Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS NOTES
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Definitions
1. Tort and Quasi-delict
a. Tort
Naguiat v NLRC
FACTS: Naguiat is the president and a stockholder of
Clark Field Taxi, Inc. (CFT). Due to the phase-out of the
US bases in the country, Clark Air Base was closed and
the taxi drivers of CFTI were separated from service.
The drivers filed a complaint for the payment of sep. pay
due to the termination/phase-out. NLRC held Naguiat
and the company solidarily liable for the payment of sep.
pay.
PAGE 1
ISSUE: WON Naguait should be held solidarily liable
with CFTI. YES.
HELD: Under the Corporation Code, Naguait is liable
bec: (1) he actively managed the business; (2) there
was evidence that CFTI obtained reasonably adequate
insurance; and (3) there was a corporate tort in this
case.
Our jurisprudence is wanting to the definite scope of
corporate tort. Essentially, tort consists in the
violation of a right given or the omission of a duty
imposed by law. Simply stated, it is a breach of legal
duty.
CLASS NOTES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
b. Quasi-delict
Barredo v Garcia
FACTS: A Head-on collision between a taxi and
carretela resulted in the death of a 16-yr old boy who
was a passenger of the carretela. The taxi driver was
convicted in a crim case but the right to file a sep civil
action was reserved. The parents of the boy sued
Barredo, the drivers employer for damages. Barredo
contends that under the RPC, his liability is only
subsidiary, hence he cannot be held liable as no civil
action has been filed against the driver.
ISSUE: WON the plaintiffs, may bring this separate civil
action against Barredo, making him primarily liable as
employer under the CC. YES.
HELD: The same negligent act causing damage may
produce civil liability arising from a crim under the
RPC or create an action for quasi-delict under the
CC. Thus, there were 2 liabilities of Barredo: a
subsidiary one arising from the drivers crim negligence
nd a primary one as employer under the CC. The
plaintiffs were free to choose which course to take, and
they preferred the second remedy. They were acting
within their rights in doing so.
C LAS S N O TE S
Elcano v Hill
C LAS S N O TE S
PAGE 2
C LAS S N O TE S
Cinco v Canonoy
FACTS: Cincos car and a eepney collided. Cinco filed a
civil action for damage to property against the eepneys
driver and operators. Thereafter, he also filed a crim
case against the eepney driver. CFI upheld the
C LAS S N O TE S
Baksh v CA
FACTS: Baksh was sued for damages for his breach of
promise to marry. CA affirmed TCs award of damages,
relying on Art. 21 CC.
ISSUE: WON damages may be recovered for a breach
of promise to marry based on Art. 21 of the CC. YES.
HELD: Art. 21 may be applied in a breach of promise to
marry where the woman is a victim of moral seduction.
Art. 21 is designed to expand the concept of torts or QD
in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for
the untold no. of moral wrongs which is impossible for
human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in
the statute books.
Art. 2176 which defined a QD is limited to negligent
acts or omissions and excludes the notion of
willingness or intent. Torts is much broader than
culpa aquiliana bec. it includes not only negligence,
but intentional criminal acts as well.
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
C LAS S N O TE S
2. Damages
AQUINO (pp. 842-843)
-Reason behind the NCC Title on Damages: to see to it
that whenever a right is transgressed, every manner of
loss or injury is compensated for in some way or
another.
-A2195, NCC: provisions on damages are applicable to
all obligations regardless of source (delict, QD, contract,
or quasi-contract).
-A2196: rules under title of damages are w/o prejudice
to special provisions on damages provided elsewhere in
the Code.
-A2198: principles of general law on damages are
adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with the
NCC.
-Indemnity has to be proportionate to the fault and to the
loss caused thereby.
-In actions for damages, courts should award an amount
(money value) to the winning party and not its equivalent
in property.
PAGE 3
-dont apply to compensation of workmen and other
employees in cases of death, injury or illness
-in other special laws: same rules observed insofar as
not in conflict with Civil Code
Concept of damages:
Damages: the sum of money which the law awards or
imposes as pecuniary compensation, recompense, or
satisfaction for an injury done or a wrong sustained as a
consequence of a breach of a contractual obligation or a
tortious act
-pecuniary consequences which law imposes for breach
of some duty or violation of some right.
Kinds: compensatory, punitie, liquidated damages
(damages recoverable upon breach of a contract, as
stipulated by the parties), nominal damages (given in
vindication of a breach of duty which does not result in
any actual or pecuniary damages)
Damage, damages, injury: material distinctions
Injury: Illegal invasion of a legal right
Damage: loss, hurt, or harm which results from an
injury; in a popular sense, it is the depreciation in value,
regardless if caused by a wrongful or legal act; as
defined by statutes providing for damages: actionable
loss, injury or harm which results from unlawful act,
omission or negligence of another
-not synonymous to example, fine, penalty, punishment,
revenge, discipline, chastisement
Damages: recompense or compensation awarded for
damages suffered.
Pecuniary loss: loss of money or something by which
money or something of money value may be acquired
People v Ballesteros
Custodio v CA
FACTS: Custodio et al built an adobe fence making the
passageway to Mabasas apartment narrower. Mabasa
filed a civil action for the grant of easement of right of
way against them. CA, aside from granting right of way,
awarded damages to Mabasa.
ISSUE: WON award of damages was proper. NO
HELD: In the case at bar, although there was damage,
there was no legal injury. Custodio et als act of
constructing a fence within their lot is a valid exercise of
their right as owners.
Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right. Damage is
the loss, hurt or harm, which results from the injury.
Damages are the recompense or compensation
awarded fro the damage suffered. Thus, there can be
damage without injury in those instances in which the
loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal
duty. These situations are often called damnum absque
injuria. In such cases, the consequences must be borne
by the injured person alone.
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 4
AQUINO (pp.1-5)
Tort provisions in our NCC were derived from Spanish,
French and Anglo-American Law. Therefore, RP SC
borrows heavily from decisions of the Court in other
countries especially Spain and US and relies from
annotation of foreign author.
Roman Law served as main inspiration of NCC, as quite
evident in the field of QD: it added 4 new category of
obligations that arise quasi ex delicto (a. liability of a
judge who misconducts a case or gives a wrong
decision; b. liability of an occupier of a building for
double the damage caused by anything thrown or forced
out of the building, no matter by whom, on to a public
place[A2193]; c. liability of the occupier if he keeps any
object suspended from the building which would do
damage if it fell; and d. the liability of the shop keeper,
innkeeper, or keeper of a stable for any theft or damage
caused by slaves or employees, or in case of the
innkeepers, of permanent residents [A2000].)
-Code Commission initially wanted to adopt the word
tort in our NCC but decided later against it because
tort in Anglo-American law is much broader
(includes negligence, intentional criminal acts, false
imprisonment, deceit) than the Spanish-Philippine
concept of obligations arising from non-contractual
negligence. Intentional acts would be governed by
RPC. However, some provisions used tort and
therefore recognize it as a source of liability [Sec22
& 100, Corporation Code; Art.68 Child and Youth
Welfare Code; Sec. 17(a)(6) of the Ship Mortgage
Decree]. Even SC used the term tort in deciding
cases involving negligent acts or omissions as well
as involving intentional acts. They defined it in
Naguiat vs. NLRC.
committed or charged (based on law, contract, quasicontract, or QD) cannot be instituted with the criminal
action.
-When Penal Code revised, RPC retained what is now
contained in A100; Rules on CRimPro retained what is
contained in Rule 107 (check if still correct)
2. Civil Liability arising from QD
A1902: Any person who by an act or omission causes
damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be
liable fro the damage done
In re: A1903: punish wrongful acts or omissions not
punishable by law
-said articles are not applicable to acts of negligence
which constitute either punishable offenses(delicts) or
breach of contract.
-thus, the liability of employers, et. al. under now A2180
are only subsidiary (in accordance with penal laws)
-QD or culpa aquiliana or extra-contractual culpa:
causative act or omission not punished by law and is
done ONLY negligently, where civil liability could arise
as governed by the Civil Code (not by penal laws), and
the party aggrieved could file an ordinary civil action for
damages using only preponderance of evidence. It gives
rise only to civil liability. Here, the employers liability for
his employees NONCRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE is direct
and primary and not subsidiary, and he could be directly
imputed in an action for recovery of damages.
-an act or omission will give rise to civil liability only if it
causes damage or injury to another or others.
DE LEON (pp.4-8)
Tort law emerged out of criminal law; originally
concerned principally with violent breaches of the place.
(1) Common law tort judges usually define what
counts as torts and how compensation is to be
measured. Still, a statute or even Consti may
make certain conduct legally wrongful and may
permit recovery of damages for such conduct.
(2) No clear distinction between tort and crime
initially, this was the case sine the development
of anything like a clearly formulated conception
of a tort is comparatively recent.
(3) Notion of tort as a specific wrong there was
an attempt in 1720 to consider several specific
wrongs in a work consolidating them under the
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 5
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions
of this Chapter.
Andamo v CA
Garcia v Florido
FACTS: A public utility car and a bus collided, resulting
in injuries to Garcia et al. The chief of police filed a
criminal case against the bus driver. Garcia et al filed a
civil action for damages against the owners and drivers
of both vehicles. Bus company and driver filed a motion
to dismiss. CFI dismissed the civil action holding that the
right to file a separate civil action was not reserved and
that the action was not based on QD.
ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the case was proper. NO
HELD: The action was based on QD and it may proceed
independently. The essential averments for a QD action
are present in this case, namely:
(1) act or omission of private respondents;
(2) presence of fault or negligence or lack of due care in
the operation of the passenger bus by its driver resulting
in the collision;
(3) physical injuries and other damages sustained by
petitioners as a result of the collision;
(4) existence of direct causal connection between the
damage or prejudice and the fault or negligence of
private respondents; and
(5) the absence of preexisting contractual relations
between the parties.
The allegation that private respondents violated traffic
rules does not detract from the nature and the character
of the actions as one based on culpa aquiliana.
Excessive speed in violation of traffic rules is a clear
indication of negligence.
A. Elements
Art. 2176, NCC
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
CLASS
NOT E
CLASS
NOT E
Taylor v MERALCO
FACTS: 15-year old David Taylor with 2 others (Manuel
and Jessie) experimented with detonating caps were
taken from the premises of MERALCO. David and
Manuel ignited the contents of the cap, resulting in an
explosion which led to Davids loss of his right eye.
Davids father filed an action for damages.
ISSUE: WON the plaintiff can recover damages in this
case.
HELD: NO. In order to recover damages, the following
must be established:
(1) damages to the plaintiff;
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS
NOT E
Tayag v Alcantara
FACTS: Tayag who was riding on a bicycle along
McArthur Highway was bumped by a bus and died. His
heirs sued the bus owner and driver for damages. A crim
case was also filed against the bus driver. The bus
driver was acquitted in the crim case on the ground of
reasonable doubt. CFI sustained private respondents
MTS the civil case on the ground of lack of COA due to
the acquittal of the bus driver in the crim case.
ISSUE: WON the dismissal of the civil case was proper.
HELD: No. The petitioners COA being based on a QD,
the acquittal of the driver in the crim case is not a bar to
the civil case for damages based on QD.
All the essential averments for a QD action are
present, namely:
1) Act or omission constituting fault or negligence
on the part of private respondent;
2) Damage caused by the said act or omission;
3) Direct causal relation between the damage and
the act or omission; and
4) No pre-existing contractual relation between
the parties.
CLASS
NOT E
PAGE 6
-
2. cause damage
I SANGCO (pp. 87-90)
QD liability presupposes 2 conditions: (1) a
connection of cause and effect between the person
liable and the fact from which damage results; (2) a
fault of this person, which implies at once an act of
intelligent volition that is illicit, or contrary to law
It must be shown that the damage to the plaintiff,
who must prove it, was the natural and probable, or
direct and immediate consequence of defendants
culpable act or omission
Proximate cause is determined on the facts of each
case upon mixed considerations of logic, common
sense, policy and precedent.
3. fault or negligence
I SANGCO (p5-7)
Negligence is the failure to observe, for the
protection of the interest of another person, that
degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the
circumstances reasonably impose. When the
danger is great a high degree of care is necessary,
and the failure to observe it is a want of ordinary
care.
Negligence is conduct, not a state of mind or the
use of sound judgment.
Negligence is a matter of risk that is to say, of
cognizable danger of injury. The actor does not
desire to bring about the consequences which
follow, nor does he know that they are substantially
to occur, or believe they will. There is merely a risk
of such consequences sufficiently great to lead a
B. Distinguished
A. Quasi-delict v Delict
Art 2177, NCC
Responsibility for fault or negligence under the
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from
the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal
Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for
the same act or omission of the defendant.
Art 365, RPC. Imprudence and Negligence.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but
without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which
material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack
of precaution on the part of the person performing or
failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his
employment or occupation, degree of intelligence,
physical condition and other circumstance regarding
persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of
precaution displayed in those cases in which the
damage impending to be caused is not immediate not
he danger clearly manifest.
Jec
TORTS
AND
CLASS
DAMAGES
PAGE 7
based on reasonable doubt but ordered them to pay
damages.
NOT ES
Delict
Public interest
Penal Code
Punished only by penal
law
Guilt beyond reasonable
doubt
Quasi-Delict
Private interest
Civil Code
Any kind of
negligence
Preponderance
evidence
fault
of
of
CLASS
People v Ligon
NOT ES
Padilla v CA
FACTS: Padilla, a municipal mayor, together with
policemen and a civilian, demolished a store and took
away its contents, pursuant to a municipal ordinance.
CA acquitted them of the charge of grave coercion
Cruz v CA
FACTS: Ninevetch Cruz, a surgeon, was convicted of
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
ISSUE: WON Cruzs conviction is supported by the
evidence.
HELD: Her guilt was not proved BRD. However, the
Court finds her civilly liable for the death of Lydia Umali,
for while a conviction requires proof BRD, only a
preponderance of evidence is required to establish civil
liability.
CLASS
NOT E
CLASS
NOT E
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 8
MR argues that [1] the breach was due to negligence of
servant and [2] it exercised due diligence in selection
and supervision. Held: MR is liable. The contract to
transport carries with it the duty to provide safe means
of entering and leaving the train. It is unnecessary for
plaintiff for BoC to prove the breach was due to
negligence. When a contractual relation exists, the
obligor may break the contract by means of an act which
would have constituted a violation of an extracontractual obligation had no contract existed.
Doctrine: QD and BoC are concentric, and QDs are
broader. Plaintiff with a pre-existing contractual relation
may still sue for QD so long as had there been a no
contract, there is still a quasi-delict.
Notes: SC held there was a contract of carriage even if
Cangco did not pay for a ticket. Also, Sir took note of the
4 main differences of QD and BoC in this case:
1. liability of
defendant
employer
2.
defendant
employers
defense
3.
vinculum
juris (legal tie)
4.
what
a
plaintiff needs
to prove
Under QD
Under BoC
Presumptive
liability
Direct
immediate
Rebut
presumption
through proof of
the exercise of
due care in
selection
and
supervision
Created by the
wrongful
or
negligent
act/omission
itself
Defendants
fault
or
negligence
Prove
performance
contract
contributory
negligence
CLASS
and
Fores v Miranda
of
or
Independent the
breach of the
duty assumed by
the parties
The contract and
its
nonperformance.
The negligence
need not be
proven
NOT ES
this case:
1.
moral
damages
Under QD
Under BoC
Anywhere there
are
physical
injuries
(Art
2219[2])
Recoverable
only
if
passenger dies
or
there
is
malice or bad
faith
Jec
TORTS
AND
2.
defendant
carriers
defense
Proof of due
diligence
in
selection
and
supervision
Carriers fault or
negligence
3. what plaintiff
needs to prove
DAMAGES
CLASS
PAGE 9
(proof of
diligence
available)
due
not
Injury
to
passenger. No
need to prove it
was carriers
Fault
NOT ES
Rakes v Atlantic
FACTS: Rakess leg was amputated because it was
crushed by an iron rail he was carrying on a hand car for
Atlantic, his employer. He sues for damages because of
Atlantics negligence in not repairing the weakened
track. Atlantic argues that remedey for injuries through
negligence lies only in a criminal action
HELD: Atlantics liability to Rakes ariss out of the
contract of employment because failure to provide or
maintain safe appliances for its workmen
Doctrine: Employers liability arising out of negligence
in contract of employment may be enforced separate
from criminal action.
CLASS
NOT ES
Far East v CA
FACTS: Plaintiff Luna got a Far East credit card which
was dishonored at a despedida party due to a hotlist
policy compelled by the loss of the complementary card.
He sues for damages. RTC awarded him moral and
exemplary damages.
HELD: Complaint is based on contract because without
the contract, the act or omission complained of cannot
by itself be an actionable tort. Moral damages were
deleted because negligence in failing to give personal
notice to Luna is not gross as to amount to malice or
bad faith. Exemplary damages were deleted because
DOCTRINE: The test to determine whether QD can be
deemed to underlie the BoC s where, without a preexisting contract between 2 parties, an act or omission
can nonetheless amount to an actionable tort by itself.
CLASS
NOT E
CLASS
NOT ES
PSBA v CA
FACTS: A PSBA student was stabbed and killed by nonstudents while in the school premises. His parents sued
PSBA and its officers under A2180 for ther negligence,
recklessness and lack of security measures. Defendants
argue that they are not covered by 2180 as they are an
academic institution. RTC and CA denied motion to
dismiss.
HELD: The school is not liable under QD because [1]
A2180 applies only if damage was caused by students
or pupils [2] a 2176 applies only if there isno contractual
relation. However, the SC ordered the remand of the
case because there was a contractual obligation to
provide both education and security. Trial must proceed
to determine if the breach was due to negligence.
Doctrine: Qualified Air France v Carrascos
pronouncement by saying the phrase, the act that
breaks the contract may also bea tort only applies if the
BoC was done in [1] bad faith and [2] in violation of Art
21 (willfully causing loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy)
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 10
of a quasi-delictual liability has the contract not
existed.
CLASS
NOT E
Syquia v CA
FACTS: The parents and siblings of the deceased
Syquia file suit for damages arising from BoC and/or QD
against Manila Memorial Park Cemetery because the
coffin was flooded due to a hole in the wall of the
concrete vault placed by defendants. CA determined
that there was no negligence.
HELD: Action is based on BoC. The Deed of Sale and
Certificate of Perpetual Care govern the relation of the
parties and defined their rights and obligations. There is
no stipulation that the vault would be waterproof. Plus,
Memorial exercise the diligence of a good father of a
family in preventing the accumulation of the water inside
the vault which would have resulted in the caving in of
earth around the grave filling the same with earth.
Doctrines:[1] If there is a pre-existing contractual
relation, then any negligence would be actionable under
BoC, not QD. [2] If there is no stipulation or legal
provision to the contrary, the diligence to be observed in
the performance of a contractual obligation is that which
is expected of a good father of a family.
CLASS
NOT ES
is
employers liability is
direct and immediate
De Leon (pp.157-160)
1. Requisites of QD:
a. An act or omission by defendant
b. Fault or negligence by defendant
c. Damage or injury to plaintiff
d. Direct relation of cause and effect
between act or omission and the
damage
e. No
pre-existing
contractual
relationship
2. Burden of Proof
a. Falls on the person claiming damages
b. To be established with satisfactory
evidence
c. Negligence is not presumed. Only
under Arts. 2180, 2183, and 2191 is
presumed and burden of proof shifts
to defendant
3. QD arising from BoC
a. the existence of a contract does not
preclude the commission of a QD..
b. Contractual responsibility and extracontractual liability exclude each other
and cannot be cumulated.
Tort liability arises from BoC when the is
act or omission is in itself wrongful
independent of the contract, the breach of
which being merely incidental to the
commission of the tort.
4.
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
negligent
No presumption that
defendant was at fault
or negligent
negligence
Mere
proof
of
existence of a contract
and its breach raises
presumption of fault or
negligence
Governed by Arts.
1170- 1174
Governed
by
Art.
2176;
and
also
governed by Art. 11721174 under Art. 2178
Based on voluntary act or omission which has
caused damage to another
Requires only preponderance of evidence
CLASS
NOT ES
III. NEGLIGENCE
A. Concept of Negligence
1. Definition; Elements
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 contact does not state
the diligence which is to be observed in the
performance, that which is expected of a good
father of a father of a family shall be required.
CLASS
NOT ES
PAGE 11
of liability are separate and distinct from each other
even if only one act or omission is involved.
Picart v Smith
FACTS: Picart improperly pulled his horse on the right
side (wrong side of the road) of the bridge. Smith drove
his car toward the horse, veering away only when the
car was only a few feet away from the horse. The horse
got spooked and got killed.
HELD: Smith is liable for damages because applying
the standard of a prudent man, he was negligent. A
prudent man would have recognized that the course
which he was pursuing was fraught with risk, and would
have foreseen harm to the horse and rider as a
reasonable consequence of that course. Smith should
have: 1. Stopped 2. Slowed down or 3. Veered to the
right.
Doctrines: 1. The Constitutive fact of negligence is the
reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of
the admonition born of this pre-vision.
2. Test of negligence would a prudent man foresee
harm to the person injured as a reasonable
consequence of the course about to be pursued?
3. Take note however, that a person can be expected to
take care only when there is something before them to
suggest or warn of danger. Omniscience of the future is
not a requirement.
Notes: The car was on the proper side of the bridge. Sir
thinks that the ruling is problematic because had the car
veered away, it would then be on the improper side of
the road.
CLASS
NOTES
Wright v MERALCO
FACTS: An intoxicated Wright was thrown off his calesa
after it was pitched forward by Meralcos protruding
railtrack. CFI awarded him damages but apportioned the
same since he was negligent as well, although not as
negligent as Meralco in failing to maintain the tract. Both
appealed.
HELD: Wright was not negligent because the sudden
falling of the horse, would ordinarily be sufficient to
throw a sober man from the vehicle.
Doctrine: If a persons conduct is characterized by s
proper degree of care and prudence, it is immaterial
whether hi is drunk or sober.
Notes: Sir asks the question following the doctrine: If
this happened today, would an intoxicated driver be held
liable for hitting a man?
CLASS
NOTES
Corliss v Manila
FACTS: Plaintiff orliss husband died of some serious
burns because the jeep he was driving collided with
Manila Railroads train at the railroad crossing because
of his eagerness to beat the locomotive and reach the
other side.
HELD: Complaint is dismissed. Husband was negligent
because [1] one approaching a railroad crossing do so
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 12
care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstance
justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury
[2]the emergency rule can be considered a defense.
Notes: SC took into consideration normal human
circumstances in determining WON defendant was
negligent. (Examples: the light rainfall, visibility of the
street 100 meters away, etc.)
Valenzuela v CA
Far Eastern v CA
Civil Aeronautics v CA
FACTS: The plaintiff broke his thigh bone because he
slipped over a
4-inch elevation at the end of the
viewing deck of the airport since he wanted a better
view of the incoming passengers including his future
son- in- law. He filled an action for damages based on
QD.
2. Standard of conduct
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
a. Children
Article 8, RPC
A minor fifteen years of age is presumed to be capable
of committing a crime and is to be held criminally liable
therefore. (this was in Taylor. This also might mean Art
80 RPC)???
CLASS
NOT ES
In the case of young children, and other persons not fully sui juris, an
implied license might sometimes arise when it not on behalf of others. Thus
leaving a tempting thing for children to play with exposed, where they would
be likely to gather for that purpose, may be equivalent to an invitation to them
to make use of it; and perhaps, if one were to throw upon his premises, near
the common way, things tempting to children, the same implication should
arise.
PAGE 13
negligence on his part to fail to exercise due care and
precaution in the commission of such acts. Plaintiff was
sui juris in the sense that his age and his experience
qualified him to understand and appreciate the necessity
for the exercise of that degree of caution which would
have avoided the injury which resulted for his own
deliberate act. Although the owner of the premises was
negligent leaving the caps exposed n its premises,
plaintiffs own act was the principal and proximate cause
of the accident.
Jarco Marketing v CA
CLASS
NOTES
CLASS
NOTES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
Magtibay v Tiangco
FACTS: Rowel Tiangco, under 18, was found guilty of
homicide through reckless imprudence. Being under 18,
his sentence was suspended until he reached majority.
Later, in view of his conduct, his lawyer recommended
the dismissal of his case. CFI dismissed but reversed
the right of the heirs to recover damages in a civil action.
HELD: The suspension of sentence did not wipe out his
guilt, but merely put off the imposition of the
corresponding penalty in order to give the delinquent
minor a chance to be reformed. When, therefore, after
he had observed good conduct, the criminal case was
dismissed, this does not mean that he was exonerated
from the crime charged, but simply that he would suffer
no penalty. Nor did such dismissal of the case obliterate
is civil liability for damages.
RULE: Liability of an infant in a civil action for his torts is
imposed as a mode, not of punishment but of
compensation. For every tortuous act of violence or
other pure tort, the infant tort-feasor is liable in a civil
action to the injured person in the same manner and in
the same extent as an adult.
PAGE 14
CLASS
CLASS
Ylarde v Aquino
NOTES
NOTES
CLASS
NOTES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 15
3. Experts, professionals
CLASS
NOTES
Johnny Quest
when a person who holds himself out as being
competent to do things, he will be held liable
for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care &
skill of an expert
high degree of care
US v Pineda
FACTS:
Pineda, a pharmacist, sold barium
chlorate(poisonous) instead of potassium chlorate
which killed 2 horses.
HELD: The profession of pharmacy is one demanding
care and skill. The responsibility to use care has
been variously qualified as ordinary care, care of
a specially high degree, the highest degree of
care known to practical men, which is the highest
practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness,
vigilance, and the most exact and reliable
safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct
of business, in order that human life may not
constantly be exposed to danger flowing from the
substitution of deadly poison for harmless medicine.
CLASS
NOTES
Relationship: danger
o pharmacist: knowledgeable
o buyer: cant check for himself
Consider nature of work and danger involved
Cruz v CA
FACTS: Lydia Umali underwent a surgery under Dr.
Ninevetch Cruz wherein the untidy clinic ran out of
medicine, blood and oxygen that the patient had to be
transferred to another hospital, where she died.
HELD: While it may be true that the circumstances
seemed beyond cavil to constitute reckless imprudence
on the part of the surgeon, this conclusion is best
arrived at not through the educated surmises nor
conjectures of laymen, including judges, but by the
unquestionable knowledge of expert witnesses. For
whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the
requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his
patient is, in the generality of cases, a matter of expert
opinion. The deference of courts to the expert opinion of
qualified physicians stems from its realization that the
latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in
most instances are capable of intelligently evaluating.
Expert testimony should have been offered to prove that
the circumstances cited are constitutive of conduct
falling below the standard of care employed by other
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS
CLASS
NOTES
4. Intoxication
NOT ES
BPI v CA
PAGE 16
CLASS
NOTES
CLASS
NOTES
5. Insanity
Art. 2180, NCC
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable
not only for one's acts or omissions, but also for those of
persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the
minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the
minors or incapacitated persons who are under their
authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused
by their employees in the service of the branches in
which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their
functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by
their employees and household helpers acting within the
scope of their assigned tasks. Even though the former
are nor engaged in any business or industry.
The state is responsible in like manner when it acts
through a special agent; but not when the damage has
been caused by the official to whom the task done
properly pertains, in which case what is provided in
Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts
and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their
pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they
remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease
when the persons herein mentioned prove that they
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage. (1903a)
Art. 2182
If the minor or insane person causing damage has no
parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be
answerable with his own property in an action against
him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed.
US v Baggay
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS
NOTES
PAGE 17
CLASS
NOTES
degree of danger
cf. value
Art. 2231
In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if
the defendant acted with gross negligence.
Amedo v Rio
B. Degrees of Negligence
NOTES
Jec
TORTS
AND
CLASS
DAMAGES
NOTES
SANGCO (10-12)
The amount of care demanded by the standard of
reasonable conduct must be proportionate to the
apparent risk.
DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE:
SLIGHT NEGLIGENCE - an absence of that degree of
vigilance which persons of extraordinary prudence and
foresight are accustomed to use. (failure to exercise
care)
PAGE 18
form of negligence, differing in QUALITY rather than in
DEGREE from ordinary lack of care.
C. Proof of Negligence
1. Burden of Proof
RULE
131:
BURDEN
OF
PROOF
PRESUMPTIONS
BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS
AND
1. Presumption
Art. 2184
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable
with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle,
could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented
the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver
was negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless
driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within
the next preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions
of Article 2180 are applicable.
Art. 2185
Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that
a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at
the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic
regulation.
Art. 2188
There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the
part of the defendant if the death or injury results from
his possession of dangerous weapons or substances,
such as firearms and poison, except when the
possession or use thereof is indispensable in his
occupation or business.
Art. 1734
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS
NOTES
Art 2184 CC
disputable presumption:
o 2x w/in the next preceeding 2 mos:
guilty of reckless driving / violation of
traffic rules
if the owner is not in the car, does the
disputable presumption apply?
o n/a when the owner is not in the car /
common carrier
requires conviction
Art 2185 CC
disputable
presumption:
violate
traffic
regulation
o no conviction required
o however, Sangco says this also
requires conviction
PAGE 19
o
common carriers
3.
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS
NOTES
Ramos v CA
FACTS: Ramos, undergoing a gall bladder operation,
went comatose because she was incorrectly intubated.
PAGE 20
HELD: Res ipsa (The thing or transaction speaks for
itself) the fact of the occurrence of the injury, taken
with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an
inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make
out a plaintiffs prima facie case, and present a question
of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation.
Requisites are:
1. the accident is of a kind that ordinarily
does not occur in the absence of
someones negligence
2. it is caused by an instrumentality within the
exclusive control of the defendant or
defendants
3. the possibility of contributing conduct
which would make plaintiff responsible is
eliminated.
CLASS
NOTES
RIL applicable:
No expert testimony
Batiguin v CA
FACTS: Dr. Batiquin performed a caesarian operation
on a patient. Afterwards, she was found to be feverish.
When the patient submitted herself to another surgery,
she was found to have an ovarian cyst on the left and
right side of the ovaries and a piece of rubber material
was embedded on the right side of the uterus.
HELD: Res ipsa Where the thing which causes the
injury is shown to under the management of the
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS
PAGE 21
instrumentality which causes the injury either knows the
cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of
ascertaining it and the plaintiff has no such knowledge.
It furnishes a bridge by which the plaintiff, without
knowledge of the cause, reaches over to defendant who
knows or should know the cause, for any explanation of
care exercised by the defendant in respect of the matter
of which the plaintiff complains. It is a rule of necessity.
Rule: The theoretical basis for the doctrine is its
necessity.
NOTES
DM Consunji v CA
Facts: A construction worker fell from the 14th floor when
the platform assembly he was standing on fell down.
Held: The theoretical basis for the doctrine is its
necessity, i.e., that the necessary evidence is not
available.
The defendant in charge of the
CLASS
NOTES
RIL applies
theoretical basis:
o proof is in exclusive control of
defendant
o bridge that connects plaintiff to the
proof
Prof. Casiss problem: theres evidence (police
report, testimony & affidavit). It is like saying
that even if there is evidence, one could still
argue RIL to win the case.
Prof. Casis thinks that it is the victims fault for
falling off the platform.
SANCO (27-32)
RES IPSA LOQUITOR the facts or circumstances
attending an injury may be such as to raise a
presumption, or permit an inference, of negligence on
the part of the defendant, or some other person who is
charged with negligence.
It relates to the MODE rather than the BURDEN of
establishing negligence.
It is NOT an exception to the rule of initial presumption
of negligence, but is DESCRIPTIVE of a class of cases
wherein the initial presumption is overcome by evidence
inherently carrying with it implications of negligence
without the necessity of proof of specific facts or
conduct.
WHEN DOES IT APPLY? Upon the satisfaction of 3
conditions:
1.
F. DEFENSES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Plaintiffs negligence
Contributory negligence
Fortuitous event
Assumption of risk
Due diligence
Damnum absque injuria
Prescription
Double recovery
1. Plaintiffs Negligence
Art. 2179, NCC
When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate
and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover
damages. But if his negligence was only contributory,
the immediate and proximate cause being the
defendants lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the court shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded.
CLASS
NOTE
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS
NOTES
PAGE 22
Bernal v House
FACTS: Mother and child were walking along a street,
with the child a few steps ahead. She got startled by an
automobile and ran back to her mother. She fell into a
ditch with hot water and later died. CFI denied damages
to parents because they were negligent.
HELD: SC held they were not. Mother and child had a
right to be on that street. There was nothing abnormal
in letting a child run along a few paces ahead of the
mother. Contributory negligence of the child and her
mother, if any, does not operate as a bar to recovery but
could only result in reduction of damages.
CLASS
NOTES
2. Contributory Negligence
Art. 2179, NCC
When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate
and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover
damages. But if his negligence was only contributory,
the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being
the defendants lack of due care, the plaintiff may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the
damages to be awarded. (n)
Art. 2214, NCC
In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the
plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover.
CLASS
NOTE
Bernardo v Legaspi
FACTS: CFI dismissed the complaint filed in an action
to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiffs
automobile by reason of defendants negligence in
causing a collision. Court also dismissed a crosscomplaint filed by the defendant, praying for damages
on the ground that the injuries sustained by his
automobile, and those to the plaintiffs car were caused
by plaintiffs own negligence.
HELD: Court found that both plaintiff and defendant
were negligent in handling their automobile so both
cannot recover. Where plaintiff in a negligence action by
his own carelessness contributes to the principal
occurrence as one of the determining causes thereof, he
cannot recover.
RULE: When the negligence of both the plaintiff and the
defendant is the proximate cause of the accident, they
cannot recover from each other.
PLDT v CA
FACTS: Antonio and Gloria Estebans jeep ran over a
mound of earth and fell into an open trench, an
excavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT for the
installation of its underground conduit system.
HELD: The accident was due to the lack of diligence of
Antonio. His jeep was running along the inside lane of
the street but it swerved abruptly, causing the jeep to hit
the mound. Proximate cause was the unexplained and
abrupt swerving of the jeep. Court also found that the
jeep was running too fast. The negligence of Antonio
was not only contributory to his injuries and those of his
wife, but goes to the very cause of the occurrence of the
accident and thereby precludes their right to recover
damages.
Genobiagon v CA
FACTS: Rig driven by appellant bumped an 81 y.o. lady
who was crossing the street. His defense was that it was
the old lady who bumped his car. TC and CA found him
guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence.
HELD: Court said that the alleged contributory
negligence of the victim, if any, does not exonerate
accused. The defense of contributory negligence does
not apply in criminal cases committed through reckless
imprudence since one cannot allege the negligence of
another to evade the effects of his own negligence.
Rakes v Atlantic
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 23
ccount name was left blank, contrary to the banks selfimposed procedure; and PBC was negligent in the
selection and supervision of employees. However, Court
found that RMC was also negligent in not checking its
monthly statements of account for more than one year.
This omission by RMC amounts to contributory
negligence which shall mitigate the damages that may
be awarded to it. Therefore: 60 - 40 ratio in damages.
CLASS
NOTES
accident v. injury
o accident: cant recover
Defendants
contrib.
CLASS
NOTES
3. Fortuitous Event
Art. 1174, NCC
Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when
it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the
nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk,
no person shall be responsible for those events which
could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were
inevitable.
Juntilla v Funtanar
FACTS: Plaintiff was seated in the front passenger seat
of a public utility jeepney when the right tire blew up. He
was thrown out of the jeep and suffered injuries. He
also lost his omega watch.
HELD:
SC said that there are specific acts of
negligence on the part of the respondents. Jeep was
running at a very fast speed and was overloaded. In
this case, the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected
occurrence was not independent of human will. It was
caused either through the negligence of the driver or
because of the mechanical defects in the tire.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CASO FORTUITO:
1.
Cause of the unforeseen and unexpected
occurrence, or of the failure of the debtor to comply with
his obligation must be independent of human will.
2. It must be impossible to foresee the event which
constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be foreseen, it is
impossible to avoid.
3. The occurrence must be such as to render it
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a
normal manner
4. Obligor must be free from participation in the
aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.
CLASS
NOTES
CLASS
NOT ES
Hernandez v COA
FACTS: Hernandez encashed 2 checks salaries of
employees and operating expenses of the project. He
chose to bring the money with him to his house in
Bulacan instead of returning to the office in Cavite. On
his way home, 2 robbers boarded the jeep and took the
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 24
CLASS
NOTES
NOTES
FACTS:
Plaintiffs loaded their cargo on board
appellants vessel. Cargoes were discharged unto the
warehouse of Bureau of Customs. A fire of unknown
origin razed the warehouse, destroying the remaining
cargo.
HELD: Court said that where the fortuitous event is the
immediate and proximate cause of the loss, obligor is
exempt from liability for non-performance. Caso fortuito
an event that takes place by accident and could not
have been foreseen. In this case, there was not a shred
of proof that the cause of the fire was in any way
attributable to the negligence of the appellant or its
employees.
NOTE: This case established that fire is a fortuitous
event.
CLASS
fire was FE
NOTES
National Power v CA
FACTS: Respondents filed a complaint for damages
against NPC for loss of lives and property caused by the
flooding of Norzagaray, Bulacan. They claimed that
despite knowledge of the impending entry of the
typhoon Kading, NPC failed to exercise due diligence in
monitoring the water level so when the water level went
beyond the maximum allowable limit, NPC suddenly,
negligently and recklessly opened 3 of the dams
spillways.
HELD: SC did not accept defense of force majeure.
PRINCIPLE OF ACT OF GOD strictly requires that the
act must be one occasioned exclusively by the violence
of nature and all human agencies are to be excluded
from creating or entering inot the cause of the mischief.
When the effect, the cause of which is to be considered,
is found to be in part the result of the participation of
man, whether to be from active intervention or neglect,
or failure to act, the whole occurrence is thereby
humanized.
CLASS
NOTES
Southeastern College v CA
FACTS: During a typhoon, schools roof was partly
ripped off and blown away, landing on and destroying
portions of the roofing of respondents house. A team of
engineers conducted an ocular inspection and found
that the causes may have been the U-shaped formation
of the building and the improper anchorage of the
trusses to the roof beams.
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS
NOTES
typhoon is FE
flying roof is FE
typhoon was proximate cause of damage to
neighboring house
*take this case for definition of force majeur*
*credibility of ocular inspection discredited so
this is strange because this runs counter to
Gotesco*
*they could have used RIL*
PAGE 25
Afialda v Hisole
FACTS: Caretaker of carabaos was gored by a carabao
and he later died as a consequence of his injuries.
Action was predicated on Art 1905 CC.
HELD: Court said A1905 makes possessory user of
animal liable for any damages it may cause. In this
case, the animal was under the control of the caretaker.
It was his business to try to prevent the animal from
causing injury to anyone, including himself. Being
injured by the animal under these circumstances was
one of the risks of the occupation which he had
voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the
consequences.
NOTES
Ilocos Norte v CA
FACTS: After a 2-day typhoon, Isabel went out of her
house to check on her grocer store. She waded in waistdeep flood and got electrocuted. According to the NPC
Engr, there were no INELCO linemen who were going
around.
HELD: Court said that contrary to petitioners claim, the
maxim violenti non fit injuria does not apply here.
Isabel should not be punished for exercising her right to
protect her property from the floods by imputing upon
her the unfavorable presumption that she assumed the
risk of personal in injury. A person is excused from the
force of the rule, that when he voluntarily assents to a
known danger, he must abide by the consequence, if an
emergency is found to exist, or if the life or property of
another is in peril or when he seeks to rescue his
endangered property.
4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK
CLASS
CLASS
NOTES
*SANGCO (pp.81-84)
NOTES:
VIOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA: applies to noncontractual relations;
3 requisites:
(1) plaintiff had actual knowledge of the
damage;
(2) he understood an appreciated the risk from
danger;
(3) he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk.
5. DUE DILIGENCE
Ramos v PEPSI
FACTS: Ramos car collided with Pepsi truck driven by
Andres Bonifacio.
HELD: SC found Bonifacio negligent, but absolved
Pepsi for having sufficiently proven that it exercised due
diligence in the selection of its driver (background
check, clearance, previous experience, physical exam,
drivers exam- theoretical and practical driving exams).
In order that defendant may be considered as having
exercised all diligence of a good father of a family, he
should not be satisfied with the mere possession of a
professional drivers license; he should have carefully
examined the applicant for employment as to his
qualifications, his experience and record of service. The
presumption of negligence on the part of the master or
employer, either in the selection of servant/ employee or
in their supervision, when an injury is caused by the
negligence of a servant/employee may be rebutted if the
employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that in
the selection and supervision, he has exercised the care
and diligence of a good father of a family.
Jec
TORTS
DAMAGES
AND
PAGE 26
-1985: Petitioners instituted complaint for damages
against respondent. Motion to dismiss was filed on the
basis of prescription.
Metro Manila v CA
FACTS: A jeep and a bus collided. Their owners refused
to pay damages to the injured passenger.
HELD: SC held that testimonial evidence of due
diligence, in order to hold sway, must be corroborated by
documentary evidence. Mere formulation of various
company policies on safety (as testified by Christian
Bautista), without showing documentary proof that they
were being followed or complied with is not sufficient to
exempt petitioner from liability arising from negligence of
its employees.
NOTES: defense of due diligence is plausible when
defendant has presented enough evidence to overcome
the presumption of negligence. It is not enough that it is
alleged.
(Sir: MMTC said that it was not enough to issue
manuals etc, but implementation or actual enforcement
is more important.)
CLASS
NOTES
Allied Banking v CA
FACTS:
Apr 1, 1976 Yujuico obtained loan fr
GenBank payable on or before Apr 1, 1977
- Mar 25, 1977 Monetary Board issued resolution
forbidding GenBank from doing business in Phils.
- Allied acquired all assets and assumed all liabilities of
GenBank
- Feb 7, 1979 Allied filed complaint against resp
Joselita for collection of a sum of money
- 1987 in the course of the proceedings, resp sought
to implead Central Bank and Aurellano as 3rd party
defendants. It was alleged that by reason of the tortous
interference by the CB with affairs of GenBank, resp
was prevented from performing his obligation under the
loan.
- RTC denied admission of 3rd party complainant.
- Petitioner claims that cause of action has already
prescribed.
Since it was founded on tortuous
interference, it prescribes in 4 yrs. Petitioner believes
that the cause of action accrued on Mar 25, 1977, the
date when Monetary Board ordered GenBank to desist
from doing business in the Philippines. Complainant
should have filed before Mar 25, 1981.
- Respondent relies on the Doctrine of Relations or
Relations Bank Doctrine to support his claim that the
cause of action as against the proposed 3 rd party
defendant accrued only on Dec 12, 1986 when the
decision became final and executory. Thus, it is
contended that while the 3rd party complaint was filed
only on Jun 17, 1987, it must be deemed to have been
instituted on Feb 7, 1979, when the complain in the case
was filed.
HELD: Action for damages arising from QD should be
filed within 4 yrs from the day cause of action accrued.
The cause of action in this case accrued on Mar 25,
1980 when the Monetary Board ordered the GenBank to
desist fr doing biz in the Phils, while 3 rd party complaint
CLASS
NOTES
8. DOUBLE RECOVERY
Art. 2177, NCC
Responsibility for fault or negligence under the
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from
the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal
Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice
for the same act or omission of the defendant.
IV.
CAUSATION
A. Proximate cause
CLASS
NOTES
1. Definition
Bataclan v Medina
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS
NOTES
PAGE 27
have reasonable ground to expect at the
moment of his act or default that an in jury to
some person might probably result therefrom.
Fernando v CA
FACTS: Bertulano was invited to bid for the reemptying of a septic tank, which had not been cleaned
for 19 years. Before the award was made (he lost), he
and 4 companions surreptitiously entered the septic
tank, without clearance from the market master. They
died in the septic tank due to the intake of toxic gas
produced from the waste matter therein.
ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the death of
the victims?
HELD: The proximate cause of the death of the victims
was their failure to take precautionary measures for their
safety. Considering the nature of the task of emptying a
septic tank, especially one which has not been cleaned
for years, an ordinarily prudent person would
undoubtedly be aware of the attendant risks. More so
with Bertulano, an old hand in this kind of service, who
is presumed to know the hazards of the job.
Note: The court adopted the Bataclan definition of
proximate cause.
CLASS
NOT ES
Urbano v IAC
FACTS: On October 23, 1980, Urbano hacked Javier in
his right palm. Javier was brought to a doctor who
issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9
days. On November 5, Javier was seen catching fish in
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 28
complained of or some similar injury, would result
therefrom as a natural and probable cause.
Note: Different definition of PC from Bataclan case. This
case adds the element of foreseeability.
Prof. Casiss opinion: Theres no basis for this additional
element. Under Art. 2202, foreseeability should not be a
factor.
CLASS
NOT ES
Pilipinas Banking v CA
FACTS: Florencio Reyes issued two post-dated checks.
To cover the face value of the checks, he requested
PCIB to effect a withdrawal from his savings account
there and have it deposited with his current account with
Pilipinas Bank. Santos, who made the deposit, wrote the
wrong account number on the deposit slip, but wrote the
name of Florencio Reyes as the depositors name. The
Current Account Bookkeeper of Pilipinas Bank, seeing
that the account number coincided with the name
Florencio, deposited the amount in the account of
Florencio Amador.
ISSUE: What was the proximate cause of the injury to
Reyes?
HELD: The proximate cause of the injury is the
negligence of Pilipinas Banks employee in erroneously
positing the cash deposit of Reyes in the name of
another depositor who had a similar first name. The
employee should have continuously gone beyond mere
assumption.
Proximate cause is any cause which, in natural
and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the result complained of
and without which would not have occurred and from
which it ought to have been foreseen or reasonably
anticipated by a person of ordinary care that the injury
CLASS
CLASS
NOT ES
NOT ES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
Urbano v IAC
CL ASS
NOTE
b. Concurrent
Far Eastern Shipping Company v CA
FACTS: A ship owned by FESC rammed into the apron
of the pier. Kavankov was the master of the vessel.
Gavino was the compulsory pilot.
ISSUE: Who was negligent --- Gavino or Kvankov?
---BOTH.
HELD: Both Gavino (compulsory pilot) and Kavankov
(master of the vessel) were concurrently negligent.
PAGE 29
Gavino was negligent for failing to react on time;
Kavankov was negligent in leaving the entire docking
procedure up to Gavino instead of being vigilant.
Negligence, in order to render a person liable need not
be the sole cause of an injury. Where several causes
combine to produce injuries, a person is not relieved
from liability because he is responsible for only one of
them, it being sufficient that the negligence of the person
charged with injury is an efficient cause without which
the injury would not have resulted to as great an extent,
and that such cause is not attributable to the person
injured.
Each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and
is liable as though his acts were the sole cause of the
injury. There is no contribution between joint tortfeasors
whose liability is solidary since both of them are liable
for the whole damage.
Reason: It is impossible to determine in what proportion
each contributed to the injury and either of them is
responsible for the whole injury.
Note: Liability of concurrent negligence = solidary.
CL ASS
Sabido v Custodio
FACTS: Custodio, a passenger of a bus, was hanging
onto its left side. While the bus was negotiating a sharp
curve of a bumpy and downward slope, a speeding truck
going in the opposite direction side-swiped Custodio,
who died as a result thereof.
ISSUE: Who was negligent and what is the extent of
liability? ---BOTH solidarily liable.
HELD: The carrier and its driver were negligent for
allowing Custodio to hang by the side of the bus. The
truck driver was also negligent for speeding through the
middle portion of the road.
NOTE
3. Tests
a. But for
NOTE
CL ASS
Bataclan v Medina
Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without
which the result would not have occurred.
Note: Italicized phrase=but for test
CL ASS
NOTE
b. Substantial Factor
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 30
CL ASS
N O T E S ()
4. Foreseeability test
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 31
plaintiff that is the test of foreseeability but
whether the result of the act is within the ambit
of the hazards covered by the duty imposed
upon the defendant.
CL ASS
NOTE
CLASS NOTES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS NOTES
Rodrigueza was not guilty of contributory
negligence
Even if condition was created, the company is
not going to be justified in negligently
destroying the house
CLASS
NOT ES
McKee v IAC
PAGE 32
FACTS: A cargo truck and a Ford Escort were traveling
in opposite directions. When the car was 10 meters
away from the bridge, 2 boys suddenly darted into the
cars lane. The car driver blew the horn, swerved to the
left and entered the trucks lane. He then switched on
the headlights, braked, and attempted to return to his
lane. Before he could do so, his car collided with the
truck.
ISSUE: WON there was an efficient intervening cause
YES.
HELD: Although it may be said that the act of the car
driver, if at all negligent, was the initial act in the chain of
events, it cannot be said that the same caused the
eventual injuries and deaths because of the occurrence
of a sufficient intervening event, the negligent act of the
truck driver, which was the actual cause of the tragedy. It
was the truck drivers subsequent negligence in failing to
take the proper measure and degree of care necessary
to avoid the collision, which was the proximate cause of
the tragedy.
Bataclan v Medina
FACTS: A bus was speeding on its way to Pasay City at
2AM when one of its front tires burst, as a result of
which the vehicle zigzagged, fell into a canal or ditch,
and turned turtle. Four passengers were unable to get
out of the bus. Calls and shouts for help were made in
the neighborhood. At 2:30AM, 10 men came, one of
them carrying a lighted torch made of bamboo with a
wick fueled in petroleum. When they approached the
bus, a fierce fire started, burning the bus and the 4
passengers. It appears that as the bus overturned, the
gasoline began to leak and escape from the gasoline
tank, spreading over the bus and the ground under it,
and that the lighted torch set it on fire.
ISSUE: WON there was an efficient intervening cause
NO.
HELD: The coming of the men with the torch was to be
expected and was a natural sequence of the overturning
of the bus, the trapping of passengers and the call for
outside help.
CLASS
NOT ES
CLASS
NOT ES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 33
Teague v Fernandez
FACTS: A vocational school for hair and beauty culture
had only one stairway, in violation of an ordinance
requiring 2 stairways. A fire broke out in a nearby store
and the students panicked and caused a stampede.
Four students died.
ISSUE: WON there was an independent intervening
cause NO.
HELD: the violation of a stature or ordinance is not
rendered remote as the cause of an injury by the
intervention of another agency if the occurrence of the
accident, in the manner in which it happened, was the
very thing which the stature or ordinance was intended
to prevent. In the present case, the violation was a
continuing violation in that the ordinance was a measure
of safety designed to prevent the specific situation of
undue crowding in case of evacuation.
Note: The PC of the deaths is the overcrowding brought
about by the violation. However, the court did not
specifically identify the violation itself as the PC.
CLASS
Urbano v IAC
FACTS: On October 23, 1980, Urbano hacked Javier in
his right palm. Javier was brought to a doctor who
issued a certificate stating the incapacitation is from 7-9
days. On November 5, Javier was seen catching fish in
dirty shallow irrigation canals after a typhoon. ON
November 14, he died of tetanus.
ISSUE: WON there was efficient intervening cause
YES.
HELD: The death must be the direct, natural, and logical
consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the
accused. The medical findings, in the case at bar, show
that the infection of the wound by the tetanus was an
effacing intervening cause later or between the time
Javier was wounded to the time of death.
NOT ES
CLASS
NOT E
4.
CLASS
NOT ES
Picart v Smith
*Provides for the classic definition of Last Clear Chance:
the person who has the last fair chance to avoid the
impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the
consequences, without reference to the prior negligence
of the other party.
FACTS: Picart riding his pony was on the wrong side of
the road. Smith driving his car stayed on his right lane
and so both Picart and Smith were on the same lane.
CLASS
NOT E
Bustamante v CA
- Practical importance of LCCD
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS
N O T E S ()
PAGE 34
avoiding the accident and so Dionisio, having failed to
take the last clear chance, must bear his own injuries
alone
RATIO:
The Last Clear Chance doctrine of the
Common Law was imported into our jurisdiction by
Picart vs. Smith but it is still a matter of debate whether,
or to what extent, it has found its way into the Civil Code
of the Philippines.
The doctrine was applied by
Common Law because they had a rule that contributory
negligence prevented any recovery at all by a negligent
plaintiff. BUT in the Philippines we have Article 2179 of
the Civil Code which rejects the Common Law doctrine
of contributory negligence. Thus, the court in this case
stated that it does not believe so that the general
concept of Last Clear Chance has been utilized in our
jurisdiction. Article 2179 on contributory negligence is
not an exercise in chronology or physics but what is
important is the negligent act or omission of each party
and the character and gravity of the risks created by
such act or omission for the rest of the community. To
say that Phoenix should be absolved from liability would
come close to wiping out the fundamental law that a
man must respond for the foreseeable consequences of
his own negligent act or omission.
-LCCD was not applied because the court thinks
that it is not applicable in our jurisdiction
CLASS
NOT ES
CLASS
NOT ES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 35
- did not apply the doctrine of last clear chance
because the other party was not negligent
CLASS
NOT ES
CLASS
NOT E
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
Anuran v Buno
FACTS:
A passenger jeepney was parked at the side of the
road since one of the passengers alighted
A motor truck, speeding, then bumped into the
jeepney from behind with such violence that 3
passengers died
Thus, this case was filed by the heirs of the deceased
and of the injured to recover damages from the driver
and owner of the truck and the owner of the jeepney
PAGE 36
CA: applied the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance and
held that only the truck was liable because although
the jeepney was guilty of antecedent negligence, the
truck was guilty of greater negligence which was the
efficient cause of the collision
RATIO:
Disagreed with the CA and held that both the truck
and jeepney were liable
The principle of Last Clear Chance would call for the
application in a suit between the owners and drivers
of the 2 colliding vehicles. It does NOT arise where a
passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to
enforce its contractual obligations.
For it would be inequitable to exempt the negligent
driver of the jeepney and its owners on the ground
that the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence
- did not apply LCCD because there was a
contractual obligation on the part of the carrier to
transport its passengers safely
Canlas v CA
-Last Clear Chance Doctrine can apply in commercial
transactions
FACTS:
2 parcels of land owned by Canlas were sold to
Manosca
Manosca issued 2 check that bounced
Manosca was then granted a loan by Asian Savings
Bank with the 2 parcels of land as security
2 impostors used who introduced themselves as the
spouses Canlas
mortgage was foreclosed
Canlas wrote to Asian Savings Bank regarding the
mortgage of Manosca of the 2 properties without their
consent
CLASS
NOT ES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 37
damages by the plaintiff but does not exculpate the
defendant from his breach of contract
LC Diaz guilty of contributory negligence in allowing
withdrawal slip signed by its authorized signatories to
fall into the hands of an impostor and so liability of
Solidbank should be reduced.40-60
- LCCD not applied
CLASS
NOT E
Engada v CA
- Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied; instead
applied the emergency rule.
- Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied because
there was no clear chance emergency situation.
FACTS
Iran driving a tamaraw jeepney
In the other lane was an isuzu pick-up that was
speeding.
Right signal light was flashing but swerved to the left
and encroached on the lane of tamaraw jeepney
Tamaraw jeepney tried to avoid the Isuzu pick-up but
Isuzu pick-ip swerved to where tamaraw jeepney was
going and so they collided
Information was then filed against the driver of the
Isuzu pick-up charging him with serious physical
injuries and damage to property through reckless
imprudence
RATIO:
It was the Isuzu pick-up trucks negligence that was
the proximate cause of the collision
- Isuzu abandoned his lane and did not first see to it
that the opposite lane was free from on-coming
traffic and was available for safe passage.
- After seeing the tamaraw, Isuzu did not slow down
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
Facts required:
o That the plaintiff was in a position of danger
and by his own negligence became unable to
escape from such position by the use of
ordinary care, either because it became
physically impossible for him to do so or
because he was totally unaware of the danger.
o The defendant knew that the plaintiff was in a
position of danger and further knew, or in the
exercise of ordinary care should have known
that the plaintiff was unable to escape
therefrom
o That thereafter the defendant had the last clear
chance to avoid the accident by the exercise of
ordinary care but failed to exercise such last
clear chance and the accident occurred as a
proximate result of such failure
PAGE 38
Bustamante v
CA
Passengers
of the bus
No
Phoenix
IAC
Phoenix
(one of the
parties who
caused the
collision)
RMC (one of
the parties
who caused
the
accident)
Heirs of the
driver of the
jeep (one of
the parties
who caused
the collision)
Heirs of the
passengers
of jeepney
(no contract)
No
Parents of
the
deceased
Heirs of the
passengers
of jeep (with
contract)
Canals (one
of
the
parties who
caused the
incident)
for
the
annulment
of the deed
No
Philippine
Bank
of
Commerce v
CA
Glan v IAC
Pantranco
Baesa
Yes
No
No
Ong
v
Metropolitan
Anuran
Buno
Canlas v CA
No
negligent
plaintiff because
the plaintiff in
the case are the
passengers of
the bus who are
asking
for
damages
Doctrine
was
not carried over
to the CC
Just to know if
PBC
was
negligent
but
damages were
divided 40-60
Truck
driver
(other party in
the
collision)
was
not
negligent
There was no
opportunity to
avoid
the
accident
and
driver was not
aware of the
peril
Defendant was
not negligent
No
There
was
contractual
relation
Yes
Defendant bank
had the last
clear chance to
prevent
the
fraud
Note: there was
no contractual
relation
between Canlas
Jec
TORTS
Consolidated
Bank v CA
Engada v CA
AND
DAMAGES
LC Diaz
for
the
recovery of
the sum of
money
No
Inured party
(owner
of
the
Tamaraw)
No
CLASS
PAGE 39
and the bank
Liability of bank
arose
from
culpa
contractual and
so
doctrine
cannot
be
applied
There was no
clear chance in
avoiding
the
accident
because it was
an emergency
situation
NOT ES
V. STRICT LIABILITY
Blacks Law Dictionary definition:
Liability does not depend on actual negligence or intent
to harm, but that is based on the breach of an absolute
duty to make something safe. It most often applies
either to ultra hazardous activities or in product liability
CLASS
NOT E
A. Possessor of animals
Art. 2183, NCC
The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use
of the same is responsible for the damage which it may
cause, although it may escape or be lost. This
responsibility shall cease only in case the damage
should come from force majeure or from the fault of the
person who has suffered damage.
Vestil v IAC
FACTS: Theness Uy was bitten by Andoy, the dog of
Vestils father, when the victim was playing with Vestils
child in their compound. Theness, who was only 3 yrs
old, was brought to the hospital and was later
discharged, but after 9 days she was readmitted for
exhibiting signs of hydrophobia and vomiting of saliva.
The next day she died of broncho-pneumonia.
-Uys sued Vestil for being the possessor of Andoy.
Vestils claimed that they dont own the dog, that it was a
tame animal, and that Theness provoked the dog so it
bit her.
HELD: The obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the
Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on the
presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of
the animal causing the damage. It is based on natural
equity and on the principle of social interest that he who
possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service
must answer for the damage which such animal may
cause.
- While it is true that she is not really the owner of the
house, which was still part of Vicente Miranda's estate,
there is no doubt that she and her husband were its
possessors at the time of the incident in question.
- It does not matter that the dog was tame and was
merely provoked by the child into biting her. The law
CLASS
NOT ES
CLASS
NOT ES
FACTS:
-The Dingcongs rented a house and established Central
Hotel. Kanaan, et.al. rented the ground floor of house
where they established the American Bazaar.
Echeverria rented room in the hotel.
-One night, Echevarria, carelessly left the faucet open
when retiring to bed, causing the water to run off and
spill to the ground, wetting the articles and merchandise
of the Kanaan's "American Bazaar" in the ground floor.
Kanaans filed complaint for damages against Echevarria
and Dingcongs.
HELD:
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
CLASS
NOT E
CLASS
NOT ES
PAGE 40
C LAS S
NOT E
D. Product liability
Art. 2187 Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs,
drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for
death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful
substances used, although no contractual relation exists
between them and the consumers.
C LAS S
NOT ES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
Consumer Act
Art. 97. Liability for the Defective Products. - Any
Filipino or foreign manufacturer, producer, and any
importer, shall be liable for redress, independently of
fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects
resulting from design, manufacture, construction,
assembly and erection, formulas and handling and
making up, presentation or packing of their products, as
well as for the insufficient or inadequate information on
the use and hazards thereof.
A product is defective when it does not offer the safety
rightfully expected of it, taking relevant circumstances
into consideration, including but not limited to:
(a) presentation of product;
(b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it;
(c) the time it was put into circulation.
A product is not considered defective because another
better quality product has been placed in the market.
The manufacturer, builder, producer or importer shall not
be held liable when it evidences:
(a) that it did not place the product on the market;
(b) that although it did place the product on the
market such product has no defect;
(c) that the consumer or a third party is solely at
fault.
Art. 99. Liability for Defective Services. - The service
supplier is liable for redress, independently of fault, for
damages caused to consumers by defects relating to
the rendering of the services, as well as for insufficient
or inadequate information on the fruition and hazards
thereof.
The service is defective when it does not provide the
safety the consumer may rightfully expect of it, taking
the relevant circumstances into consideration, including
but not limited to:
(a) the manner in which it is provided;
(b) the result of hazards which may reasonably be
expected of it;
(c) the time when it was provided.
PAGE 41
A service is not considered defective because of the use
or introduction of new techniques.
The supplier of the services shall not be held liable
when it is proven:
(a) that there is no defect in the service rendered;
(b) that the consumer or third party is solely at fault.
Art. 106. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation.
The stipulation in a contract of a clause preventing,
exonerating or reducing the obligation to indemnify for
damages effected, as provided for in this and in the
preceding Articles, is hereby prohibited, if there is more
than one person responsible for the cause of the
damage, they shall be jointly liable for the redress
established in the pertinent provisions of this Act.
However, if the damage is caused by a component or
part incorporated in the product or service, its
manufacturer, builder or importer and the person who
incorporated the component or part are jointly liable.
Art. 107. Penalties.
Any person who shall violate any provision of this
Chapter or its implementing rules and regulations with
respect to any consumer product which is not food,
cosmetic, or hazardous substance shall upon conviction,
be subject to a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos
(P5,000.00) and by imprisonment of not more that one
(1) year or both upon the discretion of the court.
In case of judicial persons, the penalty shall be imposed
upon its president, manager or head. If the offender is
an alien, he shall, after payment of fine and service of
sentence, be deported without further deportation
proceedings.
CHAPTER VI. Prohibited Acts and Penalties (RA3720
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
Sec. 11. The following acts and the causing thereof are
hereby prohibited:
(a) The manufacture, sale, offering for sale or transfer of
any food, drug, device or cosmetic that is adulterated or
misbranded.
(b) The adulteration or misbranding of any food, drug,
device, or cosmetic.
CLASS
NOT ES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
Coca-Cola v CA
FACTS: Geronimo sold food and softdrinks in a school
canteen. A group of parents complained that fibrous
materials were found in the softdrink bottles bought by
their children. Upon inspection by the DOH, the bottles
were found to be adulterated. The sales of Geronimo
drastically dropped and she was forced to close shop.
She brought an action for damages against Coca-cola
and the trial court ruled that the complaint was based on
a contract, not quasi-delict and should have been filed
within 6 months from the delivery of the softdrinks.
Geronimo argues that her case is based on quasi-delict
and should prescribe in 4 years.
HELD: The Court sided with Geronimo. The vendees
remedies against a vendor with respect to the
warranties against hidden defects or encumbrances
upon the thing sold are not limited to those prescribed in
A1567. The vendee may also ask for the annulment of
the contract upon proof of error or fraud in which case
the ordinary rule on obligations shall be applicable.
CLASS
NOT ES
PAGE 42
II SANGCO (p. 714-734)
Product Liability
1. Governing law: Art. 2187, NCC
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 43
d. Duty of warning; inspecting; testing.
A manufacturer or seller of a product which, to his actual
or constructive knowledge, involves danger to users has
a duty to give warning of such danger. As a matter of
elementary logic, no duty to warn arises with respect to
a product which is not in fact dangerous.
Note:
The seller is not liable when he delivers the product in a
safe condition and subsequent mishandling or other
causes makes it harmful by the time it is consumed.
CLASS
NOT ES
CLASS
NOT ES
Gilchrist v Cuddy
So Ping Bun v CA
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 44
sufficient that the impetus of his conduct lies in a proper
business interest rather than in wrongful motives to
conclude that So was not a malicious interferer. Nothing
on the record imputes deliberate wrongful motives or
malice on the part of So. Hence the lack of malice
precludes the award of damages.
- The provision in the Civil Code with regard tortuous
interference is Article 1314.
CLASS
NOT ES
Jec
TORTS
AND
DAMAGES
PAGE 45
from
CLASS
NOT ES
Jec