C.
Negligence absence of provisions in the Code prohibiting advance
Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the
performance of every kind of obligation is also
demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the
courts, according to the circumstances. (1103)
Trigger: Every kind of obligation; there is negligence
Effect: That there is responsibility which may be regulated
by the courts according to the circumstances
Purpose: To show the effect of negligence from an
obligation
General Rule: There is responsibility arising from
negligence
Exception: May be regulated by the courts
Kinds of Culpa
Culpa contractual - Not a source of obligation. It merely
makes the debtor liable for damages in view of his
negligence in the fulfillment of a pre-existing obligation.
- The court is given a discretion to mitigate liability
according to the circumstances of the case (article 1172).
Example: A was to deliver to B a specific horse on a
certain day. The horse died before that day. A is liable for
damages for failing to fulfill a pre-existing obligation.
Culpa aquiliana - Negligence which by itself is the source
of an obligation between the parties not formally bound by
a pre-existing contract. Also known as a tort or quasi-
delict.
- No discretion is given by the court in dealing with liability
arising under article 2176.
Example: A was driving his motorcycle inside his
subdivision and accidentally hit Bs car, denting it slightly.
A is liable for damages because of tort.
In a liability arising from culpa aquiliana, an employer or
master may exempt himself from liability under article
2180 of the Civil Code by proving that he had exercised
due diligence to prevent the damage.
Stipulations on Liability for Negligence
1. Graduating the responsibility of the debtor by determining
the degree of diligence to be required which may be more
or less than the standard fixed by law.
2. Imposing a liability for fault or negligence, where the law
does not impose it unless the law dispenses of it as a
matter of public policy.
Exemption from Liability - two kinds of stipulation
exempting from liability for fault or negligence
1. A party to a contract is relieved from the effects of his fault
or negligence by a third person (e.g. insurance).
2. One party to a contract renounces in advance the right to
enforce liability arising from the fault or negligence of the
other. This is valid in simple negligence because of the
renunciation of liability arising from negligence. This is
void in gross negligence because such negligence
amounts to fraud.
>Advance renunciation for such should
not be upheld in cases where there are strong
reasons against it (e.g. contracts of adhesion)
>Irresponsibility clauses exempting one
liability from damages should be taken with great
caution because they might encourage
negligence.
Art 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in
the omission of that diligence which is required by the
nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the
place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of
articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is
to be observed in the performance, that which is expected
of a good father of a family shall be required.
Trigger: An omission of diligence required by the nature of
the obligation...
Effect: There is fault or negligence
Purpose: Definition of fault or negligence/show what kind
of diligence is required
General Rule: Diligence observed in the performance of
an obligation should be that expected of a good father of a
family.
Exception: If another standard of diligence is stated by the
law or contract
A good father of a family or bonos paterfamilias, means a
person of ordinary or average diligence. There is no fixed
standard of diligence applicable to each and every
obligation. Each must be determined upon its particular
facts and circumstances. The care required is
commensurate with what the circumstances demand. For
instance, when human life is involved or a dangerous
agency is being employed, more care is required.
Picart v Smith Jr (1918)
Facts: Picart was riding a pony over Carlatan Bridge, San
Fernando, La Union when Smith was approaching from
the other direction in his automobile, 10 or 12 m/h. Smith
saw him, blew his horn, but stayed on his lane. After 2
more blasts, it appeared to him that the man on
horseback wasnt observing the rule of the road.
Picart saw and heard the horns, but he was perturbed by
the novelty or the rapidity of the approach (shookt), he
pulled the pony to the right instead of going to the
left. Supposed reason was that he thought he didnt have
enough time to get to the other side.
Smith guided his auto to the left, which was the proper
side. He assumed that Picart would move to the other
side. The pony has not yet exhibited fright. When he
realized that the pony wouldnt be able to change lanes
anymore, he turned to the right to escape hitting the
horse but he passed in such a close proximity to the
animal that it became frightened and turned its body
across the bridge, with its head toward the railing.
Horse fell and the man was thrown off -> horse died,
Picard received contusions wc caused temporary
unconsciousness
Issue: WN Smith was guilty of negligence in maneuvering
his car YES
Ratio: Smith had the right to assume that horse and rider
would go to the proper side but as he moved to the
center of the bridge, it became obvious that it wasnt
possible
Must have perceived that it was too late
Nature of the situation: he must have noticed this
when the automobile was still at a distance
Picard at that time no longer had the power to
escape with his pony
Control of the situation: passed to the defendant;
duty to bring his car to an immediate stop
o Deceived bc the horse didnt exhibit fright
yet
Rule: Test by wc to determine the existence of negligence
Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act
use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the
same situation?
Not determined by reference to personal judgment of
the actor but what would be negligent for the man of
ordinary intelligence and prudence
Human experience and the facts of a particular case
determine what would the conduct of a prudent
man be
Reasonable men govern their conduct by the
circumstances wc are before them or known them.
Not supposed to be omniscient of the future.
Negligence = reasonable foresight of harm + ignoring
suggestion born of this prevision
Prudent man would have recognized the risk
Who is liable: person who has last fair chance to
avoid the impending harm
ITC: Picart guilty of antecedent negligence; remote
factor
o Smith immediate and determining cause
Picart recover damages from Smith no need to weigh
or offset, compared to Rakes v Atlantic case bc in that
case it was contributory negligence and defendant wasnt
present
Philippine National Bank v Santos (2014)
Facts: Respondents are children of late Angel Santos.
They found out that their father had a premium savings
account and a time deposit with PNB. When they went to
withdraw, they were required to submit 5 documents.
They obtained these but when they returned with them
they were informed that Bernardito Manimbo already
withdrew the deposits.
Missing from the documents Manimbo presented:
BIR-issued payment of exception from estate tax,
original copy of the death cert (only presented a
photocopy), deed of extrajudicial settlement
(presented a falsified affidavit of self-adjudication and
SPA), and certified time deposit
Issue: WN PNB was negligent in releasing the deposit to
Manimbo YES
Ratio: GROSS NEGLIGENCE
Simple loan arrangement in a bank -> debtor: bank,
creditor: person
RULE: Proper diligence of a good father is the standard
diligence required in normal cases. BUT in other
industries, because of their nature, have higher
standards of diligence.
Ex: extraordinary diligence in passenger safety in
common carriers because of the public interest
Banking = impressed with public interest
o Affects economies, significant role in
businesses
o Fiduciary nature of banking (involves trust)
ITC: Aguilars negligence she wasnt competent to
make a conclusion whether that deed was genuine or not
Negligence was not based on failure to accept resps
documents but failure to exercise diligence required of
banks when they accepted the fraudulent docs
They gave fixed standards to the Santoses but they
didnt follow their standards or there really was no
fixed standards
o Diligence = required them to verify
D. Contravention of the Tenor
Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and
those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof,
are liable for damages. (1101)
Art. 1167. If a person obliged to do something fails to do
it, the same shall be executed at his cost.
This same rule shall be observed if he does it in
contravention of the tenor of the obligation. Furthermore, it
may be decreed that what has been poorly done be
undone. (1098)
Trigger: Contravene of the tenor of the obligation
In any manner contravene the tenor - includes
any illicit act which impairs the strict and faithful
fulfillment of the obligation
Effect: Liable for damages and executed at his cost
Purpose: To protect the creditor from substandard or
incorrect performance of the obligation
General Rule: Every debtor who fails in the performance
of his obligation is bound to indemnify for the losses and
damages caused thereby
Art 1170: provides for damages as a remedy,
which may include any and all damages that a
human being may suffer in any and all
manifestations of his life
Art 1167: provides for the remedy of having the
thing done in a proper manner, by the creditor or
by a third person, at the expense of the debtor
Chaves v Gonzales (1970)
Facts: July 1963: Chaves employed Gonzales for his
portable typewriters routine cleaning and servicing.
Despite repeated reminders, Gonzales would just assure
him but wouldnt return the typewriter.
October 1963: Gonzales asked for money for spare parts
wc Chaves gave. But still Gonzales didnt return the
typewriter which led to Chaves going to Gonzales house to
demand the typewriter. He was given a wrapped package
and when he got home and opened it, he discovered that
his typewriter was in shambles.
Chaves had it repaired by another business (Freixas). LC
granted damages but only on the value of the missing
parts.
Issue: WN Gonzales is liable to pay for the cost of
executing obligation in a proper manner YES
Ratio: Gonzales contravened the tenor of his obligation
Not only did not repair the typewriter but returned it in
shambles
Rule: For such contravention liability under Art 1167 for
the cost of executing the obligation in a proper manner
and liability under 1170 for the cost of the missing parts
(damages)
ITC: cost of the service in repairing the typewriter and
the cost of the missing parts
Claims for damages and attorneys fees must be pleaded
existence of the actual basis thereof must be proved.
II. Effect of Fortuitous Events
Art. 1174. 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. (1105a)
Art. 1165. When what is to be delivered is a determinate
thing, the creditor, in addition to the right granted him by
Article 1170, may compel the debtor to make the delivery.
If the thing is indeterminate or generic, he may ask that
the obligation be complied with at the expense of the
debtor.
If the obligor delays, or has promised to deliver the
same thing to two or more persons who do not have
the same interest, he shall be responsible for any
fortuitous event until he has effected the delivery.
(1096)
Trigger effect: Unforeseen or inevitable event happens
General rule: No person is liable
Exception: 1. In cases specified by law
2. If declared by stipulation
3. If the nature of the obligation requires
assumption of risk
4. There is negligence on the part of the
debtor
A fortuitous event (caso fortuito) is an event which takes
place by accident and could not have been foreseen.
Esriche defines it as an unexpected event or act of God
which could neither be foreseen nor resisted, such as
floods, torrents, shipwrecks, conflagrations, lightning,
compulsion, insurrections, destruction of buildings by
unforeseen accidents and other occurrences of a similar
nature. This may be produced either by nature
(earthquakes, storms, floods, etc.) or by man (armed
invasion, attack by bandits, governmental prohibitions,
etc.).
Fortuitous event includes unavoidable accidents even if
there is an intervention of human element, provided fault
or negligence cannot be imputed to the debtor.
There is no essential difference between fortuitous event
and force majeure, which both refers to causes
independent of the will of the obligor.
Characteristics of a fortuitous event:
 1. Cause of the failure of the debtor to comply with
his obligations must be independent of human
will
2. Either impossible to foresee or impossible to
avoid
3. Occurrence should render the obligation
impossible to perform
4. Obligor must not have participated in any act that
may have aggravated the injury to the creditor
For the defense of fortuitous event to prosper, accident
must be due to natural causes and free from human
intervention.
The general effect of fortuitous events is that it releases
the debtor from liability from nonperformance of an
obligation. An exception is when there is negligence on
the part of the debtor, in which he becomes liable for
damages.
The debtor may also still be liable, despite an occurrence
of a fortuitous event if both the parties agreed to stipulate
it in the contract. The provision in a contract imposing
liability even in case of fortuitous event should be clearly
expressed.
The debtor may also still be liable if the nature of the
obligation requires the assumption of risk, in which case,
the basis would be social justice (and/or ethico-economic
sensibility of modern society which has noted the
injustices which industrial civilizations has created). If a
person, for profit, creates risk for the public which formerly
did not exist, although morally his fault or negligence may
not be the cause of the damages resulting therefrom,
nevertheless he should be liable for such damages: qui
sentit commodum sentire debet et incommodum . A
person who benefits from a means that produced the loss,
he should be liable for the consequences of the loss.
Example: MRT is derailed. MRT authorities are bound to
indemnify the passengers caught in the accident, even if
there is no fault or neglect on their part.
The debtor is released from liability if it is due to the act of
the creditor.
Example: Vice sent through a private contracted mailing
service a loosely covered jar containing bagoong. The
courier of the package is not liable if the bagoong is
spilled.
Article 1165 of the Civil Code provides that on the
occurrence of a fortuitous event after the debtor has
incurred delay, he should be liable for damages.
Tanguilig v CA (1997)
Facts: Tanguilig proposed to Herce, Jr. construction of a
windmill system for him. (Tanguilig would construct
through JMT Engineering) They agreed on P60k with a 1-
year guaranty. After a year, Herce refused and failed to
pay the P15k balance. He claims he already paid SPGMI,
who constructed the deep well, and that the P15k should
be offset bc the windmill system collapsed when a strong
wind hit.
P. Arg: Collapse was due to a typhoon .:. force majeure
Issue: WN Tanguilig is under obligation to reconstruct the
windmill after it collapsed YES
Rule: In order for a party to claim exemption from liab bc
of fortuitous event (Art 1174) event should be the sole
and proximate cause of the loss or destruction of the
object
4 requisites:
1. Cause of the breach = independent of the will of the
debtor
2. Event = unforeseeable or unavoidable
3. Event = render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
obligation in a normal manner
4. Debtor = free from any participation in or aggravation
of the injury to the creditor
ITC: Petitioner failed to show that collapse of windmill
due solely to a fortuitous event
Merely stated that there was strong wind. Wc
should be present naman in places where there are
windmills um
Windmill wouldnt have collapsed if there was no
inherent defect wc could be attributed to
Tanguilig
Obligation is a reciprocal obligation
Petitioners argument that Herce was already in
delay for payment thats why he should bear his own
loss = untenable
Neither party incurs in delay if other does not
comply in a proper manner what is incumbent
upon him
ITC: windmill failed to function so pet should have
repaired -> resp not in delay .:. pet should bear
expenses for reconstruction of the windmill
Nakpil & Sons v CA (1986)
Facts: United Construction Inc would construvt the
building for the Philippine Bar Association while Juan F.
Nakpil & Sons prepared the plans and specifications for
the building. On Aug 2, 1968 (around 2 yrs after building
was completed), there was an unusually strong
earthquake that hit Manila. The building sustained major
damages, and it partially collapsed.
Issue: WN an act of God exempts from liability the parties
who are otherwise liable bc of their negligence NO
Ratio: Art 1723 engineer or architect who drew up the
plans is liable for damages if within 15 yrs building should
collapse bc of defect
Harmonize w Art 1174 no person liable for
fortuitous events
Rule: When the negligence of a person concurs with
an act of God in producing a loss, person is not
exempt from liability by showing that the immediate
cause of the damage was the act of God.
To be exempt: must show that hes free from any
previous negligence or misconduct by wc that loss
or damage may have been occasioned
Act of God: accident, due directly and exclusively to
natural causes w/o human intervention no amount
of foresight, pains or care, reasonably to have been
expected could have prevented it
o Must be occasioned exclusively by the
violence of nature and all human agencies
excluded from it
4 requisites:
1. Cause of the breach = independent of the will of the
debtor
2. Event = unforeseeable or unavoidable
3. Event = render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
obligation in a normal manner
4. Debtor = free from any participation in or aggravation
of the injury to the creditor
ITC: negligence substantial deviations from the plans
and specifications and failure to observe the requisite
workmanship in the construction
Defects in construction and plans = proximate cause
of collapse
Proof negligence is present some of the older
buildings in the vicinity were able to withstand the
earthquake
Dioquino v Laureano (1970)
Facts: Atty Pedro Dioquino wished to register his car
when he met Federico Laureano who is a patrol officer of
the MVO office, waiting for a jeepney to fo tho the PC
barracks. Dioquino requested Laureano to introduce him
to one of the clerks who could facilitate his cars
registration. Laureano did so and bc of this, Dioquino let
him take his car when he was going to the PC barracks
(just him and Dioquinos driver). As they were reaching
their destination, the car was stoned by mischievious
boys, which broke the windshield of the car. Laureano
refused to file charges against the boys and refused to
pay for the windshield bc it was force majeure.
Issue: WN Laureano is liable for damages NO
Rule: Art 1174 No person shall be liable for those
events wc could not be foreseen or those which, though
foreseen, were inevitable.
Major casus est, cui humana infirmitas resistere non
potest
Some extraordinary circumstance independent of the
will of the obligor = essential element of caso fortuito
No requirement of diligence beyond what a
human care and foresight can provide
ITC: Stoning of the boys = clearly unforeseen
Fortuitous event resulting in a loss, wc must be
borne by the owner of the car
Austria v CA (1971)
Facts: Maria Abad received from Guillermo Austria a
pendant w diamonds wc she was to sell on commission
basis or to return on demand. She was walking home with
the jewelry when she was robbed by two men, one hitting
her on the face and the other snatching her purse. Austria
initiated a case against her because she failed to return or
pay for the jewelry.
P. Arg: She failed to prove the robbery, or if it was
committed, that she was not negligent. Also theres no
final judgment on the occurrence of robbery.
Issue: WN Abad is liable NO
Rule: To avail of the exemption granted in the law, it is not
necessary that the persons responsible for the
occurrence are punished but it is sufficient to establish
that the unforeseeable event took place without any
concurrent fault on the debtors part.
Debtor must be free of any concurrent or contributory
fault or negligence
ITC: No negligence on her part bc criminality was not so
prevalent in Manila when this robbery took place
If it happened today (1971), where Manila and its
suburbs has a high incident of crime, travel after
nightfall without suitable precaution carrying the
jewelry = negligence
Phil Communications v Globe (2004)
Facts: Globe Telecom engaged in the coordination of the
provision of various communication facilities for the
military bases of US in Clark and Subic. Philcomsat is
one of the local service providers. On May 7, 1991,
Globe and Philcomsat entered into an 5-yr Agreement:
Philcomsat would establish, operate and provide an IBS
earth station for the exclusive use of the US Defense
Communications Agency.
Sec 8: neither party shall be held liable for failure to
perform its obligation if failure results from force
majeure or fortuitous event
Both of them were aware that the RP-US Military Bases
Agreement would expire in 1991. Sep 1991, Senate of
the Philippines decided to not concur and not ratify the

Treaty of Friendship, effectively terminating the RP-US
Military Bases Agreement.
P.Arg: Termination of the RP-US Bases =/= fortuitous
event bc it was foreseeable
Issue: WN termination of RP-US Bases Agreement would
constitute a force majeure wc would exempt Globe from
complying w its obligation to pay rentals YES
Rule: Art 1174 exempts a person from liability on account
of fortuitous event if:
Events are unforeseeable OR
Those which are unforeseeable but inevitable
These may either be:
1. An act of God (natural occurences) OR
2. An act of man
ITC: For Globe to be exempt from non-compliance with
its obligation to pay rentals, concurrence of the ff
elements:
1. Event = independent of human will
2. Occurrence of event = render it impossible for
the debtor to fulfill the obligation in a normal
manner
3. Obligor = free of pariticipation
Philcomsat and Globe -> no control over non-
renewal of RP-US Agreement
It would be unjust to require Globe to continue
paying even though Philcomsat cant be compelled
to perform its corresponding obligation
o Only liable for payment of rentals until Dec
31 1992 bc US military forces withdrew only
on that date
III. Subsidiary Remedies of Creditor
Art. 1177. The creditors, after having pursued the
property in possession of the debtor to satisfy their claims,
may exercise all the rights and bring all the actions of the
latter for the same purpose, save those which are inherent
in his person; they may also impugn the acts which the
debtor may have done to defraud them. (1111)
Purpose: Satisfaction of the Creditors claim.
General Rule: The creditor may levy the property of the
debtor. After exhaustion, the creditor may exercise the
debtors actions or rights. As a last recourse, the creditor
may impugn the actions done by the debtor to defraud
him.
Exception: There are exceptions to what property may be
levied, what rights or actions may be exercised, and what
actions would be considered fraud.
In order to satisfy the claims of the creditor against the
debtor, they have the following successive rights
(successive means the first one must be exhausted
before you can use the next remedy):
1. Property Levying - To levy by attachment and execution
upon all the property of the debtor, except such as are
exempt by law from execution.
This states that the patrimony of the debtor (present and
future property) is subject to the liabilities he may contract
in obligations.
2. Accion Subrogatoria - To exercise all the rights and
actions of the debtor, except such as are inherently
personal to him.
This means that the creditor can use the rights that the
debtor shouldve exercised in order to fulfill the obligation.
o Essentially, it is the doing by the creditor of all
possible actions and using any right that is
available to the debtor in order to satisfy the
obligation.
In order for the creditor to exercise the debtors rights, the
following requisites are essential:
o The creditor has an interest in the right or
action not only because of his credit but because
of the insolvency of the debtor.
o Malicious or negligent inaction of the debtor in
the exercise of his right or action of such
seriousness as to endanger the claim of the
creditor.
o The credit of the debtor against a third person
is certain, demandable, and liquidated.
o The debtors right against the third person must
be patrimonial, or susceptible of being
transformed to patrimonial value for the benefit of
the creditor.
It is not essential that the creditors claim is prior to the
acquisition of the right by the debtor.
Rights of the creditor that cannot be exercised by the
creditor to satisfy his credit (things the creditor cannot use
against the debtor in order to get paid):
o Right to Existence (Money received from
support)
o Rights or Relations of a Public Character
o Rights of an Honorary Character
o Rights consisting of powers which have not
been used, like:
Power to Administer (the creditor
cannot lease the debtors property)
Power to carry out an agency or
deposit (creditor cannot create this for
the debtor
Power to accept an offer for a contract
(Creditor cannot accept a contract for
the debtor)
o Non-Patrimonial Rights (Legal Separation,
Annulment, etc.)
 o Patrimonial Rights subject to execution
(Pension)
o Patrimonial Rights inherent in the debtors
person (Right to revoke donation, right to remove
an unworthy heir)
3. Accion Pauliana - To ask for the rescission of the
contracts made by the debtor in fraud of their rights.
Acts of the debtor that the creditor may revoke or set
aside:
O Any fraudulent act that reduces the debtors
property (includes both onerous or gratuitous)
such as:
Alienations of property
Payment of debts which are not due
Renunciation of Rights (like Usufruct
or Inheritance)
Assignments of credit
Remissions of debt
Debtors renunciation of a Prescription
When the debtor, in connivance with a
third party, allows that third party to file
an action against him in court, and
obtain a judgment (may be by
confession or default) that would be
enforced against his property.
o This does not include payments of pre-existing
obligations already due.
o Regarding the act of acquiring new liabilities:
Gasperi Opinion (preferred view of
Tolentino) not included in Accion
Pauliana.
Ruggiero Opinion included in Accion
Pauliana.