Torts and Damages

BarOps Head I PY Caunan

Acads Head I Beth Liceralde

Subject Head I Jas Gapatan

Faculty Adviser I
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. TORTS........................................................................................................................................................... 1
A. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
DEFINITIONS/ CONCEPTS ......................................................................................................................... 1
B. NEGLIGENCE .......................................................................................................................... 4
1. DEFINITION: ............................................................................................................................................ 5
2. CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSIDER......................................................................................................... 6
3. STANDARD OF CONDUCT ..................................................................................................................... 8
4. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE.................................................................................................................. 9
5. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE .................................................................................................................... 10
6. DEFENSES ............................................................................................................................................ 11
C. PERSONS LIABLE ............................................................................................................ 15
1. THE TORTFEASOR ............................................................................................................................... 15
2. OWNERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES......................................................................................................... 16
3. VICARIOUS LIABILITY........................................................................................................................... 16
4. OTHERS................................................................................................................................................. 24
D. INTENTIONAL TORTS ............................................................................................................. 24
1. ABUSE OF RIGHTS .............................................................................................................................. 24
2. ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES ......................................................................................................... 26
E. OTHER TORTS...................................................................................................................... 29
1. UNJUST ENRICHMENT......................................................................................................................... 29
2. OSTENTATIOUS DISPLAY OF WEALTH.............................................................................................. 29
3. DERELICTION OF DUTY....................................................................................................................... 29
4. RESPECT FOR DIGNITY, PERSONALITY, PRVACY AND PEACE OF MIND OF ANOTHER ............. 29
5. UNFAIR COMPETITION ........................................................................................................................ 29
F. STRICT LIABILITY ............................................................................................................. 30
1. DEFINITION ........................................................................................................................................... 30
2. TYPES.................................................................................................................................................... 30
G. TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION ............................................................................... 32
1. VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS .................................................................................. 32
2. DEFAMATION, FRAUD, PHYSICAL INJURIES ..................................................................................... 33
3. NEGLECT OF DUTY .............................................................................................................................. 35
4. ACTION FOR DAMAGES WHERE NO INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION IS PROVIDED ....................... 35
H. CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM CRIME..................................................................................... 37

II. DAMAGES................................................................................................................................................38
A. DEFINITION & CONCEPT ........................................................................................................ 38
B. KINDS OF DAMAGES.............................................................................................................. 38
1. ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY............................................................................................................ 38
2. MORAL................................................................................................................................................... 43
3. NOMINAL ............................................................................................................................................... 49
4. TEMPERATE.......................................................................................................................................... 50
5. LIQUIDATED .......................................................................................................................................... 51
6. EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE ........................................................................................................... 51
I. Torts Torts and Damages

I. TORTS Elcano v. Hill

Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or
negligence covers not only acts "not punishable by
A. Introduction law" but also acts criminal in character, whether
intentional and voluntary or negligent.

DEFINITIONS/ CONCEPTS Garcia v. Florido

TORT AND QUASI-DELICT
Tort
Am Jur: A tortious act is a wrongful act. While
no civil right can be predicated upon a mere
violation of a penal statute, the same act may be a
crime and a tort at the same time. In such cases,
the tort is a private injury which is pursued by the
injured party.
Naguiat v. NLRC
Essentially, "tort" consists in the violation of a
right given or the omission of a duty imposed by
law. Simply stated, tort is a breach of a legal duty.
The same negligent act causing damages may
produce a civil liability arising from a crime under
Art. 100 of the RPC or create an action for quasi-
delict or culpa extra-contractual under Arts. 2176-
2194 of the New Civil Code.
Virata v. Ochoa
In negligence cases, the aggrieved parties may
choose between an action under the Revised Penal
Code or of quasi-delict under Article 2176. What is
prohibited by Article 2177 of the Civil Code is to
recover twice for the same negligent act. Under
Article 1157, quasi-delict and an act or omission
punishable by law are two different sources of
obligation.

Quasi-delict Cinco v. Canonoy

CC Art. 2176. Elements: The concept of quasi-delict as enunciated in
act or omission Article 2176 of the Civil Code (supra), is so broad
damage or injury is caused to another that it includes not only injuries to persons but also
fault or negligence is present damage to property.
there is no pre-existing contractual It makes no distinction between "damage to
relations between the parties persons" and "damage to property.
causal connection between damage done
and act/omission Baksh v. CA
(Breach of promise to marry) Article 21 is
Barredo v. Garcia designed to expand the concept of torts or quasi-
Authorities support the proposition that a delict in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal
quasi-delict or "culpa aquiliana" is a separate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs
institution under the Civil Code, entirely which is impossible for human foresight to
independent from a delict or crime. specifically enumerate and punish in the statute
A concurrence of scope in regard to negligent books. Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which defines
acts does not destroy the distinction between the a quasi-delict, is limited to negligent acts or
civil liability arising from a crime and the omissions. Quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana, is a civil
responsibility for cuasi- delitos or culpa extra- law concept while torts is an Anglo-American or
contractual. The same negligent act causing common law concept. Torts is much broader than
damages may produce civil liability arising from a QD because it includes not only negligence, but
crime under article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, intentional criminal acts as well such as assault and
or create an action for cuasi-delito or culpa extra- battery, false imprisonment and deceit. In our
contractual under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil system, intentional and malicious acts, with certain
Code. exceptions, are to be governed by the RPC while
negligent acts or omissions are to be covered by
Crime Quasi-delict Article 2176 of the Civil Code. In between these
opposite spectrums are injurious acts which, in the
public interest private concern absence of Article 21, would have been beyond
redress. Thus, Article 21 fills that vacuum.
RPC punishes and CC repairs the damage by
corrects the act indemnification CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
punishes only when include all acts in which
there is a penal law "any kind of fault or RPC Art. 365 Imprudence and negligence
covering the act negligence intervenes." Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall
commit any act which, had it been intentional,
subsidiary liability of solidary liability of would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the
employer employer penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its medium period; if it
defense is that defense is that accused
would have constituted a less grave felony, the
employees resources observed due diligence of a
must first be exhausted good father of a family
penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and
medium periods shall be imposed; if it would have
constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto
menor in its maximum period shall be imposed.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

ONE UP LAW
1 of 55
I. Torts
Any person who, by simple imprudence or
negligence, shall commit an act which would
otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and
maximum periods; if it would have constituted a
less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in
its minimum period shall be imposed.
When the execution of the act covered by this
article shall have only resulted in damage to the
property of another, the offender shall be punished
by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the
value of said damages to three times such value,
but which shall in no case be less than twenty-five
pesos.
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and
censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by
simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some
wrong which, if done maliciously, would have
constituted a light felony.
In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall
exercise their sound discretion, without regard to
the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be
applicable:
When the penalty provided for the offense is equal
to or lower than those provided in the first two
paragraphs of this article, in which case the court
shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than
that which should be imposed in the period which
they may deem proper to apply.
When, by imprudence or negligence and with
violation of the Automobile Law, to death of a
person shall be caused, in which case the
defendant shall be punished by prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but
without malice, doing or falling to do an act from
which material damage results by reason of
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the
person performing of failing to perform such act,
taking into consideration his employment or
occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition and other circumstances 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
nor the danger clearly manifest.
The penalty next higher in degree to those
provided for in this article shall be imposed upon
the offender who fails to lend on the spot to the
injured parties such help as may be in this hand to
give. (As amended by RA 1790, approved June 21,
1957).
Barredo v. Garcia
(See mnemonic supra) - - > refer to Sangcos
discussion on the 4 reasons why there is a right of
election between using Art. 100 of RPC or culpa
aquiliana.
People v. Ligon
It does not follow that a person who is not
criminally liable is also free from civil liability. While
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
2 of 55
Torts and Damages
the guilt of the accused in a criminal prosecution
must be established beyond reasonable doubt, only
a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil
action for damages. The judgment of acquittal
extinguishes the civil liability of the accused only
when it includes a declaration that the facts from
which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
Padilla v. CA
The extinction of the civil action by reason of
acquittal in the criminal case refers exclusively to
civil liability ex delicto founded on Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code. The civil liability which is also
extinguished upon acquittal of the accused is the
civil liability arising from the act as a crime. The
same punishable act or omission can create two
kinds of civil liabilities against the accused and,
where provided by law, his employer. However, the
offended party cannot recover damages under both
types of liability.
Civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal
where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt
as only preponderance of evidence is required in
civil cases; where the court expressly declares that
the liability of the accused is not criminal but only
civil in nature as, for instance, in the felonies of
estafa, theft, and malicious mischief committed by
certain relatives who thereby incur only civil
liability (See Art. 332, Revised Penal Code); and,
where the civil liability does not arise from or is not
based upon the criminal act of which the accused
was acquitted
Article 29 clearly and expressly provides is a
remedy for the plaintiff in case the defendant has
been acquitted in a criminal prosecution on the
ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt. It merely emphasizes that a civil
action for damages is not precluded by an acquittal
for the same criminal act or omission. The Civil
Code provision does not state that the remedy can
be availed of only in a separate civil action. A
separate civil case may be filed but there is no
statement that such separate filing is the only and
exclusive permissible mode of recovering damages.
Cruz v. CA
The elements of reckless imprudence are:
1. That the offender does or fails to do an act;
2. That the doing or the failure to do that act
is voluntary;
3. That it be without malice;
4. That material damage results from the
reckless imprudence; and
5. That there is inexcusable lack of precaution
on the part of the offender, taking into
consideration his employment or
occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition, and other circumstances
regarding persons, time and place.
Whether or not a physician has committed an
"inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of
his patient is to be determined according to the
standard of care observed by other members of the
profession in good standing under similar
circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state
of the profession at the time of treatment.
I. Torts
BREACH OF CONTRACT
CC Art. 1157 Obligations arise from: (L-C-QC-QD-D)
Law
Contracts
Quasi-contracts
Acts or omissions punished by law
Quasi-delicts
CC Art. 1159
Obligations arising from contracts have the force of
law between the contracting parties and should be
complied with in good faith.
CC 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.
CC Art. 1171
Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in
all obligations. Any waiver of an action for future
fraud is void.
CC 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.
CC 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.
CC 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.
CC Art. 2178
The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174 are also
applicable to a quasi-delict.
Cangco v. Manila Railroad
Article 1903 of the (old) Civil Code is not
applicable to obligations arising ex contractu. In
cases of non-contractual obligation, it is the
wrongful or negligent act or omission itself which
creates the vinculum juris, whereas in contractual
relations the vinculum exists independently of the
breach of the voluntary duty assumed by the
parties when entering into the contractual relation.
The field of non- contractual obligation is much
more broader than that of contractual obligations,
comprising, as it does, the whole extent of juridical
human relations. These two fields, figuratively
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
3 of 55
Torts and Damages
speaking, concentric; that is to say, the mere fact
that a person is bound to another by contract does
not relieve him from extra-contractual liability to
such person. When such a contractual relation
exists the obligor may break the contract under
such conditions that the same act which constitutes
the source of an extra-contractual obligation had
no contract existed between the parties. (Take
note that in this case the doctrine of tort in
contractual relations first made headway)
Air France v. Carrascoso
(Passenger ejected from first class because
white man had better right) A contract to transport
passengers is quite different in kind and degree
from any other contractual relation because of the
relation which an air-carrier sustains with the
public. Passengers do not contract merely for
transportation. They have a right to be treated by
the carrier's employees with kindness, respect,
courtesy and due consideration. Any rule or
discourteous conduct on the part of employees
towards a passenger gives the latter an action for
damages against the carrier.
Although the relation of passenger and carrier
is contractual both in origin and nature,
nevertheless, the act that breaks the contract of
carriage may also be a tort.
PSBA v. CA
(Outsider/non-student kills student, school
impleaded on the basis of Art. 2180, inapplicable
since assailant is not a pupil or student, but still
PSBA may be liable due to contract, but still not
enough evidence for tort in contract) Institutions of
learning must meet the implicit or "built-in"
obligation of providing their students with an
atmosphere that promotes or assists in attaining its
primary undertaking of imparting knowledge.
Because the circumstances of the present case
evince a contractual relation between the PSBA and
Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do not
really govern. However, this impression has not
prevented this Court from determining the
existence of a tort even when there obtains a
contract. (Air France doctrine).
Immediately what comes to mind is the
chapter of the Civil Code on Human Relations,
particularly Article 21, which provides:
Any person who willfully causes loss or injury
to another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
good custom or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage.
It can be concluded that should the act which
breaches a contract be done in bad faith and be
violative of Article 21, then there is a cause to view
the act as constituting a quasi-delict.
Syquia v. CA
(Flooded grave because Manila Memorial bore
a hole on the vault, claim that the agreement was
to provide a waterproof vault, but SC denied this;
no breach of contract) Although a pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties does not
preclude the existence of a culpa aquiliana, there is
no negligence in this case and no breach of
contract either since there was no stipulation in the
Deed of Sale and Certificate of Perpetual Care and
I. Torts Torts and Damages
in the Rules and Regulations of the Manila Pre- There is pre- No pre-existing No pre-
Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. that the vault would existing existing contract existing
be waterproof. contract contract contract

Burden Contractual Victim. Prove Prosecution.

Far East v. CA of proof party. Prove the ff.: Accused is
The doctrine that a quasi-delict can be the the ff.: 1. damage presumed
cause for breaching a contract that might thereby 1. existence of 2. negligence innocent
permit the application of applicable principles on a contract 3. causal until the
2. breach connection contrary is
tort even where there is a pre-existing contract between proved.
between the plaintiff and the defendant can aptly negligence and
govern only where the act or omission complained damage done
of would constitute an actionable tort
DAMAGES
independently of the contract. The test (whether a
quasi-delict can be deemed to underlie the breach
Damage
of a contract) can be stated thusly: Where, without
a pre-existing contract between two parties, an act
People v. Ballesteros
or omission can nonetheless amount to an
Damages may be defined as the pecuniary
actionable tort by itself, the fact that the parties
compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an
are contractually bound is no bar to the application
injury sustained, or as otherwise expressed, the
of quasi-delict provisions to the case.
pecuniary consequences which the law imposes for
the breach of some duty or the violation of some
CC Art. 1314
right.
Any third person who induces another to
violate his contract shall be liable for damages to
Damnum absque injuria
the other contracting party.
Custodio v. CA
Elements (So Ping Bun vs. Ca):
(Damage vs. Injury) Injury is the illegal
1. existence of a valid contract
invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt,
2. knowledge on the part of the third person of the
or harm which results from the injury; and
existence of the contract
damages are the recompense or compensation
3. interference of the third person without legal
awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can
justification or excuse.
be damage without injury in those instances in
which the loss or harm was not the result of a
Gilchrist v. Cuddy
violation of a legal duty. These situations are often
There is nothing in this article which requires
called damnum absque injuria. In order that a
as a condition precedent to the liability of a tort-
plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of
feasor that he must know the identity of a person
which he complains, he must establish that such
to whom he causes damages.
injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the
defendant owed to the plaintiff. There must be
Lagon v. CA
damnum et injuria.
The interference is penalized because it
violates the property rights of a party in a contract
Philippine Racing v. Bonifacio
to reap the benefits that should result therefrom.
Where an officer is invested with discretion and
The defendant MUST act with malice. A financial or
is empowered to exercise his judgment in matters
profit motivation will not necessarily make a person
brought before him, he is sometimes called a
an officious interferer liable for damages as long as
quasi-judicial officer, and when so acting he is
there is no malice or bad faith involved.
actually given immunity from liability to persons
who may be injured as the result of an erroneous
CONTRACT QUASI DELICT or mistaken decision, however erroneous judgment
DELICT
may be, provided the acts complained of are done
Vinculum Contract Negligent act Act or within the scope of the officer's authority, and
Juris or omission omission without willfulness, malice, or corruption.
(culpa, committed
imprudence) by means of
dolo
(deliberate, B. Negligence
malicious, in
bad faith)
CC Art. 1173
Proof Preponderance Preponderance Proof beyond The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in
Needed of evidence of evidence reasonable the omission of that diligence which is required by
doubt
the nature of the obligation and corresponds with
Defense Exercise of Exercise of the circumstances of the persons, of the time and
available extra diligence of of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the
ordinary good father of provisions of Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2,
diligence (in a family in the
shall apply.
contract of selection and
carriage), Force supervision of If the law or contract does not state the diligence
Majeure employees which is to be observed in the performance, that

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

ONE UP LAW
4 of 55
I. Torts
which is expected of a good father of a family shall
be required.
Art. 2178. The provisions of Articles 1172 to 1174
are also applicable to a quasi-delict.
US v. Garces
(Opium lost in cabinet, keys entrusted to
trusted employee) When we attempt to measure
the negligence which pervades a particular act or
omission, we must first determine upon a standard
of care commensurate with the occasion, and then
endeavor to ascertain how far short of this
standard falls the act or omission in question. Did
not defendant take the steps to guard the opium
pipe which its value warranted? The clerk Medina
was a trusted employee. It is not shown that he
was not worthy of confidence to the extent the
defendant relied upon him. It is not denied,
however, that the aparador where the pipe was
located, as well as the employees of the office,
were constantly in view during office hours and
that an attempt to abstract the pipe during that
time would be attended with considerable risk of
detention, while Medina, by means of his key to
the office, could abstract the pipe outside of office
hours with comparatively no risk of detection, as
he was a trusted employee. The pipe and other
prescribed articles were, therefore, placed where it
was possible but hardly probable that they would
be stolen. It is quite true that, in the light of
subsequent developments, the place selected by
the defendant as a repository for these articles was
not adequately protected against thieves. There
was at least an error of judgment on his part in
assuming that the aparador was a reasonably safe
place in which to keep the articles in question.
1. DEFINITION:
Picart v. Smith
The test by which 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 man would
have used in the same situation? If not, then he is
negligent. Negligence in a given case is not
determined by reference to the personal judgment
of the actor in the situation before him. As to what
would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a
given situation must of course be always
determined in the light of human experience and in
view of the facts involved in the particular case.
Wright v. Meralco
Mere intoxication does not establish a want of
ordinary care. It is but a circumstance to be
considered with the other evidence tending to
prove negligence. It is the general rule that it is
immaterial whether a man is drunk or sober if no
want of ordinary care or prudence can be imputed
to him, and no greater degree of care is required
than by a sober one. If one's conduct is
characterized by a proper degree of care and
prudence, it is immaterial whether he is drunk or
sober.
Layugan v. IAC
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
5 of 55
Torts and Damages
Negligence is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of
something which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do or as Judge Cooley defines it, "(T)he
failure to observe for the protection of the interests
of another person, that degree of care, precaution,
and vigilance which the circumstances justly
demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.
Valenzuela v. CA
Negligence, as it is commonly understood is
conduct which creates an undue risk of harm to
others. It is the failure to observe that degree of
care, precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other
person suffers injury. In Corliss vs. Manila Railroad
Company, that negligence is the want of care
required by the circumstances.
PRIOR CONDUCT
Picart v. Smith (supra)
Gan v. CA
(Toyota car bumps old man along North Bay
boulevard, to avoid head-on collision) The test for
determining whether or not a person is negligent in
doing an act whereby injury or damage results to
the person or property of another is this: Would a
prudent man in the position of the person to whom
negligence is attributed foresee harm to the person
injured as a reasonable consequence of the course
about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes the
duty oil the doer to take precaution against its
mischievous results and the failure to do so
constitutes negligence. Under that rule, one who
suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is
required to act without time to consider the best
means that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he
fails to adopt what subsequently and upon
reflection may appear to have been a better
method, unless the emergency in which he finds
himself is brought about by his own negligence.
UNREASONABLE RISK
Valenzuela v. CA
(See rule supra, includes unreasonable risk or
undue risk as part of negligence
definition/concept)
Phoenix Construction v. IAC
(Truck parked askew) The truck driver's
negligence far from being a "passive and static
condition" was rather an indispensable and efficient
cause. The improper parking of the dump truck
created an unreasonable risk of injury for anyone
driving down the street.
FORESEEABILITY
Picart v. Smith
Could a prudent man, in the case under
consideration, foresee harm as a result of the
course actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of
I. Torts
the actor to take precautions to guard against that
harm. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by
ignoring of the suggestion born of this prevision, is
always necessary before negligence can be held to
exist.
Civil Aeronautics v. CA
(Israeli Honorary Consul General slipped in the
NAIA waiting area, due to a dangerous sliding step)
The private respondent, who was the plaintiff in the
case before the lower court, could not have
reasonably foreseen the harm that would befall
him, considering the attendant factual
circumstances. Even if the private respondent had
been looking where he was going, the step in
question could not easily be noticed because of its
construction. (lines of tilings are continuous)
PROBABILITY
Picart v. Smith
Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent
man in the position of the tortfeasor would have
foreseen that an effect harmful to another was
sufficiently probable to warrant foregoing his
conduct or guarding against its consequences.
Far Eastern v. CA
(Case of Russian ship which docks at North
Harbor, pilotage assigned to dock, but anchor is
detached from seafloor which caused the ship to hit
the docks and damage the harbor; master was
lethargic and did not correct pilots shortcomings)
An act may be negligent if it is done without the
competence that a reasonable person in the
position of the actor would recognize as necessary
to prevent it from creating an unreasonable risk of
harm to another. Those who undertake any work
calling for special skills are required not only to
exercise reasonable care in what they do but also
possess a standard minimum of special knowledge
and ability.
2. CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSIDER
Corliss v. Manila
It cannot be stressed too much that the
decisive considerations are too variable, too
dependent in the lid analysis upon a common sense
estimate of the situation as it presented itself to
the parties for us to be able to say that this or that
element having been isolated, negligence is shown.
The factors that enter the judgment are too many
and diverse for us to imprison them in a formula
sufficient of itself to yield the correct answer to the
multi-faceted problems the question of negligence
poses. Every case must be dependent on its facts.
The circumstances indicative of lack of due care
must be judged in the light of what could
reasonably be expected of the parties. If the
objective standard of prudence be met, then
negligence is ruled out.
TIME
People v. Ramirez
(Accused mistakenly shot a companion hunter
instead of the aimed deer, at night) The defendant,
who was carrying a firearm to hunt at nighttime
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
6 of 55
Torts and Damages
with the aid of a lantern, knowing that he had two
companions, should have exercised all the
necessary diligence to avoid every undesirable
accident.
EMERGENCY RULE
Valenzuela v. CA
Under the "emergency rule" adopted by this
Court in Gan vs. Court of Appeals, an individual
who suddenly finds himself in a situation of danger
and is required to act without much time to
consider the best means that may be adopted to
avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence if he fails to undertake what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be
a better solution, unless the emergency was
brought by his own negligence.
A woman driving a vehicle suddenly crippled by
a flat tire on a rainy night will not be faulted for
stopping at a point which is both convenient for her
to do so and which is not a hazard to other
motorists.
Mckee v. IAC
Any reasonable and ordinary prudent man
would have tried to avoid running over the two
boys by swerving the car away from where they
were even if this would mean entering the opposite
lane. This comes under the emergency rule.
HARM AVOIDED
Consolacion v. Manila
(PU car collides with train, plaintiffs were in the
PU car; railroad crossing sign present) The
defendant is negligent because by installing the
gates at the place or crossing where the accident
occurred, it had voluntarily imposed upon itself the
obligation to operate them even at night and to
close them every time a train passed in order to
avoid causing injury to the public. It has been said
that the gates constitute an invitation to the public
to pass without fear of danger, and failure to
operate them conveniently constitutes negligence
on the part of the company. The driver was,
likewise, negligent because he did not comply with
his duty to slacken the speed and to "look and
listen" before crossing the intersection and above
all, because he did not maintain a reasonable
speed so as to permit him to stop any moment if it
were necessary in order to avoid an accident.
Yamada v. Manila
It is true that a railroad company is held to
greater caution in the more thronged streets of the
densely populated portions of the city than in the
less frequented streets in suburban parts or in
towns; but this does not mean that it is negligence
to maintain grade crossing in such densely
populated portions or that it is negligence not to
maintain a flagman at crossings located in such
districts. It simply means that the company in
operating its trains over such crossings must
exercise care commensurate with the use of
crossings in any given locality.
I. Torts
VALUE
Manila v. Remoquillo
(Media agua case, man dies due to
electrocution after swinging with a metal sheet)
The Supreme Court in this case took into account
the value that the companys services provides to
the community in taking into account the
negligence attributed to Magno who swerved with
the metal sheet. It preferred to hold the man liable
instead of the company who left their wires
uninsulated, in view of the importance of the
services which the utility firm provides.
PERSON EXPOSED TO RISK
US v. Clemente
It is the duty of any person driving a vehicle in
the public thoroughfares to reduce the same to
control, ready to be stopped at any moment, if he
sees a child below the years of understanding in
such place that it can, by any reasonable chance,
place itself in a dangerous position with respect to
the vehicle. In such case the vehicle must be under
such control that, if the child, by some sudden or
unexpected movement, places itself in the way of
the vehicle, it can be stopped in time to avert
injury.
Taylor v. Manila Railroad (supra)
VIOLATION OF LAWS, ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Marinduque v. Workmen
There is no doubt that mere riding on haulage
truck or stealing a ride thereon is not negligence,
ordinarily. It couldn't be, because transportation by
truck is not dangerous per se. It is argued that
there was notorious negligence in this particular
instance because there was the employer's
prohibition. A violation of a rule promulgated by a
Commission or board is not negligence per se; but
it may be evidence of negligence. The prohibition
of the employer can only be held as evidence of
negligence.
Cipriano v. CA
(Rustproofing shop owned by petitioner, Kia
Pride car burned because of fire in adjoining
restaurant owned by petitioner also) A violation of
a statutory duty is negligence per se. In F.F. Cruz
and Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we held the
owner of a furniture shop liable for the destruction
of the plaintiff's house in a fire which started in his
establishment in view of his failure to comply with
an ordinance which required the construction of a
firewall. In Teague v. Fernandez, we stated that
where the very injury which was intended to be
prevented by the ordinance has happened, non-
compliance with the ordinance was not only an act
of negligence, but also the proximate cause of the
death. (Petitioner did not register with DTI, a
requirement for motor vehicle repair shops)
FF Cruz v. CA
(Furniture shop, no firewall, fire in shop
spreads to respondents adjoining house) Even
without applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
7 of 55
Torts and Damages
petitioner's failure to construct a firewall in
accordance with city ordinances would suffice to
support a finding of negligence. Even without
applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,
petitioner's failure to construct a firewall in
accordance with city ordinances would suffice to
support a finding of negligence. The failure to
comply with an ordinance providing for safety
regulations had been ruled by the Court as an act
of negligence.
Teague v. Fernandez
(Beauty and culture school students get killed
by stampede after teachers asked them to
evacuate building due to fire across the street, only
1 narrow stairway in violation of ordinance) The
violation of the ordinance was a continuing one,
since it was a measure of safety designed to
prevent a specific situation which would pose a
danger to the occupants. It is true that there would
have been no overcrowding in the single stairway if
there had not been a fire which caused the
students to panic and rush headlong for the stairs
in order to go down. But it was precisely such
contingencies or events that the authors of the
ordinance had in mind. The violation of a statute 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
statute or ordinance was intended to prevent. To
consider the violation of the ordinance as the
proximate cause of the injury does not portray the
situation in its true perspective; it would be more
accurate to say that the overcrowding at the
stairway was the proximate cause and that it was
precisely what the ordinance intended to prevent
by requiring that there be two stairways instead of
only one. Under the doctrine of the cases cited by
the respondents, the principle of proximate cause
applies to such violation.
Vda. De Gregorio v. Go Ching Bing
(Students permit holder was employee of
truck owner, turned wheel over to policeman who
runs over a person after swerving in order to avoid
a parked truck) Even if the the defendant had so
violated the law or may be deemed negligent in
entrusting the truck to one who is not provided
with driver's license, it is clear that he may not be
declared liable for the accident because his
negligence was not the direct and proximate cause
thereof.
Sanitary Steam v. CA
Negligence, consisting in whole or in part, of
violation of law, like any other negligence, is
without legal consequence unless it is a
contributing cause of the injury. Petitioner says
that "driving an overloaded vehicle with only one
functioning headlight during nighttime certainly
increases the risk of accident," 4that because the
Cimarron had only one headlight, there was
"decreased visibility," and that the tact that the
vehicle was overloaded and its front seat
overcrowded "decreased [its] maneuverability,"
However, these are not sufficient to prove the
negligence which contributed to the injury.
I. Torts
CUSTOM AND PRACTICE
Yamada v. Manila Railroad
A practice which is dangerous to human life
cannot ripen into a custom which will protect
anyone who follows it. To go upon a railroad
crossing without making any effort to ascertain the
approach of a train is so hazardous an act and one
so dangerous to life, that no one may be permitted
to excuse himself who does it, provided injury
result.
Martinez v. Buskirk
(Horse startled; it was left unattended as part
of custom as the carromata was used for delivery
of goods) Acts the performance of which has not
proved destructive or injurious and which have,
therefore, been acquiesced in by society for so long
a time that they have ripened into custom, can not
be held to be themselves unreasonable or
imprudent. Indeed the very reason why they have
been permitted by society is that they beneficial
rather than prejudicial. Accidents sometimes
happen and injuries result from the most ordinary
acts of life. But such are not their natural or
customary results.
3. STANDARD OF CONDUCT
THE PRUDENT MAN
Picart v. Smith
The question as to what would constitute the
conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must
of course be always determined in the light of
human experience and in view of the facts involved
in the particular case. Reasonable men govern their
conduct by the circumstances which are before
them or known to them. They are not, and are not
supposed to be, omniscient of the future. Hence
they can be expected to take care only when there
is something before them to suggest or warn of
danger. Could a prudent man, in the case under
consideration, foresee harm as a result of the
course actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of
the actor to take precautions to guard against that
harm. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by
ignoring of the suggestion born of this prevision, is
always necessary before negligence can be held to
exist. Stated in these terms, the proper criterion
for determining the existence of negligence in a
given case is this: Conduct is said to be negligent
when a prudent man in the position of the
tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect
harmful to another was sufficiently probable to
warrant his foregoing conduct or guarding against
its consequences.
CHILDREN
Taylor v. Manila Railroad (supra)
Children, wherever they go, must be expected
to act upon childlike instincts and impulses; and
others who are chargeable with a duty of care and
caution toward them must calculate upon this, and
take precautions accordingly. If they leave exposed
to the observation of children anything which would
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
8 of 55
Torts and Damages
be tempting to them, and which they in their
immature judgment might naturally suppose they
were at liberty to handle or play with, they should
expect that liberty to be taken. The owner's failure
to take reasonable precautions to prevent the child
form entering premises at a place where he knows
or ought to know that children are accustomed to
roam about or to which their childish instincts and
impulses are likely to attract them is at least
equivalent to an implied license to enter, and
where the child does not enter under such
conditions the owner's failure to make reasonable
precaution to guard the child against the injury
from unknown or unseen dangers, placed upon
such premises by the owner, is clearly a breach of
duty, a negligent omission, for which he may and
should be held responsible, if the child is actually
injured, without other fault on its part than that it
had entered on the premises of a stranger without
his express invitation or permission. (But boy was
still negligent because of his experience)
Jarco v. CA
(Gift wrapping counter falls down on 6 year old
kid) The rule, therefore, is that a child under nine
years of age must be conclusively presumed
incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of
law. The presumption of lack of discernment or
incapacity for negligence in the case of a child over
nine but under fifteen years of age is a rebuttable
one, under our law.
Del Rosario v. Manila
(Meralco fails to promptly repair wire, an end
of which fell to the ground; boy going home from
school touches it and gets electrocuted) It is
doubtful whether contributory negligence can be
imputed to the 9 year- old boy, owing to his
immature years and natural curiosity, and the
mere fact that the boy ignored the caution of a
companion of the age of 8 years does not alter the
case. But even supposing that contributory
negligence could in some measure be properly
imputed yet such negligence would not be wholly
fatal to the right of action in this case, not having
been the determining cause of the accident.
Ylarde v. Aquino
(10 year-old boy gets killed due to being
pinned by large rock, negligent teacher leaves
them in dangerous ditch) The degree of care
required to be exercised must vary with the
capacity of the person endangered to care for
himself. A minor should not be held to the same
degree of care as an adult, but his conduct should
be judged according to the average conduct of
persons of his age and experience. The standard of
conduct to which a child must conform for his own
protection is that degree of care ordinarily
exercised by children of the same age, capacity,
discretion, knowledge and experience under the
same or similar circumstances.
EXPERTS / PROFESSIONALS
Culion v. Philippine
(Gwendoline boat, Culion changed carburetor
to adapt to crude oil, leaks, explodes) When a
I. Torts
person holds himself out as being competent to do
things requiring professional skill, he will be held
liable for negligence if he fails to exhibit the care
and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular
work which he attempts to do.
US v. Pineda
(Pharmacist mistakenly gives poison instead of
horse medicine) The profession of pharmacy, it has
been said again and again, is one demanding care
and skill. We cannot say that one holding himself
out as competent to handle such drugs, and who
does so, having rightful access to them, and relied
upon by those dealing with him to exercise that
high degree of caution and care called for by the
peculiarly dangerous nature of this business, can
be heard to say that his mistakes by which he
furnishes a customer the most deadly of drugs for
those comparatively harmless is not, in and of
itself, gross negligence, and that of an aggravated
form.
Fernando v. CA
(Septic tank case) In view of this factual
milieu, it would appear that an accident such as
toxic gas leakage from the septic tank is unlikely to
happen unless one removes its covers. The
accident in the case at bar occurred because the
victims on their own and without authority from the
public respondent opened the septic tank.
Considering the nature of the task of emptying a
septic tank especially one which has not been
cleaned for years, an ordinarily prudent person
should undoubtedly be aware of the attendant
risks. When a person holds himself out as being
competent to do things requiring professional skill,
he will be held liable for negligence if he fails to
exhibit the care and skill of one ordinarily skilled in
the particular work which he attempts to do
(emphasis Ours).
Cruz v. CA
Whether or not a physician has committed an
"inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of
his patient is to be determined according to the
standard of care observed by other members of the
profession in good standing under similar
circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state
of the profession at the time of treatment or the
present state of medical science. In the recent case
of Leonila Garcia-Rueda v. Wilfred L. Pascasio, et
al., this Court stated that in accepting a case, a
doctor in effect represents that, having the needed
training and skill possessed by physicians and
surgeons practicing in the same field, he will
employ such training, care and skill in the
treatment of his patients. He therefore has a duty
to use at least the same level of care that any
other reasonably competent doctor would use to
treat a condition under the same circumstances.
BPI v. CA
(Pretermination of money market account by
impostor, unusually large withdrawals) By the very
nature of their work the degree of responsibility,
care and trustworthiness expected of their
employees and officials is far greater than those of
ordinary clerks and employees. The banks are
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
9 of 55
Torts and Damages
expected to exercise the highest degree of
diligence in the selection and supervision of their
employees.
INTOXICATION
Wright v. Manila
Mere intoxication does not establish a want of
ordinary care. It is but a circumstance to be
considered with the other evidence tending to
prove negligence. It is the general rule that it is
immaterial whether a man is drunk or sober if no
want of ordinary care or prudence can be imputed
to him, and no greater degree of care is required
than by a sober one. If one's conduct is
characterized by a proper degree of care and
prudence, it is immaterial whether he is drunk or
sober.
US v. Crame
(US Army private gets run over; it was alleged
that private was drunk) There is no competent
evidence to show that the soldier was drunk at the
time of the accident; but, even if he was drunk, it
is of little consequence in the decision of this case,
it not having been shown that such drunkenness
contributed to the accident. Whatever his condition
he could easily have been seen by the automobile
driver if he had been vigilant, as he should have
been, in passing over the streets of a city and
especially in passing a place where many used by
people on foot.
INSANITY
Art. 2180. Guardians are liable for damages
caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who
are under their authority and live in their
company
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
(Crazy person kills woman, was exempted
from criminal liability) Every person liable
criminally for a crime or misdemeanor is also liable
for reparation of damage and for indemnification of
the harm done, but there may be civil liability
because of acts ordinarily punishable, although the
law has declared their perpetrators exempt from
criminal liability. Such is the case of a lunatic or
insane person who, in spite of his irresponsibility
on account of the deplorable condition of his
deranged mind, is still reasonably and justly liable
with his property for the consequences of his acts.
4. DEGREES OF NEGLIGENCE
CC Art. 2231
In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be
granted if the defendant acted with gross
negligence.
I. Torts
Amedo v. Rio
(Seaman dives into sea after P2 bill falls into
it) "Gross negligence is defined to be the want of
even slight care and diligence." By gross
negligence is meant 'such entire want of care as to
raise a presumption that the person in fault is
conscious of the probable consequences of
carelessness, and is indifferent, or worse, to the
danger of injury to person or property of others.' ..
The negligence must amount to a reckless
disregard of the safety of person or property.
Marinduque v. Workmens (supra)
"Notorious" negligence, is the same thing as
"gross" negligence - implying "conscious
indifference to consequences" "pursuing a course
of conduct which would naturally and probably
result in injury" "utter disregard of consequences."
Getting or accepting a free ride on the company's
haulage truck couldn't be gross negligence,
because as the referee found, "no danger or risk
was apparent.
Benguet v. CA
(Jeeps antenna touches uninsulated wire,
which was extraordinarily low, store owner touches
jeep and dies due to electrocution) In quasi-delict,
exemplary damages are awarded when the act or
omission which caused injury is attended by gross
negligence. Gross negligence has been defined as
negligence characterized by the want of even slight
care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where
there is duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully
and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to
consequences in so far as other persons may be
affected. There is a clear showing of BENECO's
gross negligence when it failed to detect, much less
to repair, for an inexcusably long period of (7)
years the uninsulated connection which caused the
death of victim.
5. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
BURDEN OF PROOF
ROC Rule 131, Sec. 3
c. That a person intends the ordinary
consequences of his voluntary act;
d. That a person takes ordinary care of his
concerns;
PRESUMPTIONS
CC 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.
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
10 of 55
Torts and Damages
CC 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.
CC Art. 1735
In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods
are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to
have acted negligently, unless they prove that they
observed extraordinary diligence as required in
Article 1733. (Note: previous article contains
instances of fortuitous events)
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
Layugan v. IAC (supra)
Res ipsa loquitur (The thing speaks for itself).
"Where the thing which causes injury is shown to
be under the management of the defendant, and
the accident is such as in the ordinary course of
things does not happen if those who have the
management use proper care, it affords reasonable
evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the
defendant, that the accident arose from want of
care. Res ipsa loquitur is rule of evidence whereby
negligence of alleged wrongdoer may be inferred
from mere fact that accident happened provided
character of accident and circumstances attending
it lead reasonably to belief that in absence of
negligence it would not have occurred and that
thing which caused injury is shown to have been
under management and control of alleged
wrongdoer.
The doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur as a rule of
evidence is peculiar to the law of negligence which
recognizes that prima facie negligence may be
established without direct proof and furnishes a
substitute for specific proof of negligence. The
doctrine is not a rule of substantive law but merely
a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience.
The rule, when applicable to the facts and
circumstances of a particular case, is not intended
to and does not dispense with the requirement of
proof of culpable negligence on the part of the
party charged. It merely determines and regulates
what shall be prima facie evidence thereof and
facilitates the burden of plaintiff of proving a
breach of the duty of due care. The doctrine can be
invoked when and only when, under the
circumstances involved, direct evidence is absent
and not readily available. Hence, it has generally
been held that the presumption of inference arising
from the doctrine cannot be availed of, or is
overcome, where plaintiff has knowledge and
testifies or presents evidence as to the specific act
of negligence which is the cause of the injury
I. Torts
complained of or where there is direct evidence as
to the precise cause of the accident and all the
facts and circumstances attendant on the
occurrence clearly appear. (here there was
evidence as to the negligence itself)
Ramos v. CA
(Head doctor, anesthesiologist negligent; brain
damage results from faulty anesthesia application
during gall bladder operation) The following
requisites must be shown:
1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does
not occur in the absence of someones
negligence
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the
exclusive control of the defendant
3. The possibility of contributing conduct which
would make the plaintiff responsible is
eliminated.
The fundamental element is the control of the
instrumentality which caused the damage.
Although generally, expert medical testimony
is relied upon in malpractice suits to prove that a
physician has done a negligent act or that he has
deviated from the standard medical procedure,
when the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by
the plaintiff, the need for expert medical testimony
is dispensed with because the injury itself provides
the proof of negligence. The general rule on the
necessity of expert testimony applies only to such
matters clearly within the domain of medical
science, and not to matters that are within the
common knowledge of mankind which may be
testified to by anyone familiar with the facts.
(Example of matter not within the domain of
medical science: leaving a foreign object in the
body after an operation, causing an infection)
Batiquin v. CA
(Caesarean section operation on Mrs. Villegas,
infection and pain caused to complainant due to
rubber glove allegedly found near the uterus; but
the rubber glove was not presented in court, proof
was merely testimonial) As such, the rule of res
ipsa loquitur comes to fore. The doctrine is not a
rule of substantive law, but merely a mode of proof
or a mere procedural convenience. The rule, when
applicable to the facts and circumstances of a
particular case, is not intended to and does not
dispense with the requirement of proof of culpable
negligence on the party charged. It merely
determines and regulates what shall be prima facie
evidence thereof and facilitates the burden of
plaintiff of proving a breach of the duty of due
care. The doctrine can be invoked when and only
when, under the circumstances involved, direct
evidence is absent and not readily available.
DM Consunji v. CA
(Construction worker falls 14 stories due to
faulty platform, heirs sue petitioner construction
company) As a rule of evidence, the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur is peculiar to the law of negligence
which recognizes that prima facie negligence may
be established without direct proof and furnishes a
substitute for specific proof of negligence. While
negligence is not ordinarily inferred or presumed,
and while the mere happening of an accident or
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
11 of 55
Torts and Damages
injury will not generally give rise to an inference or
presumption that it was due to negligence on
defendants part, under the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur, the facts or circumstances accompanying
an injury may be such as to raise a presumption,
or at least permit an inference of negligence on the
part of the defendant, or some other person who is
charged with negligence. One of the theoretical
bases for the application of the doctrine is
necessity, the absence of necessary evidence to
prove the negligence.
The res ipsa loquitur doctrine is based in part
upon the theory that the defendant in charge of the
instrumentality which causes the injury either
knows the cause of the accident or has the best
opportunity of ascertaining it and that the plaintiff
has no such knowledge, and therefore is compelled
to allege negligence in general terms and to rely
upon the proof of the happening of the accident in
order to establish negligence. The inference which
the doctrine permits is grounded upon the fact that
the chief evidence of the true cause, whether
culpable or innocent, is practically accessible to the
defendant but inaccessible to the injured person.
Accordingly, some courts add to the three
prerequisites for the application of the res ipsa
loquitur doctrine the further requirement that for
the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to apply, it must
appear that the injured party had no knowledge or
means of knowledge as to the cause of the
accident, or that the party to be charged with
negligence has superior knowledge or opportunity
for explanation of the accident.
6. DEFENSES
PLAINTIFFS NEGLIGENCE
CC Art. 2179
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.
Manila v. Remoquillo
The death of Magno was primarily caused by
his own negligence and in some measure by the
too close proximity of the "media agua" or rather
its edge to the electric wire of the company by
reason of the violation of the original permit given
by the city and the subsequent approval of said
illegal construction of the "media agua." Thus, the
real cause of the accident or death was the
reckless or negligent act of Magno himself. When
he was called by his stepbrother to repair the
"media agua" just below the third story window, it
is to be presumed that due to his age and
experience he was qualified to do so. Meralco
cannot be expected to be on the lookout for any
illegal construction which reduces the distance
between its wires and said construction, and after
finding that said distance of 3 feet had been
reduced, to change the stringing or installation of
I. Torts
its wires so as to preserve said distance.
Bernardo v. Legaspi
Where the plaintiff in a negligence action, by
his own carelessness contributes to the principal
occurrence, that is to accident, as one of the
determining causes thereof, he cannot recover.
This is equally true of the defendant.
Bernal v. House
(Girl walks in front of mom, gets startled by
speeding car from the opposite direction, falls into
gutter which was filled with hot water coming from
the nearby plant of defendant company; girl dies)
There is nothing abnormal in allowing the child to
run along a few paces in advance of the mother.
No one could foresee the coincidence of an
automobile appearing and of a frightened child
running and falling into a ditch filled with hot
water. The contributory negligence of the child and
her mother, if any, does not operate as a bar to
recovery, but in its strictest sense could only result
in reduction of the damages.
PLDT v. CA
(Accident mound case, jeep running too fast
and with dim lights along street he regularly
traversed) We find no error in the findings of the
respondent court in its original decision that the
accident which befell private respondents was due
to the lack of diligence of respondent Antonio
Esteban and was not imputable to negligent
omission on the part of petitioner PLDT.
Plaintiff's jeep was running along the inside
lane of Lacson Street. If it had remained on that
inside lane, it would not have hit the ACCIDENT
MOUND. The ACCIDENT MOUND was hit by the
jeep swerving from the left that is, swerving from
the inside lane. What caused the swerving is not
disclosed; but, as the cause of the accident,
defendant cannot be made liable for the damages
suffered by plaintiffs. The accident was not due to
the absence of warning signs, but to the
unexplained abrupt swerving of the jeep from the
inside lane. Jeep was not running at 25 kilometers
an hour as plaintiff-husband claimed. At that
speed, he could have braked the vehicle the
moment it struck the ACCIDENT MOUND. The jeep
would not have climbed the ACCIDENT MOUND
several feet as indicated by the tiremarks in Exhibit
B. The jeep must have been running quite fast. If
the jeep had been braked at 25 kilometers an hour,
plaintiff's would not have been thrown against the
windshield. If the accident did not happen because
the jeep was running quite fast on the inside lane
and for some reason or other it had to swerve
suddenly to the right and had to climb over the
ACCIDENT MOUND, then plaintiff-husband had not
exercised the diligence of a good father of a family.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
CC Art. 2179, supra.
CC Art. 2214
In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the
plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
12 of 55
Torts and Damages
recover.
Genobiagon v. CA
(Appellant drives rig, overtakes another rig and
as a result hits an old woman; old woman alleged
to be negligent; convicted of criminal negligence)
The alleged contributory negligence of the victim, if
any, does not exonerate the 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
(plaintiff injured by rails which slid off as a
result of a defect in the road/track on which the
hand-cars were traveling; plaintiff stayed on the
side of the hand-car instead of in front or at the
rear as instructed by defendant company) If so,
the disobedience of the plaintiff in placing himself
in danger contributed in some degree to the injury
as a proximate, although not as its primary cause.
Supreme Court in this case cited numerous
foreign precedents, mostly leaning towards the
doctrine that contributory negligence on the part of
the plaintiff did not exonerate defendant from
liability, but it led to the reduction of damages
awarded to the plantiff.
Phoenix v. IAC
(Truck parked askew case, plaintiff was a little
drunk and run fast to avoid being arrested for not
having a curfew pass) The legal and proximate
cause of the accident and of Dionisio's injuries was
the wrongful or negligent manner in which the
dump truck was parked in other words, the
negligence of petitioner Carbonel. That there was a
reasonable relationship between petitioner
Carbonel's negligence on the one hand and the
accident and respondent's injuries on the other
hand, is quite clear. Put in a slightly different
manner, the collision of Dionisio's car with the
dump truck was a natural and foreseeable
consequence of the truck driver's negligence.
Dionisio's negligence was not of an independent
and overpowering nature as to cut, as it were, the
chain of causation in fact between the improper
parking of the dump truck and the accident, nor to
sever the juris vinculum of liability. We hold that
private respondent Dionisio's negligence was "only
contributory," that the "immediate and proximate
cause" of the injury remained the truck driver's
"lack of due care" and that consequently
respondent Dionisio may recover damages though
such damages are subject to mitigation by the
courts.
Valenzuela v. CA
Contributory negligence is conduct on the part
of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause
to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the
standard to which he is required to conform for his
own protection. An actor who is confronted with an
emergency is not to be held up to the standard of
conduct normally applied to an individual who is in
no such situation. The law takes stock of impulses
of humanity when placed in threatening or
I. Torts
dangerous situations and does not require the
same standard of thoughtful and reflective care
from persons confronted by unusual and oftentimes
threatening conditions. (In other words, the
emergency rule was applicable in the case of
Valenzuela, thus her actions were not considered
negligent and therefore there is no contributory
negligence)
Philippine Bank v. CA
(Duplicate deposit slip case, negligent
owner/manager for not verifying account balance)
Private respondent was likewise negligent in not
checking its monthly statements of account. Had it
done so, the company would have been alerted to
the series of frauds being committed against RMC
by its secretary. The damage would definitely not
have ballooned to such an amount if only RMC,
particularly Romeo Lipana, had exercised even a
little vigilance in their financial affairs. This
omission by RMC amounts to contributory
negligence which shall mitigate the damages that
may be awarded to the private respondent under
Article 2179 of the New Civil Code. (SC in this case
used 60-40 ratio to apportion the damages to be
shouldered by both parties)
FORTUITOUS EVENT
CC 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 seen
responsible for those events which, could not
foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were
inevitable.
General Rule
No one shall be made responsible for
Fortuitous Events.
Exceptions
specified by law
stipulation
nature of obligation requires assuming the risk
Juntilla v. Fontanar
(Jeeps right rear tire exploded, turns turtle;
jeep was also overloaded was running fast) The
elements of caso fortuito are: (1) the cause of the
unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or of the
failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation,
must be independent of the human will. (2) It must
be impossible to foresee the event or if it can be
foreseen, it must be 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. And (4) the obligor must be free from any
participation in the aggravation of the injury
resulting to the creditor.
Hernandez v. COA
(Case of manager which encashed checks for
employees wages, but due to delay in getting the
checks encashed, he decides to take cash home
only to be robbed in broad daylight and in rush
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
13 of 55
Torts and Damages
hour traffic aboard the jeep) When the decision
made seemed logical at that time and was one that
could be expected of a reasonable and prudent
person (encashing the checks for the purpose of
accomodating his fellow employees so they can get
their salary), the robbery that happened to him
cannot be said to be the result of his imprudence
and negligence. This was undoubtedly a fortuitous
event covered by the said provisions, something
that could not have been reasonably foreseen
although it could have happened, and did.
Gotesco v. Chatto
(Balcony ceiling in theater collapses, architect
said he can find no reason why the ceiling
collapsed which according to him then the reason
for the collapse was due to force majeure) Force
majeure is defined by Blackstone as : Inevitable
accident or casualty; an accident produced by any
physical cause which is irresistible; such as
lightning, tempest, perils of the sea, inundation, or
earthquake; the sudden illness or death of a
person. please see original for the rest of the old
definitions. Gotesco could have easily discovered
the cause of the collapse if it were indeed due to
force majeure. But because he was incompetent to
conduct an investigation, for he was not an
engineer, he did not conduct one. Such defects
could have been discovered if only petitioner
exercised due diligence and care in keeping and
maintaining the premises.
Servando v. Philippine Steam
(Rice, colored paper and other merchandise
were cargo carried by defendant companys ship,
but they were discharged and placed in a
warehouse; warehouse burned down by fire) The
stipulation that: the carrier shall not be responsible
for loss or damage to shipments billed 'owner's
risk' unless such loss or damage is due to
negligence of carrier. Nor shall carrier be
responsible for loss or damage caused by force
majeure, dangers or accidents of the sea or other
waters; war; is valid.
It is a mere iteration of Art. 1174. Where
fortuitous event or force majeure is the immediate
and proximate cause of the loss, the obligor is
exempt from liability for non-performance.
Examples of caso fortuito: destruction of
houses, unexpected fire, shipwreck, violence of
robbers.'
NPC v. CA
(Petitioner releases water despite the typhoon,
causes damage and death) To exempt the obligor
from liability under Article 1174 the following must
concur: (a) the cause of the breach of the
obligation must be independent of the will of the
debtor, (b) the event must be either unforeseeable
or unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to
render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the debtor
must be free from any participation in, or
aggravation of the injury to the creditor. Thus, if
upon the happening of a fortuitous event or an act
of God, there concurs a corresponding fraud,
negligence, delay or violation or contravention in
any manner of the tenor of the obligation as
I. Torts
provided for in Article 1170 of the Civil Code, which
results in loss or damage, the obligor cannot
escape liability.
The principle embodied in the act of God
doctrine 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 into the cause of the mischief.
Thus it has been held that when the negligence of
a person concurs with an act of God in producing a
loss, such person is not exempt from liability by
showing that the immediate cause of the damage
was the act of God.
Southeastern College v. CA
(Roof of school removed by force of typhoon
winds, no defect of construction proven, force
majeure defense alleged) The antecedent of
fortuitous event or caso fortuito is found in the
Partidas which defines it as "an event which takes
place by accident and could not have been
foreseen." 9 Escriche elaborates it as "an
unexpected event or act of God which could neither
be foreseen nor resisted." 10 Civilist Arturo M.
Tolentino adds that "[f]ortuitous events may be
produced by two general causes: (1) by nature,
such as earthquakes, storms, floods, epidemics,
fires, etc. and (2) by the act of man, such as an
armed invasion, attack by bandits, governmental
prohibitions, robbery, etc."
In order that a fortuitous event may exempt a
person from liability, it is necessary that he be free
from any previous negligence or misconduct by
reason of which the loss may have been
occasioned.
There is no question that a typhoon or storm is
a fortuitous event. The person seeking exoneration
from liability must not be guilty of negligence.
Negligence, as commonly understood, is conduct
which naturally or reasonably creates undue risk or
harm to others.
At the outset, it bears emphasizing that a
person claiming damages for the negligence of
another has the burden of proving the existence of
fault or negligence causative of his injury or loss.
The facts constitutive of negligence must be
affirmatively established by competent evidence,
not merely by presumptions and conclusions
without basis in fact.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Afialda v. Hisole
(Caretaker of carabao gored to death,
defendant uses assumption of risk defense, SC
says liability of defendant limited to strangers) The
distinction between a stranger or third person. and
caretaker of the animal is important. For the
statute names the possessor or user of the animal
as the person liable for "any damages it may
cause," and this for the obvious reason that the
possessor or user has the custody and control of
the animal and is therefore the one in a position to
prevent it from causing damage.
It is the caretaker's business to try to prevent
the animal from causing injury or damage to
anyone, including himself. It was a risk he
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
14 of 55
Torts and Damages
voluntarily assumed.
Ilocos Norte v. CA
(Woman electrocuted while walking through
floods; she was going to check on her shop and the
property inside; electric company invokes the
maxim volenti non fit injuria) It has been held
that a person is excused from the force of the rule
(volenti non fit injuria), that when he voluntarily
assents to a known danger he must abide by the
consequences, 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. (Note:
Sangco says that the maxim volenti non fit injuria
is applicable to assumption of risk without the
presence of a contract, cf. Afialda)
DUE DILIGENCE
Ramos v. Pepsi
(Pepsi was sued under Art. 2180 for the
collision between its truck and car of petitioner; the
truck drivers name is Andres Bonifacio) From Art.
2180, two things are apparent: (1) That when an
injury is caused by the negligence of a servant or
employee there instantly arises a presumption of
law that there was negligence on the part of the
master or employer either in the selection of the
servant or employee, or in supervision over him
after the selection, or both; and (2) that the
presumption is juris tantun and not juris et de jure,
and consequently may be rebutted. It follows
necessarily that if the employer shows to the
satisfaction of the court that in selection and
supervision he has exercised the care and diligence
of a good father of a family, the presumption is
overcome and he is relieved from liability.
MMTC v. CA
(PUJ and MMTC bus collided; jeep passenger
sued MMTC, which attempted to prove thru
testimonial evidence that they exercised due
diligence in selection and supervision of their
drivers; SC did not think proof was enough) When
the employee causes damage due to his own
negligence while performing his own duties, there
arises the juris tantum presumption that the
employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of
observance of the diligence of a good father of a
family. For failure to rebut such legal presumptionn
of negligence in the selection and supervision of
employees, the employer is likewise responsible for
damages the basis of the liability being the
relationship of pater familias or on the employers's
own negligence.
Due diligence in the supervision of employees,
on the other hand, includes the formulation of
suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of
employees and the issuance of proper instructions
intended for the protection of the public and
persons with whom the employer has relations
through his or its employees and the imposition of
necessary disciplinary measures upon employees in
case of breach or as may be warranted to ensure
the performance of acts indispensable to the
business of and beneficial to their employer. Also,
actual implementation and monitoring of consistent
complience with said rules should be the constant
I. Torts
concern of the employer, acting through
dependable supervisors who should regularly
report on their supervisory functions.
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA (SEE PART I.)
PRESCRIPTION
4 years for QD
1 year for defamation
Kramer v. CA
(Fishing boat collides with inter-island vessel in
1976, but action for quasi-delict filed only 9 years
later; petitioner contends cause of action accrued
only in 1982 after protests at Board of Marine
Inquiry have been resolved) It is clear that the
prescriptive period must be counted from the time
of the commission of an act or omission violative of
the right of the plaintiff, which is the time when the
cause of action arises.
The aggrieved party need not wait for a
determination by an administrative body like a
Board of Marine Inquiry, that the collision was
caused by the fault or negligence of the other party
before he can file an action for damages.
Allied Banking v. CA
(Allied buys Genbank which was stopped by
Monetary Board from operating; Allied claims
payment of debt from Yujuico but Yujuico claims
there was tortious interference on the part of the
Monetary Board, which prevented him from
complying with his obligation; alleged tort occurred
in 1990, but the 3rd party complaint filed by
Yujuico against the Central Bank was filed only in
1987) Being founded on what was termed as
tortious interference," petitioner asserts that under
the applicable provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-
delict the action against third-party defendants
should have been filed within four (4) years from
the date the cause of action accrued. On the theory
that the cause of action accrued on March 25,
1977, the date when the Monetary Board ordered
GENBANK to desist from doing business in the
Philippines, petitioner maintains that the claim
should have been filed at the latest on March 25,
1981. On the other hand, private respondent relies
on the "Doctrine of Relations" or "Relations Back
Doctrine" to support his claim that the cause of
action as against the proposed third-party
defendant accrued only on December 12,1986
when the decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 03642
became final and executory. There can be no
question in this case that the action for damages
instituted by private respondent arising from the
quasi-delict or alleged tortious interference" should
be filed within four (4) years from the day the
cause of action accrued. Thus, while technically the
third party complaint in this case may be admitted
as above discussed, however, since the cause of
action accrued on March 25, 1980 when the
Monetary Board ordered the General Bank to desist
from doing business in the Philippines while the
third party complaint was filed only on June 17,
1987, consequently, the action has prescribed.
Relations Back Doctrine (footnote 17 of Allied
Banking case): That principle of law by which an
act done at one time is considered by a fiction of
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
15 of 55
Torts and Damages
law to have been done at some antecedent period.
It is a doctrine which, although of equitable origin,
has a well recognized application to proceedings at
law; a legal fiction invented to promote the ends of
justice or to prevent injustice and the occurrence of
injuries where otherwise there would be no
remedy.
DOUBLE RECOVERY
CC Art. 2177
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.
Padua v. Robles
(Taxicab hits ten-year old boy Padua, boy dies;
the driver was charged with reckless imprudence
resulting into homicide; In the criminal case,
damages were awarded. A civil case was filed, and
upon judgment reference was made to the award
in the criminal case. Execution of judgment in civil
case was sought but was returned unsatisfied.
Padua sought to enforce subsidiary liability of taxi
owner in criminal case. TC denied the action to
enforce subsidiary liability.) In the case at bar, the
Court finds it immaterial that the Paduas chose, in
the first instance, an action for recovery of
damages based on culpa aquiliana under articles
2176, 2177, and 2180 of the Civil Code, which
action proved ineffectual. The Court also takes note
of the absence of any inconsistency between the
aforementioned action priorly availed of by the
Paduas and their subsequent application for
enforcement of civil liability arising from the
offense committed by Punzalan and, consequently,
for exaction of Robles' subsidiary responsibility.
Allowance of the latter application involves no
violation of the proscription against double
recovery of damages for the same negligent act or
omission. For, as hereinbefore stated, the
corresponding officer of the court a quo returned
unsatisfied the writ of execution issued against
Punzalan to satisfy the amount of indemnity
awarded to the Paduas in civil case 427-0. Article
2177 of the Civil Code forbids ACTUAL double
recovery of damages for the same negligent act or
omission.
C. PERSONS LIABLE
1. THE TORTFEASOR
GENERAL RULE
Who is liable?
The person, who by act or omission caused
damage to another, there being fault or negligence
(CC Art. 2176).
The person whose lack of due care was the
immediate and proximate cause of the injury (CC
Art. 2179).
In jure non remota causa sed proxima
spectator. In law not the remote but the
I. Torts
proximate cause is looked to.
SPECIFIC RULES
Joint Tortfeasors (mnemonic: CIPEACCIAorAB)
All the persons who command, instigate,
promote, encourage, advise, countenance,
cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort,
or who approve of it after it is done, if done for
their benefit. (Worcester v. Ocampo)
CC Art. 2194
The responsibility of two or more persons who are
liable for a quasi-delict is solidary.
Note: The principle of joint tortfeasors in tort law is
comparable to the principle of co-conspirators in
criminal law. The act of one is the act of all.
Worcester v. Ocampo
(Defendants were owners, publishers,
managers and editors of the newspaper which
libeled the petitioner) Each joint tortfeasor is not
only individually liable for the tort in which he
participates, but is also jointly liable with his
tortfeasors.
Joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable
for the tort which they commit.
If several persons jointly commit a tort, the
plaintiff or person injured, has his election to sue
all or some of the parties jointly, or one of them
separately, because the tort is in its nature a
separate act of each individual.
It is not necessary that the cooperation should
be a direct, corporeal act, but may consist of
counseling, aiding, or assisting in any way the
commission of a wrong.
2. OWNERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES
CC 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 due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It is disputably
presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had
been found guilty of 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
Chapman v Underwood
(Defendant was present when his automobile,
driven by a competent driver, hit petitioner who
was waiting for the San Marcelino car) The owner
is not liable unless the negligent acts of the driver
are continued for such a length of time as to give
the owner a reasonable opportunity to observe
them and to direct his driver to desist therefrom. If
the driver, by a sudden act of negligence, and
without the owner having a reasonable opportunity
to prevent the act or its continuance, injures a
person or violates the criminal law, the owner of
the automobile, although present therein at the
time the act was committed, is not responsible,
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
16 of 55
Torts and Damages
either civilly or criminally, therefor.
Caedo v Yu Khe Thai
(Defendants Cadillac collided with the
petitioners Mercury) The basis of the master's
liability in civil law is not respondeat superior but
rather the relationship of paterfamilias. The theory
is that ultimately the negligence of the servant, if
known to the master and susceptible of timely
correction by him, reflects his own negligence if he
fails to correct it in order to prevent injury or
damage.
The test of imputed negligence under Article
2184 of the Civil Code is, to a great degree,
necessarily subjective. What would be a negligent
omission under aforesaid Article on the part of a
car owner who is in the prime of age and knows
how to handle a motor vehicle is not necessarily so
on the part, say, of an old and infirm person who is
not similarly equipped.
The test of his negligence, within the meaning
of Article 2184, is his omission to do that which the
evidence of his own senses tells him he should do
in order to avoid the accident.
Requisites for the owner to be liable under art
2184: (mnemonic: Presence & Prevention)
He was in the vehicle when the mishap
occurred
He could have prevented the misfortune by
the exercise of due diligence
Test of negligence: omission to do that which
the evidence of his own senses tells him he
should do to avoid the accident (this is
essentially subjective)
If the owner was in the vehicle when the
mishap occurred, he is liable under Art 2184.
If he was not in the vehicle, he may be liable
under Art 2180.
3. VICARIOUS LIABILITY
CC Art. 2180, par 1
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
demandable not only for ones own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
one is responsible.
CC Art. 2180, par 8
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.
CC Art. 2181
Whoever pays for the damage caused by his
dependents or employees may recover from the
latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction
of the claim.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
It is the imposition of liability on one person for
the actionable conduct of another, based solely on
a relationship between the two persons. (Blacks
dictionary)
The liability is primary and solidary.
Common defense: exercise of the diligence of
a good father of a family.
I. Torts
Exception: common carriers > extraordinary
diligence.
Were the liability subsidiary and not primary
and solidary, the defense of due diligence
would not be available
PARENTS
Who are liable?
CC Art. 2180, par 2
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.
PD 603 Art. 58 Torts
Parents and guardians are responsible for the
damage caused by the child under their parental
authority in accordance with the civil code.
FC Art 221
Parents and other persons exercising parental
authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and
damages caused by the acts or omissions of their
unemancipated children living in their company and
under their parental authority subject to the
appropriate defenses provided by law.
RPC Art. 101 Rules regarding civil liability in
certain cases
The exemption from criminal liability established in
subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in
subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not
include exemption from civil liability, which shall be
enforced subject to the following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article
12, the civil liability for acts committed by an
imbecile or insane person, and by a person under
nine years of age, or by one over nine but under
fifteen years of age, who has acted without
discernment, shall devolve upon those having such
person under their legal authority or control, unless
it appears that there was no fault or negligence on
their part.
Should there be no person having such insane,
imbecile or minor under his authority, legal
guardianship or control, or if such person be
insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall
respond with their own property, excepting
property exempt from execution, in accordance
with the civil law.
Exconde v Capuno
(15-year old took hold of the wheel of a jeep
and drove it while the driver sat on his left side;
the jeep turned turtle and two of its passengers
died) The civil liability which the law imposes upon
the father and, in case of his death or incapacity,
the mother, for any damages that may be caused
by the minor children who live with them, is
obvious. This is a necessary consequence of the
parental authority they exercise over them which
imposes upon the parents the 'duty of supporting
them, keeping them in their company, educating
them in proportion to their means', while, on the
other hand, gives them the 'right to correct and
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
17 of 55
Torts and Damages
punish them in moderation.'
Tamargo v CA
(10-year old minor shot another kid; he was
under the actual custody of his natural parents at
that time; a petition for his adoption had already
been granted) The basis of parental authority for
the torts of a minor child is the relationship existing
between the parents and the minor child living with
them and over whom, the law presumes, the
parents exercise supervision and control.
To hold that parental authority had been
retroactively lodged in the adoptive parents so as
to burden them with the liability for a tortious act
that they could not have foreseen and which they
could not have prevented would be unfair and
unconscionable.
Art 2180, par 2 of the Civil Code which holds
the father liable for damages has been
modified by the Family Code and PD 603. Art.
211 of the FC declares joint parental authority
of the mother and father over common
children
New law: the parent(s) exercising parental
authority are liable for the torts of their
children
For whose acts?
FC Art 234
Emancipation takes place by the attainment of
majority. Unless otherwise provided, majority
commences at the age of eighteen years. (as
amended by RA 6809)
FC Art 236, par 3
Nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate
from the duty or responsibility of parents and
guardians for children and wards below twenty-one
years of age mentioned in the seconds and third
paragraphs of Article 2180 of the Civil Code. (as
amended by RA 6809)
Salen v Balce
(Minor child of defendant was convicted of
homicide) It is true that under Article 101 of the
Revised Penal Code, a father is made civilly liable
for the acts committed by his son if the latter is
under 9 years of age, or over 9 but under 15 years
of age, who acts without discernment. But the
Code is silent as to the subsidiary liability of
parents of a minor over 15. In that case, resort
should be had to the general law which is our Civil
Code.
The particular law that governs this case is
Article 2180. To hold that this provision does not
apply to the instant case because it only covers
obligations which arise from quasi-delicts and not
obligations which arise from criminal offenses,
would result in the absurdity that while for an act
where mere negligence intervenes the father or
mother may stand subsidiarily liable for the
damage caused by his or her son, no liability would
attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent.
Verily, the void that apparently exists in the
Revised Penal Code is subserved by this particular
I. Torts
provision of our Civil Code.
Fuellas v Cadano
(Minor child of defendant was convicted of
serious physical injuries) The subsidiary liability of
parents for damages caused by their minor children
imposed by art 2180 of the NCC covers obligations
arising from both quasi-delicts and criminal
offenses. To distinguish, in Salen v Balce, the civil
liability was initially adjudged in the criminal case,
then a civil case was filed to enforce subsidiary
liability; in Fuellas v Cadano, two separate actions
were instituted: a civil case for damages, and a
criminal case for serious physical injuries.
Gutierrez v Gutierrez
(Automobile operated by 18-year old son of
defendant collided with a passenger truck, a
passenger of the latter fractured his leg) The
guaranty given by the father at the time the son
was granted a license to operate motor vehicles
made the father responsible for the acts of his son.
The father was held jointly and severally liable
with the truck owner and driver.
Despite the lowering of the age of majority
from 21 to 18, parents are still liable for the
torts committed by their children below 21
years of age.
Requisites for liability to attach: (mnemonic:
21 + Authority & Company)
The child is below 21 years old
The child is under the parental authority of
the parents
The child is living in the company of the
parents
Nature of the liability
Rodriguez-Luna v IAC
(Toyota car driven by 13-year old Luis dela
Rosa collided with the go-kart driven by the
deceased; Luis is now of age, married, and living
abroad) The private respondents invoke Elcano vs.
Hill, where it was held that Article 2180 of the Civil
Code applied to the father notwithstanding the
emancipation by marriage of his son; but since the
son had attained age, as a matter of equity, the
liability of father had become merely subsidiary to
that of his son.
However, he parent's liability remains joint and
several when the tortfeasor is not capable of
paying (living abroad and does not make enough to
support his family) even if he has reached the age
of majority already.
Libi v IAC
(Boy killed his sweetheart, then himself) The
parent's liablity under 2180 should be primary and
not subsidiary. If it were subsidiary only then the
parents cannot invoke due diligence as a defense.
Such interpretation reconciles 2180 with 2194
which calls for solidary liability of joint tortfeasors.
To hold that the civil liability under Article 2180
would apply only to quasi-delicts and not to
criminal offenses would result in the absurdity that
in an act involving mere negligence the parents
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
18 of 55
Torts and Damages
would be liable but not where the damage is
caused with criminal intent.
Art. 219 (FC). Those given the authority and
responsibility under the preceding Article shall be
principally and solidarily liable for damages caused
by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated
minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the
persons exercising substitute parental authority
over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
Parents are solidarily liable for the torts of
their children
Defense: exercise of the diligence of a good
father of a family
Parents are subsidiarily liable under Art 219
(FC). No defense is available to them.
GUARDIANS
CC Art. 2180, par 3
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the
minors or incapacitated persons who are under
their authority and live in their company.
FC Art. 216
In default of parents or a judicially appointed
guardian, the following person shall exercise
substitute parental authority over the child in the
order indicated:
1. The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art.
214;
2. The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one
years of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and
3. The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one
years of age, unless unfit or disqualified.
Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian
over the property of the child becomes necessary,
the same order of preference shall be observed.
FC Art. 217
In case of foundlings, abandoned neglected or
abused children and other children similarly
situated, parental authority shall be entrusted in
summary judicial proceedings to heads of children's
homes, orphanages and similar institutions duly
accredited by the proper government agency.
Guardians are liable for the torts of:
Minors (including persons between 18 to
21 years old)
Incapacitated persons
Requisites for liability to attach: (mnemonic:
Authority & Company)
The tortfeasor is under his authority
The tortfeasor is living in his company
Incapacitated persons: the guardian is liable
for the acts of the ward regardless of the
latters age.
TEACHERS AND HEADS OF INSTITUTIONS
Under the Family Code: Substitute Parental
Authority
FC Art 218
The school, its administrators and teachers, or the
individual, entity or institution engaged in child
care shall have special parental authority and
I. Torts
responsibility over the minor child while under their
supervision, instruction or custody.
FC Art. 219
Those given the authority and responsibility under
the preceding Article shall be principally and
solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or
omissions of the unemancipated minor. The
parents, judicial guardians or the persons
exercising substitute parental authority over said
minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the
preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved
that they exercised the proper diligence required
under the particular circumstances.
All other cases not covered by this and the
preceding articles shall be governed by the
provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts.
Valenzuela v CA
The case of St. Francis High School v CA which
deals with the subject of a school and its teachers
supervision of students during an extracurricular
activity now fall under the provision on special
parental authority found in Art 218 of the Family
Code which generally encompasses all authorized
school activities, whether inside or outside school
premises. (*obiter)
Who are liable: persons exercising substitute
parental authority (Mnemonic: SATI)
School
Administrators
Teachers
Individual/entity/institution engaged in
child care
Subsitute parental authority is intermittent
Requisite for liability to attach: (mnemonic:
M-SIC)
The tortfeasor is a minor (below 18 only)
Under their supervision, instruction or
custody
RA 6809 does not provide that persons
exercising subsidiary parental authority are
liable for the torts of those who are between
18 and 21, unlike in the case of parents and
guardians.
Cases which do not fall under the provision on
substitute parental authority will be governed
by Art 2180 of the Civil Code.
Under the Civil Code
CC Art 2180, par 7
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.
Mercado v CA
(Student wounded another student on the
cheek with a razor because of altercation over a
pitogo) The clause "so long as they remain in their
custody," contemplates a situation where the pupil
lives and boards with the teacher, such that the
control, direction and influence on the pupil
supersedes those of the parents. In these
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
19 of 55
Torts and Damages
circumstances the control or influence over the
conduct and actions of the pupil would pass from
the father and mother to the teacher; and so would
the responsibility for the torts of the pupil.
(*obiter)
Palisoc v Brillantes
(Virgilio Daffon had a fistfight with a classmate
which resulted in the death of the latter; this
happened during recess time) The rationale of such
liability of school heads and teachers for the
tortious acts of their pupils and students, so long
as they remain in their custody, is that they stand,
to a certain extent, as to their pupils and students,
in loco parentis and are called upon to "exercise
reasonable supervision over the conduct of the
child." In the law of torts, the governing principle is
that the protective custody of the school heads and
teachers is mandatorily substituted for that of the
parents.
The phrase used in the article "so long as (the
students) remain in their custody" means the
protective and supervisory custody that the school
and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils
and students for as long as they are at attendance
in the school, including recess time. There is
nothing in the law that requires that for such
liability to attach, the pupil or student who commits
the tortious act must live and board in the school.
(The dicta in Mercado and Exconde is now deemed
to have been set aside)
Amadora v CA
(Pablito Daffon fired a gun that mortally hit his
classmate) The provision in question should apply
to all schools, academic as well as non-academic.
Where the school is academic rather than technical
or vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort
committed by the student will attach to the teacher
in charge of such student, following the first part of
the provision. This is the general rule. In the case
of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head
thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable as an
exception to the general rule. In other words,
teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of
their students except where the school is technical
in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who
shall be answerable.
The student is in the custody of the school
authorities as long as he is under the control and
influence of the school and within its premises,
whether the semester has not yet begun or has
already ended. As long as it can be shown that the
student is in the school premises in pursuance of a
legitimate student objective, in the exercise of a
legitimate student right, and even in the
enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the
responsibility of the school authorities over the
student continues.
The teacher-in-charge is the one designated by
the dean, principal, or other administrative
superior to exercise supervision over the pupils in
the specific classes or sections to which they are
assigned. It is not necessary that at the time of the
injury, the teacher be physically present and in a
position to prevent it. Custody does not connote
immediate and actual physical control but refers
more to the influence exerted on the child and the
I. Torts Torts and Damages
discipline instilled in him as a result of such FC, the School could have been made liable. (See
influence. Valenzuela v CA)

Pasco v CFI See dissents

(Complaint against Araneto University for
damages arising from injuries sustained by PSBA v CA
student-petitioner who was stabbed by fellow (Student was stabbed by outsiders in the PSBA
students) Under the article 2180, the school or the campus) Article 2180, in conjunction with Article
university itself (as distinguished from the teachers 2176 of the Civil Code, established the rule of in
or heads) is not liable, for surely the provision loco parentis. The damage should have been
concerned speaks only of "teachers or heads." caused or inflicted by pupils or students of the
educational institution sought to be held liable for
Ylarde v Aquino the acts of its pupils or students while in its
(Student was pinned by a concrete block to the custody.
wall of a pit which the students had dug as per Because the circumstances of the present case
instructions of the teacher) The principal of the evince a contractual relation between the PSBA and
school cannot be held liable for the reason that the the student, the rules on quasi-delict do not really
school he leads is an academic school and not a govern.
school of arts and trades. A contractual relation is a condition sine qua
non to the schools liability.
Salvosa v IAC
(Student and ROTC armorer shot another Note: This is a much-maligned case
student with the use of an unlicensed firearm after
dismissal) In line with the case of Palisoc, a
Soliman v Tuazon
student not "at attendance in the school cannot be
(Security guard shot a student)
in "recess" thereat. A "recess," as the concept is
***applied the doctrine in PSBA v CA
embraced in the phrase "at attendance in the
school," contemplates a situation of temporary
adjournment of school activities where the student Who are liable For whose Requisite for
still remain within call of his mentor and is not Acts Liability to
permitted to leave the school premises, or the area Attach
within which the school activity is conducted.
Teacher- in- pupils and pupils and
Recess by its nature does not include dismissal.
charge (the one students students remain
Likewise, the mere fact of being enrolled or being designated to in teachers
in the premises of a school without more does not exercise custody
constitute "attending school or being in the supervision over regardless of
"protective and supervisory custody" of the school, students) the age
as contemplated in the law.
Head of apprentices custody
Note: the Court went back to the Palisoc definition, establishment of regardless of
arts and trades the age
when it should have applied the Amadora
definition since this case was decided after School (generally Art 218 must be below
Amadora, is Amadora still good law? That is the not held liable) FC- if the 18
question (Amadora was decided en banc) tortfeasor is a
student of the
St Francis v CA school
(Student drowned during a non-sanctioned 2180 par 5 of
class picnic) Before an employer [the school] may CC- as
be held liable for the negligence of his employee, employer if
the tortfeasor
the act or omission which caused damage or
is a teacher/
prejudice must have occurred while an employee
employee of
was in the performance of his assigned tasks.
the school
In the case at bar, the teachers/petitioners (St. Francis)
were not in the actual performance of their Breach of
assigned tasks. The incident happened not within Contract- if
the school premises, not on a school day and most the tortfeasor
importantly while the teachers and students were is a stranger
holding a purely private affair, a picnic. This picnic (PSBA)
had no permit from the school head or its principal,
because this picnic is not a school sanctioned
OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF ESTABLISHMENTS
activity neither is it considered as an extra-
curricular activity.
CC Art 2180, par 4
The owners and managers of an establishment or
Notes: The incident occurred before the FC took enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
effect, but the case was decided after its caused by their employees in the service of the
effectivity. Had the Court applied the Art 218 of the branches in which the latter are employed or on

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

ONE UP LAW
20 of 55
I. Torts Torts and Damages
the occasion of their functions. Plaintiff must establish employer-employee
relationship and that the employee was acting
Philippine Rabbit v Phil American within the scope of his assigned task when the tort
(Manager of a forwarding company was sued complained of was committed. It is only then that
for damages because of a collision between a the employer may find it necessary to interpose
freight truck of the company and a bus) The terms the defense of due diligence in the selection and
employers and owners and managers of an supervision of the employee.
establishment or enterprise used in article 2180 of
the Civil Code, do not include the manager of a Light Rail Transit v Navidad
corporation. It may be gathered from the context (Passenger fell on the LRT tracks and was
of article 2180 that the term "manager" ("director" struck by a moving train) The premise for the
in the Spanish version) is used in the sense of employers liability is negligence or fault on the
"employer." part of the employee. Once such fault is
established, the employer can then be made liable
Who are For whose Requisites for on the basis of the presumption juris tantum that
liable acts liability to attach the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris
families in the selection and supervision of its
Owners and Their (SB+OF) employees.
managers of an employees The damage was The liability is primary and can only be negated
establishment caused in the by showing due diligence in the selection and
or enterprise service of the supervision of the employee.
branches in which
the employees are Mckee v IAC
employed (Ford Escort avoided 2 boys and collided with
-OR-
cargo truck) As employers of the truck driver, the
The damage was
private respondents are, under Article 2180 of the
caused on the
occasion of their
Civil Code, directly and primarily liable for the
functions resulting damages. The presumption that they are
negligent flows from the negligence of their
employee. That presumption, however, is only juris
Art 2180, par 4 may be unnecessary as Art tantum, not juris et de jure.
2180, par 5 already covers the cases under Their only possible defense is that they
par 4. exercised all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent the damage.
EMPLOYERS The diligence of a good father referred to
means the diligence in the selection and
CC Art 2180, par 5 supervision of employees.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused
by their employees and household helpers acting Who is liable: any employer
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even When an injury is caused by the negligence of
though the former are not engaged in any business a servant or employee there instantly arises a
or industry. presumption of law that there was negligence
on the part of the master or employer either
Who are liable? in the selection of the servant or employee or
in supervision over him after the selection, or
Castilex v Vasquez both. The presumption is juris tantum and not
(Production manager *who was then with a girl juris et de jure, and consequently, may be
not his daughter but called him DADDY* drove a rebutted.
company-issued car against the flow of traffic in The negligence of the employer need not be
the rotunda, and collided with a motorcycle which proven by complainant.
resulted to the death of latters driver) The phrase Defense --> exercise of care and diligence of
"even though the former are not engaged in any a good father of a family in the:
business or industry" found in Art 2180, par 5 Selection (examination of prospective
means that it is not necessary for the employer to employees as to qualifications, experience
be engaged in any business or industry to be liable and service records) and
for the negligence of his employee who is acting Supervision (mnemonic: FMI)
within the scope of his assigned task. formulation of standard operating
Art 2180, par 4 apply to owners and managers procedures
of an establishment or enterprise; and par 5, to monitoring implementation of rules
employers in general, whether or not engaged in imposition of disciplinary measures
any business or industry. The 4th paragraph covers Evidence presented to prove due diligence
negligent acts of employees committed either in should be
the service of the branches or on the occasion of Testimonial and Documentary
their functions, while the 5th paragraph Should particularly refer to the employee
encompasses negligent acts of employees acting charged
within the scope of their assigned task. The latter Rationale for vicarious liability of employers:
is an expansion of the former in both employer (MMTC v CA)
coverage and acts included.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

ONE UP LAW
21 of 55
I. Torts
Deliberate allocation of risks as a
required cost of doing business
Greatest incentive for the employer to be
careful in the selection, instruction and
supervision of his servants, and to take
every precaution to see that the enterprise
is conducted safely
For whose acts?
Filamer v IAC
(School-owned vehicle driven by working
student hit a pedestrian) The clause "within the
scope of their assigned tasks" for purposes of
raising the presumption of liability of an employer,
includes any act done by an employee, in
furtherance of the interests of the employer or for
the account of the employer at the time of the
infliction of the injury or damage.
Section 14, Rule X, Book III of the Rules
implementing the Labor Code, provides guidelines
on the exclusion of working scholars from the
employment coverage as far as compliance with
the substantive labor provisions on working
conditions, rest periods, and wages, is concerned.
It is merely a guide to the enforcement of the
substantive law on labor. The Court, thus, makes
the distinction and so holds that Section 14, Rule
X, Book III of the Rules is not the decisive law in a
civil suit for damages instituted by an injured
person during a vehicular accident against a
working student of a school and against the school
itself. Hence, the reliance on the implementing rule
on labor to disregard the primary liability of an
employer under Article 2180 of the Civil Code is
misplaced.
Supervision includes the formulation of suitable
rules and regulations for the guidance of its
employees and the issuance of proper instructions
intended for the protection of the public and
persons with whom the employer has relations
through his employees.
NPC v CA
(Dump truck of NPC operated by driver
supplied by a labor-only contractor figured in a
head-on-collision with a Toyota Tamaraw) The
principal employer is responsible to the employees
of the "labor only" contractor as if such employees
had been directly employed by the principal
employer.
The liability of the principal employer is not
limited to violations of the Labor Code, but extends
to quasi-delicts.
Article 2180 of the Civil Code and not the
Labor Code will determine the liability of NPC in a
civil suit for damages instituted by an injured
person for any negligent act of the employees of
the "labor only" contractor.
A finding that a contractor was a "labor-only"
contractor is equivalent to a finding that an
employer-employee relationship existed between
the owner (principal contractor) and the "labor-
only" contractor, including the latter's workers.
To hold employer liable, the ff must be
proven:
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
22 of 55
Torts and Damages
Negligence of the employeeEmployer-
employee relationship -->The Labor Code
may be used (such as provisions on labor-
only contracting). However,
Implementing Rules of the Labor Code are
not conclusive in determining employer-
employee relationship (such as provisions
on working students)
Employee was acting within the scope of
his assigned tasks--> includes any act
done by an employee, in furtherance of the
interests of the employer or for the
account of the employer at the time of the
infliction of the injury or damage.
After
1. the negligence of the employee,
2. the employer-employee relationship, and
3. the assigned tasks are proven, the
presumption of employers negligence
automatically arises.
Nature Of Liability
Philtranco v CA
(Bus bumped an easy rider bicycle after
jumpstart) The liability of the registered owner of
a public service vehicle for damages arising from
the tortious acts of the driver is primary, direct,
and joint and several or solidary with the driver.
Liability from use of company vehicles
Castilex v Vasquez
(Production manager *who was then with a girl
not his daughter but called him DADDY* drove a
company-issued car against the flow of traffic in
the rotunda, and collided with a motorcycle which
resulted to the death of latters driver) The mere
fact that an employee was using a service vehicle
at the time of the injurious incident is not of itself
sufficient to charge his employer with liability for
the negligent operation of said vehicle unless it
appears that he was operating the vehicle within
the course or scope of his employment.
Rules on the employers liability for injuries inflicted
by the negligence of an employee in the use of an
employers motor vehicle:
1. No liability if vehicle used in going to and from
meals
a. Exception: if the use reduces the employees
time-off
2. No liability if vehicle used in going to and from
work
a. Exceptions
i. Employer derives some special benefit
(such as having the employee at work
earlier)
ii. Special Errand or Roving Commission
Rule -- the employee's duties require him
to circulate in a general area with no
fixed place or hours of work, or to go to
and from his home to various outside
places of work; the employee continues
in the service of his employer until he
actually reaches home
b. Exception to the exception: if at the time of
the accident, the employee has left the
I. Torts
direct route to his work or back home and is
pursuing a personal errand of his own
3. No liability if vehicle used for personal errands
outside regular working hours
STATE
1987 Constitution, Art. XVI, Sec. 3
The State may not be sued without its consent.
General Rule: the State cannot be sued
Exceptions:
There is express legislative consent
The State filed the case
Liability for acts of special agent
CC Art 2180, par 6
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.
Merritt v Government
(Plaintiff, riding a motorcycle, was struck by a
General Hospital ambulance) The responsibility of
the state is limited to the case wherein it acts
through a special agent so that in representation of
the state and being bound to act as an agent
thereof, he executes the trust confided to him. This
concept does not apply to any executive agent who
is an employee of the active administration and
who on his own responsibility performs the
functions which are inherent in and naturally
pertain to his office and which are regulated by law
and the regulations.
A special agent is one who receives a definite
and fixed order or commission, foreign to the
exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special
official.
Rosete v Auditor General
(Buildings belonging to claimant were
destroyed by fire that came from the contiguous
warehouse of the ECA)
***applied the doctrine in Merritt
***Perfecto, J., dissenting: all persons and
entities acting by commission of the Government,
such as government enterprises and other organs
of government created for activities ordinarily of
ungovernmental nature, are special agents.
For whose acts can the State be made liable?
Special Agents:
Private person duly empowered by a
definite and fixed order or commission
Public official who receives a definite
order or commission to perform some act
foreign to the exercise of the duties of his
office
The state is not responsible for the damages
suffered by private individuals in consequence
of acts performed by its employees in the
discharge of the functions pertaining to their
office, because neither fault nor even
negligence can be presumed on the part of
the state in the organization of branches of
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
23 of 55
Torts and Damages
the public service and in the appointment of
its agents.
A regular official is liable under Art 2176 for
the damage he causes.
Liability in its proprietary functions
Mendoza v De Leon
(Individual members of municipal council were
sued for revocation of the lease of an exclusive
ferry privilege) The Municipal Code confers both
governmental and business or corporate powers
upon municipal corporations. For the exercise of
the former, it is not liable to private persons,
unless expressly made so by statute. Its liability to
them for the wrongful exercise of the latter is the
same as that of a private corporation or individual.
Officers of municipalities charged with the
administration of patrimonial property of a
municipal corporation are liable for
mismanagement of its affairs as are directors of
managing officers of private corporations not for
mere mistakes of judgment, but only when their
acts are so far opposed to the true interests of the
municipality as to lead to the clear inference that
no one thus acting could have been influenced by
any honest desire to secure such interests, but that
they must have acted with an intent to subserve
some outside purpose regardless of the
consequences to the municipality and in a manner
inconsistent with its interests.
Fontanilla v Maliaman
(Irrigation systems) The functions of
government have been classified into governmental
or constituent and proprietary or ministrant. The
former involves the exercise of sovereignty and
considered as compulsory; the latter connotes
merely the exercise of proprietary functions and
thus considered as optional.
Public benefit and public welfare may be found
in the operation of certain enterprises, yet it is
certain that the functions performed by such
enterprises are basically proprietary in nature.
It is true that the state and the general public
are greatly benefited by the services the agency
renders, and to that extent its objects and
accomplishments are public in their nature, but this
characteristic is only incidental to the primary and
chief object of the corporation, which is the
irrigation of lands, a mere optional function of
government.
The state agencies or subdivisions, in the
pursuance of proprietary functions, are akin to
any other private corporation. They may be
sued for:
torts committed by them (art 2176) or
torts committed by their employees (art
2180).
As long as it is performing proprietary
functions, it can be held liable for the acts of
its employees, both regular and special.
I. Torts
Liability from defective roads, etc.
CC Art 2189
Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable
for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered
by, any person by reason of the defective condition
of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and
other public works under their control or
supervision.
City of Manila v Teotico
(A person fell inside a manhole along the
national highway) Section 4 of RA 409 (Charter of
the City of Manila) refers to liability arising from
negligence, in general, regardless of the object
thereof, whereas Article 2189 governs liability due
to "defective streets, "in particular. Since the
present action is based upon the alleged defective -
condition of a road, said Article 2189 is decisive
thereon.
Under Article 2189 of the Civil Code, it is not
necessary for the liability therein established to
attach that the defective roads or streets belong to
the province, city or municipality from which
responsibility is exacted. What said article requires
is that the province, city or municipality have either
"control or supervision" over said street or road.
Torts and Damages
2. By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to
persons or property;
3. By the falling of trees situated at or near
highways or lanes, if not caused by force
majeure;
4. By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or
deposits of infectious matter, constructed
without precautions suitable to the place.
EMPLOYEES
Araneta v De Joya
(Company VP signed 3 payroll checks for salary
of employee whose travel abroad was
unauthorized) When an employee neglects to
perform his duties properly, to the damage of the
firm of which he was an officer, he is liable for a
tort. The fact that he was occupying a contractual
position in the company is of no moment. The
existence of a contract between the parties
constitutes no bar to the commission of a tort by
one against the other and the consequent recovery
of damages.
D. Intentional Torts
1. ABUSE OF RIGHTS

Who are liable? For damages Requisite CC Art. 19

caused by for liability Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and
reason of to attach in the performance of his duties, act with justice,
defective
give everyone his due, and observe honesty and
(PCM) (RSBBO) these public good faith.
Provinces Roads works are
Cities Streets under their Velayo v. Shell
Municipalities Bridges control or (Shell assigns credit in airline company to US
Public supervision counterpart in order to attach a plane owned by
Buildings (not the latter in violation of agreement to form
OtherPublic necessarily committee overseeing the proceedings of the
Works owned by the insolvency of the airline company) It may be said
LGU) that Art 19 only contains a mere declaration of
principles and while such statement may be
essentially correct, yet we find that such
An accident in the national highway may be declaration is implemented by Art 21.
imputed to the specific local government unit which There is no belief of more baneful
exercises supervision and control over it. consequences upon the social order than that a
person may with impunity cause damage to his
4. OTHERS fellowmen so long as he does not break the law
though he may be defying the most sacred
PROPRIETORS OF BUILDINGS postulates of morality.
Among these are may business practices that
CC Art 2190 are unfair or oppressive.
The proprietor of a building or structure is Further, no vested rights can arise from acts or
responsible for the damages resulting from its total omissions which are against the law or which
or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of infringe upon the rights of others.
necessary repairs.
Saudi Arabian v. CA
(Flight attendant raped in Indonesia, thought
CC Art 2191 she was being helped by employer, but was
Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages actually the one charged with offense in Saudi
caused: Arabia) Violations of Articles 19 and 21 are
1. By the explosion of machinery which has not actionable, with judicially enforceable remedies in
been taken care of with due diligence, and the the municipal forum.
inflammation of explosive substances which Petitioner's purported act of handing over the
have not been kept in a safe and adequate private respondent to Jeddah officials contributed
place; to or even proximately caused additional
humiliation, misery and suffering of private

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

ONE UP LAW
24 of 55
I. Torts
respondent. Petitioner thereby allegedly facilitated
the arrest, detention and prosecution of private
respondent under the guise of petitioner's authority
as employer, taking advantage of the trust,
confidence and faith she reposed upon it.
Globe Mackay v. CA
(Poor employee blamed by stern foreigner boss
for illegal transactions) The law recognizes a
primordial limitation on all rights; that in their
exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in
Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by
itself legal because recognized or granted by law as
such, may nevertheless become the source of
some illegality. When a right is exercised in a
manner which does not conform with the norms
enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to
another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for
which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. But
while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the
government of human relations and for the
maintenance of social order, it does not provide a
remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for
damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 would
be proper.
In determining whether or not the principle of
abuse of rights may be invoked, there is no rigid
test which can be applied. It depends on the
circumstances of each case. An employer who
harbors suspicions that an employee has
committed dishonesty might be justified in taking
the appropriate action such as ordering an
investigation and directing the employee to go on a
leave. Firmness and the resolve to uncover the
truth would also be expected from such employer.
But the high-handed treatment accorded Tobias by
petitioners was certainly uncalled for.
Sir: For a breach of right to fall under Art 19 and
21, they have to be intentional.
For breach to fall under Art 20, the can be
willful or negligent
Albenson v. CA
(Mistaken identity of accused in BP 22 case;
namesake father was impleaded, instead of son)
The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19
are the following: (1) There is a legal right or duty;
(2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole
intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Article 10
speaks of the general sanction for all other
provisions of law which do not especially provide
for their own sanction. Thus, anyone who, whether
willfully or negligently, in the exercise of his legal
right or duty, causes damage to another, shall
indemnify his victim for injuries suffered thereby.
There is a common element under Articles 19 and
21, and that is, the act must be intentional.
Thus, 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.
However, Article 20 does not distinguish: the act
may be done either "willfully", or "negligently."
Garciano v. CA
(Teacher goes to Austria, was served letter of
termination by some Board members of school, but
was later withdrawn; dissenters resign) That the
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
25 of 55
Torts and Damages
school principal and Fr. Wiertz disagreed with the
Board's decision to retain her, and some teachers
allegedly threatened to resign en masse, even if
true, did not make them liable to her for damages.
They were simply exercising their right of free
speech or their right to dissent from the Board's
decision. Their acts were not contrary to law,
morals, good customs or public policy. They did not
"illegally dismiss" her for the Board's decision to
retain her prevailed.
Barons Marketing v. CA
(Electrical wire supplier gives dealer credit
term but had unpaid balance; dealer asked for
compromise but supplier denied, files action to
recover unpaid balance; dealer claims creditor
abuse) To constitute an abuse of rights under
Article 19 the defendant must act with bad faith or
intent to prejudice the plaintiff. It is an elementary
rule in this jurisdiction that good faith is presumed
and that the burden of proving bad faith rests upon
the party alleging the same.
Private respondent was driven by very
legitimate reasons for rejecting petitioner's offer
and instituting the action for collection for the
corporation had its own "cash position to protect in
order for it to pay its own obligations." It is plain to
see that what we have here is a mere exercise of
rights, not an abuse thereof.
BPI v. CA
(Credit card cancelled due to nonpayment of
bills overdue) To find the existence of an abuse of
right under Article 19 the following must be
present: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2)
which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole
intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Good faith
is presumed and the burden of proving bad faith is
on the party alleging it.
This private respondent failed to do. In fact,
petitioner had even notified private respondent of
the impending suspension of his credit card and
made special accommodations for him for settling
his outstanding account. As such, petitioner cannot
be said to have capriciously and arbitrarily canceled
the private respondent's credit card.
Sir Casis: To constitute an abuse of right, plaintiff
must prove exercise of bad faith on part of
defendant. In other words, it is essential that
defendant abuses right in bad faith
Amonoy v. Gutierrez
(Lawyer pushes through with demolition
despite TRO) The exercise of a right ends when the
right disappears, and it disappears when it is
abused, especially to the prejudice of others. The
mask of a right without the spirit of justice which
gives it life, is repugnant to the modern concept of
social law. It cannot be said that a person
exercises a right when he unnecessarily prejudices
another. Over and above the specific precepts of
positive law are the supreme norms of justice; and
he who violates them violates the law. It is not
permissible to abuse our rights to prejudice others.
I. Torts
Sir said this is a weird ruling since there due to the
TRO theres no more right, so what right is abused?
UE v. Jader
(Barrister only informed of deficiency after
graduation) Petitioner, in belatedly informing
respondent of the result of the removal
examination, cannot be said to have acted in good
faith. Absence of good faith must be sufficiently
established for a successful prosecution by the
aggrieved party in a suit for abuse of right under
Article 19 of the Civil Code. Good faith connotes an
honest intention to abstain from taking undue
advantage of another, even though the forms and
technicalities of the law, together with the absence
of all information or belief of facts, would render
the transaction unconscientious.
Educational institutions are duty-bound to
inform the students of their academic status and
not wait for the latter to inquire from the former.
The conscious indifference of a person to the rights
or welfare of the person/persons who may be
affected by his act or omission can support a claim
for damages.
Sir: was there bad faith on the part of UE? The act
can be said as unintentional
Arlegui v. CA
(Officers of lessee association/negotiators
acquires apartments, breached implied trust) The
acts of Tan Lu and Arlegui directly violate the
principles enunciated in Art. 19 which declares that
every person must practice justice, honesty and
good faith in his dealings with his fellowmen. That
there was a valid pact or agreement among the
Association members and their entrusted officers
charged with the negotiations, is an accepted fact.
As two of the three entrusted officers charged with
the negotiations, Tan Lu and Arlegui fall within the
purview of Art. 19 which is also implemented by
Art. 21 a sequent of Art. 19, which declares that
"[A]ny person who wilfully 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.
2. ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES
CC Art. 21
Any person who wilfully 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.
Article 19 Article 20
Act is Contrary to law Contrary to MGCPP
(morals, good customs,
public policy)
manner Willfully or willfully
negligently
result damage Injury or loss
sanction indemnify compensate
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
26 of 55
Torts and Damages
Ruiz v. Secretary of Defense
(Architect wanted recognition) Article 21
envisions a situation where a person has a legal
right, and such right is violated by another in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy; it presupposes losses or injuries, material or
otherwise, which one may suffer as a result of said
violation. Under the facts and circumstances
obtaining in this case, one cannot plausibly sustain
the contention that the failure or refusal to extend
the recognition, was an act contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy.
Albenson v. CA
Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores,
and has the following elements:
1. There is an act which is legal;
2. but which is contrary to morals, good custom,
public order, or public policy;
3. and it is done with intent to injure.
EXAMPLES
Breach of promise to marry, seduction and sexual
assault
Wassmer v. Velez
(Velez and Wassmer decided to get married. 2
days before the date Velez left a note postponing
the wedding; but the next day he sent a telegram
assuring the wedding was to go through. He was
never heard from again) This is not a case of mere
breach of promise to marry. Mere breach of
promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But
to formally set a wedding and go through all the
above-described preparation and publicity, only to
walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be
solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and
unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which
defendant must be held answerable in damages in
accordance with Article 21.
While a mere breach of promise to marry is not
actionable, however, the extent to which acts not
contrary to law may be perpetrated with impunity,
is not limitless for Article 21 of said Code provides
that "any person who wilfully 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."
Tanjanco v. Santos
(IBM employee seduced by man, had sexual
intercourse for a year even if promise to marry was
not fulfilled) The facts stand out that for one whole
year, from 1958 to 1959, the plaintiff-appellee, a
woman of adult age, maintained intimate sexual
relations with appellant, with repeated acts of
intercourse. Such conduct is incompatible with the
idea of seduction. Plainly there is here
voluntariness and mutual passion. No case is made
under Article 21 of the Civil Code.
Notes: Why is it not seduction? Because 1) There is
no inducement (therefore, No inducement= Not
seduction; With inducement = Seduction); 2)
Because affair happened for a year
I. Torts
Baksh v. CA
An Iranian-Moslem promised a Filipina barrio
lass that he would marry her. Together they went
to the girls home, introduced himself, was allowed
to sleep with the girl in their home, and to live in
with her in the city. Later, after subjecting her to
abuse, and after getting her pregnant, he refused
to marry her, saying he was already married. The
girls parents, in the meantime, believed his
promises, and had already begun preparing for the
wedding.
Where a man's promise to marry is in fact the
proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a
woman and his representation to fulfill that
promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of
the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress,
proof that he had, in reality, no intention of
marrying her and that the promise was only a
subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or
inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her
consent to the sexual act, could justify the award
of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of
such promise to marry but because of the fraud
and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her
honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It
is essential, however, that such injury should have
been committed in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy.
Bunag v. CA
The acts of petitioner in forcibly abducting and
raping private respondent, and thereafter
promising to marry her in order to escape criminal
liability, only to thereafter renege on such promise
after cohabiting with her for 21 days, constitute
acts contrary to morals and good customs. Acts
justify the award of moral and exemplary
damages, pursuant to Article 21 in relation to
paragraphs 3 and 10, Article 2219, and Articles
2229 and 2234 of the Civil Code.
Constantino v. Mendez
(Waitress attracted married man, claims she
was impregnated by him, but SC said there is no
assurance that Mendez was the father considering
Amelia dated other men) Mere sexual intercourse is
not by itself a basis for recovery. Damages could
only be awarded if sexual intercourse is not a
product of voluntariness and mutual desire.
Repeated sexual intercourse only indicates that
passion and not the alleged promise of marriage
was the moving force that made her submit
herself.
Quimiguing v. Icao
(Married man rapes neighbor, latter gets
pregnant) A second reason for reversing the orders
appealed from is that for a married man to force a
woman not his wife to yield to his lust (as averred
in the original complaint in this case) constitutes a
clear violation of the rights of his victim that
entitles her to claim compensation for the damage
caused. (Article 21)
Pe v. Pe
(Family of woman asks for damages; woman
elopes with married man, who uses closeness to
family and teaching the rosary as pretense) The
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
27 of 55
Torts and Damages
circumstances under which defendant tried to win
the girl's affection cannot lead to any other
conclusion than that it was he who, thru an
ingenious scheme or trickery, seduced the latter to
the extent of making her fall in love with him. He
frequented the house of Lolita on the pretext that
he wanted her to teach him how to pray the
rosary. The wrong he has caused her and her
family is indeed immeasurable considering the fact
that he is a married man. He has committed an
injury to her family in a manner contrary to morals.
good customs and public policy as contemplated in
Article 21 of the new Civil Code.
Notes: This case impliedly holds that you can sue
someone based on breach of promise to marry
even though youre not the one promised of
marriage (In this case, Plaintiffs are the parents,
brothers and sisters of the promisee)
Disconnection of Utilities
Meralco v. CA
(Customer fails to pay 1 of 2 overdue bills,
gets disconnected without prior notice) The state
may regulate, as it has done through Section 97 of
the Revised Order No. 1 of the Public Service
Commission, the conditions under which and the
manner by which a public utility such as MERALCO
may effect a disconnection of service to a
delinquent customer. Among others, a prior written
notice to the customer is required before
disconnection of the service. Failure to give such
prior notice amounts to a tort.
Malicious Prosecution
Que v IAC
(Que files estafa vs Nicolas, dismissed at PI
stage; Nicolas files action for damages due to
malicious prosecution-canvass strollers) The
general rule is well settled that one cannot be held
liable in damages for maliciously instituting a
prosecution where he acted with probable cause.
Reason: It would be a very great discouragement
to public justice if prosecutors, who had a tolerable
ground of suspicion, were liable to be sued at law
when their indictments miscarried.
To constitute malicious prosecution, there must
be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a
sinister design to vex and humiliate a person that it
was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing
that his charges were false and groundless.
Concededly, the mere act of submitting a case to
the authorities for prosecution does not make one
liable for malicious prosecution.
Drilon v. CA
(Adaza files case for damages against Drilon
and others for malicious prosecution due to a
charge for rebellion with murder and frustrated
murder; invoked Hernandez doctrine) Malicious
Prosecution defined: An action for damages
brought by one against whom a criminal
prosecution, civil suit, or other legal proceeding has
been instituted maliciously and without probable
cause, after the termination of such prosecution,
suit or other proceeding in favor of the defendant
I. Torts
herein. The gist of the action is the putting of legal
process in force, regularly, for the mere purpose of
vexation or injury.
Concurring requisites:
1. the fact of the prosecution and the
defendant was himself the prosecutor and
then action was terminated with an
acquittal
2. the prosecutor acted without probable
cause
3. that the prosecutor was impelled by legal
malice, that is by improper or sinister
motive.
Globe Mackay (supra)
The right to institute criminal prosecutions
cannot be exercised maliciously and in bad faith.
The mere dismissal by the fiscal of the criminal
complaint is not a ground for an award of damages
for malicious prosecution if there is no competent
evidence to show that the complainant had acted in
bad faith.
Albenson v. CA (supra)
A party injured by the filing of a court case
against him, even if he is later on absolved, may
file a case for damages grounded either on abuse
of rights, or on malicious prosecution.
As to the elements of malicious prosecution,
the presence of probable cause (element 2)
signifies the absence of malice (element 3).
Note: Sir said because of this it seems that the
second and third elements are REDUNDANT.
Manila Gas v. CA
(Petitioner imputed theft by use of jumper;
inspection done while asleep, no excavation) To
constitute malicious prosecution, there must be
proof that the prosecution was prompted by a
siniter design to vex and humiliate a person that it
was initiated deliberately by the defendant knowing
that his charges were false and groundless.
Concededly, the mere act of submitting a case to
the authorities for prosecution does not make one
liable for malicious prosecution.
Petitioner, in failing to recover its lost revenue
caused by the gas meter's incorrect recording,
sought to vindicate its financial loss by filing the
complaint for qualified theft against respondent
Ongsip knowing it to be false. It was actually
intended to vex and humiliate private respondent
and to blacken his reputation not only as a
businessman but also as a person. Qualified theft is
a serious offense indicating moral depravity in an
individual. To be accused of such crime without
basis is shocking and libelous. It stigmatized
private respondent causing him emotional
depression and social degradation.
Public Humiliation
Patricio v. Leviste
(Guy hit by barangay captain with bloodied
hand, latter was drunk) The act of hitting petitioner
on the face is contrary to morals and good customs
and caused the petitioner mental anguish, moral
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
28 of 55
Torts and Damages
shock, wounded feelings and social humiliation.
Private respondent has to take full responsibility for
his act and his claim that he was unaware of what
he had done to petitioner because of drunkenness
is no excuse.
This falls under Art. 21 of the Civil Code in
relation to par. (10) of Art. 2219. The reason
underlying an award of damages under Art. 21 of
the Civil Code is to compensate the injured party
for the moral injury caused upon his person.
Grand Union v. Espino
(P&G engineer alleged to have shoplifted rat
tail file, was reprimanded in public; SC held there
was no intention on respondents part to shoplift)
The false accusation charged against the private
respondent after detaining and interrogating him
by the uniformed guards and the mode and
manner in which he was subjected, shouting at
him, imposing upon him a fine, threatening to call
the police and in the presence and hearing of many
people at the Supermarket which brought and
caused him humiliation and embarrassment,
sufficiently rendered the petitioners liable for
damages under Articles 19 and 21 in relation to
Article 2219 of the Civil Code. It is against morals,
good customs and public policy to humiliate,
embarrass and degrade the dignity of a person.
Everyone must respect the dignity, personality,
privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and
other persons (Article 26, Civil Code). And one
must act with justice, give everyone his due and
observe honesty and good faith (Article 19, Civil
Code).
Carpio v. Valmonte
(Wedding coordinator accused by brides aunt
for stealing jewelry, in the presence of other people
in hotel room) Incorporated into our civil law are
not only principles of equity but also universal
moral precepts which are designed to indicate
certain norms that spring from the fountain of good
conscience and which are meant to serve as guides
for human conduct. First of these fundamental
precepts is the principle commonly known as
abuse of rights under Article 19. To find the
existence of an abuse of right, the following
elements must be present: (1) there is a legal right
or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for
the sole intent or prejudicing or injuring another. A
person should be protected only when he acts in
the legitimate exercise of his right, that is when he
acts with prudence and good faith; but not when
he acts with negligence or abuse.
By openly accusing respondent as the only
person who went out of the room before the loss of
the jewelry in the presence of all the guests
therein, and ordering that she be immediately
bodily searched, petitioner virtually branded
respondent as the thief. True, petitioner had the
right to ascertain the identity of the malefactor, but
to malign respondent without an iota of proof is
impermissible. Petitioner had willfully caused injury
to respondent in a manner which is contrary to
morals and good customs. She did not act with
justice and good faith for apparently, she had no
other purpose in mind but to prejudice respondent.
I. Torts
Petitioner should be accountable.
Unjustified Dismissal
Quisaba v. Sta. Ines
(Internal auditor complains that the job given
is inconsistent with position; was warned of
dismissal if he does not comply with order;
company questions jurisdiction of court because
this was an employer-employee dispute) The
complaint in this case is not grounded on his
dismissal per se, as in fact he does not ask for
reinstatement, but on the manner of his dismissal
and the consequent effects of such dismissal. If the
dismissal was done anti-socially or oppressively, as
the complaint alleges, then the respondents
violated Art. 1701 of the CC and Art 21 of the CC.
The case has to do with an alleged violation of
Quisabas rights as a member of society.
E. Other Torts
1. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
CC Art. 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.
CC Art. 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.
CC Art. 2154
If something is received when there is no right to
demand it, and it was unduly delivered through
mistake, the obligation to return it arises.
Requisites:
defendant is enriched
plaintiff suffered damage or loss
there is no just or legal ground for
defendant's enrichment
enrichment is at the expense of plaintiff
2. OSTENTATIOUS DISPLAY OF WEALTH
CC Art. 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.
3. DERELICTION OF DUTY
CC Art. 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 he latter, without prejudice to any
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
29 of 55
Torts and Damages
disciplinary administrative action that may be
taken.
Amaro v. Samanguit
(Assaulted person asked for help from police,
but the latter, without justification, refused to
render assistance) Their claim for relief is not
based on the fact of harassment and terrorization
but on the appellees refusal to give them
assistance, which it was his duty to do as an officer
of the law. The requirement under the provision
that such refusal must be "without just cause" is
implicit in the context of the allegation.
The fact that appellants have another recourse
(in connection with the crime of illegal discharge of
firearm supposedly committed against one of
them) as by filing their complaint directly with the
city attorney of Silay or by lodging an
administrative charge against appellee herein, does
not preclude this action for damages under Article
27 of the Civil Code.
Sangco: Refusal implies a deliberate act which
may be due to erroneous belief in good faith
or plain ignorance; while neglect which is the
failure to do a thing, may be intentional or
unintentional. Furthermore, the duty to act
must be MINISTERIAL, and must be owed
only to the person who sustains the loss by
the failure to fulfill it.
For discretionary duties, there should be
proof of malice or arbitrariness in the action.
Requisites :
Defendant is a public officer charged with a
performance of a duty in favor of the
plaintiff
He refused or neglected without just cause
to perform the duty
Plaintiff sustained material or moral loss as
a consequence of such non-performance
The amount of such damages, if material
4. RESPECT FOR DIGNITY, PERSONALITY,
PRVACY AND PEACE OF MIND OF ANOTHER
CC Art. 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.
5. UNFAIR COMPETITION
CC Art. 28
Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or
industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of
force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any
I. Torts
other unjust, oppressive or highhanded method
shall give rise to a right of action by the person
who thereby suffers damage.
While our free market economy encourages
competition, it also takes steps to prevent unfair
competition. The policy of free competition justifies
the intentional inflicting of temporal damage
(against competitors- such as taking their
customers) when the damage is done, not for its
own sake but as an instrumentality in reaching the
end goal (such as market dominance or
profitability). For a defendant to be liable, the
plaintiff must show that the formers conduct was
purely malicious and served no legitimate purpose,
or that any trade or competitive motive was
absent.
Unfair competition includes, but is not limited to:
1. Physical interferences, violence and threats
(both against competitors and their customers);
2. Competition with malice;
3. Passing off; a tortuous interference with
anothers patronage that may, but need not
involve, trade mark infringement, for example,
selling homemade ice cream as Magnolia ice
cream.
A civil action based on Art. 28 may be pursued
entirely independent from a criminal action.
F. STRICT LIABILITY
1. DEFINITION
Liability that 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; most often applies to ultra-hazardous
activities and products-liability cases; also known
as absolute liability, liability without fault.
2. TYPES
POSSESSOR OR USER OF AN ANIMAL
CC Art. 2183
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
(Little Theness bitten by dog owned by
petitioner; petitioner disclaims ownership of dog)
What must be determined is the possession of the
dog that admittedly was staying in the house in
question, regardless of the ownership of the dog or
of the house.
The petitioner's contention that they could not
be expected to exercise remote control of the dog
is not acceptable. In fact, Article 2183 of the Civil
Code holds the possessor liable even if the animal
should "escape or be lost" and so be removed from
his control. And it does not matter either that, as
the petitioners also contend, the dog was tame and
was merely provoked by the child into biting her.
The law does not speak only of vicious animals but
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
30 of 55
Torts and Damages
covers even tame ones as long as they cause
injury. Art 2183 is based on natural equity and
social interest that the possessor of an animal must
answer for damages it may cause (not on
negligence of the possessor or user of animal).
THINGS THROWN OR FALLING FROM A BUILDING
CC Art 2193
The head of a family that lives in a building or a
part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by
things thrown or falling from the same.
Dingcong v. Kanaan
(Owner of top floors liable to falling water,
destroyed goods in store downstairs) Dingcong did
not exercise the diligence of a good father of a
family in not leaving a receptacle with drainage
that would have prevented the occurrence.
Note: Sirs take here is that the case may be cited
to cover co-lessees or managers, but see the codal
provision which pertains only to the head of the
family as the liable one.
PRODUCT LIABILITY
CC 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.
Consumer Act Provisions
Art. 4
n. "Consumer" means a natural person who is
a purchaser, lessee, recipient or prospective
purchaser, lessor or recipient of consumer
products, services or credit.
as."Manufacturer" means any person who
manufactures, assembles or processes
consumer products, except that if the goods
are manufactured, assembled or processed
for another person who attaches his own
brand name to the consumer products, the
latter shall be deemed the manufacturer. In
case of imported products, the
manufacturer's representatives or, in his
absence, the importer, shall be deemed the
manufacturer.
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
I. Torts Torts and Damages
b. use and hazards reasonably expected of it; (Some foreign substances found in softdrinks
c. the time it was put into circulation. being sold by cafeteria owner; owner sues Coca-
A product is not considered defective because cola, but latter claims action has prescribed on the
another better quality product has been placed in basis of breach of warranty) While it may be true
the market. The manufacturer, builder, producer or that the pre-existing contract between the parties
importer shall not be held liable when it evidences: may, as a general rule, bar the applicability of the
a. that it did not place the product on the law on quasi-delict, the liability may itself be
market; deemed to arise from quasi-delict if the act which
b. that although it did place the product on the breaks the contract is also a quasi-delict.
market such product has no defect;
c. that the consumer or a third party is solely Person For What Defenses or
at fault. Strictly Exceptions
Liable
Art. 99 Liability for Defective Services
The service supplier is liable for redress, Possessor of For the damage it Force majeure
independently of fault, for damages caused to an animal or may cause Fault of the
consumers by defects relating to the rendering of whoever person who
the services, as well as for insufficient or makes use of suffered damage
inadequate information on the fruition and hazards them even if
thereof. the animal is
lost or
The service is defective when it does not provide escaped
the safety the consumer may rightfully expect of it,
taking the relevant circumstances into Owner of Motor vehicle Solidary liability
consideration, including but not limited to: Motor Vehicle mishaps only if the owner
a. the manner in which it is provided; was in the vehicle
b. the result of hazards which may reasonably and if he could
have prevented it
be expected of it;
thru due diligence
c. the time when it was provided.
If not in vehicle
A service is not considered defective because of the 2180
use or introduction of new techniques.
The supplier of the services shall not be held liable Manufacturers Death and Absence on
when it is proven: and injuries caused by contractual
a. that there is no defect in the service Processors of any noxious or relation NOT a
rendered; foodstuffs, harmful defense
b. that the consumer or third party is solely at drinks, toilet substances used
fault. articles and
similar goods
Art. 106 Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation (FDTAS)
The stipulation in a contract of a clause preventing, Defendant in Death or injury possession or use
exonerating or reducing the obligation to indemnify possession of results from such thereof is
for damages effected, as provided for in this and in dangerous possession indispensable in
the preceding Articles, is hereby prohibited, if there weapons/ his occupation or
is more than one person responsible for the cause substances business
of the damage, they shall be jointly liable for the such as
redress established in the pertinent provisions of firearms and
this Act. However, if the damage is caused by a poison
component or part incorporated in the product or
service, its manufacturer, builder or importer and Provinces, The death or Public works must
Cities and injuries suffered be under their
the person who incorporated the component or
Municipalities by any person by supervisions
part are jointly liable.
reason of the
defective
Art. 107 Penalties condition of
Any person who shall violate any provision of this roads, streets,
Chapter or its implementing rules and regulations bridges, public
with respect to any consumer product which is not buildings, and
food, cosmetic, or hazardous substance shall upon other public
conviction, be subject to a fine of not less than Five works
thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and by imprisonment
of not more than one (1) year or both upon the
discretion of the court.
In case of juridical 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.

Coca-Cola v. CA

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

ONE UP LAW
31 of 55
I. Torts Torts and Damages

Proprietor of Total or partial Responsibility for 1. VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL

building/ collapse of collapse should be RIGHTS
structure building or due to the lack of
structure if due necessary repairs CC Art . 32
to lack of Any public officer or employee, or any private
necessary repai individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs,
rs defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or
Explosion of impairs any of the following rights and liberties of
machinery another person shall be liable to the latter for
which has not damages:
been taken 1. Freedom of religion
cared of with 2. Freedom of speech
due diligence, 3. Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a
and the
periodical publication
inflammation of
4. Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention
explosive
substances
5. Freedom of suffrage
which have not 6. The right against deprivation of property
been kept in a without due process of law
safe and 7. The right to just compensation when property is
adequate place taken for public use
By excessive 8. The right to equal protection of the laws
smoke, which 9. The right to be secure in ones person, house,
may be harmful papers and effects against unreasonable
to persons or searches and seizures
property 10.The liberty of abode and of changing the same
By falling of 11.The right to privacy of communication and
trees situated correspondence
at or near 12.The right to become a member of associations
highways or and societies for purposes not contrary to law
lanes, if not
13.The right to take part in a peaceable assembly
caused by force
and petition the government for redress of
majeure
By emanations
grievances
from tubes, 14.The right to be free from involuntary servitude
canals, sewers in any form
or deposits of 15.The right of the accused against excessive bail
infectious 16.The right of the accused to be heard by himself
matter, and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
constructed the cause of the accusation against him, to
without have a speedy and public trial, to meet the
precautions witnesses face to face, to have compulsory
suitable to the process to secure the attendance of witnesses
place on is behalf;
17.Freedom form being compelled to be a witness
Engineer, If damage of
against ones self, or from being forced to
Architect or building or
Contractor structure is confess his guilt, or from being induced by a
caused by defect promise of immunity or reward to make such
in construction confession, except when the person confessing
which happens becomes a State witness.
within 15 years 18.Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and
from unusual punishment, unless the same is
construction; imposed or inflicted in accordance with a
action must be statute which has not been judicially declared
brought within 10 unconstitutional;
years from 19.Freedom of access to the courts
collapse In any of the cases referred to in this article,
whether or not the defendants act or omission
Head of the Liable for
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party
Family that damages caused
lives in a by things thrown has a right to commence an entirely separate and
building or or falling from the distinct civil action for damages, and for other
any part same relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently
thereof 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.
G. Torts with Independent Civil Action
The responsibility herein set forth is not
demandable from a judge unless his act or

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

ONE UP LAW
32 of 55
I. Torts
omission constitutes a violation of the Penal code
or any other penal statute.
Note: R. Casis mentioned that he might ask a
question in the final exam on this provision. The
problem he posed to the class during discussion
was this: Can you sue, on the basis of Article 32,
Pres. GMA for damages for violating your right to
suffrage? (Assuming, of course, that she actually
cheated during the past elections).
Lim vs. Ponce De Leon
(Fiscal orders Provincial commander to
impound the stolen motor launch, who in turn
orders the detachment commander to seize the
same. The right violated in this case was the right
against unreasonable searches and seizures, as the
seizure by the detachment commander was done
without a search warrant) To be liable under Article
32 of the New Civil Code, it is enough that there
was a violation of the constitutional rights of the
plaintiffs and it is not requires that defendants
should have acted with malice or with bad faith.
Allowing good faith as an excuse would defeat the
main purpose of the provision which is the effective
protection of individual rights and its objective is to
put an end to official abuse by the pleas of good
faith.
GENERAL RULEA subordinate officer may be
held liable for executing unlawful orders of his
superior officer.
EXCEPTIONSWhen there are circumstance
which would warrant the officers exculpation form
liability: e.g. when subordinate officer was
RELUCTANT to impound the motor launch despite
repeated orders from his superior officer. It was
only after he received the reply of the Fiscal to the
letter of the Prov. Commander, justifying the
necessity of the seizure. Then came the order of
his superior officer to explain for the delay in the
seizure of the motor launch, and face with the
possible disciplinary action from his commander,
he was left with no other alternative but to seize
the vessel.
Aberca vs. Ver
WON the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus bars a civil action for damages
under article 32 (Yes)
Purpose of Article 32: to provide a sanction to
violations of our constitutional rights and freedoms.
The suspension does not destroy petitioners right
and cause of action for damages for illegal arrest
and detention and other violations of their
constitutional rights. The suspension does not
render valid an otherwise illegal arrest or
detention. What is suspended is merely the right o
the individual to seek release from detention
through the writ of habeas corpus as a speedy
mean dos obtaining liberty.
WON only the military personnel directly
involved in the violations can be held liable and not
their superiors (NO)
Article 32, speaks of an officer or employee or
person directly or indirectly responsible for the reckless imprudence or criminal negligence
violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of
another
Last note: The action for damages should not
be limited to those which constituted delict or
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
33 of 55
Torts and Damages
wrong, for the provision clearly specifies as
actionable the act of violating or in any manner
impeding or impairing any of the constitutional
rights and liberties enumerated therein.
MHP Garments, Inc. vs. CA
MHP was granted by the Boy Scouts of the
Phils exclusive franchise to sell Boy Scouts
materials. MHP later found that 2 persons were
selling these kinds of materials without authority. A
surveillance team was set up and was ordered to
report the matter to the Phil. Constabulary. Later
the stores of these persons were raided, and the
Boy Scout materials were seized and confiscated by
members of the Phil Constabulary. The owners filed
a civil case against MHP, for sums of money and
damages, since not all the items confiscated were
returned.
The Boy Scouts garments seizure that took
place without any warrant. The recovery of
damages for violation of constitutional rights and
liberties from public officer or private individual
was ruled for in Lim vs. Ponce de Leon. Under Art.
32 and Art. 2219, a person whose constitutional
rights have been violated or impaired is entitled to
actual and moral damages from the public officer
or employee responsible therefore. In addition,
exemplary damages may also be awarded. It is not
necessary that there should be malice or bad faith.
The object of Art. 32 is to put an end to official
abuse by plea of the good faith. In the US, this
remedy is in the nature of a tort.
The private individuals are still liable as a
tortfeasor if they are indirectly involved in
transgressing the right of private respondents
against unreasonable search and seizure. They
instigated the raid pursuant to their covenant in
the Memorandum Agreement. It was upon the
corporations instance that the PC soldiers
conducted the raid and effected the illegal seizure.
Moral damages are not awarded to penalize
defendant but to compensate the plaintiff for the
injuries he may have suffered. Petitioners must
have suffered sleepless nights, serious anxiety, and
wounded feelings due to the tortious raid caused
by petitioners. The wantonness of the wrongful
seizure justifies the award of exemplary damages.
2. DEFAMATION, FRAUD, PHYSICAL INJURIES
CC Art. 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.
Marcia, et. al vs. CA
Article 33 speaks only of defamation, fraud
and physical injuries while the charge against Paje
was not for homicide and physical injuries, but fro
resulting in homicide and physical injuries. The
essence of the crime of criminal negligence, is the
execution of the imprudent or negligent act that, if
intentionally done would be punishable as a
I. Torts
felony, and hence the law penalizes the negligent
or careless act and no the result thereof (Court
citing people vs. Buan). Hence the latter case is not
one of the three crimes mentioned in article 33 and
therefore, no civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution.
Madeja vs. Hon. Caro
Note in Art. 33: The civil action for damages
which it allows to be instituted is ex-delicto. This is
manifest in the provision which uses the
expressions criminal action and criminal
prosecution. This conclusion is supported by the
comment of the Code Commission.
The term physical injuries is used in a
generic sense. It is not the crime of physical
injuries defined in the RPC. It includes not only
physical injuries, but consummated, frustrated and
attempted homicide.
*Note: The Court also mentioned that the ruling in
Corpus vs. Paje, which states that reckless
imprudence or criminal negligence is not included
in Art. 33 is not authoritative.
Arafiles vs. Philippine journalists
(A reporter writes about an incident of forcible
abduction with rape and another incident of forcible
abduction with attempted rape allegedly committed
by the director of the national Institute of
atmospheric Sciences against one of its female
employees. The reporter is sued a year after the
publication of the article by the said director for
defamation) There was no malicious
sensationalization, because in this case there was
basis in fact (blotter and interview) for the said
report. The report may have been sensationalized,
but it is not per se illegal.
Article 33 contemplates a civil action for the
recovery of damages that is entirely unrelated to
the purely criminal aspect of the case. A civil action
for libel under this article shall be instituted and
prosecuted to final judgment and proved by
preponderance of evidence separately from and
entirely independent of the institution, pendency or
result of the criminal action because it is governed
by the provisions of the new civil Code and not by
the revised Penal Code governing the criminal
offense charged and the civil liability arising
therefrom.
DEFAMATION
MVRS Publications vs. Islamis Dawah Council
of the Philippines, Inc, et. Al
(This is a class suit instituted by the
respondent on behalf of all Muslims who were
allegedly defamed by an article of the petitioner
which said that Muslims in Mindanao do not eat
pigs and all other animals because these are
sacred to them and are worshiped like Gods.)
1) THE BASIC CONCEPT OF DEFAMATION AND
ITS ELEMENTS--Defamation, which includes libel
and slander, means the offense of injuring a
persons character, fame or reputation through
false and malicious statements. It is that which
tends to injure reputation or to diminish the
esteem, respect, good will or confidence in the
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
34 of 55
Torts and Damages
plaintiff or to excite derogatory feelings or opinions
about the plaintiff.
Words which are merely insulting or offensive
are not actionable. There must be a presence of
allegations as to special damages suffered by the
plaintiff.
Puno, J.defamation is made of the twin torts
of libel and slanderthe one being, in general,
written, while the other in general is oral. In either
form, defamation is an invasion of the interest in
reputation and good name. This is a relational
interest since it involves the opinion of others in
the community may have, or tend to have of the
plaintiff.
The law of defamation protects the interest in
reputationthe interest in acquiring, retaining and
enjoying ones reputation as good as ones
character and conduct warrant. The mere fact that
the plaintiffs feelings and sensibilities have been
offended is not enough to create a cause of action
for defamation. Defamation requires that
something be communicated to a third person that
may affect the opinion of others may have of the
plaintiff.
xxx. Prerequisites for recovery; Prove that the
defendant (1) Published a statement that was, (2)
defamatory, (3) of an concerning the plaintiff.
(2) SIZE OF THE GROUP SUBJECT OF THE
DEFAMATIONWhere the defamation is alleged to
have been directed at a group or class, it is
essential that the statement must be so sweeping
or all-embracing as to apply to every individual in
that group o class, or sufficiently specific so that
each individual in the class or group can prove that
the defamatory statement specifically pointed to
him, so that he can bring the action separately, if
need bethe case at bar is not a class suit. We
have here a case where each of the plaintiffs has a
separate and distinct reputation in the community.
They do not have a common or general interest in
the subject matter of the controversy. Each
reputation is personal in character to every person.
Together, the Muslims do not have a single
common reputation that will give them a common
or general interest in the subject matter of he
controversy.
Puno, J.If the defamatory statements were
directed at a small, restricted group of persons,
they applied to any member of the group, and an
individual member could maintain an action for
defamation. When the defamatory language was
used toward a small group or class, including every
member, it has been held that the defamatory
language referred to each member so that each
could maintain an action.
If the defamatory words are used broadly in
respect of a large class or group of persons, and
there is nothing that points, or by proper
colloquium or innuendo can be made to apply, to a
particular member of the class or group, no
member has a right of action for libel or slander.
FRAUD
Salta vs. De Veyra
(Manger of PNB branch indiscriminately grants
certain loans, in a manner characterized by
negligence, fraud and manifest partiality, and
I. Torts
upon securities not commensurate with the amount
of the loans. Due to the acquittal of the accused in
the criminal case, he sought the dismissal of the
civil action for damages based on the same offense
file separately). To begin with, the filing in this
case of a civil action separate from the criminal
action is fully warranted under the provision of
article 33 of the new civil code. The criminal case if
for the prosecution of an offense the main element
of which is fraud, one of the kinds of crime
mentioned in the aforecited provision. Based on the
same acts for which the criminal action was filed,
the civil actions very clearly alleged fraud and
negligence as having given rise to the cause of
action averred in the complaints.
It is significant to note that under Article 31 of
the new Civil code, it is made clear that the civil
action permitted therein to be filed separately from
the criminal action may proceed independently of
the criminal proceedings regardless of the result
of the latter. It seems perfectly reasonable to
conclude that the civil actions mentioned in Article
33, permitted in the same manner to be filed
separately from the criminal case, may proceed
similarly regardless of the result of the criminal
case.
Prudential Bank vs, IAC
The failure of an entrustee to turn over the
proceeds of the sale of goods, documents or
instruments covered by a trust receipt to the
extent of the amount owing to the entrustor... shall
constitute the crime of estafa. Under article 33 of
the Civil Code, a civil action for damages, entirely
separate and distinct from the criminal action may
be brought by te injured party in cases of
defamation, fraud and physical injuries, Estafa falls
under fraud.
PHYSICAL INJURIES
Capuno vs. Pepsi-cola Bottling Co.
(Vehicular collision. Driver of the Pepsi cola
truck is charged with triple homicide thru reckless
imprudence. The same is acquitted after a civil
action for damages had already been filed based on
the same incident) Physical injuries in Article 33
includes bodily injuries causing death. The civil
action for damages could have been commenced
by the appellants immediately upon the death of
their decedent and the same would not have been
stayed by the filing of the criminal action for
homicide through reckless imprudence.
*Note: Compare this to the ruling in Marcia and
Capuno and also to the pronouncement in Madeja
on the coverage of the term physical injuries: and
whether it should include criminal negligence. Also
remember that the Court held that the civil action
in this case (Capuno) was one for quasi-delict.
Corpus vs. Paje and Marcia vs. CA (supra)
Criminal negligence is no one of the crimes
mentioned in article 33, hence no separate civil
action may be brought on the basis of the same
article.
Madeja vs. Hon. Caro (supra)
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
35 of 55
Torts and Damages
Dulay vs. Court of Appeals
(Atty. Dulay killed by security guard after he
had an altercation with the same) The term
physical injuries has already been construed to
include bodily injuries causing death. It is not the
crime of physical injuries defined in the RPC. It
includes not only physical injuries but also
consummated, frustrated, and attempted homicide.
3. NEGLECT OF DUTY
CC Art. 34
When a member of the 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.
4. ACTION FOR DAMAGES WHERE NO
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION IS PROVIDED
CC Art. 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 ground to believe that a crime
has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney
refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings,
the complainant may bring a civil action fro
damages against the alleged offender. Such civil
action may be supported by a preponderance of
evidence. Upon the defendants 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, a
information should be presented by the prosecuting
attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until
the termination of the criminal proceedings.
*Note: Because of the last sentence, the civil
action provided under this article cannot strictly be
considered as an independent civil action.R. Casis
CC Art. 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 anothers 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 and humiliating another on account of
his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of
I. Torts
birth, physical defect, or other personal
condition.
*Note: The acts enumerated are not exclusive. The
second sentence of the article includes similar
acts in the coverage of the article.
St. Louis Realty Corporation vs. CA (1984)
(Wrongful advertisement of house in the
Sunday times) The acts and omissions of the firm
fan under Article 26. Persons who know the
residence of Doctor Aramil, were confused by the
distorted, lingering impression that he was renting
his residence from Arcadio or that Arcadio had
leased it from him. Either way, his private life was
mistakenly and unnecessarily exposed. He suffered
diminution of income and mental anguish.
*Note: This case involved a SIMILAR act under
article 26 and did not constitute any of the four
enumerated under the said article.
Concepcion vs. CA
(Accusation of adulterous relationship in the
presence of neighbors and friends) Such accusation
is an invasion on the right of the respondent as a
person. Under this article 26, the rights of persons
are amply protected and damages are provided for
violations of persons dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind.
The violations mentioned in the codal
provisions are not exclusive but are merely
examples and do not preclude other similar or
analogous acts. Damages therefore are allowable
for actions against a persons dignity, such as
profane, insulting, humiliating, scandalous or
abusive language.
Barredo v. Garcia (supra)
Elcano v. Hill
(Hills son kills Elcanos son, acquitted on lack
of intent to kill) "The foregoing provision (Article
2177) through at first sight startling, is not so
novel or extraordinary when we consider the exact
nature of criminal and civil negligence. The former
is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is
a "culpa aquiliana" or quasi-delict, of ancient
origin, having always had its own foundation and
individuality, separate from criminal negligence.
Therefore, under the proposed Article 2177,
acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence,
whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a
bar to a subsequent civil action, not for civil liability
arising from criminal negligence, but for damages
due to a quasi-delict or 'culpa aquiliana'.
Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or
negligence covers not only acts "not punishable by
law" but also acts criminal in character, whether
intentional and voluntary or negligent.
Consequently, a separate civil action lies against
the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is
criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted,
provided that the offended party is not allowed, if
he is actually charged also criminally, to recover
damages on both scores, and would be entitled in
such eventuality only to the bigger award of the
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
36 of 55
Torts and Damages
two, assuming the awards made in the two cases
vary.
Garcia v. Florido
(PU car and bus, no reservation, files separate
action It should be emphasized that the same
negligent act causing damages may produce a civil
liability arising from a crime under Art. 100 of the
Revised Penal Code or create an action for quasi-
delict or culpa extra-contractual under Arts. 2176-
2194 of the New Civil Code.
Virata v. Ochoa
(Arsenio Virata bumped by jeep along Taft
Ave.) It is settled that in negligence cases the
aggrieved parties may choose between an action
under the Revised Penal Code or of quasi-delict
under Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines. What is prohibited by Article 2177 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines is to recover twice
for the same negligent act. Under Article 1157 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines, quasi-delict and
an act or omission punishable by law are two
different sources of obligation.
Cinco v. Canonoy
(Accident between car and jeepney, civil case
suspended) Liability being predicated on quasi-
delict the civil case may proceed as a separate and
independent civil action, as specifically provided for
in Article 2177 of the Civil Code.
For obviously, the jural concept of a quasi-
delict is that of an independent source of obligation
"not arising from the act or omission complained of
as a felony."
It bears emphasizing that petitioner's cause of
action is based on quasi-delict. The concept of
quasi-delict as enunciated in Article 2176 of the
Civil Code (supra), is so broad that it includes not
only injuries to persons but also damage to
property.
Mendoza v. Arrieta
(Benz, truck and jeep accident) The same
negligent act causing damages may produce a civil
liability arising from crime or create an action for
quasi-delict or culpa extra-contractual. The former
is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is
a distinct and independent negligence, having
always had its own foundation and individuality.
Some legal writers are of the view that in
accordance with Article 31, the civil action based
upon quasi-delict may proceed independently of
the criminal proceeding for criminal negligence and
regardless of the result of the latter.
The offended party has the option between an
action for enforcement of civil liability based on
culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised
Penal Code, and an action for recovery of damages
based on culpa aquiliana under Article 2177 of the
Civil Code.
Andamo v. CA
(Inundation) Article 2176, whenever it refers
to "fault or negligence", covers not only acts "not
punishable by law" but also acts criminal in
character, whether intentional and voluntary or
negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action
I. Torts
lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether
or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty
or acquitted, provided that the offended party is
not allowed, (if the tortfeasor is actually charged
also criminally), to recover damages on both
scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality
only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the
awards made in the two cases vary. Therefore, the
acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is
entirely irrelevant in the civil case, unless, of
course, in the event of an acquittal where the court
has declared that the fact from which the civil
action arose did not exist, in which case the
extinction of the criminal liability would carry with
it the extinction of the civil liability.
Baksh v. CA (supra)
H. Civil Liability Arising From Crime
CC Art. 2177
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.
RPC Art. 100
Provides that every person who is criminally liable
for a felony is also civilly liable. This general rule
however presupposes that the felony had resulted
in damage or injury to anothers person or
property. To create an obligation or give rise to
civil liability, an act or omission, whether
intentional or negligent, must have caused damage
or injury to another, otherwise only criminal
liability will attach.
Though the general rule provides that one who is
not criminally liable cannot be civilly liable, RPC
Arts. 101-103 provide exceptions as they provide
for vicarious liability for certain types of offenders
and subsidiary liability in case of default of the
offender.
The civil liability established by RPC Arts. 100-
103 include:
1. Restitution;
2. Reparation of the damage caused; and
3. Indemnification for consequential
damages.
PLEASE SEE RULE 111 OF ROC PROSECUTION OF
CIVIL ACTION
Neplum v Orbeso
Deemed instituted in every criminal
prosecution is the civil liability arising from the
crime or delict per se (civil liability ex delicto), but
not those liabilities from quasi-delicts, contracts or
quasi-contracts.
Casupanan v Laroya
An accused in a pending criminal case can
validly file, simultaneously and independently, a
separate civil action for quasi-delict against the
private complainant in the criminal case.
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
37 of 55
Torts and Damages
Cancio v Isip
The doctrine of res judicata and forum-
shopping will not operate to bar an independent
civil action which is separate and distinct from any
criminal prosecution and which require no prior
reservation for its institution.
Zapanta v Montesa
Citing People v Aragon: a prejudicial question
as that which arises in a case, the resolution of
which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved
therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to
another tribunal. The prejudicial question must be
determinative of the case before the court, and
jurisdiction to try the same must be lodged in
another court.
People v Consing
There can be no prejudicial question when the
civil and criminal cases can, according to law,
proceed independently of each other.
Philippine Rabbit v People
The employer is not party to the criminal case
instituted against its employee. Thus, the employer
is without standing to appeal a final judgment
against its employee in the guise of asking for a
review of its subsidiary civil liability.
Philippine Rabbit v Heirs of Mangawang
The employer is subsidiarily answerable for the
adjudicated civil liability ex delicto of his employee
in the event of the latters insolvency; and the
judgment in the criminal action pronouncing the
employee to be also civilly liable is conclusive on
the employer not only as to the actuality of that
liability but also as to its amount. However, the
employer may adduce evidence during the hearing
of the motion for the issuance of an alias writ of
execution on questions which may be involved in
order to hold him subsidiarily liable (i.e. (1) he is
indeed the employer of the convicted employee;
(2) that the former is engaged in some kind of
industry; (3) that the crime was committed by the
employee in the discharge of his duties; and (4)
that the execution against the latter has not been
satisfied due to insolvency).
Due diligence and supervision is not a defense
against the subsidiary liability of employers.
Pangonorom v People
The subsidiary liabilities of employers are
deemed written into the judgments in cases to
which they are applicable. Thus, in the dispositive
portion of the decision, the trial court need not
expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the
employer.
II. Damages Torts and Damages

II. DAMAGES CC Art. 2200

Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not
A. Definition & Concept only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of
the profits which the obligee failed to obtain.
CC Art. 2195
CC Art. 2205
The provisions of this Title shall be respectively
Damages may be recovered:
applicable to all obligations mentioned in Article
a. For loss or impairment of earning capacity in
1157.
cases of temporary or permanent personal
injury;
CC Art. 2197
b. For injury to the plaintiff's business standing
Kinds of Damages (MENTAL)
or commercial credit.
1. ACTUAL/COMPENSATORY: for primary loss
actually suffered
Kinds of Actual Damages
2. MORAL: mental anguish, etc.
3. NOMINAL: for rights recognized and violated CC Art. Damages
4. TEMPERATE/MODERATE: for damages proved
but the amount was not proven 2200 a. Damnum Emergente value of the
5. LIQUIDATED: compensation for stipulated loss suffered
damages in the contract b. Lucro Cessante unrealized profit
6. EXEMPLARY/CORRECTIVE: to serve as an 2205 a. Disability
example for the common good b. Damage to Business Standing or
Commercial Credit
Ocena v. Icamina
Everyone has the obligation to repair or make 2206 a. Fixed indemnity for death = Php
whole the damage caused by another by reason of 50,000 (as of 2005)
his act or omission, whether done intentionally or b. Loss of Earning Capacity of the
negligently and whether or not punishable by law. Deceased

People v. Ballesteros 2209 Interest

Damages may be defined as the pecuniary
2208 Attorneys Fees & Expenses of Litigation
compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an
injury sustained, or as otherwise expressed, the
pecuniary consequences which the law imposes for General Principles for Recovery
the breach of some duty or the violation of some 1. The amount of damages must be fair and
right. just and commensurate to the loss.
2. The damages must be proximate damages
Custodio v. CA and not remote or speculative
There is a material distinction between 3. The damages must be proven by
damages and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of competent evidence (admissible or
a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm probative)
which results from the injury; and damages are the 4. Complaint and prayer must specify amount
recompense or compensation awarded for the of damages and pay filing fees before it
damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage may be accepted and admitted for filing.
without injury in those instances in which the loss (Circ. No. 7, Mar. 24, 1988; Manchester
or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal Devt. Corp. v. CA, 1987).
duty. 5. The requirement of certainty does not
prevent the drawing of reasonable
B. Kinds of Damages inferences from the fact and circumstance
in evidence.
6. Events which occur after the wrong
1. ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY complained of may serve to render the
damage sufficiently certain.
CC Art. 2216 7. The damages must be susceptible of
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order ascertainment in some manner other than
that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or by mere speculation, conjecture or surmise
exemplary damages, may be adjudicated. The and by reference to some fairly definite
assessment of such damages, except liquidated standard, such as market value,
ones, is left to the discretion of the court, established experience or direct inference
according to the circumstances of each case. from known circumstances.
General Rule: Provide adequate
CC Art. 2199 compensation for:
Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is 1. the value of loss suffered
entitled to an adequate compensation only for such 2. profits which obligee failed to obtain
pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly Exception
proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual 1. provided by law
or compensatory damages. 2. by stipulation

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

ONE UP LAW
38 of 55
II. Damages
What must be done to collect actual
damages
1. Plead or allege the loss
2. Pray for the relief that claim for loss be
granted
3. Prove the loss
When loss need not be proved
1. Liquidated damages previously agreed
upon; liquidated damages take the place of
actual damages except when additional
damages incurred
2. If damages other than actual are sought
3. Loss is presumed (ex: loss if a child or
spouse)
4. Forfeiture of bonds in favor of the
government for the purpose of promoting
public interest or policy (ex: bond for
temporary stay of alien)
Limitation on contract damages: Doctrine of
foreseeable or anticipated consequences only
those injuries which could have been
reasonably foreseen by the parties by the
parties at the time the contract was entered
into are recoverable.
VALUE OF LOSS SUFFERED
Destruction of things, fines or penalties,
medical & hospital bills, attorney's fees, interests,
cost of litigation
Damages recoverable:
1. Medical & Hospital Bills
2. Loss or impairment of earning capacity (in
case of physical disability)
3. Damages for death
a. Minimum amount: P50,000
b. Loss of earning capacity unless
deceased had permanent physical
disability not caused by defendant so
that deceased had no earning capacity
at time of death
c. Support, if deceased was obliged to give
support (for period not more than 5
years)
d. Moral damages
4. Attorney's fees - as a general rule,
attorney's fees (other than judicial costs)
are not recoverable, except: (CC Art.
2208, 1-11)
5. Judicial costs
6. Interest - discretionary on part of the court
UNREALIZED PROFITS
Future earnings
WHEN IS DAMAGES MITIGATED
1. Contributory negligence
2. In contracts. quasi-contracts and quasi-delict:
a. plaintiff has contravened the terms of
contract
b. plaintiff derived some benefit as result of
contract
c. in case where exemplary damages are to be
awarded, that the defendant acted upon the
advise of counsel
d. that the loss would have resulted in any
event
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
39 of 55
Torts and Damages
e. that since the filing of the action, the
defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff's loss or injury
PECUNIARY LOSS
A loss of money or something by which money
or something of money value may be acquired.
ELEMENTS FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES
1. right of action
2. for a wrong inflicted by the defendant and
3. damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom.
For subsequent aggravation or neglect of
injuries
Recovery of all proximately traceable to the
primary negligence, including subsequent
aggravations, the probability of which the law
regards as a consequence and natural result
likely to flow form the original injury. If the
injured person acts as a reasonably prudent
person in his situation and circumstances but
by his subsequent conduct aggravates the
harmful effect of the original injury, whatever
damages may be attributed to such
aggravation is considered the proximate result
of the original injury and recoverable as a part
of the damages therefor.
Except: contributory negligence;
intervening cause.Duty of injured party to
avoid loss or minimize resulting damages
but this doctrine does not imply that
damages can be minimized (Art. 2203)
Damages may be recovered for loss or
impairment of earning capacity in cases of
temporary or permanent personal injury.
Requisites:
1. determination of the extent to which such
capacity has been diminished;
2. determination of the permanency of the
decrease in earning capacity;
3. the fixing of the amount of money which
will compensate for the determined extent
and length of impairment, including a
reduction of the award to its present
worth.
Proof
Fact: Reasonable certainty only that the fact and
cause of injury must be taken out of the
area of speculation. Usual burden of proof
required in a negligence case, prove the
substantive right, its breach and the amount
of damages flowing from the breach
(amount need not be proved with the same
degree of certainty). Nature and extent of
damage suffered and that the breach of duty
was the legal cause of that damage.
Cause Proximate cause the cause, which, in a
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the injury
would not have occurred. (without which
test of cause in fact)
II. Damages Torts and Damages

Amount Need not be proved with the same degree of In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for
certainty. Fair and reasonable estimate of which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable
the amount of damage. shall be those that are the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of the obligation, and
which the parties have foreseen or could have
Algarra vs. Sandejas
reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was
Under both the Spanish Civil Code and
constituted.
American law of damages, actual damages for a
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton
negligent act or omission are confined to those
attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all
which "were foreseen or might have been
damages which may be reasonably attributed to
foreseen," or those which were "the natural and
the non-performance of the obligation.
probable consequences" or "the direct and
immediate consequences" of the act or omission.
CC Art. 2202
In this jurisdiction the author of a negligent act or
In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be
omission which causes damage to another is
liable for all damages which are the natural and
obliged to repair the damage done. This is
probable consequences of the act or omission
practically equivalent to compensatory or actual
complained of. It is not necessary that such
damages as those terms are used in American law.
damages have been foreseen or could have
Loss of profits of an established business which
reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.
was yielding fairly steady returns at the time of its
interruption by defendant's wrongful act is not so
Liability for breach in Contracts & Quasi-
speculative or contingent that a court of justice
contracts
may refuse to allow the plaintiff any damages at
1. Obligor in Good Faith = only liable for
all. When the evidence shows the previous average
foreseeable natural and probable
income of the plaintiff's business and the reduced
consequences of breach.
receipts therefrom during or immediately after the
2. Obligor in Bad Faith = liable for all
interruption, there can be no doubt that a loss of
damages which may be reasonably
profits has resulted. The fact that such a loss
attributed to the breach
cannot be determined with exactitude is no reason
Liability in Crimes and Quasi- Delicts
for refusing to allow them at all. In such a case
For all natural and probable consequences,
damages should be allowed for the diminution in
forseeability is irrelevant.
profits from the time of the interruption until the
business has resumed its normal proportions,
CERTAINTY
based upon the time it has taken or will take the
owner to rebuild it by the exercise of proper
Fuentes v. CA
diligence.
In crimes and quasi-delict's, the defendant is
liable for all damages which are the natural and
KINDS
probable consequences of the act or omission
complained of. To seek recovery for actual
PNOC Shipping And Transport Corp. vs. CA, et al.
damages it is essential that the injured party
Under Article 2199, Civil Code, actual or
proves the actual amount of loss with reasonable
compensatory damages are those awarded in
degree of certainty premised upon competent proof
satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury
and on the best evidence available. Courts cannot
sustained. They proceed from a sense of natural
simply rely on speculation, conjecture or
justice and are designed to repair the wrong that
guesswork in determining the fact and amount of
has been done, to compensate for the injury
damages.
inflicted and not to impose a penalty. In actions
based on torts or quasi-delicts, actual damages
Talisay-Silay v. Associacion
include all the natural and probable consequences
The evidence of damages must be clear.
of the act or omission complained of. There are two
Manresa expresses the rule on the quantum of
kinds of actual or compensatory damages: one is
proof of 'ganancias frustradas. At once apparent is
the loss of what a person already possesses (dao
that the pronouncement of the court [a quo] on the
emergente), and the other is the failure to receive
quantum of damages x x x does not distinctly state
as a benefit that which would have pertained to
the factors and the law on which it is based. It
him (lucro cesante).
simply concluded - 'unrealized profits.' The familiar
rule is that damages consisting of unrealized
Integrated Packaging Corp. vs. CA
profits, frequently referred as 'ganancias
However, to justify a grant of actual or
frustradas' or "lucrum cessans," are not to be
compensatory damages, it is necessary to prove
granted on the basis of mere speculation,
with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised
conjecture or surmise but rather by reference to
upon competent proof and on the best evidence
some reasonably definite standard such as market
obtainable by the injured party, the actual amount
value, established experience or direct inference
of loss.
from known circumstances. Uncertainty as to
whether or not a claimant suffered unrealized
EXTENT
profits at all - i.e., uncertainty as to the very fact of
injury will, of course, preclude recovery of this
CC Art. 2201
species of damages. Where, however, it is
reasonably certain that injury consisting of failure

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

ONE UP LAW
40 of 55
II. Damages
to realize otherwise reasonably expected profits
had been incurred, uncertainty as to the precise
amount of such unrealized profits will not prevent
recovery or the award of damages.
DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
Daywalt v. Recoletos et al.
Whatever may be the character of the liability,
if any, which a stranger to a contract may incur by
advising or assisting one of the parties to evade
performance, he cannot become more extensively
liable in damages for the nonperformance of the
contract than the party in whose behalf he inter
meddles. The damages recoverable upon breach of
contract are, primarily, the ordinary, natural and in
a sense the necessary damage resulting from the
breach. Other damages, known as special
damages, are recoverable where it appears that
the particular conditions which made such damages
a probable consequence of the breach were known
to the delinquent party at the time the contract
was made. This proposition must be understood
with the qualification that, if the damages are in
the legal sells remote or speculative, knowledge of
the special conditions which render such damages
possible will not make them recoverable. Special
damages of this character cannot be recovered
unless made the subject of special stipulation. The
damages ordinarily recoverable against a vendor
for failure to deliver land which he has contracted
to deliver is the value of the use and occupation of
the land for the tune during which it is wrongfully
withheld.
PERSONAL INJURY & DEATH
CC Art. 2206
The amount of damages for death caused by a
crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three
thousand pesos, even though there may have been
mitigating circumstances. In addition:
a. The defendant shall be liable for the loss of
the earning capacity of the deceased, and
the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of
the latter; such indemnity shall in every
case be assessed and awarded by the court,
unless the deceased on account of
permanent physical disability not caused by
the defendant, had no earning capacity at
the time of his death;
b. If the deceased was obliged to give support
according to the provisions of Article 291,
the recipient who is not an heir called to the
decedent's inheritance by the law of testate
or intestate succession, may demand
support from the person causing the death,
for a period not exceeding five years, the
exact duration to be fixed by the court;
c. The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate
descendants and ascendants of the
deceased may demand moral damages for
mental anguish by reason of the death of
the deceased.
Amount of Fixed Indemnity
This is fixed according to the prevailing
jurisprudence. As of 2005, it is P50,000.
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
41 of 55
Torts and Damages
Factors
1. Earning Capacity
2. Obligation to Support
3. Moral Damages to heirs
MMTC v. CA
Before, evidence must be presented that the
victim, if not yet employed at the time of death,
was reasonably certain to complete training for a
specific profession. In People v. Teehankee, no
award of compensation for loss of earning capacity
was granted to the heirs of a college freshman
because there was no sufficient evidence on record
to show that the victim would eventually become a
professional pilot. But compensation should be
allowed for loss of earning capacity resulting from
the death of a minor who has not yet commenced
employment or training for a specific profession if
sufficient evidence is presented to establish the
amount thereof. Increasingly, courts allow expert
testimony to be used to project those lost earnings.
The argument for allowing compensation for loss of
earning capacity of a minor is even stronger if he
or she was a student, whether already training for
a specific profession or still engaged in general
studies. In this case, The parents of the deceased
minor did not content themselves with simply
establishing their daughters enrollment at UP IS
They presented evidence to show that she was a
good student, promising artist, and obedient child.
She consistently performed well in her studies
since grade school. She had the potential of
eventually becoming an artist. This testimony is
more than sufficiently established by the 51
samples of watercolor, charcoal, and pencil
drawings submitted as exhibits by the parents.
Considering her good academic record, extra-
curricular activities, and varied interests, it is
reasonable to assume that the victim would have
enjoyed a successful professional career had it not
been for her untimely death. Hence, it is proper
that compensation for loss of earning capacity
should be awarded to her heirs in accordance with
the formula established in decided cases for
computing net earning capacity, to wit:
Net earning capacity (X) = life expectancy *
[gross annual income reasonable, necessary
living expenses]
Life expectancy is equivalent to two thirds
(2/3) multiplied by the difference of eighty (80)
and the age of the deceased. Since the victim was
16 at the time of her death, her life expectancy
was 44 more years. Her projected gross annual
income, computed based on the minimum wage for
workers in the non-agricultural sector in effect at
the time of her death, then fixed at P37.00, is
P14,630.46. Allowing for necessary living expenses
of fifty percent (50%) of her projected gross
annual income, her total net earning capacity
amounts to P321,870.12.
ATTORNEYS FEES
CC Art. 2208
In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs,
cannot be recovered, except:
II. Damages
1. When exemplary damages are awarded;
2. When the defendant's act or omission has
compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
persons or to incur expenses to protect his
interest;
3. In criminal cases of malicious prosecution
against the plaintiff;
4. In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or
proceeding against the plaintiff;
5. Where the defendant acted in gross and evident
bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's
plainly valid, just and demandable claim;
6. In actions for legal support;
7. In actions for the recovery of wages of
household helpers, laborers and skilled
workers;
8. In actions for indemnity under workmen's
compensation and employer's liability laws;
9. In a separate civil action to recover civil liability
arising from a crime;
10.When at least double judicial costs are
awarded;
11.In any other case where the court deems it just
and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses
of litigation should be recovered.
In all cases, the attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation must be reasonable.
Two Concepts of Attorneys Fees
1. Retainers agreement between the lawyer and
the client (in writing).
2. Award as an indemnity to the client. (BELONGS
to the client)
Requirements
1. There must be a stipulation
2. Such must fall into one of the cases in Art.
2208.
NOTE: Attorneys Fees is the exception NOT the
general rule.
Quirante vs. IAC
Well settled is the rule that counsel's claim for
attorney's fees may be asserted either in the very
action in which the services in question have been
rendered, or in a separate action. If the first
alternative is chosen, the Court may pass upon
said claim, even if its amount were less than the
minimum prescribed by law for the jurisdiction of
said court, upon the theory that the right to
recover attorney's fees is but an incident of the
case in which the services of counsel have been
rendered." It also rests on the assumption that the
court trying the case is to a certain degree already
familiar with the nature and extent of the lawyer's
services. The rule against multiplicity of suits will in
effect be subserved. What is being claimed here as
attorney's fees by petitioners is, however, different
from attorney's fees as an item of damages
provided for under Article 2208 of the Civil Code,
wherein the award is made in favor of the litigant,
not of his counsel, and the litigant, not his counsel,
is the judgment creditor who may enforce the
judgment for attorney's fees by execution. Here,
the petitioner's claims are based on an alleged
contract for professional services, with them as the
creditors and the private respondents as the
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
42 of 55
Torts and Damages
debtors. In filing the motion for confirmation of
attorney's fees, petitioners chose to assert their
claims in the same action. This is also a proper
remedy under our jurisprudence. Nevertheless, we
agree with the respondent court that the
confirmation of attorney's fees is premature. Since
the main case from which the petitioner's claims
for their fees may arise has not yet become final,
the determination of the propriety of said fees and
the amount thereof should be held in abeyance.
This procedure gains added validity in the light of
the rule that the remedy for recovering attorney's
fees as an incident of the main action may be
availed of only when something is due to the client.
INTEREST
CC Art. 2209
If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum
of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the
indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation
to the contrary, shall be the payment of the
interest agreed upon, and in the absence of
stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent
per annum. (1108)
CC Art. 2210
Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be
allowed upon damages awarded for breach of
contract.
CC Art. 2211
In crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of
the damages may, in a proper case, be adjudicated
in the discretion of the court.
CC Art. 2212
Interest due shall earn legal interest from the time
it is judicially demanded, although the obligation
may be silent upon this point. (1109a)
CC Art. 2213
Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated
claims or damages, except when the demand can
be established with reasonably certainty.
Rules on Interest
1. If there is a stipulation as to the rate of
interest, apply the rate.
2. If only interest but no rate is stipulated, or
when there is delay, apply the legal rate of
interest (6% or 12% per annum)
a. When the obligation involves the payment of
indemnities in the concept of damages, the
legal rate is 6% computed as follows: (i)
from the date of demand is the amount of
indemnities can be established with
reasonable certainty; if not (ii) from the date
of the judgment of the trial court
b. When the obligation consists of a loan or
forbearance of money, goods, or credits as
well as judgment involving such loan or
forbearance, rate shall be 12% computed
from default (judicial or extrajudicial
demant)
c. In both (a) and (b), the legal rate of interest
shall be 12% from the finality of the
judgment until it is paid.
II. Damages
Start of Delay
1. Extrajudicial: demand letter
2. Judicial: Filing of complaint
Crismina Garments v CA
Forbearance in the context of the usury law
is a contractual obligation of lender or creditor to
refrain during a given time period from requiring
payment of a loan then due and payable. In this
case, the contract is for a piece of work, hence
not a forbearance of money, goods or credit, and
therefore the interest should only be 6% from the
date of demand or TC judgment and 12% from the
finality of the SC judgment until it is paid.
MITIGATION OF LIABILITY
CC Art. 2203
The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the
diligence of a good father of a family to minimize
the damages resulting from the act or omission in
question.
CC Art. 2204
In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be
respectively increased or lessened according to the
aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
CC Art. 2214
In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the
plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may
recover.
CC Art. 2215
In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the
court may equitably mitigate the damages under
circumstances other than the case referred to in
the preceding article, as in the following instances:
1. That the plaintiff himself has contravened the
terms of the contract;
2. That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a
result of the contract;
3. In cases where exemplary damages are to be
awarded, that the defendant acted upon the
advice of counsel;
4. That the loss would have resulted in any event;
5. That since the filing of the action, the defendant
has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or
injury.
The inordinate amount of damages calls for the
moderating hand of the court, that justice may be
tempered with reason instead of being tainted
when it appears to be a result of ruthless
vindictiveness.
2. MORAL
CONCEPT
CC Art. 2217
Moral damages include physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of
pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
43 of 55
Torts and Damages
recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant's wrongful act for omission.
(PBMF-MWSS)
a. Physical suffering
b. Besmirched reputation
c. Mental anguish
d. Fright
e. Moral shock
f. Wounded feelings
g. Social humiliation
h. Serious anxiety
Principles of Recovery
1. Prove the factual basis.
2. Such must be the proximate result of the injury.
3. The person who suffered must give testimony.
Factors for the Amount of Moral Damages
1. Political, social, financial status, of the person
offended as well as the business and financial
standing of the offender.
2. Degree of anguish
3. Sentimental value where applicable
Kierulf et al. v. CA
The moral damages as awarded by the CA
were not enough, but not for the reasons given by
the complainants (loss of consortium, social &
financial standing) but for the trauma suffered by
Lucila and the span of time between this decision
and the accident. Victor's claim for deprivation of
his right to consortium, although argued before
Respondent Court, is not supported by the
evidence on record. His wife might have been badly
disfigured. But he had not testified that, in
consequence thereof, his right to marital
consortium was affected. Clearly, Victor (and for
that matter, Lucila) had failed to make out a case
for loss of consortium, unlike the Rodriguez
spouse. Again, we emphasize that this claim is
factual in origin and must find basis not only in the
evidence presented but also in the findings of the
Respondent Court. For lack of factual basis, such
claim cannot be ruled upon by this Court at this
time. The social and financial standing of Lucila
cannot be considered in awarding moral damages.
The factual circumstances prior to the accident
show that no "rude and rough" reception, no
menacing attitude," no supercilious manner," no
"abusive language and highly scornful reference"
was given her. The social and financial standing of
a claimant of moral damages may be considered in
awarding moral damages only if he or she was
subjected to contemptuous conduct despite the
offender's knowledge of his or her social and
financial standing. Be that as it may, it is still
proper to award moral damages to Petitioner Lucila
for her physical sufferings, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety and wounded feelings. She
sustained multiple injuries on the scalp, limbs and
ribs. She lost all her teeth. She had to undergo
several corrective operations and treatments.
Despite treatment and surgery, her chin was still
numb and thick. She felt that she has not fully
recovered from her injuries. She even had to
II. Damages
undergo a second operation on her gums for her
dentures to fit. She suffered sleepless nights and
shock as a consequence of the vehicular accident.
In this light and considering further the length of
time spent in prosecuting the complaint and this
appeal, we find the sum of P400,000 as moral
damages for Petitioner Lucila to be fair and just
under the circumstances.
Visayan Sawmill vs. CA
In contracts, such as in the instant case, moral
damages may be recovered if defendants acted
fraudulently and in bad faith, while exemplary
damages may only be awarded if defendants acted
in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or
malevolent manner. In the instant case, the refusal
of the petitioners to deliver the scrap iron was
founded on the non-fulfillment by the private
respondent of a suspensive condition. It cannot,
therefore, be said that the herein petitioners had
acted fraudulently and in bad faith or in a wanton,
reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. What
this Court stated in Inhelder Corp. vs. CA needs
to be stressed anew: "At this juncture, it may not
be amiss to remind Trial Courts to guard against
the award of exhorbitant (sic) damages that are
way out of proportion to the environmental
circumstances of a case and which, time and again,
this Court has reduced or eliminated. Judicial
discretion granted to the Courts in the assessment
of damages must always be exercised with
balanced restraint and measured objectivity." For,
indeed, moral damages are emphatically not
intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of
the defendant. They are awarded only to enable
the injured party to obtain means, diversion or
amusements that will serve to obviate the moral
suffering he has undergone, by reason of the
defendant's culpable action. Its award is aimed at
the restoration, within the limits of the possible, of
the spiritual status quo ante, and it must be
proportional to the suffering inflicted.
People vs. Aringue
We find the award of P2,000,000.00 as moral
damages to be excessive. Although no proof of
pecuniary loss is required in the assessment of
moral damages, the award is essentially by way of
indemnity or reparation. Moral damages are not
awarded to punish the defendant but to
compensate the victim. The award is not meant to
enrich the victim at the expense of the defendant.
We find that an award of P50,000.00 is
commensurate to the emotional suffering of the
victim's heirs. Additionally, we award P50,000.00
as indemnity by reason of the death of the victim
in accord with Article 2206 of the Civil Code and
prevailing jurisprudence. The award of attorney's
fees is set at P25,000.00 which is reasonable
considering that the proceedings at the lower court
lasted four years.
Villanueva v. Salvador
The pawnshop failed to give notice of the sale,
in violation of the Pawnshop Regulation Act.
However the award of moral damages and
attorneys fees is improper. While proof of
pecuniary loss is unnecessary to justify an award of
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
44 of 55
Torts and Damages
moral damages, it is essential that the claimant
satisfactorily proves the existence of the factual
basis of the damages and its causal connection to
defendants wrongful act or omission. This is
because moral damages are designed to
compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered
and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.
Proof of moral suffering must precede a moral
damage award. The conditions required in
awarding moral damages are: (1) there must be an
injury, whether physical, mental or psychological,
clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) there must
be a culpable act or omission factually established;
(3) the wrongful act or omission of the defendant
must be the proximate cause of the injury
sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of
damages is predicated on any of the cases stated
in ART. 2219 NCC. While it need not be shown that
the defendant acted in a wanton or malevolent
manner, there must still be proof of fraudulent
action or bad faith for a claim for moral damages to
succeed. Then, too, moral damages are generally
not recoverable in culpa contractual except when
bad faith supervenes and is proven. And to the
person claiming moral damages rests the onus of
proving by convincing evidence the existence of
bad faith, for good faith is presumed. As this case
involves only simple negligence, from which moral
damages cant arise, the award is improper.
PROOF & PROXIMATE CAUSE
Compania Maritima v. Allied Free Workers
Union
Considering that the company's claim for moral
damages was based on the same facts on which it
predicated its claim for actual damages, which we
have found to be groundless, it follows that the
company, a juridical person, is not entitled to
moral damages. Anyway, the company did not
plead and prove moral damages. It merely claimed
moral damages in the prayer of its complaint. That
is not sufficient.
Miranda-Ribaya v. Bautista
We do not share respondent court's narrow
view that petitioner Niceta's failure to use in her
testimony the precise legal terms or "sacramental
phrases" of "mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, wounded feelings or moral shock" and the
like justifies the denial of the claim for damages. It
is sufficient that these exact terms have been
pleaded in the complaint and evidence has been
adduced, as cited above, amply supporting the
averments of the complaint. Indeed, petitioner
Niceta vividly portrayed in simple terms the moral
shock and suffering she underwent as a result of
respondents' wanton abuse of her good faith and
confidence. Thus, petitioners' testimonial evidence
to the effect that petitioner Niceta suffered
"extremely" and that for three months she could
not sleep was a clear demonstration of her physical
suffering, mental anguish and serious anxiety and
similar injury, resulting from respondents'
malevolent acts that show her to be clearly entitled
to moral damages.
Del Rosario v. CA
II. Damages
That MFC did in truth act with bad faith, in
flagrant breach of its express warranties made to
the general public and in wanton disregard of the
rights of the Del Rosarios who relied on those
warranties, is adequately demonstrated by the
recorded proofs. The law explicitly authorizes the
award of moral damages "in breaches of contract
where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad
faith." There being, moreover, satisfactory
evidence of the psychological and mental trauma
actually suffered by the Del Rosarios, the grant to
them of moral damages is warranted. Over a
period of about a month, they experienced
"feelings of shock, helplessness, fear,
embarrassment and anger. As declared by this
Court in Makabili v. CA, among other precedents:
It is essential . . . in the award of damages that the
claimant must have satisfactorily proven during the
trial the existence of the factual basis of the
damages and its causal connection to defendant's
acts. This is so because moral damages though
incapable of pecuniary estimation are in the
category of an award designed to compensate the
claimant for actual injury suffered and not to
impose a penalty on the wrongdoer (Enervida v.
De la Torre) and are allowable only when
specifically prayed for in the complaint (San
Miguel Brewery, Inc. v. Magno).
Raagas, et al. v. Traya et al.
The plaintiffs' claim for actual, moral, nominal
and corrective damages, was controverted by the
averment in the answer to the effect that the
defendants "have no knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations" as to such damages, "the truth of the
matter being that the death of Regino Raagas was
occasioned by an unforeseen event and/or by the
fault of the small boy Regino Raagas or his
parents." Such averment has the effect of
tendering a valid issue. XXX we held that even if
the allegations regarding the amount of damages
in the complaint are not specifically denied in the
answer, such damages are not deemed admitted.
XXX Although an allegation is not necessary in
order that moral damages may be awarded, "it is,
nevertheless, essential that the claimant
satisfactorily prove the existence of the factual
basis of the damage and its causal relation to
defendant's acts. The preceding disquisition points
up the inescapable need of a full-blown trial on the
merits at which the parties will be afforded every
opportunity to present evidence in support of their
respective contentions and defenses.
Enervida v. De la Torre
"Furthermore, while no proof of pecuniary loss
is necessary in order that moral damages may be
awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the
discretion of the court (Art. 2216), it is,
nevertheless, essential that the claimant
satisfactorily prove the existence of the factual
basis of the damage (Art. 2217) and its causal
relation to defendant's acts. This is so because
moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary
estimation, are in the category of an award
designed to compensate the claimant for actual
injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
45 of 55
Torts and Damages
wrongdoer (Algara vs. Sandejas). The TC and the
CA both seem to be of the opinion that the mere
fact that respondent were sued without any legal
foundation entitled them to an award of moral
damages, hence they made no definite finding as
to what the supposed moral damages suffered
consist of. Such a conclusion would make of moral
damages a penalty, which they are not, rather than
a compensation for actual injury suffered, which
they are intended to be. Moral damages, in other
words, are not corrective or exemplary damages."
People v. Bugayong
The trial court correctly awarded P50,000 as
indemnity ex delicto, an amount which is
automatically granted to the offended party
without need of further evidence other than the
fact of the commission of rape. Consistent with
recent jurisprudence, appellant should also be
ordered to pay the victim the additional amount of
P50,000 as moral damages. In People v. Prades,
the Court resolved that "moral damages may
additionally be an awarded to the victim in the
criminal proceeding, in such amount as the Court
deems just, without the need for pleading, or proof
of the basis thereof as has heretofore been the
practice.
People v. Calongui
Anent the award of damages, civil indemnity
ex delicto is mandatory upon finding of the fact of
rape while moral damages is awarded upon such
finding without need of further proof because it is
assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered
moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.
No factual and legal bases, no award of exemplary
damages should be allowed.
People v. Barcena
TC correctly awarded P75K as civil indemnity
which is awarded if the crime is qualified by
circumstances which warrant the imposition of the
death penalty. However, the award of P50K as
moral damages must be increased to P75K in line
with prevailing jurisprudence. In addition, the
presence of the qualifying circumstances of
minority and relationship entitles the offended
party to exemplary damages in the amount of
P25K.
CASES WHERE ALLOWED
CC Art. 2219
Moral damages may be recovered in the following
and analogous cases: (not an exclusive list)
1. A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
2. Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
3. Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious
acts;
4. Adultery or concubinage;
5. Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
6. Illegal search;
7. Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
8. Malicious prosecution;
9. Acts mentioned in Article 309;
10.Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
II. Damages
The parents of the female seduced, abducted,
raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this
article, may also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and
brothers and sisters may bring the action
mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order
named.
CC Art. 2220
Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for
awarding moral damages if the court should find
that, under the circumstances, such damages are
justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of
contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or
in bad faith.
Malicious Prosecution; Elements
1. The fact of prosecution
2. Defendant was the prosecutor
3. Action was dismissed for being without
probable cause in the preliminary
investigation
4. Defendant was actuated or impelled by
legal malice
Labor Cases
Moral damages are recoverable only
where the dismissal of the employee:
1. was attended by bad faith or fraud
2. constituted an act oppressive to labor
3. was done in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs, or public policy.
Castillo v. Castillo
We are in full agreement with the ruling laid
down by the lower court that absent any showing
that the complaint was malicious and that in fact
said court found the complaint meritorious to a
reasonable extent, damages may not be claimed
by defendants. As to the moral damages of
defendant siblings, there is no showing that the
complaint was malicious, in fact the court has
found it meritorious to a reasonable extent; as to
the counterclaims of the mother, Enriqueta, while it
must be admitted that this case is peculiar in that
it is one filed by a daughter against her own
mother, that alone does not justify any
counterclaim, specifically for the exemplary
damages and moral damages sought to be
collected since the complaint as has been said has
been found to have some merit. The finding of the
TC that the filing of the complaint in the case at
bar was not malicious is a finding of fact which is
binding and conclusive, thereby negating any
award of damages against plaintiffs, following the
ruling that it is not a sound policy to place a
penalty on the right to litigate, and that in order
that a person may be made liable to the payment
of moral damages, the law requires that his act be
wrongful. The adverse result of an action does not
per se make the act wrongful and subject the actor
to the payment of moral damages. The law could
not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to
litigate; such right is so precious that moral
damages may not be charged on those who may
exercise it erroneously."
Francisco v. GSIS
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
46 of 55
Torts and Damages
There was NO error in the appealed decision in
denying moral damages, not only on account of
plaintiff's failure to take the witness stand and
testify to her social humiliation, wounded feelings,
anxiety, etc., as the decision holds, but primarily
because a breach of contract like that of defendant,
not being malicious or fraudulent, does not warrant
the award of moral damages under Article 2220.
Expertravel & Tours v. CA
Moral damages are not punitive in nature but
are designed to compensate and alleviate in some
way the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and
similar injury unjustly caused to a person.
1. Although incapable of pecuniary computation,
moral damages, nevertheless, must somehow
be proportional to and in approximation of the
suffering inflicted.
2. Such damages, to be recoverable, must be the
proximate result of a wrongful act or omission
the factual basis for which is satisfactorily
established by the aggrieved party.
3. An award of moral damages would require
certain conditions:
a. there must be an injury, whether physical,
mental or psychological, clearly sustained by
the claimant;
b. there must be a culpable act or omission
factually established;
c. the wrongful act or omission of the
defendant is the proximate cause of the
injury sustained by the claimant; and
d. the award of damages is predicated on any
of the cases stated in Article 2219
4. In culpa contractual or breach of contract,
moral damages may be recovered when the
defendant acted in bad faith or was guilty of
gross negligence (amounting to bad faith) or in
wanton disregard of his contractual obligation
and, exceptionally, when the act of breach of
contract itself is constitutive of tort resulting in
physical injuries.
5. By special rule in Article 1764, in relation to
Article 2206, moral damages may also be
awarded in case the death of a passenger
results from a breach of carriage.
6. In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict,
a. when an act or omission causes physical
injuries, or
b. where the defendant is guilty of intentional
tort, [in this latter case, moral damages may
be recovered even in loss of or damage to
property] moral damages may aptly be
recovered. This rule also applies to contracts
when breached by tort.
7. In culpa criminal, moral damages could be
lawfully due when the accused is found guilty
of physical injuries, lascivious acts, adultery or
concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention,
illegal arrest, illegal search, or defamation.
8. Malicious prosecution can also give rise to a
claim for moral damages. The term "analogous
cases," referred to in Article 2219, following
the ejusdem generis rule, must be held similar
to those expressly enumerated by the law.
II. Damages
9. Although the institution of a clearly unfounded
civil suit can at times be a legal justification for
an award of attorney's fees, such filing,
however, has almost invariably been held not
to be a ground for an award of moral damages.
The rationale for the rule is that the law could not
have meant to impose a penalty on the right to
litigate. The anguish suffered by a person for
having been made a defendant in a civil suit would
be no different from the usual worry and anxiety
suffered by anyone who is haled to court, a
situation that cannot by itself be a cogent reason
for the award of moral damages. If the rule were
otherwise, then moral damages must every time
be awarded in favor of the prevailing defendant
against an unsuccessful plaintiff.
Unfounded Suits
Mijares v. CA
In Malicious Prosecutions, both in criminal and
civil cases, requires the presence of two elements,
to wit: a) malice; b) absence of probable cause.
Moreover, there must be proof that the prosecution
was prompted by a sinister design to vex and
humiliate a person, and that it was initiated
deliberately knowing that the charge was false and
baseless. Hence, mere filing of a suit does not
render a person liable for malicious prosecution
should he be unsuccessful, for the law could not
have meant to impose a penalty on the right to
litigate. Settled in our jurisprudence is the rule that
moral damages cannot be recovered from a person
who has filed a complaint against another in good
faith, or without malice or bad faith. If damage
results from the filing of the complaint, it is
damnum absque injuria.
De La Pea v. CA
However, we are inclined to delete the award
for attorney's fees, moral damages and expenses
of litigation. As correctly argued by petitioner, an
award for attorney's fees and moral damages on
the sole basis of an action later declared to be
unfounded in the absence of a deliberate intent to
cause prejudice to the other party is improper. The
right to litigate is so precious that a penalty should
not be charged on those who may exercise it
erroneously.
Cometa, et al. v. CA
The mere allegation in a complaint for
malicious prosecution that an information was filed
after preliminary investigation and that a warrant
of arrest was thereafter issued does not by itself
negate allegations in the same complaint that the
prosecution was malicious. To sustain petitioners
stand would result in the dismissal of every action
for malicious prosecution.
Labor Cases
Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRC
Now, with respect to the award of moral and
exemplary damages, the same is likewise proper
but should be reduced. Worth reiterating is the rule
that moral damages are recoverable where the
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
47 of 55
Torts and Damages
dismissal of the employee was attended by bad
faith or fraud or constituted an act oppressive to
labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs, or public policy. Likewise,
exemplary damages may be awarded if the
dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive or
malevolent manner. According to the facts of the
case as stated by public respondent, Osdana was
made to perform such menial chores, as
dishwashing and janitorial work, among others,
contrary to her job designation as waitress. She
was also made to work long hours without
overtime pay. Because of such arduous working
conditions, she developed Carpal Tunnel
Syndrome. Her illness was such that she had to
undergo surgery twice. Since her employer
determined for itself that she was no longer fit to
continue working, they sent her home posthaste
without as much as separation pay or
compensation for the months when she was unable
to work because of her illness. Since the employer
is deemed to have acted in bad faith, the award for
attorney's fees is likewise upheld.
Criminal Taking of Life
People v. Teodorico Cleopas and Pirame
(2000)
The award of P50,000 from each accused as
moral and exemplary damages, however, is
unsupported. The widow of the victim did not
testify on any mental anguish or emotional
distress, which she suffered as a result of her
husband's death.
Arcona v. CA
Likewise, the CA was correct in increasing the
amount of civil indemnity to P50,000.00, in line
with existing jurisprudence. In cases of murder,
homicide, parricide and rape, civil indemnity in the
amount of P50,000.00 is automatically granted to
the offended party or his heirs in case of his death,
without need of further evidence other than the
fact of the commission of the crime. On the other
hand, the award of moral damages in the sum of P
10,000.00 must be increased to P50,000.00. As
borne out by human nature and experience, a
violent death invariably and necessarily brings
about emotional pain and anguish on the part of
the victims family. It is inherently human to suffer
sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one
becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing.
Such violent death or brutal killing not only steals
from the family of the deceased his precious life,
deprives them forever of his love, affection and
support, but often leaves them with the gnawing
feeling that an injustice has been done to them.
For this reason, moral damages must be awarded
even in the absence of any allegation and proof of
the heirs emotional suffering.
Factors in Determining Amount
PNB v. CA
Petitioner's allegation that it is allowed by Sec.
11, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence to
impeach the adverse party's witness "by evidence
that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or
integrity is bad" is undeserving of merit. Petitioner
II. Damages
has not presented adequate evidence to show that
private respondent is indeed a big time gambler.
Mere allegations are not equivalent to proof.
Petitioner has besmirched private respondent's
reputation and has considerably caused him undue
humiliation. The records further show that plaintiff
is a prominent businessman, licensed and engaged
in the real estate business, buying and selling
houses and lots under the business name and style
CMS Commercial. He is at the same time a
consultant of Dizon-Esguerra Real Estate Company.
Defendant treated him as a valued and VIP client.
Because of the bank's refusal to encash the entire
one million face amount of his manager's checks,
he was so embarrassed for he was not able to
purchase a house and lot in Monterroza
Subdivision, Baguio City. Significantly, the
foregoing undisputed facts made even more
untenable defendant's implicit supposition that the
subject manager's checks were not intended for
the purchase of a house or for any business
transaction but for gambling. Accordingly, the
moral and exemplary damages awarded to private
respondent are increased by P100,000.00 and
P25,000.00, respectively.
Fule v. CA
Being an experienced banker and
businessman himself who deliberately skirted a
legal impediment in the sale of the Tanay property
and to minimize the capital gains tax for its
exchange, it was actually gross recklessness for
him to have merely conducted a cursory
examination of the jewelry when every opportunity
for doing so was not denied him. Apparently, he
carried on his person a tester which he later used
to prove the alleged fakery but which he did not
use at the time when it was most needed.
Furthermore, it took him two more hours of
unexplained delay before he complained that the
jewelry he received were counterfeit. Thus, it is our
considered view that if this slew of circumstances
were connected, like pieces of fabric sewn into a
quilt, they would sufficiently demonstrate that his
acts were not merely negligent but rather studied
and deliberate. Instead, the cause of action of the
instant case appears to have been contrived by
petitioner himself. In other words, he was placed in
a situation where he could not honestly evaluate
whether his cause of action has a semblance of
merit, such that it would require the expertise of
the courts to put it to a test. His insistent pursuit of
such case then coupled with circumstances
showing that he himself was guilty in bringing
about the supposed wrongdoing on which he
anchored his cause of action would render him
answerable for all damages the defendant may
suffer because of it. This is precisely what took
place in the petition at bar and we find no cogent
reason to disturb the findings of the courts below
that respondents in this case suffered considerable
damages due to petitioner's unwarranted action.
Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. CA
The discriminatory act of petitioner against
respondent ineludibly makes the former liable for
moral damages under Article 21 in relation to
Article 2219 (10) of the Civil Code. As held in
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
48 of 55
Torts and Damages
Alitalia Airways vs. CA, et al., such inattention
to and lack of care by petitioner airline for the
interest of its passengers who are entitled to its
utmost consideration, particularly as to their
convenience, amount to bad faith which entitles
the passenger to the award of moral damages.
Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, we
are convinced that the awards for actual, moral
and exemplary damages granted in the judgment
of respondent court, for the reasons meticulously
analyzed and thoroughly explained in its decision,
are just and equitable. It is high time that the
traveling public is afforded protection and that the
duties of common carriers, long detailed in our
previous laws and jurisprudence and thereafter
collated and specifically catalogued in our Civil
Code in 1950, be enforced through appropriate
sanctions.
Valenzuela v. CA
In the case of moral damages, while the said
damages are not intended to enrich the plaintiff at
the expense of a defendant, the award should
nonetheless be commensurate to the suffering
inflicted. In the instant case we are of the opinion
that the reduction in moral damages from an
amount of P1,000,000.00 to P800,000,00 by the
a CA was not justified considering the nature of the
resulting damage and the predictable sequelae of
the injury. As a result of the accident, Ma. Lourdes
Valenzuela underwent a traumatic amputation of
her left lower extremity at the distal left thigh just
above the knee. Because of this, Valenzuela will
forever be deprived of the full ambulatory functions
of her left extremity, even with the use of state of
the art prosthetic technology. (SC goes on to detail
all subsequent difficulties including adjustments to
prosthetic devices, rehabilitation, replacements,
etc.) The foregoing discussion does not even
scratch the surface of the nature of the resulting
damage because it would be highly speculative to
estimate the amount of psychological pain, damage
and injury which goes with the sudden severing of
a vital portion of the human body. A prosthetic
device, however technologically advanced, will only
allow a reasonable amount of functional restoration
of the motor functions of the lower limb. The
sensory functions are forever lost. The resultant
anxiety, sleeplessness, psychological injury, mental
and physical pain are inestimable.
Sumalpong v. CA
An appeal in a criminal case opens the whole
case for review and this 'includes the review of the
penalty, indemnity and damages. Squarely
applicable to the instant case is this Court's
pronouncement in Quemel vs. CA, that
"[a]lthough the authority to assess damages or
indemnity in criminal cases is vested in trial courts,
it is so only in the first instance. On appeal, such
authority passes to the appellate court. Thus, this
Court has, in many cases, increased the damages
awarded by the trial court, although the offended
party had not appealed from said award, and the
only party who sought a review of the decision of
said court was the accused." Anent the increase in
the amount of moral damages awarded, suffice it
to state that the nature of the injuries and the
II. Damages
degree of physical suffering endured by the
complainant warrants the same. The tragic incident
caused a mutilation of complainant's left ear and a
permanent scar on his right forearm. These injuries
have left indelible marks on the complainant's body
and will serve as a constant reminder of this
traumatic experience.
Lopez, et al. v. Pan American World Airways
International carriers like defendant know the
prestige of such an office. For the Senate is not
only the Upper Chamber of the Philippine Congress,
but the nation's treaty-ratifying body. It may also
be mentioned that in his aforesaid Office Senator
Lopez was in a position to preside in impeachment
cases should the Senate sit as impeachment
Tribunal. And he was former Vice-President of the
Philippines. Senator Lopez was going to the US to
attend a private business conference of the
Binalbangan-Isabela Sugar Company; but his
aforesaid rank and position were by no means left
behind, and in fact he had a second engagement
awaiting him in the United States; a banquet
tendered by Filipino friends in his honor as Senate
President Pro Tempore. For the moral damages
sustained by him, therefore, an award of
P100,000,000 is appropriate. Mrs. Maria J. Lopez,
as wife of Senator Lopez, shared his prestige and
therefore his humiliation. In addition, she suffered
physical discomfort during the 13-hour trip (5
hours from Tokyo to Honolulu and 8 hours from
Honolulu to San Francisco). Although Senator
Lopez stated that "she was quite well", he
obviously meant relatively well, since the rest of
his statement is that two months before, she was
attacked by severe flu and lost 10 pounds of
weight and that she was advised by Dr. Sison to go
to the United States as soon as possible for medical
check-up and relaxation. Mr. and Mrs. Alfrcedo
Montelibano, Jr. were traveling as immediate
members of the family of Senator Lopez. They
formed part of the Senator's party as shown also
by the reservation cards of PAN AM. As such they
likewise shared his prestige and humiliation.
Producers Bank v. CA
The dishonor of private respondents' checks
and the foreclosure initiated by petitioner adversely
affected the credit standing as well as the business
dealings of private respondents as their suppliers
discontinued credit lines resulting in the collapse of
their businesses. In the case of Leopoldo Araneta
v. Bank of America, we held that: "The financial
credit of a businessman is a prized and valuable
asset, it being a significant part of the foundation
of his business. Any adverse reflection thereon
constitutes some financial loss to him. The
damage to private respondents' reputation and
social standing entitles them to moral damages.
Article 2217, in relation to Article 2220, of the Civil
Code explicitly provides that "moral damages
include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and
similar injury." Obviously, petitioner bank's
wrongful act caused serious anxiety,
embarrassment, and humiliation to private
respondents for which they are entitled to recover
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
49 of 55
Torts and Damages
moral damages in the amount of P300,000.00
which we deem to be reasonable.
Who may recover
Strebel v. Figueras, et al
As a general rule, the right of recovery for
mental suffering resulting from bodily injuries is
restricted to the person who has suffered the
bodily hurt, and there can be no recovery for
distress caused by sympathy for another's
suffering, or for fright due to a wrong against a
third person. So the anguish of mind arising as to
safety of others who may be in personal peril from
the same cause cannot be taken into consideration.
"In law, mental anguish is restricted as a rule, to
such mental pain or suffering as arises from an
injury or wrong to the person himself, as
distinguished from that form of mental suffering
which the accompaniment of sympathy or sorrow
for another's suffering or which arises from a
contemplation of wrongs committed on the person
of another. Pursuant to the rule stated, a husband
or wife cannot recover for mental suffering caused
by his sympathy for the other's suffering.
ABS-CBN v. CA
The award of moral damages cannot be
granted in favor of a corporation because, being an
artificial person and having existence only in legal
contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no
senses, It cannot, therefore, experience physical
suffering and mental anguish, which call be
experienced only by one having a nervous system.
The statement in People v. Manero and
Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB that a corporation
may recover moral damages if it "has a good
reputation that is debased, resulting in social
humiliation" is an obiter dictum. On this score
alone the award for damages must be set aside,
since RBS is a corporation.
NAPOCOR v. Philipp Brothers
The award of moral damages is improper. To
reiterate, NAPOCOR did not act in bad faith.
Moreover, moral damages are not, as a general
rule, granted to a corporation. While it is true that
besmirched reputation is included in moral
damages, it cannot cause mental anguish to a
corporation, unlike in the case of a natural person,
for a corporation has no reputation in the sense
that an individual has, and besides, it is inherently
impossible for a corporation to suffer mental
anguish.
3. NOMINAL
CC Art. 2221
Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a
right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or
invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or
recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by
him.
CC Art. 2222
The court may award nominal damages in every
obligation arising from any source enumerated in
II. Damages
Article 1157, or in every case where any property
right has been invaded.
CC Art. 2223
The adjudication of nominal damages shall
preclude further contest upon the right involved
and all accessory questions, as between the parties
to the suit, or their respective heirs and assigns.
REQUISITES
1. A legal right has been violated.
2. There is no loss or damage suffered or
such cannot be proven or was not proved.
3. The award is to vindicate the right
violated.
GENERAL RULE
One does not ask for nominal damages and it
is in lieu of the actual, moral, temperate, or
liquidated damages.
Ventanilla v. Centeno
Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that
a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or
invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or
recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by
him. The assessment of nominal damages is left to
the discretion of the court, according to the
circumstances of the case. Considering the
circumstances, as found by the TC, and the degree
of negligence committed by the appellee, a lawyer,
in not depositing on time the appeal bond and filing
the record on appeal within the extension period
granted by the court, which brought about the
refusal by the trial court to allow the record on
appeal, the amount of P200 awarded by the trial
court to the appellant as nominal damages may
seem exiguous. Nevertheless, considering that
nominal damages are not for indemnification of
loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition
of a right violated or invaded; and that even if the
appeal in civil case No. 18833 had been duly
perfected, it was not an assurance that the
appellant would succeed in recovering the amount
he had claimed in his complaint, the amount of
P2,000 the appellant seeks to recover as nominal
damages is excessive. After weighing carefully all
the considerations, the amount awarded to the
appellant for nominal damages should not be
disturbed.
Armovit v. CA
Nominal damages cannot co-exist with actual
or compensatory damages.
Francisco v. Ferrer
(1) No moral damages - "Moral damages may
be awarded in breaches of contracts where the
defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith." In
this case, "[w]e find no such fraud or bad faith."
(2) No exemplary damages - In the same
fashion, to warrant the award of exemplary
damages, "[t]he wrongful act must be
accompanied by bad faith, and an award of
damages would be allowed only if the guilty party
acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless or
malevolent manner."
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
50 of 55
Torts and Damages
(3) Nevertheless, the facts show that when
confronted with their failure to deliver on the
wedding day the wedding cake ordered and paid
for, petitioners gave the lame excuse that delivery
was probably delayed because of the traffic, when
in truth, no cake could be delivered because the
order slip got lost. For such prevarication,
petitioners must be held liable for nominal
damages for insensitivity, inadvertence or
inattention to their customer's anxiety and need of
the hour. Nominal damages in the amount of
P10,000 awarded.
Citytrust Bank v. IAC
However, the Court agrees with Citytrust that
it was wrong to award along with nominal
damages, temperate or moderate damages. The
two awards are incompatible and cannot be
granted concurrently. Nominal damages are given
in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been
violated or invaded by the defendant, may be
vindicated or recognized and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by
him. Temperate or moderate damages, which are
more than nominal but less than compensatory
damages, on the other hand, may be recovered
when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has
been suffered but its amount cannot, from the
nature of the case, be proved with reasonable
certainty (Article 2224, CC).
4. TEMPERATE
CC Art. 2224
Temperate or moderate damages, which are more
than nominal but less than compensatory
damages, may be recovered when the court finds
that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its
amount can not, from the nature of the case, be
provided with certainty.
CC Art. 2225
Temperate damages must be reasonable under the
circumstances.
REQUISITES
1. There is actual damage.
2. The pecuniary amount of the damage cannot be
proved.
3. Amount must be reasonable.
In cases where the resulting injury might be
continuing and possible future complications
directly arising from the injury, while certain
to occur are difficult to predict, temperate
damages can and should be awarded on top of
actual or compensatory damages; in such
cases there is no incompatibility between
actual and temperate damages.
Pleno v. CA
SC affirms the lower court's awards of
damages and hold that the appellate court's
reduction of the amounts of temperate and moral
damages is not justified. Temperate damages are
included within the context of compensatory
damages (RCPI v. CA). In arriving at a reasonable
level of temperate damages to be awarded, trial
II. Damages
courts are guided by our ruling that: ". . . There
are cases where from the nature of the case,
definite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be offered,
although the court is convinced that there has been
such loss. For instance, injury to one's commercial
credit or to the goodwill of a business firm is often
hard to show certainty in terms of money. Should
damages be denied for that reason? The judge
should be empowered to calculate moderate
damages in such cases, rather than that the
plaintiff should suffer, without redress from the
defendant's wrongful act." (Araneta v. Bank of
America) His actual income however has not been
sufficiently established so that this Court cannot
award actual damages, but, an award of temperate
or moderate damages may still be made on loss or
impairment of earning capacity. That Pleno
sustained a permanent deformity due to a
shortened left leg and that he also suffers from
double vision in his left eye is also established.
Because of this, he suffers from some inferiority
complex and is no longer active in business as well
as in social life.
NOTE: In this case actual and temperate damages
were awarded. It is postulated that the actual
damages is for the car while the temperate
damages is for the lost actual income not
sufficiently proved.
5. LIQUIDATED
CC Art. 2226
Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the
parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach
thereof.
CC Art. 2227
Liquidated damages, whether intended as an
indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced
if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.
CC Art. 2228
When the breach of the contract committed by the
defendant is not the one contemplated by the
parties in agreeing upon the liquidated damages,
the law shall determine the measure of damages,
and not the stipulation.
These damages are agreed upon in a contract
in case of breach thereof.
There is no need to prove the amount, only
the fact of the breach.
The amount can be reduced if:
1. unconscionable as determined by the
court.
2. partial or irregular performance
GENERAL RULE
The penalty shall substitute the indemnity for
damages and the payment of the interests in case
or breach.
EXCEPTIONS
1. When there is stipulation to the contrary.
2. When the obligor is sued for refusal to pay the
agreed penalty.
3. When the obligor is guilty of fraud.
UP LAW BAROPS 2007
ONE UP LAW
51 of 55
Torts and Damages
6. EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE
CC Art. 2229
Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by
way of example or correction for the public good, in
addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages.
CC Art. 2230
In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part
of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime
was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances. Such damages are separate and
distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended
party.
CC Art. 2231
In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be
granted if the defendant acted with gross
negligence.
CC Art. 2232
In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may
award exemplary damages if the defendant acted
in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner.
CC Art. 2233
Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a
matter of right; the court will decide whether or
not they should be adjudicated.
CC Art. 2234
While the amount of the exemplary damages need
not be proved, the plaintiff must show that he is
entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory
damages before the court may consider the
question of whether or not exemplary damages
should be awarded. In case liquidated damages
have been agreed upon, although no proof of loss
is necessary in order that such liquidated damages
may be recovered, nevertheless, before the court
may consider the question of granting exemplary in
addition to the liquidated damages, the plaintiff
must show that he would be entitled to moral,
temperate or compensatory damages were it not
for the stipulation for liquidated damages.
CC Art. 2235
A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are
renounced in advance shall be null and void.
REQUIREMENTS
1. There is actual, moral, temperate or liquidated
damages.
2. If arising from:
a. Crime When there is one or more
aggravating circumstances [regardless of
mitigating].
b. Quasi-delict When the defendant acted
with gross negligence.
c. Contract or Quasi-contract When the
defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.
Amount need not be proven.
II. Damages Torts and Damages
Cannot be recovered as a matter or right;
may be waived.
An employer may be subsidiarily liable to pay
moral, actual, temperate or liquidated
damages arising from an employees criminal
offense, but NOT as to exemplary damages
because aggravating circumstances are
personal to the accused.

PNB v. CA
However, the award of P1,000,000.00
exemplary damages is also far too excessive and
should likewise be reduced to an equitable level.
Exemplary damages are imposed not to enrich one
party or impoverish another but to serve as a
deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb
socially deleterious actions.

Del Rosario v. CA
This Court also agrees with the TC that
exemplary damages are properly exigible of MFC,
"Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that such
damages may be imposed by way of example or
correction for the public good. While exemplary
damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right,
they need not be proved, although plaintiff must
show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or
compensatory damages before the court may
consider the question of whether or not exemplary
damages should be awarded." There is, to be sure,
no hard and fast rule for determining what would
be a fair amount of moral (or exemplary) damages,
each case having to be governed by its attendant
particulars. Generally, the amount of moral
damages should be commensurate with the actual
loss or injury suffered. Exemplary damages are
imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish
another but to serve as a deterrent against or as a
negative incentive to curb socially deleterious
actions.

UP LAW BAROPS 2007

ONE UP LAW
52 of 55
 special thanks to:
Office of the College Secretary
UP College of Law

UP Law Center

UP College of Law Library

UP Law BarOps 2006

Review Committee
I
Subject Committee
[Subject] I
Information Management
Committee I Armi Bayot [head] . Keisie Marfil . Paulyne
Regalado Theresa Roldan . Lem Arenas
Chino Baybay . Tristan Tresvalles . Al Siason