LECTURE ON TORTS

NUISANCE
December 12, 2010

CONCEPT OF NUISANCE:

. It is not a noise
. No definitive definition
. Comes from French nuire to injure, to hurt, to harm
. It is a limitation to the right of ownership
. Intentional or via negligence
. (Statutorily Art. 596) That which causes harm or damage, not the consequent
harm or
damage caused.
. Considered one of the most serious hindrances to the enjoyment of life and
property

WHAT IS LEGAL NUISANCE

Class of wrongs

. arising from unreasonable, unwarrantable, unlawful use by a person of his own

property
. producing material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or hurt (AIDH)
. that the law presumes as consequent damage.

It is anything that works HARM, INJURY OR PREJUDICE to an individual or PUBLIC

. NUISANCE DISTINGUISHED FROM TRESPASS

N use of own property that incidentally causes HARM, INJURY OR PREJUDICE

T direct infringement of anothers property

N injury is consequential
T jury is direct and immediate

TEST: Direct or Incidental

. NUISANCE DISTINGUISHED FROM NEGLIGENCE

Neg liability depends on want of care

Nui liability depends on resulting injury regardless of degree of care or skill
required to
avoid injury

Nui maintenance of nuisance - breach of absolute duty resulting from an act not
warranted by law or neglect of a duty imposed by law
Neg breach of relative duty failure to use degree of care required under the
particular
circumstances in connection with an act or omission that is not in itself wrongful.

Art. 694 CC (DESCRIBING NUISANCE)

Any ACT, OMISSION, ESTABLISHMENT (structure), BUSINESS, CONDITION OF

PROPERTY, or
ANYTHING that:

1. injures or endangers HEALTH or SAFETY of others

2. annoys or offends SENSES
3. shocks, defies or disregards DECENCY or MORALITY
4. obstructs or interferes with FREE PASSAGE of any PUBLIC HIGHWAY or STREET or
any
BODY of WATER
5. hinders or impairs the USE of PROPERTY (by another)

Art. 695 CC (CLASS OF NUISANCE)

PUBLIC- affects community or neighborhood or any considerable number of

persons although extent of annoyance, damage or harm upon
INDIVIDUALS be UNEQUAL. Affects public at large or such a part as
necessarily comes in contact with it in the exercise of a public or common
right

PRIVATE- confined to individual rights affected. Violates only private rights and
produces damage to but one or a few persons and cannot be said to be public.
Limited
number of individuals only

PUBLIC indictable
PRIVATE - actionable either for abatement or damages or . Injunctive relief may be
granted

PUBLIC plaintiff need not have property or use interest in property affected by
defendants conduct
PRIVATE - need not own the property but must at least have interest ex. Lessee

According to number of persons affected:

Public, Private or Mixed

According to nature

Nuisance per se / per accidens

According to liability

Civil / Criminal

According to duration

Continuing / recurrent
Temporary/permanent

According to right to relief

Actionable
Non-actionable

According to remedy available

Abatable by criminal/civil action

Abatable by with or without judicial proceeding

WHAT IS NUISANCE PER SE (in law)

Nuisance regardless of circumstances (inherent). No need to prove circumstances

but
EXISTENCE. Summary Abatement

- an act, occupation, or structure which is unquestionably a nuisance at all times

and under any circumstances, regardless of location or surroundings. It is anything
which of itself is a nuisance because of its inherent qualities, productive of injury
or dangerous to life or property without regard to circumstance

WHAT IS NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS (in fact)

Not a nuisance per se but becomes a nuisance because of circumstances. NEED to

prove CIRCUMSTANCES. Abatement needs DUE PROCESS.

- an act, occupation, or structure, not a nuisance per se, but which may become
a nuisance by reason of circumstances, location, or surroundings

DIFFERENCE LIES IN THE PROOF

PER SE - Its existence need only be proved in any locality, without a showing of
specific
damages, and the right to relief is established by averment and proof of the mere
act.

PER ACCIDENS prove its location and surroundings, the manner of its conduct or
other
circumstances, and in such cases, proof of the act and its consequences is
necessary.

NATURE OF LIABILITY FOR NUISANCE

Like contempt until corrected or complied with, the liability is continuing.

LIABILITY OF SUCCESSORS
Art. 696. Every successive owner or possessor of property who fails or refuses to
abate a
nuisance in that property started by a former owner or possessor is liable therefor in
the
same manner as the one who created it.
- Generally, only creator of nuisance is liable, but since liability is a continuing one,
all successors who fails, refuses, adopts a nuisance is also liable
- To render the new owner or possessor liable, it is, of course, necessary that he has
actual knowledge of the existence of the nuisance and that it is within his power
to abate the same

PERSONS LIABLE
1. all who participate in the creation or maintenance of a nuisance - successors
2. One who adopts and continues previously existing nuisance and if one person
creates a nuisance and another adopts it, continues it, and keeps it up, both are
liable.
3. Where several persons, acting independently, cause damage by acts which
constitute
a nuisance, each is liable for the damage which he has caused or for his
proportionate
share of the entire damage

NOTE: Mere failure to abate a nuisance created by another does not alone
constitute a
continuation thereof; there must be some positive participation in the continuance
of the
nuisance or some positive act evidencing its adoption.

- generally no one is to be held liable for a nuisance which he cannot himself

physically abate without legal action against another for

- One who creates a structure which is of itself innocuous is not liable for a nuisance
arising from a subsequent optional use of it by other persons unless he is in some
way connected with such use.

DOCTRINE OF ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE

Contemplates the maintenance of attractive (alluring) condition or structure of

ones
property. It applies to children rather than adult.

Duty of owner: take precautions and anticipate childrens instinct/impulse.

Q What is the liability of a successor of property nuisance?

Liable if not abated despite knowledge of the nuisance.

Conditions for liability

- he knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that the structure or instrumentality
was alluring to children and endangered them.
- there must have been ground for anticipating the presence of the injured child
- danger is latent. that the danger to the child be caused by the attraction itself, or
by something with which the attraction brings the child in contact. The doctrine
applies for the protection of even a meddling child, but it does not protect a
child, as against the owner of the premises, in respect of a danger which was not
incident to the place, but was created by the child himself with instrumentalities
procured by him off the premises, or by a third person.

(1) General rule. The general rule is that when people come to the lands or
premises of
others for their own purposes, without right or invitation, they must take the lands
or

premises as they see them. If they are exposed to injury from unseen dangers, the
responsibility therefor is upon themselves. (38 Am. Jur. 2d 804.)

(2) Doctrine, a qualification to the rule. An exception to the rule absolving from
liability
owners or occupants of premises, in reference to injuries sustained by persons
trespassing
upon their property, is the so-called attractive nuisance doctrine.

According to the doctrine, one who maintains on his premises dangerous

instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and
who
fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting

thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is
technically a trespasser in the premises.

(4) Application to bodies of water. The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is

not
applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the absence of some
unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and its location.
Thus, a
swimming pool or pond or reservoir of water is not considered an attractive
nuisance.
As lucidly explained:
Nature has created streams, lakes and pools which attract children. Lurking in their
waters is always the danger of drowning. Against this danger, children are earlier
instructed so that they are sufficiently presumed to know the danger;

Art. 697 CC (ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE/RECOVERY OF DAMAGES)

Art. 697. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person
injured
to recover damages for its past existence.

Distinct remedies. Even if abated, injured party can still recover damages. The
abatement of a nuisance may have taken place after injury or damage has already
been caused

Art. 698 CC (EFFECT OF LAPSE OF TIME)

Art. 698. Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance, whether public or private.

There is no prescription in abatement of nuisance.

RATIONALE: for no right can arise from acts or omissions which are against the law
or
which infringe upon the rights of others.

EXCEPTION:

Easements obstructed or not used for 10 years. (Art 631 (2)

Art. 699 CC (REMEDIES AGAINST PUBLIC NUISANCE) CUMMULATIVE REMEDIES (NOT

EXCLUSIVE)

Art. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:

(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance; or
(2) A civil action; or
(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.

1. Prosecution under RPC or Local Ordinance; (By public officers) public nuisance
only
2. Civil Action; or (By public officers and private individuals)
3. Abatement without judicial proceedings. (By public officers, municipal
corporations,
and private individuals) The remedy must be availed of only with the intervention of
the
district health officer.
RATIONALE F SUMMARY ABATEMENT - the requirement of preliminary formal legal
proceedings and a judicial trial would result in defeating the beneficial object sought
to
be obtained.

Art. 700 CC (ROLE OF DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER)

Art. 700. The district health officer shall take care that one or all of the remedies
against a

public nuisance are availed of.

DHO/PHO-charged with the duty to ensure ACTION vs. PUBLIC NUISANCE

While the district health officer may also institute proceedings to abate a nuisance,
this
power can be properly exercised only when the nuisance is one that affects public
health and sanitation

Art. 702 CC (ROLE OF DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER)

Art. 702. The district health officer shall determine whether or not abatement,
without
judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against a public nuisance.

And to ascertain w/n ABATEMENT W/O JUDICIAL PROCEEDING is the BEST REMEDY.

Art. 701 CC (ROLE OF CITY OR MUNICIPAL MAYOR)

Art. 701. If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance of a public

nuisance,
such action shall be commenced by the city or municipal mayor.

C/M Mayor charged with the duty to commence civil action against one who
maintains public nuisance.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF LAWFUL BUSINESS IN RELATION TO NUISANCE

Presumed to be lawful exercise of proprietary right.

So if it will be found to be nuisance in the course of the business, at the most it is
NUISANCE
PER ACCIDENS.

Art. 703 CC (RIGHT OF PRIVATE PERSON TO SUE re PUBLIC NUISANCE)

Art. 703. A private person may file an action on account of public nuisance, if it is
specially injurious to himself

Refers to civil action only (normally belongs to C/M Mayor)

Condition: if specially injurious to himself.

To warrant a suit by an individual, there must be an invasion or violation of some

private
right, as distinguished from the public right, which the plaintiff has in common with
the

rest of the public. In the absence of a showing of special or unusual damages,

differing
from those suffered by the general public, a cause of action does not arise in favor
of a
private individual

Art. 704 CC (CONDITIONS FOR EXTRAJUDICIAL ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE)

Art. 704. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially
injurious to
him by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the
same,
without committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But it is
necessary:
(1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to
abate the
nuisance;
(2) That such demand has been rejected;
(3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and executed with
the
assistance of the local police; and
(4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed Three thousand pesos.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

No breach of the peace

No doing of unnecessary injury
Prior Demand to owner or possessor of nuisance (Chance to abate it himself)
Demand rejected
Abatement approved by DHO/PHO
Execution of Abatement with aid of local police
Value of destruction not more than P3K.

Art. 705 CC (REMEDIES VS. PRIVATE NUISANCE)

1. Civil Action

2. Abatement w/o judicial proceeding;

Art. 706 CC (CONDITIONS FOR EXTRAJUDICIAL ABATEMENT OF PRIVATE NUISANCE)

Same as Art. 704

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

No breach of the peace

No doing of unnecessary injury
Prior Demand to owner or possessor of nuisance (Chance to abate it himself)
Demand rejected
Abatement approved by DHO/PHO
Execution of Abatement with aid of local police
Value of destruction not more than P3K.

(3) types of remedy on nuisance: private abatement, injunction, and damages.

Q Is injunction available in nuisance?

YES, if there is irreparable injury to plaintiff and no adequate remedy in the

ordinary course of law

Q What is the nature of Action for Damages vs. Nuisance?

One cause is fine but if nuisance is continued another damage may give rise to
another cause of action until nuisance is stopped.
RATIONALE: The right to successive actions serves the double purpose of
compensating the plaintiff and inducing the defendant to abate the nuisance.

Art. 707 CC (CAUTION IN EXTRAJUDICIAL ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE)

A private person or public official liable for damages for EXTRAJ ABATEMENT OF
NUISANCE under the ff conditions:

1. If it causes unnecessary injury;

2. If nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not real nuisance.

PURPOSE: It serves the dual purpose of providing a sort of deterrent against the
improvident or unreasonable resort to the remedy by unscrupulous parties and at
the
same time affords the victim a civil remedy to recover damages without prejudice to

such other remedies granted by law

LECTURE ON TORTS
JANUARY 24, 2009

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

Q What is the CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS of Tort Liability for Tortious

interference?

Contract as a property right (No person shall be deprived of his property; No

law impairing the obligations of contracts shall be passed.

OTHER BASES:

.
.
.
.

Solemnity of Contracts
Integrity & Security of Contractual Relations
Fulfillment of Contracts
Freedom of Party to Contract

Interference with a contract is tortious because it violates the rights of the

contracting parties to fulfill the contract and to have it fulfilled, to reap the

profits resulting therefrom, and to compel performance by the other party.

In other words, a contract confers certain rights on the person with whom it is
made, and not only binds the parties to it by the obligation entered into, but
also imposes on all the world the duty of respecting that contractual
obligation.

Q What is tortious interference?

Art. 1314 CC - Any third person who induces another to violate his contract
shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.

It is preceded by Art 1311 which says that CONTRACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT
BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THEIR ASSIGNS AND HEIRS. (Privity of Contract)

Q SCOPE OF VIOLATION?

. Existing Contract
. Not to enter into Contract
. Prevent from entering into Contract

Q Can action upon a contract be possible involving a party outside of

the contract?

Yes, under 1314. (Tortious Interference); expanded to Art. 20, and 21 CC.

Article 1314 recognizes an instance when a stranger to a contract can be sued

for damages for his unwarranted interference with the contract.

Nature of liability. The tort of interference with contracts may be

considered a quasi-delict under Article 2176 (Chap. 6.) which may make the
inducer liable to the other party for damages. It is likewise actionable under
Articles 20 and 21.

Art. 20 CC (Willful or Negligent Act contrary to law = QUASI-DELICT)

Q What is the legal consequence against the violator?

INDEMNITY. (No one who suffers material damage cannot be without relief)

Under this Article the act could either be a FELONY or QUASI-DELICT

Art. 21 CC (Willful Acts contrary to morals, good customs or public policy)

This is a legal remedy for the UNTOLD NUMBER OF MORAL WRONGS.

Ex: Impregnating a woman who, without the promise of marriage by the man,
would not have succumbed to his bestial desire.

Ex: Not showing up in marriage ceremony after all preps and publicity.

Ex: Electric Co. cutting connection w/o prior notice.

Q Does interference in FREE ENTERPRISE or TRADE COMPETITION

amount to TORT?

NO, it is regarded as privileged and constitutive only of damnum absque

injuria

Provided:

. The actions are fair and fall within the province of SOCIALLY
ACCEPTABLE CONDUCT. within the limits of the accepted ethical
code applicable to such transactions. No fraud or deception or

other means regarded as unfair

. The business advances for its own, and not to inflict harm on
another.

. Competition in business, even though carried to the extent of

ruining a rival, constitutes justifiable interference in anothers
business relations, and is not actionable as long as it is carried on
in furtherance of ones own interest. But interference with the
business relations of another by means of competition is not
justifiable where the methods of competition employed are unfair
or not lawful, or where the dominant purpose of the competition
is to inflict harm or injury and not to further ones business.

. One who causes loss of business or occupation to another merely

by engaging in a business or occupation in good faith is not liable
to the other for loss caused, though he knows that the loss will
result. The individualistic philosophy of capitalist society adopts
as one of its basic premises the social desirability of free
competition in trade and business. Our commercial and industrial
community is organized on the assumption that the welfare of
society is best advanced by the elimination of unnecessary
restrictions on competition.

. The privilege of competition, of course, extends only to

competitors. If the defendants business interest is distinct from
that of the person harmed, he is not a competitor. And the
defendants conflicting interest must be in direct competition
with the plaintiffs invaded interest

Q Distinguish Deceit from Tortious Interference?

In deceit, the loss suffered by P is directly induced by D. Does not presuppose a

contract. P induced to take injurious action by reliance upon the defendants

fraudulent misrepresentations.

In Tortious Interference the loss is suffered by P because a TP induces the

other contractual party to violate the contract. Presupposes a contract.

Q Who are the usual defendants in TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE?

The VIOLATING CONTRACTUAL PARTY and the TP INDUCER.

Q Elements of tortious interference

1. Valid Contract; (not illegal contract; contract not yet violated)

2. Knowledge of the Existence of Contract (by the Inducer);

3. Malice (by the Inducer); (not actual malice, as long as intentional)

4. Causal Relation between the inducement and the breach; act is te

proximate cause

. it must be shown that by reason of defendants act, a

contract which otherwise would have been performed was
abandoned; that is, that there was a breach and that the
defendant was a moving cause thereof.

5. Damage or injury;

6. Absence of Legal Justification; (ex: Rubio vs. CA 141 SCRA 488

[1986] willful violation of a known right

. (Unpaid Seller warns another Seller not to proceed with the

sale because the prospective buyer has not paid his
obligations to the Unpaid Seller)

. Giving Advice in Good faith, disinterested advice

. CIBI

Q INDUCEMENT is a misnomer

It is sufficient that a TP meddles in the contractual relations of both parties,

resulting in one party violating the contract.

Q Does INDUCEMENT give rise to tortious liability?

NO. It must result in breach and damage or injury.

Q WHAT USUALLY DEFEATS TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CASE?

1. Absence of Breach;
2. Lack of privity; If the plaintiff is not a party to the broken
contract nor a third party beneficiary, he can have no action for
inducing breach.
3. Illegal Contract; if merely unenforceable for uncertainty, or
because within the statute of frauds or the statute of limitations,
doctrine applies
4. Contract to Marry
5. Socially undesirable contract. Courts have also shown great
reluctance to allow recovery for inducing the breach of other
types of contract which, though legal and enforceable, have come
to be regarded as socially undesirable

Q EXTENT OF LIABILITY OF:

TORTFEASOR-INDUCER - Not more than what the P could recover from the
party-D. Not more than the amount that can be recovered from the party who
was induced to violate the contract. The stranger cannot become more
extensively liable in damages for the nonperformance of the contract than the
party in whose behalf he intermeddles.

PARTY INDUCED GF/BF.

If GF only the natural and probable consequences of the breach and the
contracting parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the
time the contract was entered into.

If BF, all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the breach of the
contract.

Q Does negligent interference fall within this rule on tortious

interference?

No.

May there be liability for negligent, as distinguished from intentional,

interference with contractual relations?

In the first place, it is clear that there can be no such thing as negligently
inducing a breach of contract. The very idea of inducement implies that the
defendant acted for the purpose of bringing about a breach or, at least, acted
with knowledge that, if he attained his purpose, a breach would result.

LECTURE ON TORTS
TORTS INVOLVING HUMAN RELATIONS
December 5, 2010

CHAPTER ON HUMAN RELATIONS (Art. 19 -36)

Q Why is this Chapter on HR incorporated adopted in Torts & Damages?

Because it talks about:

a) Basic principles of justice and equity

b) Universal moral precepts (not expressly recognized by specific
provisions of law)
c) Public policy that every one must duly respect the rights of others

Art. 19 CC (Mother of all human relations, principle of abuse of rights)

Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith.

Article 19 is intended to expand the concept of torts (see Chaps. 1, 6.) by

granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which
is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law.

Art 19 recognizes the primordial limitation on all rights: that in their exercise,
the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed.

RULE OF CONDUCT ONLY, NOT A REMEDY FOR VIOLATION. Generally, an action

for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would be proper

Q What is this principle of abuse of right?

It is this principle sanctioned by Art. 19 CC. (He who uses a right injures
no one)

That a right entitles the person to do an act but this right disappears the
moment it is abused. Hence, GF is essential in RIGHT. The moment there is BF,
the RIGHT becomes an OBLIGATION.

Q What are the standards exacted by law from every one?

a) To act with justice

b) Give everyone his due
c) Observe honesty and good faith

Q Does Art. 19 CC provide a legal remedy?

NO. It merely lays down a rule of conduct to regulate HR and to maintain social
order. The legal remedy (for damages) is found in the succeeding Arts. 20 & 21.

Art. 20 CC (Willful or Negligent Act contrary to law = QUASI-DELICT)

Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Q What is the legal consequence against the violator?

INDEMNITY. (No one who suffers material damage cannot be without relief)

Under this Article the act could either be a FELONY or QUASI-DELICT

. A felony may be committed by means of deceit (when
performed with deliberate intent) or by means of fault or
negligence. (Art. 3, Revised Penal Code.) If the fault or
negligence does not constitute a penal offense, the actor is
liable only for quasi-delict under Article 2176.

. In either case, it is essential that the act is voluntary for

the obligation to indemnify to arise

The rule in Article 20 compliments the principle of abuse of rights enumerated

in Article 19. It pervades the entire legal system, and renders it impossible
that a person who suffers damage because another has violated some legal
provisions, should find himself without relief. (Report of the Code
Commission, p. 39.) It furnishes the general sanction for violations of other
laws which do not specifically provide any sanction, penalty or liability for such
violation.

Art. 21 CC (Willful Acts contrary to morals, good customs or public policy)

Article 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.

This is a legal remedy for the UNTOLD NUMBER OF MORAL WRONGS.

COMPLAINT MUST ASK FOR DAMAGES

Ex: Impregnating a woman who, without the promise of marriage by the man,
would not have succumbed to his bestial desire.

Ex: Not showing up in marriage ceremony after all preps and publicity.

Ex: Electric Co. cutting connection w/o prior notice.

Compared with Article 20. Under Article 21, the act is done willfully and is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, while under Article 20, the
act is done either willfully or negligently and is contrary to law. Thus, under
Article 21, liability for damages may arise even from acts which do not
constitute a violation of statute law if such acts are contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy. It is immaterial whether the damage is caused by a
positive act or omission as long as it is willful, i.e., the actor was aware of its
injurious consequence to the person injured or to a third party.
Moral damages may be recovered.

Compared with Article 19. There is a common element under Articles 19 and
21, and that is, the act must be intentional. However, Article 20 does not
distinguish: the act may be done either willfully, or negligently. Under any
of these three (3) provisions of law, an act which causes injury to another may
be made the basis for an award of damages.

Art. 22 CC (Acquisition of benefit without just & legal cause)

Article 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any
other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of
the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.

Q What is the basis of this Article?

This is based on the principle of unjust enrichment that no one should unjustly
enrich himself at the expense of another. The provisions on quasi-contracts
are based on this doctrine. (Art. 2142.3) Note, however, that in the quasicontract of solutio indebiti (undue payment), it is essential that there be a
mistake in payment, while this is not necessary in an action under Article 22.

REQUISITES

(1) The defendant has been enriched, i.e., he has acquired or come into
possession of something;
(2) The enrichment has been brought about through the act or performance of
the plaintiff, defendant, or a third party, or any other means;
(3) The plaintiff has incurred a loss, i.e., the enrichment has been at his
expense;
(4) The enrichment is without just or legal ground; and
(5) There is no other remedy on contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasidelict.

Q What do you call the cause of action under this Article?

Accion in rem verso that is, to recover what has been given or paid to another
without just or legal cause.

Q Is Enrichment at the expense of another per se prohibited?

NO. Only when there is no just and legal ground for such enrichment that the
prohibition comes in.

It is not essential to create the obligation to make restitution for the benefits
received that the recipient should himself be guilty of fault or any tortious
conduct where it is just and equitable under the circumstances that such
restitution be made.

Q What is the nature of remedy under this Article?

Subsidiary only. In the event there are other causes of action expressly
provided by law, the latter should be followed.

MEASURE OF REMEDY

The indemnity that can be recovered is either the amount of loss suffered by
the plaintiff or the amount of unjust enrichment obtained by the defendant,
whichever is lower. In other words, the recovery cannot be more than the
amount of loss but may be less.

By way of illustration, if the amount of loss is P10,000, while the amount of

unjust enrichment is P12,000, the plaintiff can recover only P10,000, the
amount of his loss, but if the amounts are reversed, the recovery cannot
exceed P10,000, the amount by which the defendent has been enriched.

Art. 23 CC (Benefited Party liable for damage even without fault or

negligence)

Article 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property
was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be
liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited.

Q Is it possible that a party can still be liable for damage even without
his fault or negligence?

Yes if he is benefited.

Article 23 is based on equity. The person benefited is liable only to the extent
of his enrichment.

Ex: Flash flood brings the cattle of A to the crops of B. the cattle of A is
saved but the crop of B is destroyed. A MUST INDEMNIFY B. This is based on
equity.

Art. 24 CC (Protection of person suffering from DISADVANTAGE/HANDICAP)

Article 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the
parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance,
indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be
vigilant for his protection.

. This is based on the doctrine of parens patria (State as Parent or

Guardian of the Country) - the State has the sovereign power to
provide protection to rights and property of persons who are non
sui juris such as minors, insane and incompetent persons.

. Court may annul or reform or cancel or modify contract if one is

clearly at disadvantage. (Ignorance of the law principle will not
apply)

This is where these incidents are coming from:

.
.
.
.
.

CONTRACT OF ADHESION strictly against one who drafted.

AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT strictly against author of ambiguity.
UNCONSCIONABLE OBLIGATION Court tempers.
USURY LAW abolished.
QUITCLAIMS OF LABORERS declared void.

Art. 25 CC (Thoughtless extravagance in expenses)

Article 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during

a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the
courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution.

This is limitation to the power of ownership. Because property right bears a

social function.

Q What is the setting?

During a period of acute public want or emergency

Q What is the purpose of the extravagant spending?

Pleasure or Display

Q Who are the proper party to bring this case to court?

1. Government; or
2. Any private charitable institution.

Art. 26 CC (Respect for human dignity, personality privacy, etc.).

Article 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and

peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar

acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause
of action for damages, prevention and other relief:

(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of
another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly
station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal
condition.

Q Name these protected rights:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Human Dignity
Human personality
Privacy
Peace of Mind
Family Relations
Social Intercourse

HUMAN PERSONALITY EXALTED

Art. 27 CC (Dereliction of Duty by public servant)

Article 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public
servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his
official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the
latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be
taken.

Elements:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Public official charged with official duty

Refusal or Negligence re performance of official duty
No just cause
Injury to plaintiff

Note: No double recovery

Basis of civil action for damages. The civil action for damages may be based
on Article 27, or on quasi-delict under Article 2176 (see Art. 1162.), if it does
not constitute a criminal offense; otherwise, under Article 100 of the Revised
Penal Code (see Art. 1161.) subject to the limitation in Article 2177 that the
injured party is prohibited from recovering damages twice for the same act or
omission

NON FEASANCE ONLY It does not cover malfeasance and misfeasance, but only
nonfeasance. Neither does it extend to cases covered by Articles 20 and 21.

ACTION SUPPLEMENTARY

Action, a supplementary one. The action provided in Article 27 is a

supplementary one; no action can be brought under it against a public official
or employee when the action can be based on Articles 20 and 21.

Art. 28 CC (UNFAIR COMPETITION in ENTERPRISE or LABOR)

Article 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial

enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit,

machination or any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded method shall give

rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage.

. Competition is basically allowed. What is punished is UNFAIRNESS.

. The basis for sanction is the use of unfair method not the extent of damage.

Unfair competition may constitute a criminal offense. (see Arts. 186, 187, 188,
189[1], Revised Penal Code.) It shall give rise to indemnity for damages, and
the civil action may be pursued independently of the criminal prosecution.
What is actionable under Article 28 is not any competition but one that is
unfair causing damage to another.

Art. 29 CC (Civil Action for Damages vs. Accused ACQUITED on REASONABLE

DOUBT)

Article 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the

ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil
action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action
requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the
court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case
the complaint should be found to be malicious.

If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt,

the court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it
may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is
due to that ground.

The basis is Art. 100 RPC: A person who is criminally liable is also civilly liable.

. Acquittal BRD No civil Action

. Acquittal RD Civil Action may be maintained

Q What is the Legal Philosophy of this rule?

Quantum of evidence.

Art. 30 CC (Separate Civil Action to enforce civil liability for Criminal

Offense)

Article 30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability
arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted
during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall
likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.

. The action will proceed and the QE required is PREPONDERANCE

OF EVIDENCE.

. This does not speak of independent civil action.

Art. 31 CC (Civil Action for Damages not based on felony) INDEPENDENT

Article 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the
act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed
independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the
latter.

Independent Civil Action.

Art. 32 CC (Civil Remedies for Violation of Civil Rights) INDEPENDENT

Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who
directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or
impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be
liable to the latter for damages:

1. Freedom of religion;
2. Freedom of speech;
3. Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
4. Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
5. Freedom of suffrage;
6. The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
7. The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for
public use;
8. The right to the equal protection of the laws;
9. The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures;
10. The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
11. The privacy of communication and correspondence;
12. The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes
not contrary to law;
13. The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the
Government for redress of grievances;
14. The right to be a free from involuntary servitude in any form;
15. The right of the accused against excessive bail;
16. The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have
a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to
have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his
behalf;
17. Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or
from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise
of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person
confessing becomes a State witness;
18. Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless
the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has
not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and
19. Freedom of access to the courts.

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's
act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right
to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and

for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal
prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be proved by a
preponderance of evidence.

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be
adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his
act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal
statute.

Violation of Civil rights entitles the aggrieved party damages.

Q Limited liability to judges. Why?

To avoid harassment. Unless amounts to crime such as:

From 204 to 207 RPC Crimes of Judges

Under the Revised Penal Code, a judge incurs criminal liability for knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment (Art. 204, thereof.), rendering a manifestly
unjust judgment by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance (Sec. 205,
Ibid.), knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order or decree or rendering
a manifestly unjust order or decree by reason of inexcusable negligence or
ignorance (Art. 206, Ibid.), and malicious delay in the administration of justice.
(Art. 207, Ibid.)

Article 32 seems to consider judges a special breed of public officers. However,

a judge exempted from responsibility under Article 32 may be held liable for
refusal or neglect to perform his official duty under Article 27

Art. 33 CC (Civil Action for Damages re DEFAMATION, FRAUD & PHYSICAL

INJURIES) INDEPENDENT

Article 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action
for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be
brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of
the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.

These terms DFP must be read in their generic terms.

Q What are these independent civil actions?

(Arts 31, 32, 33, 34, & 2176)

Q Why is it important to note ICA?

Because there is no need for reservation. The law is the one making the
reservation.

Art. 34 CC (Civil Liability of City or Mun Police)

Article 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails
to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property,
such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or
municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein
recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a
preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.

. FOR SUBSIDIARY LIAIBLITY OF CITY OR MUNICIPALITY

If strictly governmental function No defense of Selection and Supervision

If proprietary function Defense of Selection and Supervision is available

A peace officer guilty of non-performance of duty is already liable for damages

under Article 27 but Article 34 authorizes the bringing of a separate civil action
to enforce that liability independent of any criminal proceedings. A
preponderance of evidence shall also suffice to such action.

Art. 35 CC (Right of Victim of Criminal Offense to file INDEPENDENT Civil

Action)

Article 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense,

charges another with the same, for which no independent civil action is
granted in this Code or any special law, but the justice of the peace finds no
reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the
prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the
complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender.

Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the

defendant's motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to
indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be
malicious.

If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented

by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the
termination of the criminal proceedings.

SITUATION CONTEMPLATED:

1. If Lower Court Judge finds no prima facie case

2. If Prosecutor refuses or fails to institute criminal proceeding.

The present article grants an aggrieved party the right to file an independent
civil action even if no such right is expressly recognized in the Civil Code or in
any special law, in two (2) instances:

(a) The justice of the peace (now city or municipal trial court) finds no
reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed after a
preliminary investigation; or
(b) The prosecuting attorney (now prosecutor) refuses or fails to institute
criminal proceedings.

Such civil action may be supported only by a preponderance of evidence. For

the protection of the defendant and as a deterrence against baseless
complaint, the plaintiff may be required to file a bond to indemnify the
defendant in case the complaint should be found malicious.

Art. 36 CC (PREJUDICIAL QUESTION)

Article 36. Pre-judicial questions, which must be decided before any criminal

prosecution may be instituted or may proceed, shall be governed by rules of

court which the Supreme Court shall promulgate and which shall not be in
conflict with the provisions of this Code.

. It is a question in a criminal proceeding involving matters that are

civil in nature the final resolution of which civil action is
necessary in the determination in the guilt or innocence of
accused in the criminal proceeding. EFFECT: SUSPEND CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING.
Will apply only in an intertwined criminal and civil proceedings

The elements of a prejudicial question are:

(1) The previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action; and
(2) The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action
may proceed.

RULE 111
xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. A petition for suspension

of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a
civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court conducting
the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court
for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at
any time before the prosecution rests.

Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. The elements of a prejudicial

questions are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar
or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action
may proceed.