diligence of a good father of
a family.
The "udgment in the criminal action
ronouncing the emloyee to !e also civilly
lia!le is conclusive on the emloyer not only
as to the actuality of that lia!ility !ut also as
to the amount.
.nce there is conviction for a felony, Anal in
character, the emloyer under $rticle &=* of
the /evised ;enal 3ode, is su!sidiarily
lia!le, if it !e shown that the commission
44
thereof was in the discharge of the duties of
the emloyee. $nd a revious dismissal of
an action !ased on cul&a aquiliana could not
!e a !ar to the enforcement of the
su!sidiary lia!ility re1uired !y said $rticle
&=) of the ;enal 3ode.
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES SO THAT THE
SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER MAY BE
ENFORCED?
To enforce the emloyers su!sidiary
lia!ility, there must !e ade1uate evidence
esta!lishing that+

&. De is indeed the emloyer of the convict(
). De is engage in some kind of industry(
*. The crime was committed !y the emloyee
in the discharge of his duties( and
B. -#ecution against the emloyee is
unsatisAed.
The emloyer who is made lia!le may seek
reim!ursement from his emloyee for the amount
he aid to the o@ended arty for the satisfaction
of the claim.
.; STATEES IMPUTED LIABILITY FOR THE
ACTS OF ITS SPECIAL AGENTS
WHAT ARE THE TWO ACTS OF THE STATE THAT
MAY GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY?
The state may act as+
&. $ government entity %u!lic asect'
e#ercising governmental functions, where it
is lia!le for the acts of its secial agents.
Dere, the state is engaged in u!lic or
government functions, through its secial
agent( or
). In a cororate caacity %rivate or !usiness
asect', as when it engages in some rivate
enterrises, where it may !e held lia!le "ust
as any other emloyer for the acts of its
emloyees.
WHAT IS A SPECIAL AGENT?
4y secial agent is meant one seciAcally
commissioned to carry out the acts comlained of
outside of such agents regular duties. De is one
who receives deAnite and A#ed order or
commission, foreign to the e#ercise of the duties
of his oLce if he is a secial oLcial.
HOW IS A SPECIAL AGENT DISTINGUISHED
FROM AN OFFICIAL WITH SPECIFIC DUTY OR DUTIES TO
PERFORM?
<nder the meaning of aragrah : of $rticle
)&>=, the word oLcial comrises all oLcials and
emloyees of the government who e#ercise duties
of their resective u!lic oLces. $ll others who
are acting !y commission of the government
45
!elong to the class of secial agents, whether
individual or "uridical !odies.
In 1ualifying the secial agent with the
ad"ective secial, the 3ivil 3ode aimed at
distinguishing it from the regular or ordinary
agent of government, which refers to all oLcers
and emloyees in u!lic service.
WHEN IS THE STATE LIABLE AS AN ORDINARY
EMPLOYER?
&. 7hen the state is engaged in rivate
!usiness or enterrise(
). If the secial agent is not a u!lic oLcial
and is commissioned to erform non8
governmental functions(
*. If the secial agent aointed !y the state is
assigned to erform acts for rivate and
!usiness interests of the state.
WHEN IS THE STATE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS
SPECIAL AGENT?
<nder $rticle )&>= %ar. :', the state has
voluntarily assumed lia!ility for acts done through
secial agent if+
&. The states agent is a u!lic oLcial, who
must not only !e esecially commissioned
to do a articular task !ut such task must
!e foreign to said oLcials usual
governmental functions.
). The state commissioned a rivate individual
to erform a secial governmental task
%=ontanilla vs. Malia+en'.
WHEN IS THE PUBLIC OFFICER OR OFFICIAL
PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR HIS ACTS?
0ince the state authoriQes only legal acts !y
its oLcers, the state shall not !e lia!le and an
action against the oLcials or oLcers !y one
whose rights have !een invaded or violated !y
such acts, for the rotection of his rights, is not a
suit against the state within the rule of immunity
of the state from suit for+
&. <nauthoriQed acts of government oLcials or
oLcers(
). $cts of a u!lic oLcer that goes !eyond the
scoe of his duty articularly when acting
tortiously(
*. Tortious acts committed !y the u!lic
oLcers unrelated to his secial assignment(
B. $cts erformed !y an oLcial uon whom
reviously devolved the duty of doing the
act erformed(
C. $cts erformed in the discharge of the
oLcial duties of a u!lic oLcer.
/; LIABILITY OF TEACHERS OR HEADS OF
ESTABLISHMENT OF ARTS AND TRADES
WHAT IS THE BASIS OF LIABILITY OF TEACHERS
OR HEADS OF ESTABLISHMENTS?
46
The teachers and heads mentioned in
aragrah 9 of $rticle )&>= stand, to a certain
e#tent, in loco &arentis to their uils and
students.
7here the arent laces a child under the
e@ective authority of the teacher, the latter
together with the school head %and the school
itself for the fault of the teacher and head', not
the arent, should !e the one answera!le for the
torts committed while under their custody, for the
very reason that the arent is not suosed to
interfere with the authority and suervision of the
teacher while the child is under instructions.
WHAT DOES THE PHRASE AS LONG AS THEY
REMAIN IN THEIR CUSTODY MEAN?
The hrase was held to contemlate a
situation where the uil lives and !oards with the
teacher such that the control and inVuence over
the conduct and actions of the uil would ass
from the father to the teacher, and so would the
resonsi!ility for the torts of the uil %Mercado
vs. CA 56) P"il. 252'.
This interretation was a!andoned in
Palisoc vs. 8rillantes 25 0CRA %%!H5$!5I, where
the 0ureme 3ourt ruled that the hrase means
the rotective and suervisory custody that the
school and its head and teacher e#ercise over the
uils and students for as long as they are in the
school including recess time. There is nothing in
the law which re1uires that for such lia!ility to
attach, the ul or student who commits the
tortious act must live and !oard in the school.
The student is in the custody of the school
authorities as long as he is under the control and
inVuence of the school and within its remises,
whether the semester has not yet !egun or has
already ended %A+adora vs. CA 5*6 0CRA #5%'.
<nder $rticle )&> of the Family 3ode, custody
e#tends to activities even outside the remises as
long as they are authoriQed activities.
It is not necessary that at the time of the
in"ury the teacher !e hysically resent and at the
osition to revent it. 3ustody does not connote
immediate and actual hysical control !ut it refers
more to the inVuence e#erted on the child and the
disciline instilled in him as a result of such
inVuence.
IS THE SCHOOL LIABLE IF THE STUDENT IS OVER
1 YEARS OF AGE?
$ student over )& years of age, !y enrolling
and attending a school, laces himself under the
custodial suervision and discilinary authority of
the school authorities, which is the !asis of the
latters correlative resonsi!ility for his torts,
committed while under such authority.
47
Thus, unlike the arent, who will !e lia!le
only if the child is still a minor, the teacher is held
answera!le !y the law for the act of the student
under him regardless of the age of the student.
$rticle )&>= treats the arents more favora!ly
than the teacher.
Dowever, the teachers control is not as
lenary as when the student is a minor( !ut the
circumstances can only a@ect the degree of the
resonsi!ility !ut cannot negate the e#istence
thereof. It is only a factor to !e areciated in
determining whether or not the defendant has
e#ercised due diligence in endeavoring to revent
the in"ury, as rescri!ed in the last aragrah of
$rticle )&>= %Palisoc vs. 8rillantes su&ra'.
UNDER THE FAMILY CODE5 WHAT IS THE RULE
WITH RESPECT TO MINORS?
$/TI3L- )&>. The school, its
administrators and teachers, or the individual,
entity or institution engaged in child care shall
have secial arental authority and
resonsi!ility over the minor child while under
their suervision, instruction or custody.
$uthority and resonsi!ility shall aly
to all authoriQed activities whether inside or
outside the remises of the school, entity or
institution. %*B?a'
$/TI3L- )&?. Those given the
authority and resonsi!ility under the
receding $rticle shall !e rincially and
solidarily lia!le for damages caused !y the
acts or omissions of the unemanciated
minor. The arents, "udicial guardians or the
ersons e#ercising su!stitute arental
authority over said minor shall !e su!sidiarily
lia!le.
The resective lia!ilities of those
referred to in the receding aragrah shall
not aly if it is roved that they e#ercised
the roer diligence re1uired under the
articular circumstances. cda
$ll other cases not covered !y this and
the receding articles shall !e governed !y
the rovisions of the 3ivil 3ode on 1uasi8
delicts. %n'
These two rovisions control with
resect to uils and students or arentices who
are minors. The !asis of lia!ility is the 0;-3I$L
arental authority and resonsi!ility assumed
over the minor for whose acts or omissions those
given such authority and resonsi!ility are
rincially and solidarily lia!le for damages, with
the arents, "udicial guardians, or the ersons
e#ercising su!stitute arental authority !eing
su!sidiarily lia!le.
)=

20
$/TI3L- )&: %Family 3ode'. In default of arents or a
"udicially aointed guardian, the following ersons shall
e#ercise su!stitute arental authority over the child in the
order indicated+ cd i
%&' The surviving grandarent, as rovided in $rt. )&B(
%)' The oldest !rother or sister, over twenty8one years of
age, unless unAt or dis1ualiAed( and
%*' The childUs actual custodian, over twenty8one years
of age, unless unAt or dis1ualiAed.
48
DOES THE LIABILITY E#TEND TO NON0ACADEMIC
SCHOOLS?
There is really no su!stantial distinction
!etween the academic and the non8academic
schools insofar as torts committed !y their
students are concerned. The same vigilance is
e#ected from the teacher over the students
under his control and suervision, whatever the
nature of the school where he is teaching
%A+adora vs CA'.
Dowever, where the law is academic rather
than vocational or technical in nature,
resonsi!ility for the tort committed !y the uil
or student will attach to the teacher in charge of
such uil or student, following the Arst art of
aragrah 9 of $rticle )&>=. This is the general
rule. In the case of esta!lishments for arts and
trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who
shall !e held lia!le as an e#cetion to the general
rule. In other words, teachers in general shall !e
lia!le for the acts of their students e#cet where
the school is technical in nature( in which case it is
the head thereof who shall !e answera!le.
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF WORKING SCHOLARS?
0ection &B, /ule G %;6 BB)' rovides+ There
is no emloyer8emloyee relationshi !etween
7henever the aointment of a "udicial guardian over the
roerty of the child !ecomes necessary, the same order of
reference shall !e o!served. %*B?a, *C&a, *CBa'
students on one hand, and schools, colleges or
universities on the other, where students work for
the latter in e#change for the rivilege to study
free of charge rovided the students are given
real oortunity, including such facilities as may
!e reasona!le, necessary to Anish their chosen
courses under said arrangement.
F. OTHER PROVISIONS ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY
WHAT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PERSONS
ENUMERATED IN ARTICLE 1<F WHO PAID FOR THE
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THEIR DEPENDENTS OR
EMPLOYEES?
$/TI3L- )&>&. 7hoever ays for
the damage caused !y his deendents or
emloyees may recover from the latter what
he has aid or delivered in satisfaction of the
claim. %&?=B'
The hrase deendents or emloyees in
$rticle )&>& should !e construed to include all
ersons for whom another is lia!le under $rticle
)&>=.
WHAT IS THE RULE IF THE TORTFEASOR IS A
MINOR OR INSANE PERSON WITHOUT A PARENT OR
GUARDIAN?
$/TI3L- )&>). If the minor or
insane erson causing damage has no arents
or guardian, the minor or insane erson shall
!e answera!le with his own roerty in an
49
action against him where a guardian ad litem
shall !e aointed. %n'
G. STRICT LIABILITY
WHAT IS STRICT LIABILITY?
0trict lia!ility is deAned as lia!ility
without fault. $ case is one of strict lia!ility
when neither care nor negligence, neither
good faith nor !ad faith, neither knowledge
or ignorance will save the defendant.
WHEN IS THERE STRICT LIABILITY UNDER
THE CIVIL CODE?
There is strict lia!ility if one is made
lia!le indeendent of fault, negligence or
intent after esta!lishing certain facts
seciAed !y law. 0trict lia!ility tort can !e
committed even if reasona!le care was
e#ercised and regardless of the state of
mind of the actor at that time.
WHAT ARE THE INSTANCES UNDER THE
CIVIL CODE WHERE THERE IS STRICT LIABILITY?
&. Lia!ility of ossessors of animals
%$rticle )&>*'(
). Lia!ility for falling o!"ects %$rticle
)&?*'(
*. Lia!ility of emloyers %$rticle &&9&'(
B. Lia!ility of manufacturers and
rocessors %$rticle )&>9'
C. Lia!ility for nuisance %To !e discussed
searately'
A. LIABILITY OF POSSESSORS OF ANIMALS
$/TI3L- )&>*. The ossessor of an
animal or whoever may make use of the same is
resonsi!le for the damage which it may cause,
although it may escae or !e lost. This resonsi!ility
shall cease only in case the damage should come
from force ma"eure or from the fault of the erson
who has su@ered damage. %&?=C'
WHY IS ARTICLE 1<- AN INSTANCE OF
STRICT LIABILITY?
The language of $rticle )&>* reveals
an evident intent to make the ossessor or
whoever makes use of the animal, lia!le
indeendent of fault.
$dditionally, the owner or ossessor of
the animal is lia!le even if the damage was
caused !y the animal through the fault of
third ersons. There is also lia!ility even in a
case in which it could not !e avoided
!ecause the animal is not in his ossession
for having escaed or gone astray, and for
this reason, it does not admit in this class of
damages, unlike in damages caused !y a
erson other than the one resonsi!le,
50
evidence of diligence of a good father of a
family.
WHO IS MADE LIABLE UNDER ARTICLE
1<-?
Lia!ility is imosed only on the
ossessor or user of the animal, since he is
the one who has custody and control, he is,
therefore in a osition to revent the animal
from causing damage. The law used the
word &ossessor instead of oFner. Thus, if
the animal, like a horse or cara!ao was
!orrowed !y someone for his own use, the
latter alone, should !e held lia!le for the
damage caused while the animal was under
his control.
WHAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND
ARTICLE 1<-?
The o!ligation imosed !y $rticle
)&>* is !ased on natural e1uity and on the
rincile of social interest that he who
ossesses animals for his utility, leasure or
service must answer for the damage which
may !e caused !y such animals, even if
such damage was not due to their fault or
negligence.
WHAT ARE THE E#CEPTIONS TO ARTICLE
1<-?
&. 7hen the damage was caused !y
(orce +aGeure3
). 7hen the damage is caused !y the
erson who su@ered the damage(
*. If the acts of a third erson cannot !e
foreseen or revented, then the
situation is similar to a force ma"eure
and the ossessor is not lia!le.
WHAT ARE THE ANIMALS COVERED
UNDER ARTICLE 1<-?
$rticle )&>* makes no distinction as
to what kind of animal is used or ossessed.
Dence, it may !e construed as alica!le
generally to all animals, whether domestic,
domesticated, or wild. It would seem that
!irds are covered since they can also cause
damage.
B. LIABILITY FOR FALLING OBJECTS
$/TI3L- )&?*. The head of a family
that lives in a !uilding or a art thereof, is
resonsi!le for damages caused !y things thrown or
falling from the same. %&?&=a'
WHY IS THERE STRICT LIABILITY IN
ARTICLE 1G-?
It is evident in $rticle )&?* that the
lia!ility is a!solute. It does not indicate a
resumtion or admit roof of care.
51
<nlike $rticle )&>*, the rovision does
not e#emt cases involving (orce +aGeure.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF LIABILITY
UNDER ARTICLE 1G-?
The nature of the lia!ility of the head
of the family is !oth a9solute and e?clusive.
It is a!solute in the sense that as long as he
is head of the family that lives in the
!uilding or art thereof like a rented room,
he is lia!le even if he is not resent at the
time of the incident. It is e#clusive in the
sense that it is only the head of the family
who is made lia!le.
WHAT ARE THE PURPOSES OF THE
ABSOLUTENESS OF THE ARTICLE?
The o!vious uroses of the law in
making it a!solute are+
a' To comel the head of the family to see
to it that no dangerous things are laced
on the window sills and other arts of
their dwelling lace which may !e thrown
or fall !y accident(
!' To comel him to suervise the mem!ers
of the family or guests from doing acts or
activities which may result in the
throwing or falling of things from their
house or lace of dwelling(
c' To relieve the victim of the diLcult
!urden of identifying the ersons who
caused the throwing or falling of the
in"urious thing.
WHAT DOES THE TERM HEAD OF THE
FAMILY INCLUDE?
The head of the family is usually the
father( in his a!sence, the mother. $ single
erson may also !e the head of the family if
he is the one suorting his family which
may include as mem!ers, adoted children,
unemloyed arents, !rothers and sisters.
The term head of the family is not
limited to the owner of the !uilding and it
may even include the lessee thereof
%Din'con' vs. Janaan !1 P"il. 52'.
WHAT IS THE REMEDY OF THE HEAD OF
THE FAMILY WHO MAY HAVE BEEN OBLIGED TO
PAY INDEMNITY TO THE INJURED PARTY?
The head of the family who may have
!een o!liged to ay indemnity to the in"ured
arty may recover from the erson
resonsi!le for the damage. Their lia!ility is
solidary %$rticle )&?B'.
D. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS :ARTICLE
1!11;
52
$/TI3L- &9&&. .wners of enterrises
and other emloyers are o!liged to ay
comensation for the death of or in"uries to their
la!orers, workmen, mechanics or other emloyees,
even though the event may have !een urely
accidental or entirely due to a fortuitous cause, if the
death or ersonal in"ury arose out of and in the
course of the emloyment. The emloyer is also
lia!le for comensation if the emloyee contracts
any illness or disease caused !y such emloyment or
as the result of the nature of the emloyment. If the
misha was due to the emloyeeUs own notorious
negligence, or voluntary act, or drunkenness, the
emloyer shall not !e lia!le for comensation. 7hen
the emloyeeUs lack of due care contri!uted to his
death or in"ury, the comensation shall !e e1uita!ly
reduced.
WHY IS THERE STRICT LIABILITY IN
ARTICLE 1!11?
The language of the rovision
indicates that the same is strict lia!ility
!ecause lia!ility e#ists even if the cause if
urely accidental.
It should !e noted, however, that if
the death or in"ury is due to the negligence
of a fellow8worker, the latter and the
emloyer shall !e solidarily lia!le for
comensation. If a fellow8workers
intentional or malicious act is the only cause
of the death or in"ury, the emloyer shall
not !e answera!le, unless it should !e
shown that the latter did not e#ercise due
diligence in the selection or suervision of
the lainti@s fellow8worker %$rticle &9&)'.
E. LIABILITY OF MANUFATURERS AND
PROCESSORS :ARTICLE 1<!;
$/TI3L- )&>9. Ianufacturers
and rocessors of foodstu@s, drinks, toilet
articles and similar goods shall !e lia!le for
death or in"uries caused !y any no#ious or
harmful su!stances used, although no
contractual relation e#ists !etween them and
the consumers. %n'
WHY IS THERE STRICT LIABILITY IN
ARTICLE 1<!?
There is strict lia!ility in $rticle )&>9
!ecause it imoses lia!ility for death or
in"ury without fault or negligence on the
art of the manufacturers and rocessors
and without rivity of contract !etween
them and the consumers.
The rincile of strict lia!ility in
tort means that roof of negligence is not
necessary. It alies even if the
defendant manufacturer or rocessor has
e#ercised all the ossi!le care in the
rearation and sale of his roduct.
The urose of such lia!ility is to
insure that the !urdens of such
accidental deaths or in"uries resulting
53
from defective roducts intended for
u!lic consumtion !e laced uon those
who market them, and can !e treated as
cost of roduction rather than !y the
in"ured ersons who are owerless to
rotect themselves.
WOULD THE PRESENCE OF CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE MANUFACTURER OR PROCESSOR
AND THE PLAINTIFF PRECLUDE THE LATTER
FROM FILING OF A DAMAGE SUIT?
If there is a contractual relation
!etween the arties, the lainti@ us not
recluded from Aling a suit !ased on the
!reach of warranty whether e#ress or
imlied. The rincile of strict lia!ility still
alies. The consumers cause of action
does not deend uon the validity of his
contract with the erson from whom he
ac1uires the roduct, and it is not a@ected
!y any disclaimer or other agreement,
whether it !e !etween the seller and the
immediate !uyer, or attached to and
accomanying the roduct into the
consumers hands.
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR STRICT
LIABILITY UNDER THIS ARTICLE?
To esta!lish the lia!ility of
manufacturers or rocessors under the
$rticle, the following re1uisites must !e
esta!lished+
a' The defendant is the
manufacturer or rocessor of
foodstu@, drinks, toilet articles
and similar goods involved(
!' The defendant used no#ious or
harmful su!stances in the
manufacture or rocessing of
the foodstu@, drinks, toilet
articles and similar goods(
c' ;lainti@ used or consumed such
roduct unaware of the in"urious
condition of the roduct(
d' ;lainti@s in"ury or death was
caused !y the roduct used or
consumed(
e' The forms or kinds of damages
su@ered and the amount
thereof.
The lainti@ has the !urden of roof
that at the time the roduct left the hands
of the defendant, the roduct was in a
defective or in"urious condition. .therwise,
his case will fall.
WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS ON REMEDIES
OF THE PLAINTIFF?
The lainti@ has four %B' otions if he
desires to ursue a comlaint against the
54
manufacturer or rocessor under $rticle
)&>9. De may !ase his comlaint on the+
a' Theory of strict lia!ility
in torts(
!' Fault or negligence(
c' 4reach of warranty( or
d) 3rime anchored on
violation of the Foods
and 6rugs $ct wherein
the enforcement of
which is the doctrine of
a!solute criminal
lia!ility may !e alied
%Peo&le vs. 0iB Con'
8ien #6 P"il. %!!'.
F. OTHER PROVISIONS
1. LIABILITY OF OWNER IN
MOTOR VEHICLE MISHAPS
:ARTICLE 1<.;J
PRESUMPTION OF
NEGLIGENCE :ARTICLE
1</;J AND BOND
REQUIRED BY MOTOR
VEHICLE OWNERS :ARTICLE
1<";
$/TI3L- )&>B. In motor vehicle
mishas, the owner is solidarily lia!le with his driver,
if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, !y
the use of the due diligence, revented the
misfortune. It is disuta!ly resumed that a driver
was negligent, if he had !een found guilty of reckless
driving or violating traLc regulations at least twice
within the ne#t receding two months. cd i
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the
rovisions of article )&>= are alica!le. %n'
$/TI3L- )&>C. <nless there is roof to
the contrary, it is resumed that a erson driving a
motor vehicle has !een negligent if at the time of the
misha, he was violating any traLc regulation. %n'
$/TI3L- )&>:. -very owner of a motor
vehicle shall Ale with the roer government oLce a
!ond e#ecuted !y a government8controlled
cororation or oLce, to answer for damages to third
ersons. The amount of the !ond and other terms
shall !e A#ed !y the cometent u!lic oLcial. %n'
WHO ARE THE OWNERS GOVERNED BY
THE ARTICLE?
$rticle )&>B refers to owners of
vehicles who are not included in the terms
of $rticle )&>= as owners of an
esta!lishment or enterrise %De Leon
8rokera'e Co. Inc. vs. Court o( A&&eals 2
0CRA %5!'. It is intended to cover only
owners of motor vehicles for rivate use. It
is generally not alica!le to motor vehicles
for u!lic use and convenience !ecause the
oerator thereof, usually a cororation,
cannot, in the very nature of things, !e in
the motor vehicle at the time of misha.
Dowever, if the manager of the !us
comany was in the !us at the time of the
55
misha, $rticle )&>B may !e alied !y
analogy %Cor&us vs. PaGe 1) 0CRA 56*1'.
WHEN IS ARTICLE 1<. APPLICABLE?
$rticle )&>B alies if the owner was
in the vehicle at the time of the misha(
otherwise, the rovisions of $rticle )&>=
would !e alica!le %ar. )' where the
owner even if he was not in the vehicle
would !e lia!le unless he e#ercised due
diligence to revent the damage.
If the causative factor was the drivers
negligence, the owner of that car, who was
resent, is likewise held lia!le if he could
have revented the misha !y the e#ercise
of due diligence. ,egligence under $rticle
)&>B is, to a certain degree, necessarily
su!"ective %Caedo vs. .u J"e Tai 1* P"il.
256'. The owner should not !e held lia!le
for the negligence of a cometent driver, if
!y the sudden act of negligence, the owner
could not have a reasona!le oortunity to
revent the act or its continuance
%C"a&+an vs. UnderFood 1! P"il. #!23
Co"nson vs. David % P"il. **#'.
WHAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND
ARTICLES 1<. TO 1<"?
The rationale for the inclusion of
$rticles )&>B to )&>: is to coe with the
alarming increase of vehicular mishas.
IS THERE A PRESUMPTION THAT A DRIVER
WAS NEGLIGENT?
There is no resumtion that a driver
was negligent unless he has !een found
guilty of reckless driving or violating traLc
regulations at least twice within two months
ne#t receding the misha %$rticle )&>B,
ar. )', or was violating any traLc violation
at the time of the motor vehicle misha
%$rticle )&>C'.
WHAT IS THE TEST OF NEGLIGENCE OF
THE CAR OWNER UNDER THE ARTICLE?
The law does not re1uire that a erson
must ossess a certain measure of skill or
roAciency either in the mechanics of
driving or in the o!servance of traLc rules
!efore he may own a motor vehicle. The
test of his negligence, within the meaning of
$rticle )&>B, is his omission to do that which
the evidence of his own senses tells him he
should do in order to avoid the accident.
$nd as far as ercetion is concerned,
a!sent a minimum level imosed !y law, a
maneuver that aears to !e fraught with
danger to one assenger may aear to !e
entirely safe and commonlace to another.
56
7here the law re1uire a uniform
standard of ercetiveness, emloyment of
rofessional drivers !y car owners who, !y
their very inade1uacies have real need of
drivers services, would !e e@ectively
rescri!ed %Caedo vs. .u J"e Tai su&ra.'.
. DEATH RESULTING FROM
POSSESSION OF
DANGEROUS WEAPONS OR
SUBSTANCES :ARTICLE
1<<;
$/TI3L- )&>>. There is rima facie
resumtion of negligence on the art of the
defendant if the death or in"ury results from his
ossession of dangerous weaons or su!stances,
such as Arearms and oison, e#cet when the
ossession or use thereof is indisensa!le in his
occuation or !usiness. %n'
7hen death or in"ury results from the
defendants ossession of dangerous
weaon or su!stances, there is a re!utta!le
resumtion that he is negligent. The
!urden of evidence is on him to esta!lish
that he was not negligent at all. The
resumtion revails if he fails to overcome
it !y clear strong and convincing evidence.
7hen the ossession or use of the
weaon or su!stances is indisensa!le in
the defendants occuation or !usiness, no
resumtion arises. The lainti@ has the
!urden of roving defendants negligence.
-. DEFECTIVE CONDITIONS OF
THE ROADS5 STREETS5
BRIDGES5 PUBLIC
BUILDINGS5 AND OTHER
PUBLIC WORKS :ARTICLE
1<G;
$/TI3L- )&>?. ;rovinces, cities and
municialities shall !e lia!le for damages for the
death of, or in"uries su@ered !y, any erson !y
reason of the defective condition of roads, streets,
!ridges, u!lic !uildings, and other u!lic works
under their control or suervision. %n'
WHO ARE MADE LIABLE FOR DEFECTIVE
CONDITION OF ROADS5 ETC?
$rticle )&>? does not re1uire the
defective roads, streets, etc. to !elong to
the rovince, city or municiality for lia!ility
to attach. It only re1uires that either control
or suervision is e#ercised over the road,
street, etc. %4uilatco vs. CitB o( Da'u&an
5!5 0CRA #)1'.
.. LIABILITY OF PROPRIETOR
OF A BUILDING OR
STRUCTURE DUE TO ITS
COLLAPSE :ARTICLE
1GF;J OTHER LIABILITIES
57
:ARTICLES 1G1 K
1G;
$/TI3L- )&?=. The rorietor of a
!uilding or structure is resonsi!le for the damages
resulting from its total or artial collase, if it should
!e due to the lack of necessary reairs. %&?=9' aisa
dc
$/TI3L- )&?&. ;rorietors shall also !e
resonsi!le for damages caused+
%&' 4y the e#losion of machinery which
has not !een taken care of with due diligence, and
the inVammation of e#losive su!stances which have
not !een ket in a safe and ade1uate lace(
%)' 4y e#cessive smoke, which may !e
harmful to ersons or roerty(
%*' 4y the falling of trees situated at or
near highways or lanes, if not caused !y force
ma"eure(
%B' 4y emanations from tu!es, canals,
sewers or deosits of infectious matter, constructed
without recautions suita!le to the lace. %&?=>'
$/TI3L- )&?). If damage referred to in
the two receding articles should !e the result of any
defect in the construction mentioned in article &9)*,
the third erson su@ering damages may roceed only
against the engineer or architect or contractor in
accordance with said article, within the eriod
therein A#ed. %&?=?'
$rticle )&?= sulements $rticle B>)
which rovides+
$/TI3L- B>). If a !uilding, wall, column, or
any other construction is in danger of falling, the
owner shall !e o!liged to demolish it or to e#ecute
the necessary work in order to revent it from falling.
If the rorietor does not comly with this
o!ligation, the administrative authorities may order
the demolition of the structure at the e#ense of the
owner, or take measures to insure u!lic safety.
%*>?a' acd
WHAT ARE THE LIABILITIES OF
PROPRIETORS OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
DUE TO ITS COLLAPSE?
&. 7here the damage is caused !y
the total or artial collase of a
!uilding or other structure, the
rorietor or owner is &ri+a
(acie deemed negligent and is
made lia!le, if it should !e due
to lack of necessary reairs,
!ecause it is his duty to
maintain his roerty in goods
condition at all times to avoid
causing in"ury or damage to
another erson or roerty. To
relieve himself from lia!ility, he
must rove that the roerty
was in a goods state of reair or
that the collase was due to a
defect in its construction in
which case the engineer or
architect andJor contractor may
!e held resonsi!le for the
damage %0ee $rticle &9)*'.
58
). The fact that the roerty is
leased or in usufruct will not
e#emt the owner from lia!ility
for his duty to make necessary
reairs remains although the
roerty is legally in the
ossession and control of
another. <nder the law, the
lessee or the usufructuary is
o!liged to notify or advise the
owner of the need for urgent or
e#traordinary reairs %$rticle
C?*, &::*'. The failure of the
lessee or usufructuary to give
notice will entitle the owner to
reim!ursement, for the
damages he may have !een
re1uired to ay third arties
in"ured !y the collase of the
roerty.
WHAT IS THE PRESUMPTION OF
NEGLIGENCE UNDER ARTICLE 1G1?
If any of the four %B' enumerated
events occurred, the rorietor of the
machinery, not necessarily of the owner of
the tenement where it is located, is
resumed negligent. De has to overcome
the resumtion with suLcient evidence to
avoid resonsi!ility.
WHO IS LIABLE IF THE DAMAGE SHOULD
BE THE RESULT OF ANY DEFECT IN THE
CONSTRUCTION?
If the !uilding or structure referred to
in $rticles )&?= and )&?& were constructed
with su!stantial defects which defects are
the cause of the damage or in"ury, the
in"ured arty may roceed only against the
engineer or architect or contractor in
accordance with $rticle &9)* which rovides
that+
$/TI3L- &9)*. The engineer or
architect who drew u the lans and seciAcations
for a !uilding is lia!le for damages if within Afteen
years from the comletion of the structure, the same
should collase !y reason of a defect in those lans
and seciAcations, or due to the defects in the
ground. The contractor is likewise resonsi!le for the
damages if the ediAce falls, within the same eriod,
on account of defects in the construction or the use
of materials of inferior 1uality furnished !y him, or
due to any violation of the terms of the contract. If
the engineer or architect suervises the construction,
he shall !e solidarily lia!le with the contractor. cda
$ccetance of the !uilding, after comletion,
does not imly waiver of any of the causes of action
!y reason of any defect mentioned in the receding
aragrah.

The action must !e !rought within ten years
following the collase of the !uilding. %n'
59
/. SOLIDARY LIABILITY FOR
QUASI DELICT :ARTICLE
1G.;
$/TI3L- )&?B. The resonsi!ility of two
or more ersons who are lia!le for 1uasi8delict is
solidary. %n' aisa dc
NUISANCE
$/TI3L- :?B. $ nuisance is any act, omission,
esta!lishment, !usiness, condition of roerty, or anything
else which+
%&' In"ures or endangers the health or safety of others( or
%)' $nnoys or o@ends the senses( or
%*' 0hocks, deAes or disregards decency or morality( or
%B' .!structs or interferes with the free assage of any
u!lic highway or street, or any !ody of water( or
%C' Dinders or imairs the use of roerty.
$/TI3L- :?C. ,uisance is either u!lic or rivate. $
u!lic nuisance a@ects a community or neigh!orhood or any
considera!le num!er of ersons, although the e#tent of the
annoyance, danger or damage uon individuals may !e
une1ual. $ rivate nuisance is one that is not included in
the foregoing deAnition. cda
$/TI3L- :?:. -very successive owner or ossessor
of roerty who fails or refuses to a!ate a nuisance in that
roerty started !y a former owner or ossessor is lia!le
therefor in the same manner as the one who created it.
$/TI3L- :?9. The a!atement of a nuisance does not
reclude the right of any erson in"ured to recover damages
for its ast e#istence.
$/TI3L- :?>. Lase of time cannot legaliQe any
nuisance, whether u!lic or rivate.
$/TI3L- :??. The remedies against a u!lic
nuisance are+
%&' $ rosecution under the ;enal 3ode or any local
ordinance+ or
%)' $ civil action( or acd
%*' $!atement, without "udicial roceedings.
$/TI3L- 9==. The district health oLcer shall take
care that one or all of the remedies against a u!lic
nuisance are availed of.
$/TI3L- 9=&. If a civil action is !rought !y reason of
the maintenance of a u!lic nuisance, such action shall !e
commenced !y the city or municial mayor.
$/TI3L- 9=). The district health oLcer shall
determine whether or not a!atement, without "udicial
roceedings, is the !est remedy against a u!lic nuisance.
$/TI3L- 9=*. $ rivate erson may Ale an action on
account of a u!lic nuisance, if it is secially in"urious to
himself.
$/TI3L- 9=B. $ny rivate erson may a!ate a u!lic
nuisance which is secially in"urious to him !y removing, or
if necessary, !y destroying the thing which constitutes the
same, without committing a !reach of the eace, or doing
unnecessary in"ury. 4ut it is necessary+
%&' That demand !e Arst made uon the owner or
ossessor of the roerty to a!ate the nuisance(
%)' That such demand has !een re"ected(
%*' That the a!atement !e aroved !y the district
health oLcer and e#ecuted with the assistance of the local
olice( and cda
%B' That the value of the destruction does not e#ceed
three thousand esos.
60
$/TI3L- 9=C. The remedies against a rivate
nuisance are+
%&' $ civil action( or
%)' $!atement, without "udicial roceedings.
$/TI3L- 9=:. $ny erson in"ured !y a rivate
nuisance may a!ate it !y removing, or if necessary, !y
destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance, without
committing a !reach of the eace or doing unnecessary
in"ury. Dowever, it is indisensa!le that the rocedure for
e#tra"udicial a!atement of a u!lic nuisance !y a rivate
erson !e followed.
$/TI3L- 9=9. $ rivate erson or a u!lic oLcial
e#tra"udicially a!ating a nuisance shall !e lia!le for
damages+
%&' If he causes unnecessary in"ury( or
%)' If an alleged nuisance is later declared !y the courts
to !e not a real nuisance.
HUMAN RELATIONS :INTENTIONAL TORTS;
DEFINE HUMAN RELATIONS.
It is the interaction or interrelation of one
erson to another erson or ersons and vice
versa, in accordance with mores, ha!its, customs,
and u!lic olicy not contrary to laws. It refers to
the rules needed to govern the interrelationshis
of human !eings in a society for the urose of
maintaining social order
It is !ased on the old adage or golden rule+
6o not do unto others, what others dont do unto
you, and the Latin ma#im+ 0ic uture tu ut
alteriu+ non laedas/ %0o use your roerty as not
to in"ure others.
1. CATCH ALL PROVISIONS
WHAT ARE THE ARTICLES COVERED IN THE
CATCH0ALL PROVISIONS ON HUMAN RELATIONS?
&. $rticle &?+ -very must, in the e#ercise of
his rights and in the erformance of his
duties, act with "ustice, give everyone his
due, and o!serve honesty and good faith.
). $rticle )=+ -very erson, contrary to law,
willfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latte for the
same.
*. $rticle )&+ $ny erson who willfully causes
loss or in"ury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs, or u!lic
olicy shall comensate the latter for the
damage.

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCESIDISTINCTIONS OF
THE THREE ARTICLES?
1. $rticle &? declares a rincile of law and
$rticle )& gives Vesh to its rovisions, while
$rticle )= seaks of the general sanction for
all other rovisions of law which do not
esecially rovide for their own sanction(
61
2. There is a common element under $rticles
&? and )&, that is, the act must !e
intentional, however, $rticle )= does not
distinguish, in that the act may !e done
either willfully or negligently(
3. <nder any of the three articles, an act which
causes in"ury to another may !e made the
!asis for an award of damages(
B. <nder $rticle )&, the act is contrary to
morals, good customs or u!lic olicy( in
$rticle )&, the act is contrary to law. <nder
$rticle )&, the act is done willfully, in $rticle
)=, the act is done either willfully or
negligently.
ARTICLE 1G
$rticle &? is commonly referred to as
the rincile of a!use of rights. The law
recogniQes the norms of human on all rights+ that
in their e#ercise, the norms of human conduct set
forth in $rticle &? must !e o!served.
The article sets standards which may !e
o!served not only in the e#ercise of ones rights
!ut also in the erformance of ones duties. These
standards are+ a' to act with "ustice, !' to give
everyone his due( and c' to o!serve honesty and
good faith.
$rticle &? re"ects the classical and
traditional theory that he who uses a right in"ures
no one.
$ right, though !y itself legal !ecause
recogniQed or granted !y law as such, may
nevertheless !ecome the source of some illegality.
7hen a right is e#ercised in a manner which does
not conform with the norms enshrined in $rticle
&? and results in damage to another, a legal
wrong is there!y committed for which the
wrongdoer must !e held resonsi!le.
$rticle &? is intended to e#and the
concet of torts !y granting ade1uate remedy for
the untold num!er of moral wrongs which is
imossi!le for human foresight to rovide
seciAcally in statutory law.
$rticle &? lays down a rule of conduct for
the regulation of human relations and for the
maintenance of social order. It does not rovide a
remedy for its violation. 2enerally, an action for
damages under either $rticles )= and )& would !e
roer E%4lo9e MackaB vsK CA 5!* 0CRA !!)
;5$)$'.F
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF AN ABUSE OF
RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 1G?
&. -#ercise of a right which is o!"ective and
aarently legal(
). 6amage or in"ury to an interest not
seciAcally rotected !y a legal recet(
and
62
*. Immorality or anti8social character of the
damage or in"ury manifested either
su!"ectively, i.e., when the right is e#ercised
with the intent to in"ure or simly without
legal or legitimate urose.
WHAT ARE THE E#TERNAL LIMITATIONS
OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS?
&. Those in favor of third ersons who acted in
good faith( and
). Those arising from the concurrence or
conVict with the tight of others.
-#ercise of right. The e#ercise of rights
must !e done within certain limits.
The limitations in the e#ercise of a right
are classiAed into+
a. Intrinsic limitations M that which emanate
from the right itself, that is, from its
nature and urose.
b. -#trinsic limitations which are the
following+
*. Those derived from the nature of the right
itself
B. Limitations arising from good faith( and
C. Limitations imosed !y the economic and
social ends for the right which re1uire the
holder of the right to e#ercise it in
accordance with the end for which it was
granted or created.
IN WHAT ARTICLES IS ACTING WITH
JUSTICE AND GIVING ANOTHER HIS DUE
ELABORATED?
&. $rticle )= M indemniAcation of another due
to illegal acts
). $rticle )& M indemniAcation due to immoral
acts
*. $rticle )B M unfair cometition
B. $rticle )) M un"ust enrichment
IN WHAT ARTICLE IS OBSERVANCE OF
HONESTY AND GOOD FAITH ELABORATED?
&. $rticle ): M resect for the ersonality and
dignity of others
). $rticle )C M restraint of due e#travagance
*. $rticle *& et se1. M indeendent civil actions
ARTICLE F
WHAT IS BEING PUNISHED UNDER ARTICLE F?
This article unishes illegal acts whether
done willfully or negligently. The article is !road
enough to cover all legal %not moral' wrongs in
violation of law, whether willfully or negligently.
Thus, in the law of torts or 1uasi8delict M 7hoever
!y act or omission causes damages to another,
there !eing fault or negligence, is o!liged to ay
63
for the damage done. %$rticle )&9:' It em!races
the 0anish8;hiliine concet of quasi-delict
which is !ased on negligence and the tort in
$nglo8$mercian "urisrudence which is !ased on
malice.
This article serves as a sanction to all
violations of right which cause damage to another
irresective of whether the articular law that is
violated rovides for damages or not. The rule in
$rticle )= comliments the rincile of a!use of
rights enumerated in $rticle &?.
The conduct may !e !oth a crime and a
quasi-delict. $ny erson who willfully or
negligently causes damage to another in his
erson, his roerty, or in any right shall !e
o!liged to indemnify the latter. $ felony may !e
committed !y means of deceit or !y means of
fault or negligence %Article # Revised Penal
Code'. If the fault or negligence does not
constitute a enal o@ense, the actor is lia!le only
for quasi-delict under $rticle )&9:. In either case,
it is essential that the act is voluntary for the
o!ligation to indemnify to arise.
ARTICLE 1
$rticle )& seeks to remedy the countless
gas in the statutes, which leave so may victims
of moral wrongs helless, even though they have
actually su@ered material and moral in"ury.
$rticle )& deals with acts contra 9onus.
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF ACTS CONTRA
BONUS?
&. There is an act which is legal(
). 4ut which is contrary to morals, good
customs, u!lic order, or u!lic olicy( and
*. It is done with intent to in"ure
<nder this article, damages are recovera!le
even though no ositive law was violated.
$rticle )& resuoses losses or in"uries
material or otherwise, which one may su@er as a
result of the violation. Thus, the comlaint must
asks for damages.
E#AMPLES OF ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES:
&. 4reach of romise to marry
$s a general rule, !reach of romise to
marry !y itself is not actiona!le. Dowever, it
!ecomes actiona!le if there are additional
circumstances which make it fall within the
urview of $rticles &?, )=, )& or )&9: of the 3ivil
3ode. In such cases, there is another act
indeendent of the !reach of romise to marry
which gives rise to lia!ility.
These include cases where+
64
&. If the !reach of romise to marry is
accomanied !y a tortuous act
). If the !reach of romise to marry is
accomanied !y a 1uasi8contract
as when on the strength of the
romise to marry, money or
roerty is given. $n action will lie
to recover such money or roerty
*. If the !reach of romise to marry
constitutes an a!use of right.
B. There was Anancial damage(
C. 0ocial humiliation was caused to
one of the arties( and
:. 7here there was moral seduction
). 0eduction and se#ual assault
0eduction, !y itself, without !reach of
romise to marry is an act which is contrary to
morals, good custom and u!lic olicy. The
defendant is lia!le if he emloyed deceit,
enticement, suerior ower or a!use of
conAdence in successfully having se#ual
intercourse with another.
The defendant would !e lia!le for all forms
of se#ual assault. These include the crimes
deAned under the /evised ;enal 3ode as rae,
acts of lasciviousness and seduction.
*. 6esertion !y a souse
$ souse has a legal o!ligation to live with
his or her souse. If a souse does not erform his
or her duty to the other, he may !e held lia!le for
damages for such omission !ecause the same is
contrary to law, morals and good customs.
B. Tresass and derivation of roerty
Tresass to real roerty is a tort that is
committed when a erson unlawfully invades the
real roerty of another. The /evised ;enal 3ode
unishes di@erent forms of tresass. .n the other
hand, the 3ivil 3ode rovides that damages may
!e awarded to the real owner if he su@ered such
damages !ecause he was derived of ossession
of his roerty !y a ossessor in !ad faith or !y a
erson who does not have any right whatsoever
over the roerty. %$rticle BC&' $ny!ody who
!uilds, lants or sows on the land of another
knowing full well that there is a defect in his title
is lia!le for damages.
Lia!ility for damages under the rovisions of
the revised ;enal 3ode and the 3ivil 3ode re1uires
intent or !ad faith.
7ith resect to ersonal roerty, the
commission of the crimes of theft or ro!!ery is
o!viously tresass. In the Aeld of tort, however,
tresass e#tends to all cases where a erson is
derived of his ersonal roerty even in the
a!sence of criminal lia!ility.
C. 6isconnection of electricity or gas service
65
$ usual form of derivation of access to
roerty is the un"ustiAed disconnection of
electricity service. The right to disconnect and
derive the customer of electricity should !e
e#ercised in accordance with law and rules.
:. $!ortion and wrongful death
9. Illegal dismissal
The e#ercise of the right to terminate must
!e consistent with the general rinciles rovided
for under $rticles &? and )&. If there is non8
comliance with the said articles, the emloyer
may !e held lia!le for damages.
>. Ialicious rosecution
$ tort action for malicious rosecution has
!een deAned as $n action for damages !rought
!y one against another whom a criminal
rosecution, civil suit, or other legal roceedings
has !een instituted maliciously and without
ro!a!le cause, after the termination of such
rosecution, suit or roceeding in favor of the
defendant therein.
The statutory !ases of the action are not
only $rticles &?, )= and )& !ut also $rticles ):,
*), ** *C, ))&9 and ))&?%>' of the 3ivil 3ode.
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF MALICIOUS
PROSECUTION?
a. The fact of the rosecution and the
further fact that the defendant was
himself the rosecutor,
b. That the action was Anally terminated
with an ac1uittal(
c. That in !ringing the action, the
rosecutor acted without ro!a!le cause(
d. The rosecutor was actuated or imelled
!y legal malice.
IN ORDER FOR THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
SUIT TO PROSPER5 WHAT MUST THE PLAINTIFF
PROVE?
a. The fact of the rosecution and the
further fact that the defendant was
himself the rosecutor, and that the
action Anally terminated with an
ac1uittal(
b. That in !ringing the action, the
rosecutor acted without ro!a!le cause(
and
c. That the rosecutor was actuated or
imelled !y legal malice, that is !y
imroer or sinister motive. %Lao v. 3ourt
of $eals, &?? 03/$ C> E&??&F(
/eha!ilitation Finance 3ororation v. Noh,
B 03/$ C*C E&?:)F( 4uchanan v. Hiuda
de -ste!an, *) ;hil. *:* E&?&CF'
The foregoing re1uisites are necessary
safeguards to reserve a ersonUs right to litigate
66
which may otherwise !e emasculated !y the
undue Aling of malicious rosecution cases. Thus,
as further held in the aforecited case of 4uchanan
v. Hiuda. de -ste!an, sura+ TIalice is essential to
the maintenance of an action for malicious
rosecution and not merely to the recovery of
e#emlary damages. 4ut malice alone does not
make one lia!le for malicious rosecution, where
ro!a!le cause is shown, even where it aears
that the suit was !rought for the mere urose of
ve#ing, harassing and in"uring his adversary. In
other words malice and want of ro!a!le cause
must !oth e#ist in order to "ustify the action.T %see
also /eha!ilitation Finance 3or. v. Noh, sura'
;ro!a!le cause is the e#istence of such facts
and circumstances as would e#cite the !elief, in a
reasona!le mind, acting on the facts within the
knowledge of the rosecutor, that the erson
charged was guilty of the crime %or in this case,
the wrongdoing' for which he was rosecuted.
%0ee 4uchanan v. Hiuda de -ste!an, sura'.
The general rule is well settled that one
cannot !e held lia!le in damages for maliciously
instituting a rosecution where he acted with
ro!a!le cause. In other words, a suit will lie only
in cases where a legal rosecution has !een
carried on without ro!a!le cause. %Id.'
?. ;u!lic humiliation
-#amle+ slaing in u!lic
4. $ction In re+ 7erso and Lia!ility
7ithout Fault
A342*) in rem verso
$rticle ))+ -very erson who through
an act or erformance !y another, or !y any
other means, ac1uires or comes into
ossession of something at the e#ense of
the latter without "ust cause or legal ground,
shall return the same to him
This article is designated as action in re+
verso.
7hat are the re1uisites of action in re+
versoR
a. .ne arty must !e enriched and the
other made oorer(
!. There must !e a causal relation
!etween the two(
c. The enrichment must not !e
"ustiAa!le(
d. There must !e no other way to
recover( and
e. The indemnity can not e#tend the loss
of enrichment whichever is less
LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT
$rticle )*+ -ven when an ac or event
causing damage to anothers roerty was not
67
due to the fault or negligence of the defendant,
the latter shall !e lia!le for indemnity if through
the act or event was !eneAted.
<nless there is a duty to indemnify, un"ust
enrichment will occur.
The concet of lia!ility without fault is
introduced in this article. It is !ased on e1uity.
C. Duman 6ignity
TORTS THAT INVOLVE THE RIGHT OF A PERSON TO
DIGNITY5 PRIVACY AND PEACE OF MIND
$rticle ): M -very erson shall resect the
dignity, ersonality, rivacy and eace if mind of
his neigh!ors and other ersons. The following
and other similar acts, though they may not
constitute a criminal o@ense shall roduce a cause
of action for damages, revention and other relief+
%&';rying into the rivacy of anothers
residence(
%)'Ieddling with or distur!ing the
rivate life or family relations of
another(
%*'Intriguing to cause another to !e
alienated from his friends(
%B'He#ing or humiliating another on
account of his religious !eliefs, lowly
station in life, lace of !irth, hysical
defect, or other ersonal condition.
WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPAL RIGHTS PROTECTED
UNDER THIS ARTICLE?
a. right to ersonal dignity(
!. right to ersonal security(
c. right to family relations(
d. right to social intercourse(
e. right to rivacy and
f. right to eace of mind
WHAT ARE THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN THIS
ARTICLE?
a. $n action for damages
!. $n action for revention
c. $ny other relief
$ civil action may !e instituted even if
no crime is involved, and moral
damages may !e o!tained
0coe+
a. ;rying into the rivacy of anothers
residence M includes !y imlication resect
for anothers name, icture, or ersonality
e#cet insofar as is needed for u!lication
of information and ictures of legitimate
news value.
!. Ieddling with or distur!ing the rivate life
or family relations of another M includes
68
alienation of the a@ection of the hus!and or
the wife.
c. Intriguing to cause another to !e alienated
from his friends M includes gossiing, and
reliance on hearsay.
d. He#ing or humiliating M includes criticism of
ones health or features without "ustiAa!le
legal cause.
:. ;u!lic .Lcers
TORTS COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
UNDER HUMAN RELATIONS
$rticle )9 M $ny erson su@ering material
or moral loss !ecause a u!lic servant or
emloyee refuses or neglects, without "ust cause,
to erform his oLcial duty may Ale an action for
damages and other relief against the latter,
without re"udice to any discilinary
administrative action that may !e taken.
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR ACTION UNDER
THIS ARTICLE?
a. That the defendant !e a u!lic oLcial
charged with the erformance of oLcial
duties(
!. That there !e a violation of an oLcial
duty in favor of an individual(
c. That there !e willfulness or negligence in
the violation of such oLcial duty(
d. That there !e an in"ury to the individual
9. <nfair 3ometition
$rticle )> M <nfair cometition in
agricultural, commercial or industrial enterrises
or in la!or through the use of force, intimidation,
deceit, machination, or any other un"ust,
oressive or high handed method shall give rise
to a right of action !y the erson who there!y
su@er damage.
WHEN IS THERE UNFAIR COMPETITION?
<nfair cometition consists in emloying
decetion or any other means contrary to good
faith !y which any erson shall ass o@ the goods
manufactured !y him or in which he deals, or his
!usiness, or services to those of the one having
esta!lished goodwill, or committing any acts
calculated to roduce such result.
WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITION?
i. $gricultural enterrises
ii. 3ommercial enterrises
iii. Industrial enterrises
iv. La!or
!. -#amles
i. 0trike rematurely declared
69
ii. 0trike for trivial, un"ust or
unreasona!le cause
iii. 0trike carried out thru force,
intimidation or other unlawful
means
iv. 0trike in order to circumvent
valid o!ligations entered into a
collective !argaining contracts
v. 3ut8throat cometition
vi. The making of false statement
in the course of trade to
discredit the goods, !usiness or
services of another
vii. The making of goods so as to
deceive urchasers
viii. 0elling of goods a!ove the
ma#imum rices set !y the
state
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF UNFAIR
COMPETITION?
&. That the o@ender gives
his goods the general
aearance of the
goods of another
manufacturer or dealer(
). That the general
aearance is shown in
the %&' goods
themselves, or in the
%)' wraing of their
ackages, or in the %*'
device or words
therein, or in %B' any
other feature of their
aearance(
*. That the o@ender o@ers
to sell or sells those
goods or gives other
ersons a chance or
oortunity to do the
same with a like
urose(
B. That there is actual
intent to deceive the
u!lic or defraud a
cometition.
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF A COMPLAINT FOR
UNFAIR COMPETITION?
It is !asically a suit for in"unction and
damages.
e. 3ivil $ction $fter $c1uittal In a
3riminal 3ase
$rticle )? M 7hen the accused in a criminal
rosecution is ac1uitted on the ground that his
guilt has not !een roved !eyond reasona!le
dou!t, a civil action for damages for the same act
or omission may !e instituted. 0uch action
re1uires only a reonderance of evidence. <on
motion of the defendant, the court may re1uire
70
the lainti@ to Ale a !ond to answer for damages
in case the comlaint should !e found to !e
malicious.
If in a criminal case the "udgment of
ac1uittal is !ased uon reasona!le dou!t, the
court shall so declare. In the a!sence of any
declaration to that e@ect, it may !e inferred from
the te#t of the decision whether or not the
ac1uittal is due to that ground.
WHAT ARE THE REASONS OF THE PROVISION IN
ALLOWING THE FILING OF A CIVIL ACTION FOR
DAMAGES EVEN THOUGH THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN
ACQUITTED ON REASONABLE DOUBT?
a. The reason is found in $rticle )&99
which states that resonsi!ility for
fault or negligence is entirely
searate and distinct form the civil
lia!ility arising form negligence
under the enal code !ut the
lainti@ cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission
of the defendant.
!. $lso, under the /evised ;enal
3ode, a erson criminally lia!le is
also civilly lia!le %$rticle &=='. The
two lia!ilities are searate and
distinct form each other( the
criminal asect a@ects social order(
the civil, rivate rights. .ne is for
the unishment or correction of the
o@ender, while the other is for
rearation of damages su@ered !y
the aggrieved arty.
WHAT ARE THE INSTANCES WHERE NO CIVIL
ACTION MAY BE INSTITUTED?
%a'7hen the accused is
ac1uitted on the ground
that he did not commit the
act, or
%!'That no crime was
committed, or
%c' 4ecause he is "ustiAed or
e#emt from criminal
lia!ility,
/eason+ 4ecause the ac1uittal
on these grounds constitutes res
ad"udication.
7hen such civil action is instituted,
only a reonderance of evidence is
re1uired. Dowever, to rotect ersons
form harassment, the rovision
authoriQes the defendant t Ale a
motion in court re1uiring the lainti@
to Ale a !ond to answer for damages
in case the comlaint should !e found
to !e malicious.
71
,ote that $rticle )? does no seak of
an indeendent civil action.
f. Institution of 3ivil $ction for
6amages
$rising out of a 3riminal .@ense !efore
a 3riminal
$ction is Instituted for the 3riminal
.@ense
$rticle *= M 7hen a searate civil action is
!rought to demand civil lia!ility arising from a
criminal o@ense, and no criminal roceedings are
instituted during the endency of the civil case, a
reonderance of evidence shall likewise !e
suLcient to rove the act comlained of.
If however, a criminal action is instituted
while the civil action is ending, the civil
action will !e susended until Anal
"udgment in the criminal case has !een
rendered.
$s in $rticle )?, this article does not
seak of an indeendent civil action.
g. Torts with Indeendent 3ivil
$ctions.
WHAT IS THE BASIS OF TORTS WITH
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS?
$rticle *& M 7hen the civil action is !ased
on an o!ligation not arising from the act or
omission comlained of as a felony, such civil
action may roceed indeendently of the criminal
roceedings and regardless of the result of the
later.
WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE -1?
This article refers to a civil action !ased not
on the act or omission charged as a felony in a
criminal case, !ut to one !ased on an o!ligation
arising from other sources, such as law or contract
%-#amle+ 4reach of contract of carriage. /eason+
The civil action !ased on contractual lia!ility of a
common carrier is distinct from the criminal action
instituted against the carrier or its emloyee
!ased on the latters negligence'.
Ieaning of indeendent civil actions M
$n indeendent civil action is one that
is !rought distinctly and searately
from a criminal case allowed for
considerations of u!lic olicy,
!ecause the roof needed for civil
cases is less than that re1uired for
criminal cases( !ut with the in"unction
in general that success in Anancially
recovering in one case should revent
a recovery of damages in the other.
72
,ote that the !ringing of the
indeendent civil action is ermissive,
not comulsory
WHAT ARE THE INSTANCES OF INDEPENDENT
CIVIL ACTIONS?
%a'$rticle )& M $cts contra
!onus mores
%!'$rticle *) M !reach of
constitutional and other
rights
%c' $rticle ** M 6efamation,
fraud, hysical in"uries
%d'$rticle *B M /efusal or
failure of city or municial
olice to give rotection
%e'$rticle )&99 M Kuasi8delict
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL IN THE
CIVIL CASE?
The dismissal of the civil action cannot
constitute a !ar to the criminal suit for the two
actins are entirely distinct from each other, and
may therefore !e litigated indeendently.
PROSECUTION OF INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION
7RULE 1115 RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE9
WB$4 $&( 4B( @()(&$1 &%1(6 2)
2)6424%42*) *+ 3&282)$1 $)' 32D21
$342*)6?
7hen a criminal action is instituted,
the civil action for the recovery of civil
lia!ility arising from the o@ense
charged shall !e deemed instituted
with the criminal action unless +
%&'the o@ended arty waives
the civil action,
%)'reserves the right to
institute it searately or
%*'institutes the civil action
rior to the criminal
action.
EThe reservation of the right
to institute searately the
civil action shall !e made
!efore the rosecution starts
resenting evidence and
under circumstances
a@ording the o@ended arty
reasona!le oortunity to
make such reservation.
0ection &, /ule &&&F
7hen the civil action has !een Aled
searately and trial thereof has not
yet commenced, it may !e
consolidated with the criminal action
73
uon alication with the court trying
the latter case. If the alication is
granted, the trial of !oth actions shall
roceed in accordance with section )
of this /ule governing consolidation if
the criminal and civil action.
$fter the criminal action has !een
commenced, the searate civil action
arising therefrom cannot !e instituted
until Anal "udgment has !een entered
in the criminal action.
If the criminal action is Aled after the
said civil action has already !een
instituted, the latter shall !e
susended in whatever stage it may
!e found !efore "udgment on the
merits. The susension shall last until
Anal "udgment is rendered in the
criminal action. ,evertheless, !efore
"udgment on the merits is rendered in
the civil action, the same may, uon
motion of the o@ended arty, !e
consolidated with the criminal action
in the court trying the criminal action.
E0ection ), I!id.F
WHAT ARE THE RULES ON INDEPENDENT CIVIL
ACTIONS?
In the cases rovided in $rticles
*), **, *B and )&9: of the 3ivil
3ode, the indeendent civil
action may !e !rought !y the
o@ended arty. It shall roceed
indeendently of the criminal
action and shall re1uire only a
reonderance of evidence. In
no case, however, may the
o@ended arty recover damages
twice for the same act or
omission charged in the criminal
action. E0ection *, I!id.F
The indeendent civil actions
contemlated in the resent
/ule &&& include 1uasi8delicts
rovided for in $rticle )&9:, in
addition to $rticles *), ** and
*B. It is necessary, however,
that the civil lia!ility under the
said articles arise from the
same act or omission of the
accused. Further, a reservation
of the right to institute these
searate actions are imliedly
instituted with the criminal
action, unless the former are
waived or Aled ahead of the
criminal action.
7here an indeendent civil
action is ermitted, the result of
the criminal action, whether of
ac1uittal or conviction is entirely
74
irrelevant to the civil action.
Thus under $rticle *& of the 3ivil
3ode, the civil action may
roceed indeendently of the
criminal action regardless of the
result of the latter.
;rior to the case of /oa vs. 6e la
3ruQ %&=& ;hil. >', it was held
that where the law authoriQes a
searate and indeendent civil
action, there was no need for
making a reservation, however,
in su!se1uent cases, the
0ureme 3ourt has decided that
reservation is needed !ecause
of the seciAc rovision of
0ection *, /ule &&& re1uiring
such reservation to !e made
even where the law rovides for
indeendent civil actions.
WB$4 $&( 4B( =2)'6 *+ 2)'(,()'()4 32D21
$342*)6?
a. $rticle )& E0uraF
!. $rticle *) M $ny u!lic oLcer or emloyee,
or any rivate individual, who directly or
indirectly o!structs, defeats, violates or in
any manner imedes or imairs any of the
following rights and li!erties of another
erson shall !e lia!le to the latter for
damages+
# # # #
In any of the cases referred to in this
article, whether or not the defendants
act or omission constitutes a criminal
o@ense, the aggrieved arty has a
right to commence an entirely
searate and distinct civil action for
damages, and for other relief. 0uch
civil action shall roceed
indeendently of any criminal
rosecution, and may !e roved !y a
reonderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral and
e#emlary damages.
7here a u!lic oLcer is charged with
violation of any of the !asic rights of
an individual rovided for in this
article, it is deemed that the action is
against him in his rivate caacity and
not a suit against the state which
re1uires its consent.
c. $rticle ** M In cases of defamation, fraud,
and hysical in"uries, a civil action for
damages, entirely searate and distinct
from the civil action, may !e !rought !y the
in"ured arty. 0uch civil action shall roceed
indeendently of the criminal rosecution,
75
and shall re1uire only a reonderance of
evidence.
This article seaks of indeendent
civil action in cases of+
defamation, li!el or slander
or intriguing against honor
fraud, including estafa and
swindling, and
hysical in"uries, including
attemted and frustrated
homicide so long as there
was in"ury.
d. $rticle *B M 7hen a mem!er of a city or
municial olice force refuses or fails to
render aid or rotection to any erson in
case of danger to life or roerty, such
eace oLcer shall !e rimarily lia!le for
damages, and the city or municiality shall
!e su!sidiarily resonsi!le therefore. The
civil action recogniQed shall !e indeendent
of any criminal roceedings, and a
reonderance of evidence shall suLce to
suort such action.
The lia!ility of the city or municiality
!eing su!sidiary can only !e enforced
when the guilty oLcer is insolvent.
Dowever, it can not !e avoided !y
roving that the city or municiality
has e#ercised due diligence in the
selection and suervision of its
olicemen. This defense, allowed
under $rticle )&>=, in favor of
emloyers for the fault or negligence
of their emloyees, is availa!le only to
rivate emloyers( it would !e
availa!le to the city or municiality if
the function involved is a cororate
function, !ut not when, as
contemlated !y the resent article, it
is a governmental function.
e. $rticle )&99 M /esonsi!ility for fault or
negligence under $rticle )&9: is entirely
searate and distinct from the civil lia!ility
arising form negligence under the enal
code. 4ut the lainti@ cannot recover twice
for the same act or omission of the
defendant.
DAMAGES
WHAT ARE THE DAMAGES THAT MAY BE AWARDED?
<nder $rticle )&?9, damages may !e+
&. $ctual or comensatory(
). Ioral(
*. ,ominal(
B. Temerate or moderate(
C. Li1uidated( or
:. -#emlary or corrective.
76
WHAT DAMAGES MAY BE RECOVERED IN CASE
OF DEATH OF A PASSENGER?

7hen death occurs, the following items of
damages may !e recovered+
&. $n indemnity for the death of the victim(
). $n indemnity for loss of earning caacity of
the deceased(
*. Ioral damages(
B. $ttorneys fee and e#enses of litigation(
C. Interest in roer cases %8rinas vs. Peo&le
51% 0CRA *)!'.
IN FI#ING A GREATER AMOUNT OF DAMAGES
FOR DEATH OF A PASSENGER THAN THAT PROVIDED BY
LAW WHAT MAY THE COURTS CONSIDER?
$rticle ))=: alies in case of death caused
!y !reach of contract !y the common carrier
%$rticle &9:B'. It A#es the minimum indemnity for
death at ;XXXX which the courts may increase
according to circumstances. It is in A#ing a greater
amount of indemnity that courts may consider the
Anancial caacity of the common carrier, along
with such other factors as+
&. Life e#ectancy of the deceased or of the
!eneAciary, whichever is shorter(
). ;ecuniary loss to the lainti@ or !eneAciary(
*. Loss of suort(
B. Loss of service(
C. Loss of society(
:. Iental su@ering of !eneAciaries( and
9. Iedical and funeral e#enses %Pan'asinan
Trans&ortation Co. Inc. vs. Le'as&i 51
0CRA %$1'.
In awarding comensatory damages, the
age of the lainti@, his e#ected life san, and his
earning caacity within that life san must !e
taken into consideration. Thus, the fact that the
lainti@ was only in his twenties, when through
the negligence of the defendant, he lost the use of
his lim!s, !eing condemned for the remainder of
his life to !e a aralytic, in e@ect leading a
maimed, well8nigh useless e#istence, were taken
into account in A#ing comensatory damages
%Marc"an vs. Mendo>a 12 0CRA ))$'.
HOW MAY LIFE E#PECTANCY OF A PERSON BE
DETERMINED FOR PUPROSES OF FI#ING THE AMOUNT
OF DAMAGES THAT MAY BE RECOVERED?

In determining the num!er of years on the
!asis of which the damages shall !e comuted
and the rate which the losses sustained !y said
heirs should !e A#ed, the following formula was
adoted in the $merican -#ectancy Ta!le of
Iortality or the actual 3om!ined -#erience Ta!le
of Iortality+
)J* # %>= M age of the decedent' Y life
e#ectancy.
77
Thus, the life e#ectancy of the assenger
who died when he was over )? years of age %or
around *= for uroses of comutation' was
laced at ** &J* years, following the foregoing
formula %7illa ReB Transit Inc. vs. Court o(
A&&eals #5 0CRA %52'. $nd where the assenger
was *9 years old when he died, he had a life
e#ectancy of )> )J* more years %=ortune
:?&ress Inc. vs. Court o( A&&eals 4.R. No.
55$!%* Marc" 5) 5$$$'.
In the comutation of the damages to !e
awarded, it should !e life e#ectancy of the
assenger who died and not the life e#ectancy of
the !eneAciary which should !e considered
%P"ili&&ine Airlines vs. Court o( A&&eals 5)% 0CRA
556'.
ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
$ctual damages are ade1uate comensation
for ecuniary loss su@ered and roved. It includes
attorneys fees.
$/TI3L- )&??. -#cet as rovided !y law or !y
stiulation, one is entitled to an ade1uate comensation
only for such ecuniary loss su@ered !y him as he has duly
roved. 0uch comensation is referred to as actual or
comensatory damages.
$/TI3L- ))==. IndemniAcation for damages
shall comrehend not only the value of the loss su@ered, !ut
also that of the roAts which the o!ligee failed to o!tain.
%&&=:'
$/TI3L- ))=&. In contracts and 1uasi8
contracts, the damages for which the o!ligor who acted in
good faith is lia!le shall !e those that are the natural and
ro!a!le conse1uences of the !reach of the o!ligation, and
which the arties have foreseen or could have reasona!ly
foreseen at the time the o!ligation was constituted.
In case of fraud, !ad faith, malice or wanton attitude,
the o!ligor shall !e resonsi!le for all damages which may
!e reasona!ly attri!uted to the non8erformance of the
o!ligation. %&&=9a'
$/TI3L- ))=). In crimes and 1uasi8delicts, the
defendant shall !e lia!le for all damages which are the
natural and ro!a!le conse1uences of the act or omission
comlained of. It is not necessary that such damages have
!een foreseen or could have reasona!ly !een foreseen !y
the defendant. cdasia
$/TI3L- ))=*. The arty su@ering loss or
in"ury must e#ercise the diligence of a good father of a
family to minimiQe the damages resulting from the act or
omission in 1uestion.
$/TI3L- ))=B. In crimes, the damages to !e
ad"udicated may !e resectively increased or lessened
according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
$/TI3L- ))=C. 6amages may !e recovered+
%&' For loss or imairment of earning caacity in cases of
temorary or ermanent ersonal in"ury(
%)' For in"ury to the lainti@Us !usiness standing or
commercial credit.
$/TI3L- ))=:. The amount of damages for
death caused !y a crime or 1uasi8delict shall !e at least
three thousand esos, even though there may have !een
mitigating circumstances. In addition+
78
%&' The defendant shall !e lia!le for the loss of the
earning caacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall
!e aid to the heirs of the latter( such indemnity shall in
every case !e assessed and awarded !y the court, unless
the deceased on account of ermanent hysical disa!ility
not caused !y the defendant, had no earning caacity at the
time of his death(
%)' If the deceased was o!liged to give suort
according to the rovisions of article )?&, the reciient who
is not an heir called to the decedentUs inheritance !y the law
of testate or intestate succession, may demand suort
from the erson causing the death, for a eriod not
e#ceeding Ave years, the e#act duration to !e A#ed !y the
court(
%*' The souse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants
and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral
damages for mental anguish !y reason of the death of the
deceased. cdtai
$/TI3L- ))=9. If the lainti@Us roerty has
!een insured, and he has received indemnity from the
insurance comany for the in"ury or loss arising out of the
wrong or !reach of contract comlained of, the insurance
comany shall !e su!rogated to the rights of the insured
against the wrongdoer or the erson who has violated the
contract. If the amount aid !y the insurance comany does
not fully cover the in"ury or loss, the aggrieved arty shall
!e entitled to recover the deAciency from the erson
causing the loss or in"ury.
$/TI3L- ))=>. In the a!sence of stiulation,
attorneyUs fees and e#enses of litigation, other than "udicial
costs, cannot !e recovered, e#cet+
%&' 7hen e#emlary damages are awarded(
%)' 7hen the defendantUs act or omission has comelled
the lainti@ to litigate with third ersons or to incur
e#enses to rotect his interest( casia
%*' In criminal cases of malicious rosecution against the
lainti@(
%B' In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or
roceeding against the lainti@(
%C' 7here the defendant acted in gross and evident !ad
faith in refusing to satisfy the lainti@Us lainly valid, "ust
and demanda!le claim(
%:' In actions for legal suort(
%9' In actions for the recovery of wages of household
helers, la!orers and skilled workers(
%>' In actions for indemnity under workmenUs
comensation and emloyerUs lia!ility laws(
%?' In a searate civil action to recover civil lia!ility
arising from a crime(
%&=' 7hen at least dou!le "udicial costs are awarded(
%&&' In any other case where the court deems it "ust and
e1uita!le that attorneyUs fees and e#enses of litigation
should !e recovered.
In all cases, the attorneyUs fees and e#enses of
litigation must !e reasona!le.
$/TI3L- ))=?. If the o!ligation consists in the
ayment of a sum of money, and the de!tor incurs in delay,
the indemnity for damages, there !eing no stiulation to the
contrary, shall !e the ayment of the interest agreed uon,
and in the a!sence of stiulation, the legal interest, which is
si# er cent er annum. %&&=>' casia
$/TI3L- ))&=. Interest may, in the discretion
of the court, !e allowed uon damages awarded for !reach
of contract.
$/TI3L- ))&&. In crimes and 1uasi8delicts,
interest as a art of the damages may, in a roer case, !e
ad"udicated in the discretion of the court.
$/TI3L- ))&). Interest due shall earn legal
interest from the time it is "udicially demanded, although the
o!ligation may !e silent uon this oint. %&&=?a'
79
$/TI3L- ))&*. Interest cannot !e recovered
uon unli1uidated claims or damages, e#cet when the
demand can !e esta!lished with reasona!le certainty.
$/TI3L- ))&B. In 1uasi8delicts, the
contri!utory negligence of the lainti@ shall reduce the
damages that he may recover.
$/TI3L- ))&C. In contracts, 1uasi8contracts,
and 1uasi8delicts, the court may e1uita!ly mitigate the
damages under circumstances other than the case referred
to in the receding article, as in the following instances+
cdtai
%&' That the lainti@ himself has contravened the terms
of the contract(
%)' That the lainti@ has derived some !eneAt as a result
of the contract(
%*' In cases where e#emlary damages are to !e
awarded, that the defendant acted uon the advice of
counsel(
%B' That the loss would have resulted in any event(
%C' That since the Aling of the action, the defendant has
done his !est to lessen the lainti@Us loss or in"ury.
OTHER KINDS OF DAMAGES
$/TI3L- ))&:. ,o roof of ecuniary loss is
necessary in order that moral, nominal, temerate,
li1uidated or e#emlary damages, may !e ad"udicated. The
assessment of such damages, e#cet li1uidated ones, is left
to the discretion of the court, according to the
circumstances of each case. cda
MORAL DAMAGES
$/TI3L- ))&9. Ioral damages include hysical
su@ering, mental anguish, fright, serious an#iety,
!esmirched reutation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation, and similar in"ury. Though incaa!le of
ecuniary comutation, moral damages may !e recovered if
they are the ro#imate result of the defendantUs wrongful
act or omission.
$/TI3L- ))&>. In the ad"udication of moral
damages, the sentimental value of roerty, real or
ersonal, may !e considered.
$/TI3L- ))&?. Ioral damages may !e
recovered in the following and analogous cases+
%&' $ criminal o@ense resulting in hysical in"uries(
%)' Kuasi8delicts causing hysical in"uries(
%*' 0eduction, a!duction, rae, or other lascivious acts(
%B' $dultery or concu!inage(
%C' Illegal or ar!itrary detention or arrest(
%:' Illegal search(
%9' Li!el, slander or any other form of defamation(
%>' Ialicious rosecution(
%?' $cts mentioned in article *=?(
%&=' $cts and actions referred to in articles )&, ):, )9, )>,
)?, *=, *), *B, and *C. casia
The arents of the female seduced, a!ducted, raed,
or a!used, referred to in ,o. * of this article, may also
recover moral damages.
The souse, descendants, ascendants, and !rothers
and sisters may !ring the action mentioned in ,o. ? of this
article, in the order named.
$/TI3L- )))=. 7illful in"ury to roerty may !e
a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court
should And that, under the circumstances, such damages
are "ustly due. The same rule alies to !reaches of contract
where the defendant acted fraudulently or in !ad faith.
80
AS A GENERAL RULE5 MAY MORAL DAMAGES BE
RECOVERED IN BREACH OF CONTRACT OF
TRANSPORTATION?
Ioral damages are not recovera!le in
damage actions redicated on a !reach of
contract of transortation in view of the rovisions
of $rticles ))&? and )))=. The said rovisions
limited the award of moral damages to those
enumerated therein and analogous cases. $
!reach of contract cannot !e considered included
in the descritive term analogous cases used in
$rticle ))&?, not only !ecause $rticle )))=
seciAcally rovided for damages that are caused
!y contractual !reach, !ut !ecause the deAnition
of quasi delict in $rticle )&9: e#ressly e#cludes
the cases where there is a re8e#isting
contractual relation !etween the arties %7er>osa
vs. 8aBtan 56! P"il. 56563 Martine> vs. 4on>ales
* 0CRA ##5'.
WHAT ARE THE E#CEPTIONS TO THE FOREGOING
RULE WHEN MORAL DAMAGES MAY BE RECOVERED IN
BREACH OF CONTRACT OF TRANSPORTATION?
Ioral damages may !e recovered in an
action for !reach of contract of transortation in
the following cases+
&. 7hen the misha results in the death of a
assenger %M. Rui> @i'"FaB Transit Inc. vs.
Court o( A&&eals 55 0CRA $)'(
). 7here it is roved that the carrier was guilty
of fraud or !ad faith, even if death does not
result %Re? Ta?ica9 Co. Inc. vs. 8autista L-
5%#$1 0e&te+9er #6 5$*63 0in'son vs.
Court o( A&&eals 1)1 0CRA 52$'.
4ad faith means a !reach of a known duty
through some motive or ill8will. 0elf enrichment or
fraternal interest, and not ersonal ill8will, may
have !een the motive, !ut it is malice
nevertheless which may !e the ground for
awarding moral damages for !reach of contract of
carriage %Lo&e> vs. Pan A+erican Aorld AirFaBs
5* 0CRA 2#5'. The !ad faith referred to may !e
!ad faith in the securing and in the e#ecution of
the contract and in the enforcement of its terms
or any other kind of deceit which may have !een
used !y the carrier %Ta+aBo vs. Aquino L-51*#2
and 51!16 +aB 1$ 5$%$'.
MAY MORAL DAMAGES BE GRANTED IN CASE OF
BREACH OF CONTRACT OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH
MERELY CAUSES PHYSICAL INJURIES TO PASSENGERS?
In case of !reach of contract of carriage
resulting only to hysical in"uries of assengers,
moral damages are not recovera!le %La'una
TaBa9as 8us Co. vs. Cornista 55 0CRA 5)1',
unless the carrier acted fraudulently or with
malice or in !ad faith %Roque vs. 8uan 15 0CRA
*%53 8ulante vs. C"u Liante 1# 0CRA *62'.
NOMINAL DAMAGES
81
,ominal damages are awarded not to
comensate !ut to vindicate a right of the lainti@
that has !een violated !y the defendant.
Temerate damages, on the other hand, refers to
ecuniary loss su@ered !ut cannot !e roven with
certainty.
$/TI3L- )))&. ,ominal damages are
ad"udicated in order that a right of the lainti@, which has
!een violated or invaded !y the defendant, may !e
vindicated or recogniQed, and not for the urose of
indemnifying the lainti@ for any loss su@ered !y him. cd
$/TI3L- )))). The court may award nominal
damages in every o!ligation arising from any source
enumerated in article &&C9, or in every case where any
roerty right has !een invaded.
$/TI3L- )))*. The ad"udication of nominal
damages shall reclude further contest uon the right
involved and all accessory 1uestions, as !etween the arties
to the suit, or their resective heirs and assigns. cdtai
TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGES
$/TI3L- )))B. Temerate or moderate
damages, which are more than nominal !ut less than
comensatory damages, may !e recovered when the court
Ands that some ecuniary loss has !een su@ered !ut its
amount can not, from the nature of the case, !e roved with
certainty.
$/TI3L- )))C. Temerate damages must !e
reasona!le under the circumstances.
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
$/TI3L- ))):. Li1uidated damages are those
agreed uon !y the arties to a contract, to !e aid in case
of !reach thereof. aisa dc
$/TI3L- )))9. Li1uidated damages, whether
intended as an indemnity or a enalty, shall !e e1uita!ly
reduced if they are ini1uitous or unconsciona!le.
$/TI3L- )))>. 7hen the !reach of the
contract committed !y the defendant is not the one
contemlated !y the arties in agreeing uon the li1uidated
damages, the law shall determine the measure of damages,
and not the stiulation.
E#EMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES
$/TI3L- )))?. -#emlary or corrective
damages are imosed, !y way of e#amle or correction for
the u!lic good, in addition to the moral, temerate,
li1uidated or comensatory damages.
$/TI3L- ))*=. In criminal o@enses, e#emlary
damages as a art of the civil lia!ility may !e imosed when
the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances. 0uch damages are searate and distinct
from Anes and shall !e aid to the o@ended arty.
$/TI3L- ))*&. In 1uasi8delicts, e#emlary
damages may !e granted if the defendant acted with gross
negligence.
$/TI3L- ))*). In contracts and 1uasi8
contracts, the court may award e#emlary damages if the
defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless,
oressive, or malevolent manner.
82
$/TI3L- ))**. -#emlary damages cannot !e
recovered as a matter of right( the court will decide whether
or not they should !e ad"udicated. cdt
$/TI3L- ))*B. 7hile the amount of the
e#emlary damages need not !e roved, the lainti@ must
show that he is entitled to moral, temerate or
comensatory damages !efore the court may consider the
1uestion of whether or not e#emlary damages should !e
awarded. In case li1uidated damages have !een agreed
uon, although no roof of loss is necessary in order that
such li1uidated damages may !e recovered, nevertheless,
!efore the court may consider the 1uestion of granting
e#emlary in addition to the li1uidated damages, the
lainti@ must show that he would !e entitled to moral,
temerate or comensatory damages were it not for the
stiulation for li1uidated damages. cdtai
$/TI3L- ))*C. $ stiulation where!y
e#emlary damages are renounced in advance shall !e null
and void.
0*FF*0
83