1.

Difference between Culpa Aquiliana, Culpa contractual and Crime

Culpa aquiliana quasi-delict or tort
Culpa contractual negligence in contracts resulting in their breach.
Crime- acts or omissions punished by law, when they arise from civil liability which is the
consequence of a criminal offense.
Culpa criminal- negligence resulting in the commission of a crime.

2. Difference between Fault and Dolo

Felonies can be committed either by means of deceit or by means of fault. If a felony is committed by
means of deceit it is dolo or otherwise known asintentional felonies such as robbery. If it is committed
by means of fault, then it is culpa or otherwise known as culpable felonies such as reckless imprudence
resulting in damage to properties.
There is dolo if there exist malice or deliberate intent. There is culpa when the felony results from
negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. In intentional felonies, there is criminal intent
in the mind of the offender. In culpable felonies, there is no criminal intent in the mind of the offender
but his acts or omissions are still punished by law because of the damages or injury caused to others as
a result of his negligence, imprudence, lack of skill or lack of foresight.
How to determine if a felony is intentional?
There is deliberate intent in the commission of a felony if the offender, in doing the act or in omitting to
do an act, has done so with FREEDOM, INTELLIGENCE, and INTENT.
1. Freedom When a person acts without freedom the law looks at him as a mere tool. And as such, his
liability is likened to the knife that wounds, or of the torch that sets fire, or of the key that opens a
door, or of the ladder that is placed against the wall of a house in committing robbery.
2. Intelligence If a person acted without intelligence in committing a felony, then no crime exists. This
requisite is necessary to determine the morality of human acts. Hence, the law exempts certain classes
of persons from criminal liability such as minors (15 below) and insane persons.
3. Intent Intent to commit the act with malice, being purely a mental process, is presumed and
the presumption arises from the proof of the commission of an unlawful act.
How to determine if a felony is committed by means of culpa?
There is culpable felony if the offender, in doing the act or in omitting to do an act, has done so with
FREEDOM, INTELLIGENCE, and IMPRUDENCE, NEGLIGENCE, LACK of FORESIGHT or LACK OF SKILL.
1. Imprudence It usually involves lack of skill. A deficiency of action or failure to take necessary
precaution to avoid injury or damage such as when a driver fails to check and determine the road
worthiness of his vehicle before hitting the road where thereafter he had a brake failure which caused
him to run over a pedestrian. Such may have been avoided if he had prudently checked his vehicle.
2. Negligence It usually involves lack of foresight. A deficiency of perception or failure to pay proper
attention and to use diligence to a void a foreseeable damage or injury such as when a cop
indiscriminately fires his gun in the air during New Years Eve which caused injury to another. had the
cop foreseen that firing his gun in open air might injure someone the incident would not have
happened.

3. Elements of Quasi-delict
The SC reiterated the elements of quasi delict as follows:
(1) Damages to the plaintiff.
(2) Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or some person for whose acts
it must respond, was guilty.
(3) The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage.

4. Negligence under Article 2176 of the Civil Code

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual

relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
(1902a)

5. Negligence under Article 1173 of the Civil Code

Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is
required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the
time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201,
paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that
which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required. (1104a)

6. Criminal Negligence under Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code

a. By committing through reckless imprudence any which, had it been intentional, would constitute
a grave or less grave felony or light felony
b. By committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would otherwise
constitute a grave or less serious felony
c. By causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or simple
imprudence or negligence
d. By causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which if done maliciously,
would have constituted a light felony.
NEGLIGENCE failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of
care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person
suffers injury.
PLDT vs CA
G.R. No. L-57079 September 29, 1989
Facts:
A jeep driven by private respondent Esteban fell into an open trench, the excavation was due to the
installation of an underground conduit system by PLDT, the said open trench was without cover and any
warning signs.
As a result the private respondent and his wife sustained injuries, and their vehicle was also damaged.
PLDT in its defense, imputes the injuries to the private respondents own negligence. Also, it alleges that
L.R. Barte and company acting as an independent contractor, should be responsible for the excavation
was performed by them.
As for Barte, they alleged that they have complied with the due standards in performing their work, and
that it was not aware of the accident involving the Estebans.
Court of Appeals held that respondent Esteban spouses were negligent and consequently absolved
petitioner PLDT from the claim for damages.
Upon respondents second motion to reconsideration, CA reversed its decision, following he decision of
Trial Court and held PLDT liable for damages.
Issue:
Whether or not PLDT is liable
Held:
NO
We find no error in the findings of the respondent court in its original decision that the accident which
befell private respondents was due to the lack of diligence of respondent Antonio Esteban and was not
imputable to negligent omission on the part of petitioner PLDT.
The presence of warning signs could not have completely prevented the accident; the only purpose of
said signs was to inform and warn the public of the presence of excavations on the site. The private

respondents already knew of the presence of said excavations. It was not the lack of knowledge of
these excavations which caused the jeep of respondents to fall into the excavation but the unexplained
sudden swerving of the jeep from the inside lane towards the accident mound. As opined in some
quarters, the omission to perform a duty, such as the placing of warning signs on the site of the
excavation, constitutes the proximate cause only when the doing of the said omitted act would have
prevented the injury. It is basic that private respondents cannot charge PLDT for their injuries where
their own failure to exercise due and reasonable care was the cause thereof. It is both a societal norm
and necessity that one should exercise a reasonable degree of caution for his own protection.
Furthermore, respondent Antonio Esteban had the last clear chance or opportunity to avoid the
accident, notwithstanding the negligence he imputes to petitioner PLDT. As a resident of Lacson Street,
he passed on that street almost everyday and had knowledge of the presence and location of the
excavations there. It was his negligence that exposed him and his wife to danger, hence he is solely
responsible for the consequences of his imprudence.
A person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proving the existence of
such fault or negligence causative thereof. The facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively
established by competent evidence. Whosoever relies on negligence for his cause of action has the
burden in the first instance of proving the existence of the same if contested, otherwise his action must
fail.
Ilocos Norte Electric vs. CA
Facts: Nana Belen ventured out in flood waters to check on the status of her grocery store after the
storm. On her way to her grocery she was electrocuted.

Issue: WON Ilocos Norte Electric Corporation was liable

Held: yes

Ratio: The finding of the lower court, was based on what the defendant's employees were supposed to
do, not on what they actually did or failed to do on.

37 Phil 809 Civil Law Torts and Damages Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
In December 1912, Amado Picart was riding his horse and while they were on a 75 meter long bridge,
he saw Frank Smith Jr.s car approaching. Smith blew his horn thrice while he was still at a distance
away because Picart and his horse were on Smiths lane. But Picart did not move his horse to the other
lane, instead he moved his horse closer to the railing. Smith continued driving towards Picart without
slowing down and when he was already so near the horse he swerved to the other lane. But the horse
got scared so it turned its body across the bridge; the horse struck the car and its limb got broken.
Picart suffered injuries which required several days of medical attention while the horse eventually
died.
ISSUE: Whether or not Smith is negligent.
HELD: Yes. And so was Picart for planting himself on the wrong side of the road. But Smiths negligence
succeeded that of Picart. Smith saw at a distance when he blew his horn that Picart and his horse did
not move to the other lane so he should have steered his car to the other lane at that point instead of
swerving at the last minute. He therefore had the last clear chance to avoid the unfortunate incident.
When Smiths car has approached the horse at such proximity it left no chance for Picart extricate
himself and vigilance on his part will not avert injury. Picart can therefore recover damages from Smith
but such should be proportioned by reason of his contributory negligence.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GLENN DE LOS SANTOS, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 131588
March 27, 2001

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:

FACTS: Glenn Delos Santos and his 3 friends went to Bukidnon on his Isuzu Elf truck. On their way, they
decided to pass by a restaurant where Glenn had 3 bottles of beer. On their way to Cagayan de Oro City
from Bukidnon, Glenns truck, hit, bumped, seriously wounded and claimed the lives of several
members of the PNP who were undergoing an endurance run on a highway wearing black shirts and
shorts and green combat shoes. Twelve trainees were killed on the spot, 12 were seriously wounded, 1
of whom eventually died and 10 sustained minor injuries. At the time of the occurrence, the place of
the incident was very dark as there was no moon. Neither were there lampposts that illuminated the
highway. The trial court convicted Glenn of the complex crime of multiple murders, multiple frustrated
murders and multiple attempted murders, with the use of motor vehicle as the qualifying circumstance.

HELD: Considering that the incident was not a product of a malicious intent but rather the result of a
single act of reckless driving, Glenn should be held guilty of the complex crime of reckless imprudence
resulting in multiple homicides with serious physical injuries and less serious physical injuries.
The slight physical injuries caused by Glenn to the ten other victims through reckless imprudence,
would, had they been intentional, have constituted light felonies. Being light felonies, which are not
covered by Article 48, they should be treated and punished as separate offenses. Separate informations
should have, therefore, been filed

EVELYN ACUA, complainant, vs. RODOLFO A. ALCANTARA, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 50, Villasis, Pangasinan, respondent.
DECISION
VITUG, J.:
In a verified letter-complaint, dated 27 October 1998, complainant Evelyn Acua charged Rodolfo
A. Alcantara, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of Villasis, Pangasinan, Branch 50, with negligence
and manifest partiality relative to his conduct in Civil Case No. V-0413 (Mrs. Gloria R. Ocampo vs. Mrs.
Evelyn Acua) for recovery of sum of money with prayer for preliminary attachment. The trial court,
on 23 December 1997, granted the preliminary attachment prayed for by plaintiff Ocampo. The writ
was thereupon issued on the two flatboats of herein complainant Acua.
Complainant averred that, in implementing the writ, respondent sheriff had failed to take the
necessary precautions in protecting the attached property. Respondent entrusted the flatboats to a
relative of plaintiff Ocampo under whose care one of the flatboats submerged. Later, the flatboats were
turned over by respondent to the Philippine Coast Guard of Sual, Pangasinan, in which custody the
flatboats were totally damaged due to several typhoons that visited the area.
Respondent explained, when required to comment, that when he implemented the writ of
attachment, the flatboats were not seaworthy. Initially, he sought the assistance of the Philippine Coast
Guard of Sual, Pangasinan, in safekeeping the flatboats but the Coast Guard refused to accept such
custody without a court order. Meanwhile, respondent was constrained to dock the flatboats at the Sual
port, tied them to a bamboo post and entrusted them to a son of plaintiff Ocampo although the keys
were kept by the latter. Sometime in May, 1998, after being informed that one of the flatboats had
sunk, he asked for a court order to have the Philippine Coast Guard take possession of the
flatboats. The court directed accordingly. Respondent implemented the order of the trial court, dated
05 June 1998, by hiring men at his own expense to lift the submerged flatboat and by depositing the
two flatboats with the Philippine Coast Guard in Sual, Pangasinan. On 18 September 1998, respondent
received a request from the Philippine Coast Guard to transfer the flatboats to a safer place to prevent
them from further deteriorating. Before he could act on the request, however, typhoons Gading,
Illiang and Loleng struck the place and destroyed the flatboats.
Respondent admitted having initially turned over the custody of the boats to the son of the plaintiff
but that he did so only because the Philippine Coast Guard had then refused to render assistance to
him; otherwise, he contended, he had taken all the necessary measures to protect the attached
property.
The case was referred by the Court to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation,
report and recommendation. Eventually, the OCA came out with its evaluation, report and
recommendation; it said:
The complaint is partly meritorious.
In Tantingco vs. Aguilar (81 SCRA 599, 604) this Court held that:
Having taken possession of the property under the writ of attachment, it was respondents duty to
protect the property from damages or loss. The respondent was bound to exercise ordinary and
reasonable care for the preservation of the properties.

More to the point is the case of National Bureau of Investigation vs. Tuliao (270 SCRA 351, 356). In this
case, this Court citing the case of Walker vs. McMicking (14 Phil. 688, 673) said:
xxx A verbal declaration of seizure or service of a writ of attachment is not sufficient. There must be
an actual taking of possession and placing of the attached property under the control of the officer or
someone representing him. (Hallester vs. Goodale, 8 Cann., 332, 21 Am. Dec., 674; Jones vs. Hoard, 99
Ga., 451, 59 Am. St. Rep., 231)
We believe that xxx to constitute a valid levy or attachment, the officer levying it must take actual
possession of the property attached as far as xxx practicable (under the circumstances). He must put
himself in a position to, and must assert and, in fact, enforce a dominion over the property adverse to
and exclusive of the attachment debtor and such property must be in his substantial presence and
possession (Corniff vs. Cock, 95 Ga., 61, 51 Am. St. Rep. 55, 61) Of course, this does not mean that the
attaching officer may not, under an arrangement satisfactory to himself, put anyone in possession of
the property for the purpose of guarding it, but he can not in any way relieve himself from liability to
the parties interested in said attachment.
Applying the above-quoted principle to the instant case, it is apparent that respondent was negligent
in taking care of the boats because he turned over possession thereof to the son of the plaintiff. His
reason that the Coast Guard did not accept the boats because he had no court order can not exonerate
him. In view of the Coast Guards refusal, what respondent should have done under the circumstances
was to assign a disinterested party, at the expense of the plaintiff, to take care of the boats. Even then,
this error could have been rectified if respondent immediately asked the court for an order to transfer
custody of the boats to the Coast Guard. Respondent did this only when one of the boats had already
sunk. We, however, believe that this is the only extent of respondents liability. Respondent was able
to eventually transfer the possession of the boats to the Coast Guard in whose custody the boats were
totally destroyed by storms. The loss of the boats cannot thus be blamed entirely on respondent but it
can not be denied that his initial action may have contributed to the deterioration of the sea-worthiness
of the boats.
The OCA recommended that respondent be FINED in the amount of P5,000.00 for negligence in the
performance of his duties.
The Court adopts the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator.
The OCA did not err in holding that respondent sheriff was guilty of negligence. The refusal of the
Philippine Coast guard to initially take custody of the flatboats should have prompted him to forthwith
ask the trial court for an order to have the custody of the flatboats transferred to the Philippine Coast
Guard. He delayed in seeking for such a court order. But while respondent failed to thusly implement
the writ of preliminary attachment and to safekeep the property in his custody, [1] it would appear that
he exerted efforts to protect the flatboats. The eventual deterioration and loss of the boats had, in fact,
been caused by calamities beyond his control. Given the circumstances, by and large extant from the
records of the case, the Court deems it appropriate to impose on respondent a fine but on the reduced
amount of from P5,000.00 recommended by the OCA to P3,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Court, finding Rodolfo A. Alcantara, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of
Villasis, Pangasinan, Branch 50, guilty of simple negligence, hereby imposes upon him a FINE of THREE
THOUSAND (P3,000.00) PESOS but warns that a repetition of the same or like infraction will be dealt
with severely.
SO ORDERED.