TORTS AND DAMAGES Page 1 of 24

I. PRELIMINARY confirm and reinforce public

A. DEFINITION OF TERMS standards of behavior.
TORT: unlawful violation of a private right, not created by Private wrong or injury Offense against the public and is
contract, which gives rise pursued by the sovereign
to an action for damages. authority
DAMAGE: detriment, injury or loss which are occasioned by Seek indemnity for damage or Seeks curtailment of the liberty or
reason of fault of another in the property or injury sustained without seeking imprisonment of the offender
person. the imprisonment of the with possible civil liability
DAMAGES: pecuniary compensation, recompense or satisfaction tortfeasor
for an injury sustained or as otherwise Preponderance of evidence Proof beyond reasonable doubt
expressed, the pecuniary consequences which the New Civil Code Revised Penal Code
law imposes for the breach of some duty or
violation of some rights. 2. Concept of Quasi Delict
A. Requisites (FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. CA)
B. SOURCES OF TORTS AND DAMAGES To sustain a claim based thereon, the following requisites must
1. Quasi-Delicts (Art 10. Art 100-103 of the Revised Penal concur:
2176- 2194) Code (a) damage suffered by the plaintiff;
2. Quasi-Contracts (Art 11. Title XVIII (Damages) (b) fault or negligence of the defendant; and,
2142- 2175) Art 2195-2235 (c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or
3. Human Relations (Art 12. Art 694-707 negligence of the defendant and the damage
19-36) 13. Chapter III Sec 4 (Common incurred by the plaintiff
4. Art 1172-1174 Carriers) Art 1755- 1763
5. Art. 1723 14. RA 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Art. 2176: Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
6. Art 2003 Act) another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
7. Art 309 15. Supreme Court Decisions the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
8. Art 1314 16. American Law and existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
9. Family Code Jurisprudence quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
17. Opinion of Legal Authors
ADDITIONAL DOCTRINES:
C. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN TORTS AND QUASI- DELICT Article 2180 of the same Code which deals also with quasi-delict
TORT QUASI-DELICT provides:
Common law concept Civil law concept
The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only
Broader Negligence only
for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom one is responsible.
D. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN TORTS AND QUASI- DELICT
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother,
TORT CRIME
are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children
Purpose of tort liability is to Purpose of criminal punishment is
who live in their company.
vindicate the individual victims primarily to vindicate the States
and victims rights and to interest in deterring crime and
imposing justice.
TORTS AND DAMAGES Page 2 of 24

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or Attaches both civil and
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in criminal liabilities
their company. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are Sanction/ Penalty is
likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in imprisonment, fine or both
the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or
on the occasion of their functions. The Civil Code by means of
indemnification merely repairs
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their the damage
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of Liability of the employer of the
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in actor-employee is subsidiary in
any business or industry. crimes
Only civil liability
Preponderance of evidence
Sanction/Penalty is reparation or
indemnification of injury or
damage
The Revised Penal Code
punishes or corrects criminal act
Liability is direct and primary in
quasi-delict

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a CRUZ vs CA

special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by
the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which
case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades
shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students
or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
The liability imposed by Art. 2180 arises by virtue of a
presumption juris tantum of negligence on the part of the
persons made responsible thereunder, derived from their failure
to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of subordinates
to prevent them from causing damage.
2. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN DELICT AND CULPA-ACUILIANA
DELICT CULPA-ACQUILIANA
No crime unless there is a law It can exist as long as there is
clearly punishing it fault or negligence resulting in
damage or injury to another
Criminal intent is essential Criminal intent is NOT essential
Public right is violated Private right is violated
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.
In litigations involving medical negligence, the plaintiff has the burden
of establishing appellant's negligence and for a reasonable
conclusion of negligence, there must be proof of breach of duty on
the part of the surgeon as well as a causal connection of such breach
and the resulting death of his patient This Court has no recourse but to
rely on the expert testimonies rendered by both prosecution and
defense witnesses that substantiate rather than contradict petitioner's
allegation that the cause of Lydia's death was DIC which, as attested
to by an expert witness, cannot be attributed to the petitioner's fault or
negligence. The probability that Lydia's death was caused by DIC was
unrebutted during trial and has engendered in the mind of this Court a
reasonable doubt as to the petitioner's guilt. Thus, her acquittal of the
crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, but this Court finds
the petitioner civilly liable for the death of Lydia Umali, for while a
conviction of a crime requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, only a
preponderance of evidence is required to establish civil liability.
TORTS AND DAMAGES Page 3 of 24

CULPA-ACQUILIANA CULPA-CONTRACTUAL obli gat ion , an d w hi ch t h e p art ie s ha ve f o re se en or

Nature of Negligence is direct Nature of negligence is merely co ul d ha ve r ea so n ably f o re se en at t he t ime t he
substantive and independent incidental to the performance of obli gat ion w as c on st it ut ed .
the contractual obligation
There is no pre-existing contract There is a pre-existing contract or I n cas e of fr au d, b a d fai th , m ali c e or w ant on a ttit ud e , t he
or obligation but creates obligation obli go r shall be re sp on sible f or all dam a ge s w hich ma y b e
viniculum juris, rea s onabl y at t rib ut ed t o t h e n on - p er fo rm ance of t h e
Defense of a good father of a Defense of a good father of a obli gat ion .
family is a complete and family is not a complete and
proper defense insofar as proper defense in the selection SALUDAGA VS FEU
parents, guardians and and supervision of employees It is settled that in culpa contractual, the mere proof of the existence
employees are concerned of the contract and the failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, a
There is no presumption of There is presumption of corresponding right of relief. In the instant case when Saludaga was
negligence. The injured party negligence as long as it can be shot inside the campus by no less the security guard who was hired to
must prove the negligence of proved maintain peace and secure the premises, there is a prima facie
the defendant showing that FEU failed to comply with its obligation to provide a safe
Art 2176 and immediately Governed by 1170-1174 of the and secure environment to its students.
following (Civil Code 2178) Civil Code
In order to avoid liability, however, FEU alleged that the shooting
BATAL vs SAN PEDRO incident was a fortuitous event because they could not have
AR T . 1 17 0 . T hos e w ho i n t he per f or m a nc e o f th eir reasonably foreseen nor avoided the accident caused by Rosete as
obl iga ti ons ar e g uil t y o f fra u d , n egl i g enc e , o r d ela y , he was not their employee; and that they complied with their
and t ho se w h o i n an y ma n n e r co ntr a v e n e th e t en or obligation to ensure a safe learning environment for their students by
ther e of , a re li abl e f o r da ma ges . having exercised due diligence in selecting the security services of
Galaxy.
AR T . 1 17 3 . Th e fa ul t o r n egl i gen ce o f t he obli g or
con si st s in t he omi s si on o f t h at di l i g en ce w hich i s After a thorough review of the records, the SC found that FEU failed to
req uir ed b y t h e n at ur e of t h e oblig at ion an d discharge the burden of proving that they exercised due diligence in
co rre sp on ds w it h t h e ci rc um st an c es of t he p er s on s , providing a safe learning environment for their students. They failed to
of t h e t im e an d o f t h e p l ac e . Wh en n e glig ence sh ow s prove that they ensured that the guards assigned in the campus met
b ad fait h , t he p r ovi si on s of art i cl es 1 17 1 an d 22 02 , the requirements stipulated in the Security Service Agreement. Certain
p ara grap h 2 , shal l a p p l y . documents about Galaxy were presented during trial; however, no
evidence as to the qualifications of Rosete as a security guard for the
I f t h e law or c on t ra ct d oe s n ot st at e t h e dili gen ce university was offered. FEU also failed to show that they undertook
w h i ch i s t o b e ob s e rve d i n t h e p e rf o rm ance , t hat steps to ascertain and confirm that the security guards assigned to
w h i ch is exp ect ed of a g o od fat h e r of a famil y sh all them actually possess the qualifications required in the Security
b e r eq ui re d . Service Agreement.

Ar t . 22 01 . I n co ntr acts an d q uas i - c o ntr a cts , t h e Consequently, FEU's defense of force majeure must fail. In order for
dama ge s f o r w h i ch t h e ob l i g o r w h o act ed in g oo d force majeure to be considered, FEU must show that no negligence or
fai th i s li able shal l b e t h o se t h at ar e t he nat ur al and misconduct was committed that may have occasioned the loss. An
p ro b abl e co ns eq u e n ce s o f t h e b re a ch o f t he act of God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has failed to
TORTS AND DAMAGES
take steps to forestall the possible adverse consequences of such a
loss. When the effect is found to be partly the result of a person's
participation - whether by active intervention, neglect or failure to act
- the whole occurrence is humanized and removed from the rules
applicable to acts of God.
In Powton Conglomerate, Inc. v. Agcolicol, we held that:
... Personal liability of a corporate director, trustee or officer along
(although not necessarily) with the corporation may so validly attach,
as a rule, only when
(1) he assents to a patently unlawful act of the corporation, or when
he is guilty of bad faith or gross negligence in directing its affairs, or
when there is a conflict of interest resulting in damages to the
corporation, its stockholders or other persons;
(2) he consents to the issuance of watered down stocks or who,
having knowledge thereof, does not forthwith file with the corporate
secretary his written objection thereto;
(3) he agrees to hold himself personally and solidarily liable with the
corporation; or
(4) he is made by a specific provision of law personally answerable for
his corporate action.
None of the foregoing exceptions was established in the instant case;
hence, respondent De Jesus should not be held solidarily liable with
respondent FEU.
VILLORIA VS ,CONTINENTAL AIRLINES
In actions based on quasi-delict, a principal can only be held liable
for the tort committed by its agents employees if it has been
established by preponderance of evidence that the principal was also
at fault or negligent or that the principal exercise control and
supervision over them.
Art. 1192. In case both parties have committed a breach of the
obligation, the liability of the first infractor shall be equitably tempered
by the courts. If it cannot be determined which of the parties first
violated the contract, the same shall be deemed extinguished, and
each shall bear his own damages.
Article 2220 of the Civil Code requires evidence of bad faith and fraud
and moral damages are generally not recoverable in culpa
contractual except when bad faith had been proven.
Page 4 of 24
The award of exemplary damages is likewise not warranted. Apart
from the requirement that the defendant acted in a wanton,
oppressive and malevolent manner, the claimant must prove his
entitlement to moral damages
3. CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE
The omission of that degree of diligence which is required by the nature
of the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of persons,
time and place. (Article 1173 Civil Code)
Kinds of Negligence:
1. Culpa Contractual (contractual negligence)
Governed by CC provisions on Obligations and Contracts
Art. 1170: Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of
fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene
the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. (1101)
Art. 1171: Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all
obligations. Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void. (1102a)
Art. 1172: Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of
every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be
regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances. (1103)
Art. 1173: The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission
of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of
the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles
1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be
observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father
of a family shall be required. (1104a)
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.
2. Culpa Aquiliana (quasi-delict)
TORTS AND DAMAGES
Governed mainly by Art. 2176 of the Civil Code
Art. 2176: Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such
fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.
3. Culpa Criminal (criminal negligence)
Governed by Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
Art. 365: Imprudence and negligence. Any person who, by reckless
imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional,
would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor
in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period; if it
would have constituted a less grave felony, the 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.
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:
Page 5 of 24
1. 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.
2. 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.
-PNR vs CA
-Keppel Cebu Shipyard vs Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp.
a. Test of determining negligence
1. Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use the
reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person
would have used in the same situation?
If not then he is guilty of negligence.
2. Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee
harm as a result of the course pursued?
If so, it was the duty of the actor to take precautions to guard
against harm.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
NOTES:
Negligence is a conduct - the determination of the existence of
negligence is concerned with what the defendant did or did not do
The state of mind of the actor is not important; good faith or use
of sound judgment is immaterial. The existence of negligence in a
given case is not determined by reference to the personal
judgment but by the behavior of the actor in the situation before
him. (Picart vs. Smith)
Negligence is a conduct that creates an undue risk of harm to
others.
The determination of negligence is a question of foresight on the
part of the actor FORESEABILITY.
Even if a particular injury was not foreseeable, the risk is still
foreseeable if possibility of injury is foreseeable.
Forseeability involves the question of PROBABILITY, that is, the
existence of some real likelihood of some damage and the likelihood is
of such appreciable weight reasonably to induce, action to avoid it.
-Gaid vs People
b. Quantum of Proof in Quasi Delict
In quasi delict, the negligence or fault should be clearly established
because it is the basis of the action, whereas in the breach of
contract, the action can be prosecuted merely by proving the
existence of a contract.
-Dr. Huang vs Philippine Hoteliers, Inc.
c. Presumptions of Negligence (Art.2184, 2185,2188, 1756 of CC)
1. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is presumed negligent if he was
in the vehicle and he could have used due diligence to prevent the
misfortune. (Article 2184 Civil Code)
2. 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 for the next preceding two months. (Article 2184 Civil Code)
Page 6 of 24
3. The driver of a motor vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of
the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. (Article 2185 Civil
Code)
4. GENERAL RULE: Prima facie presumption of negligence of the
defendant arises if death or injury results from his possession of
dangerous weapons or substance.
EXCEPTION: When such possession or use is indispensable to his
occupation or business. (Article 2188 Civil Code)
5. GENERAL RULE: Presumption of negligence of the common carrier
arises in case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, or in case
of death or injury of passengers.
EXCEPTION: Upon proof of exercise of extraordinary diligence.
-Guilang vs Bedania
-Perena vs Zarate
d. Res Ipsa Loquitor
The thing or transaction speaks for itself.
It is a rule of evidence peculiar to the law of negligence which
recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established in
the absence of direct proof, and furnishes a substitute for
specific proof of negligence.
Requisites of Res Ipsa Loquitor:
1. The accident was of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the
absence of someones negligence;
2. The instrumentality which caused the injury was under the exclusive
control and management of the person charged with negligence;
and
3. The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary
action or contribution on the part of the person injured; absence of
explanation by the defendant
-Professional Services, Inc. vs Agana (2007)
-Del Carmen vs Bacoy
-Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs Alberto
TORTS AND DAMAGES
e. Captain of the Ship Doctrine
The head surgeon is made liable for everything that goes wrong
within the four corners of the operating room.
It enunciates the liability of the surgeon not only for the wrongful
acts of those under his physical control but also those wherein he has
extension of control.
C. NOT WARRANTORS
Physicians are not warrantors of cures or insurers against personal
injuries or death of the patient.
D. PROOF
Expert testimony should be offered to prove that the
circumstances are constitutive of conduct falling below the standard
of care employed by other physicians in good standing when
performing the same operation.
Medical malpractice can also be established by relying on the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitor; in which case the need of expert testimony
is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of
negligence. (Ramos vs. CA, GR No.124354, December 29, 1999)
Example: The doctrine was applied in a case of removal of the
wrong part of the body when another part was intended.
Two pronged evidence:
a. Evidence as to the recognized standards of the medical community
in the particular kind of case; and
b. A showing that the physician departed from this standard in his
treatment.
Four elements in medical negligence cases: duty, breach, injury
and proximate causation.
-Dr. Cantre vs Spouses Go
f. Doctrine of Corporate Responsibility
Recent years have seen the doctrine of corporate responsibility as the
judicial answer to the problem allocating hospitals liability for the
negligent acts of health practitioners absent facts to support the
application of respondeat superior or apparent authority. Its formulation
proceeds from the judiciarys acknowledgement that in these modern
Page 7 of 24
times, the duty of providing quality medical services is no longer the sole
prerogative and responsibility of the physician. The modern hospitals
have changed structure. Hospitals now tend to organize a highly
professional medical staff whose competence and performance need
to be monitored by the hospitals commensurate with their inherent
responsibility to provide quality medical care.
-Professional Services, Inc. vs CA (2008)
-Professional Services,Inc. vs CA (2010)
IV. Criminal Negligence vs Civil Negligence (art. 2177 of 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.
Criminal negligence is a violation of criminal law while civil negligence
is a distinct and independent negligence which is culpa aquiliana or
quasi delict of ancient origin, having always its own foundation and
individuality, separate from criminal negligence.
a. Actions available to victims of negligence (art 100,103 of RPC; Art
29,30,31,32,33,2180 of CC)
Art. 100: Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. Every person
criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
Art. 103: Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. The subsidiary
liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to
employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind
of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.
Art. 29: When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on
the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be
instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence.
Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to
file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be
found to be malicious.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon
reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any
declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the
decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.
Art. 30: When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability
arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are
instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of
evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.
Art. 31: When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from
the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may
proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of
the result of the latter.
Art. 32: Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who
directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner
impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another
person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical
publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of
law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for
public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for
purposes not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the
government for redress of grievances;
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
Page 8 of 24
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,
to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face,
and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness
in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self,
or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a
promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when
the person confessing becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment,
unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute
which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the
defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the
aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and
distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action
shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter
be instituted), and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may
also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge
unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or
other penal statute.
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.
b. Procedural Aspect (Sections 1,2,3 and 4 of Rule 111 of Rules of Court
on Criminal Procedure)
RULE 111
TORTS AND DAMAGES
Prosecution of Civil Action
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a) When a criminal
action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising
from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal
action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the
right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be
made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under
circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity
to make such reservation.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the
accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages
without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or information,
the filing fees thereof shall constitute a first lien on the judgment
awarding such damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the
complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by
the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be
required for actual damages.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by
the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could
have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil
action. (1a)
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file
such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended
party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check
involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed.
Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated,
moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party
Page 9 of 24
shall pay additional filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If
the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are
subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the
amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has
not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action
upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the application
is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with
section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal
actions. (cir. 57-97)
Section 2. When separate civil action is suspended. After the criminal
action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising
therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered in
the criminal action.
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been
instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be
found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until final
judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before
judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the same may,
upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal
action in the court trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation,
the evidence already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed
automatically reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to
the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witnesses presented
by the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present
additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall
be tried and decided jointly.
During the pendency of the criminal action, the running of the period
of prescription of the civil action which cannot be instituted separately
or whose proceeding has been suspended shall be tolled. (n)
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the
civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed
extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action
that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not
exist. (2a)
TORTS AND DAMAGES
Section 3. When civil action may proceeded independently. In the
cases provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by the
offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action
and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case,
however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same
act or omission charged in the criminal action. (3a)
Section 4. Effect of death on civil actions. The death of the accused
after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall
extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict. However, the
independent civil action instituted under section 3 of this Rule or which
thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from other sources of
obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative
of the accused after proper substitution or against said estate, as the
case may be. The heirs of the accused may be substituted for the
deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the
minor heirs.
-People vs Ritter
-Heirs of Simon vs Chan
V. Proximate Cause (Art 2179 of 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.
a. Concept
It is the adequate and efficient cause as in the natural order of
events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the
case, would necessary produce the event.
Is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
Page 10 of 24
It is one which in natural sequence, undisturbed by any
independent cause, produces the result complained of. The
result, however, must be the natural and probable
consequence such as ought to have been foreseen as likely to
flow from the act complained of.
-Philippine National Railways Corp. vs Vizcara
-Philippine National Bank vs F.F. Cruz and Co., Inc.
b. Tests of Proximate Cause
1. Foreseeability test- where the particular harm was reasonably
foreseeable at the time of the defendants misconduct, his act
or omission is the legal cause thereof. It is the fundamental test
of the law of negligence.
2. Natural and probable consequence test- where the
defendants liability is recognized only if the harm or injury
suffered is the natural and probable consequence of his act or
omission complained of.
3. Sine qua non test- where the defendants conduct will not be
considered as proximate cause of the event if the event just the
same would have occurred without it. In a broader sense, the
defendants conduct is a cause of the event if it was a material
element and a substantial factor in bringing it about, whether it
was such a substantial factor is for the court to determine, unless
the issue is so clear that reasonable men could not differ.
4. Cause and conditions test- this is the test where a distinction is
made between the active cause of the harm or injury and the
existing conditions upon which that cause operated. If the
defendant has created only a passive static condition, which
made the damage possible, he is not liable.
-Agusan Del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ANECO) vs Balen
c. Contributory Negligence
It is the act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part
of the person injured which, concurring with the defendants
negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury. To hold a person as
having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed
TORTS AND DAMAGES
an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warnings or signs of
an impending danger to health and body.
It is the omission of the diligence required by the circumstances by virtue
of which a person could have avoided injury to himself. It may be an
omission of diligence by which the injured party contributed to the
cause which gives rise to the injury; or it may be the failure to take the
caution to avoid or minimize such injury.
It does not mean that the plaintiff owed a duty to the defendant to take
care; it means the plaintiff failed to use reasonable care for his own
safety and this contributed to his own damages.
Where one is part author of his own injury, he cannot call on the other
party to compensate him in full
It requires foreseeability of harm to oneself.
-NPC vs Heirs of Noble Casionan
-Allied Banking Corporation vs BPI
d. Doctrine of Comparative Negligence
The negligence of both the plaintiff and of the defendant are
compared for the purpose of reaching an equitable apportionment of
their respective liabilities for the damages caused and suffered by the
plaintiff.
E .Attractive Nuisance
One who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or
appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who
fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing
therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is
injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the
premises.
The principal reason for this doctrine is that the condition or appliance
in question although in danger is apparent to those of age, is so
enticing and alluring to children of tender years as to induce them to
Page 11 of 24
approach, get on or use it and this attractiveness is an implied
invitation to such children.
This doctrine is generally not applicable to bodies of water, in the
absence of some unusual condition or artificial features other than the
mere water and its location.
f. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
This was adopted to allow recovery to plaintiff who happened to have
been negligent also, provided the defendant has the last opportunity
to avoid the accident but failed to do so.
In the application of this doctrine, there must be negligence on the
part of both parties. Otherwise, it is not applicable.
This doctrine simply provides that the negligence of the claimant does
not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it
appears that the latter, by exercising reasonable care and prudence
might have avoided injurious consequences to the claimant
notwithstanding his negligence.
Viewed as a phase of proximate cause, the negligence of the plaintiff
is just a remote cause of the accident. The proximate cause is still the
subsequent negligence of the defendant in failing to exercise ordinary
care to avoid the accident.
VI. Vicarious Liability (Art 2180,2182 of CC; Art 221 and 218 of Family
Code; Rule 92, sec. 2 of Rules of Court)
Art. 2180: The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not
only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are
responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in
their company.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their
company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are
likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the
service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees
and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks,
even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special
agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to
whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided
in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be
liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices,
so long as they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons
herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a)
Art. 2182: If the minor or insane person causing damage has no
parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be answerable
with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad
litem shall be appointed.
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
Art. 218: The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual,
entity or institution engaged in child are shall have special parental
authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their
supervision, instruction or custody.
Page 12 of 24
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities
whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or
institution.
Rule 92 Section 2: Meaning of word "incompetent." Under this
rule, the word "incompetent" includes persons suffering the penalty of
civil interdiction or who are hospitalized lepers, prodigals, deaf and
dumb who are unable to read and write, those who are of unsound
mind, even though they have lucid intervals, and persons not being of
unsound mind, but by reason of age, disease, weak mind, and other
similar causes, cannot, without outside aid, take care of themselves
and manage their property, becoming thereby an easy prey for
deceit and exploitation.
Vicarious Liability or Doctrine of Imputed Negligence:
A person is not only liable for torts committed by himself, but also for
torts committed by others with whom he has a certain relation or for
whom he is responsible. (Article 2180 Civil Code)
Exercise of diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage
is a defense.
Persons Vicariously Liable: (Article 2180 of the Civil Code)
1. The Father, or in case of death or incapacity, mother
For damage caused by:
a) minor children
b) living in their company
This has already been modified by Art. 221 of
the Family Code to the extent that the
alternative qualification of the liability of the
father and the mother has been removed.
NOTES:
The basis of liability for the acts or omissions of their minor
children is the parental authority that they exercise over
them, except for children 18 to 21.
The same foreseability test of negligence should apply to
parents when they are sought to be held liable under Art.
2180, NCC
TORTS AND DAMAGES
The liability is not limited to parents, the same is also
imposed on those exercising substitute and special
parental authority, i.e., guardian.
The liability is present only both under Art 2180 of the NCC
and Art 221 of the Family Code if the child is living in his
parents company.
Parental authority is not the sole basis of liability. A teacher
in charge is still liable for the acts of their students even if
the minor student reaches the age of majority.
The parents or guardians can still be held liable even if the
minor is already emancipated provided that he is below 21
years of age.
Parents and other persons exercising parental authority
can escape liability by proving that they observed all the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages.
(Art. 2180)
The burden of proof rests on the parents and persons
exercising parental authority.
2. Guardians
For damage caused by
a. minors or incapacitated persons
b. under their authority
c. living in their company
3. Owners and managers of establishments
For damage caused by:
a) their employees
b) in the service of the branches in which they are employed, or
c) on the occasion of their functions
4. Employers
For damages cause by:
a) employees and household helpers
b) acting within the scope of their assigned tasks
c) even if the employer is not engaged in any business or industry
Notes:
Liability of the employer can be established by proving the
existence of an employer-employee relationship with the actor
Page 13 of 24
and the latter caused the injury while performing his assigned task
or functions.
The vicarious liability attaches only when the tortuous conduct of
the employees relates to or is in the course of his employment.
While the employer incurs no liability when an employees
conduct, act or omission is beyond the range of employment, a
minor deviation from the assigned task of an employee, however
does not affect the liability of an employer. (Valenzuela vs. CA,
253 SCRA 303)
It is a defense that the employer exercised proper diligence in the
selection and supervision of negligent employee.
5. State
For damage caused by:
a) a special agent
b) not when the damage has been caused by the official to
whom the task done properly pertains
Public officers who are guilty of tortuous
conduct are personally liable for their actions.
6. Schools, Teachers and Administrators
For damage caused by:
a) pupils and students or apprentices
b) in their custody
statutory basis:
if student is minor Art. 219, FC
if student is no longer a minor Art. 2180, Civil Code
Notes:
Applies also to teachers of academic institutions.
Liability attaches to the teacher-in-charge.
The school itself is now solidarily liable with the teacher-in-
charge.
The liability extends to acts committed even outside the
school so long as it is an official activity of the school.
Whenever the school or teacher is being made liable, the
parents and those exercising substitute parental authority
are not free from liability because Art. 219 of the Family
Code expressly provides that they are subsidiarily liable.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
Art. 2180 makes teachers and heads liable for acts of
students and apprentices whether the latter are minors or
not.
GENERAL RULE: The teacher-in-charge is liable for the acts of his
students. The school and administrators are not liable.
EXCEPTION: It is only the head of the school, not the teacher who is
held liable where the injury is caused in a school of arts and trade.
The liability of the teacher subsists whether the school is academic
or non- academic.
Liability is imposed only if the pupil is already in the custody of the
teacher or head. The student is in the custody of the school
authorities as longs as he is under the control and influence of the
school and within its premises whether the semester had not yet
begun or has already ended.
The victim of negligence is likewise
required to exercise due care in
avoiding injury to himself.
Other Persons Vicariously Liable:
1. Innkeepers and Hotelkeepers
They are civilly liable for crimes committed in their
establishments in cases of violations of statutes by
them, in default of persons criminally liable. (Article 102
Revised Penal Code)
They are subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods
taken by robbery or theft within their houses from
guests lodging therein, or for payment of the value
thereof, provided that:
a. The innkeeper was notified in advance of
the deposit of such goods within the inn;
and The guest shall have followed the
directions which such innkeeper or his
representative may have given with
respect to the care and vigilance over the
goods.
2. Partnership
Partnership or every partner is liable for torts committed by
one of the partners acting within the scope of the firm
business, though they do not participate in, ratify, or have
knowledge of such torts.
Page 14 of 24
Partners are liable as joint tort-feasors.
Vicarious liability is similar to the common law rule on
respondeat superior.
Liability is entirely imputed and the partnership cannot
obviously invoke diligence in the selection and supervision
of the partner.
3. Spouses
a. absolute community of property
The absolute community property shall be for
liabilities incurred by either spouses by reason
of crime or quasi-delict in case of absence or
insufficiency of the exclusive property of the
debtor-spouse. (Article 94 Family Code)
Payments shall be considered advances to be
deducted from the share of the debtor spouse
upon liquidation of the community.
b. conjugal partnership of gains
GENERAL RULE: Pecuniary indemni-ties imposed upon the husband
or wife are not chargeable against the conjugal partnership but
against the separate properties of the wrongdoer.
EXCEPTION: Conjugal partnership should be made liable:
1) When the profits have inured to the
benefit of the partnership, or
2) If one of the spouses committed the tort
while performing a business or if the act
was supposed to benefit the partnership.
c. regime of separation of property
Each spouse is responsible for his/her separate obligation
- Libi vs Intermediate Appellate Court
-Keppel Cebu Shipyard Inc. vs Pioneer Insurance and Surety
Corporation
-Filcar Transport Services vs Espinas
TORTS AND DAMAGES
DEFENSES ON ACTIONS BASED ON NEGLIGENCE
A. Damnum Absque Injuria
Definition: A principle of tort law in which some person (natural or
legal)causes damage or loss to another, but does not injure them.
Custodio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116100, Feb 9, 1996
B. Emergency Rule on Sudden Peril Doctrine
McKee vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-68102,
July 16, 1992
Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115024, Feb 7,
1996
C. Assumption of Risk
Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. L-53401, Nov 6, 1989
D. Contributory Negligence (Art. 2179, NCC)
Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's 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 defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff
may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to
be awarded.
Manzanares vs. People, G.R. No. 153760-61, October 12,
2006
Phil. Commercial International Bank vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 121413, January 29, 2001
E. Valenti Non Fit Injuria
Definition: is a defense in tort that means where a person engages in
an event accepting and aware of the risks inherent in that event, then
they cannot later complain of, or seek compensation for an injury
suffered during the event.
F. Fortuitous Event (Art. 2215 (4) NCC)
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:
Page 15 of 24
(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.
Napocor vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103442-45, May 21,
1993
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-71478, May
29, 1987
G. Accident
Jarco Marketing Corp vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129792,
December 21, 1999
H. Prescription (Art. 1146, NCC)
Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1)
Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; (2) Upon a quasi-delict;
Allied Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
L-8586, October 13, 1989
DAMAGES
1. General Principles (Arts 2195-2198, 2216 NCC)
Art. 2195. The provisions of this Title shall be respectively applicable to
all obligations mentioned in Article 1157.
Art. 2196. The rules under this Title are without prejudice to special
provisions on damages formulated elsewhere in this Code.
Compensation for workmen and other employees in case of death,
injury or illness is regulated by special laws. Rules governing damages
laid down in other laws shall be observed insofar as they are not in
conflict with this Code.
Art. 2197. Damages may be: MENTAL
(1) Actual or compensatory;
(2) Moral;
(3)Nominal;
(4) Temperate or moderate;
(5) Liquidated; or
(6) Exemplary or corrective.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
Art. 2198. The principles of the general law on damages are hereby
adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with this Code.
Baez vs. Valdevilla, 331 SCRA 584
2. Actual and Compensatory Damages (Art. 2199-2215 NCC)
Art. 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to
an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by
him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual
or compensatory damages.
Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the
value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee
failed to obtain. (1106)
Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the
obligor who acted in good faith is liable 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 reasonably
foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall
be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to
the non-performance of the obligation. (1107a)
Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for
all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of
the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such
damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been
foreseen by the defendant.
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.
Art. 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be
respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or
mitigating circumstances.
Art. 2205. Damages may be recovered: (1) For loss or impairment of
earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury;
(2) For injury to the plaintiff's business standing or commercial credit.
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or
Page 16 of 24
quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there
may have been mitigating circumstances.
In addition:
(1) 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;
(2) 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;
(3) 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.
Art. 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has
received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss
arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the
insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured
against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If
the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the
injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the
deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury.
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses
of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
(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;0
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers
TORTS AND DAMAGES
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.
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)
Art. 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed upon
damages awarded for breach of contract.
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.
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)
Art. 2213. Interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or
damages, except when the demand can be established with
reasonably
certainty.
Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff
shall reduce the damages that he may recover.
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:
Page 17 of 24
(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.
People vs. Tambis, G.R. No. 175589, July 28, 2008
People vs. Silongan, 537 SCRA 757
People vs. Ocampo, G.R. No. 177753, September 25, 2009
Pan Malayan Insurance Corp vs. Court of Appeals, 184
SCRA 54
National Housing Authority vs. Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo,
G.R. No. 166518, June 16, 2009
3. Moral Damages (Art. 2217-2220, NCC)
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 recovered if they
are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission.
Art. 2218. In the adjudication of moral damages, the sentimental value
of property, real or personal, may be considered.
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and
analogous cases: (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 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32,
34, and 35.
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
TORTS AND DAMAGES
bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.
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.
De Guzman vs. Turnolva, G.R. No. 188072, October 19, 2011
Yuchengco vs. The Manila Chronicle Publishing
Corporation, G.R. No. 184315, November 28, 2011
People vs. Cultura, 397 SCRA 368
4. Nominal Damages (Arts 2221-2223, NCC)
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.
Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation
arising from any source enumerated in Article 1157, or in every case
where any property right has been invaded.
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.
Fantana Resort and Country Club, Inc and RN
Development Corp vs. Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 154670,
January 30, 2012
5. Temperate or Moderate Damages (Arts 2224-2225, NCC)
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 cannot, from the nature of the case, be provided with
certainty.
Art. 2225. Temperate damages must be reasonable under the
circumstances.
So vs. Food Forest Land, Inc., G.R. No. 183628, April 7, 2010
Gonzales vs. Camarines Sur II Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R.
No. 181096, March 6, 2013
Page 18 of 24
6. Liquidated Damages (Arts 2226-2228)
Art. 2226. Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties
to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof.
Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or
a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or
unconscionable.
Art. 2228. When the breach of the contract committed by the
defendant is not the one contemplated by the parties in agreeing
upon theliquidated damages, the law shall determine the measure of
damages, and not the stipulation.
Atlantic Erectors Inc vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170732,
October 11, 2012
7. Exemplary or Corrective Damages (Arts. 2229-2235, NCC)
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.
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.
Art. 2231. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the
defendant acted with gross negligence.
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.
Art. 2233. Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of
right; the court will decide whether or not they should be adjudicated.
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
TORTS AND DAMAGES
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.
Art. 2235. A stipulation whereby exemplary damages are renounced in
advance shall be null and void.
SPECIAL TORTS (NCC)
1. Articles 19-35
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
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.
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.
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.
Art. 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the
parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence,
ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other
handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.
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.
Page 19 of 24
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.
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 disciplinary administrative
action that may be taken.
Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial
enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit,
machination or any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded method
shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers
damage.
Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on
the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be
instituted.
Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion
of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to
answer for damages in case the complaint should be found to be
malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon
reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any
declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the
decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
Art. 30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability
arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are
instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of
evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.
Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from
the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may
proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of
the result of the latter.
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who
directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner
impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another
person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to
maintain a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal
detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of
law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for
public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches
and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11)The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for
purposes not contrary
to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition
the government for redress of grievances;
(14) The right to be free
from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused
against excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by
himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
Page 20 of 24
accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet
the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure
the attendance of witness in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self,
or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a
promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when
the person confessing
becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel
and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in
accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared
unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the
defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the
aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and
distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action
shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter
be instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may
also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge
unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or
other penal statute.
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.
Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or
fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life
or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages,
and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor.
The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any
criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice
to support such action.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
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 grounds to believe that a crime has been
committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute
criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a civil action for
damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant's
motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify
the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be
presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be
suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes, 452 SCRA 532
Santos vs. Pizarro, 465 SCRA 222
Vinzons-Chato vs. Fortune Tabacco Corporation, 525 SCRA
11
Philippine Realty and Holdings Corporation vs. Ley
Construction and Development Corp, G.R. No. 165548,
June 13, 2011
2. Article 309
Art. 309. Any person who shows disrespect to the dead, or wrongfully
interferes with a funeral shall be liable to the family of the deceased
for damages, material and moral.
3. Articles 694-707
Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business,
condition of property, or anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers
the health or safety of others; or
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
(3)Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway
or street, or any body of water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.
Page 21 of 24
Art. 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects
a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of
persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage
upon individuals may be unequal. A private nuisance is one that is not
included in the foregoing definition.
Art. 696. Every successive owner or possessor of property who fails or
refuses to abate a nuisance in that property started by a former owner
or possessor is liable therefor in the same manner as the one who
created it.
Art. 697. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of
any person injured to recover damages for its past existence.
Art. 698. Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance, whether public
or private.
Art. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:
(1) A prosecution
under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or
(2) A civil action; or
(3)Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
Art. 700. The district health officer shall take care that one or all of the
remedies against a public nuisance are availed of.
Art. 701. If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance of a
public nuisance, such action shall be commenced by the city or
municipal mayor.
Art. 702. The district health officer shall determine whether or not
abatement, without judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against a
public nuisance.
Art. 703. A private person may file an action on account of a public
nuisance, if it is specially injurious to himself.
Art. 704. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is
specially injurious to him by removing, or if necessary, by destroying
the thing which constitutes the same, without committing a breach of
thepeace, or doing unnecessary injury. But it is necessary:
(1) That demand
TORTS AND DAMAGES
be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to abate
the nuisance;
(2) That such demand has been rejected;
(3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and
executed with the assistance of the local police; and (
4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand
pesos.
Art. 705. The remedies against a private nuisance are:
(1) A civil action;or
(2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.
Art. 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by
removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the
nuisance, without committing a breach of the peace or doing
unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensable that the procedure for
extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance by a private person be
followed.
Art. 707. A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating a
nuisance shall be liable for damages:
(1) If he causes unnecessary injury;or
(2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a
real nuisance.
Timoner vs. People, 125 SCRA 830
4. Articles 1170-1174
Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty
of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. (1101)
Art. 1171. Responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all
obligations. Any waiver of an action for future fraud is void. (1102a)
Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of
every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be
regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances. (1103)
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
Page 22 of 24
the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of Articles
1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.
If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be
observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father
of a family shall be required. (1104a)
Art. 1174. Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or when it is
otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those
events which could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were
inevitable. (1105a)
5. Article 1314
Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract
shall be liable for damages to the other contracting party.
6. Article 1723
Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and
specifications for a building is liable for damages if within fifteen years
from the completion of the structure, the same should collapse by
reason of a defect in those plans and specifications, or due to the
defects in the ground. The contractor is likewise responsible for the
damages if the edifice falls, within the same period, on account of
defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality
furnished by him, or due to any violation of the terms of the contract. If
the engineer or architect supervises the construction, he shall be
solidarily liable with the contractor.
Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver
of any of the cause of action by reason of any defect mentioned in
the preceding paragraph.
The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of
the building. (n)
7. Articles 218, 219 and 221 (Family Code)
Art. 218. The law governs family relations. No custom, practice or
agreement which is destructive of the family shall be recognized or
given any effect.
TORTS AND DAMAGES
Art. 219. Mutual aid, both moral and material, shall be rendered
among members of the same family. Judicial and administrative
officials shall foster this mutual assistance.
Art. 221. The following shall be void and of no effect:
(1) Any contractfor personal separation between husband and wife;
(2) Every extra-judicial agreement, during marriage, for the dissolution
of the conjugal partnership of gains or of the absolute community of
property between husband and wife;
(3) Every collusion to obtain a decree of legal separation, or of
annulment of marriage;
(4) Any simulated alienation of property with intent to deprive the
compulsory heirs of their legitime.
8. Article 2003 - Necessary Deposit
Art. 2003. The hotel-keeper cannot free himself from responsibility by
posting notices to the effect that he is not liable for the articles
brought by the guest. Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper and
the guest whereby the responsibility of the former as set forth in articles
1998 to 2001 is suppressed or diminished shall be void. (n)
YHT Realty Corp vs. Court of Appeals, 451 SCRA 638
9. Articles 2144-2148, 2150, 2151, 2159
Negotiorum Gesto
Art. 2144. Whoever voluntarily takes charge of the agency or
management of the business or property of another, without any
power from the latter, is obliged to continue the same until the
termination of the affair and its incidents, or to require the person
concerned to substitute him, if the owner is in a position to do so. This
juridical relation does not arise in either of these instances:
(1) When the property or business is not neglected or abandoned;
(2) If in fact the manager has been tacitly authorized by the owner.
In the first case, the provisions of Articles 1317, 1403, No. 1, and 1404
regarding unauthorized contracts shall govern. In the second case,
the rules on agency in Title X of this Book shall be applicable. (1888a)
Art. 2145. The officious manager shall perform his duties with all the
diligence of a good father of a family, and pay the damages which
through his fault or negligence may be suffered by the owner of the
property or business under management.
Page 23 of 24
The courts may, however, increase or moderate the indemnity
according to the circumstances of each case. (1889a)
Art. 2146. If the officious manager delegates to another person all or
some of his duties, he shall be liable for the acts of the delegate,
without prejudice to the direct obligation of the latter toward the
owner of the business.
The responsibility of two or more officious managers shall be solidary,
unless the management was assumed to save the thing or business
from imminent danger. (1890a)
Art. 2147. The officious manager shall be liable for any fortuitous event:
(1) If he undertakes risky operations which the owner was not
accustomed to embark upon;
(2) If he has preferred his own interest to
that of the owner;
(3) If he fails to return the property or business after
demand by the owner;
(4) If he assumed the management in bad faith.
(1891a)
Art. 2148. Except when the management was assumed to save
property or business from imminent danger, the officious manager
shall be liable for fortuitous events:
(1) If he is manifestly unfit to carry on the management;
(2) If by his intervention he prevented a more competent
person from taking up the management
Art. 2150. Although the officious management may not have been
expressly ratified, the owner of the property or business who enjoys the
advantages of the same shall be liable for obligations incurred in his
interest, and shall reimburse the officious manager for the necessary
and useful expenses and for the damages which the latter may have
suffered in the performance of his duties.
The same obligation shall be incumbent upon him when the
management had for its purpose the prevention of an imminent and
manifest loss, although no benefit may have been derived. (1893)
TORTS AND DAMAGES
Art. 2151. Even though the owner did not derive any benefit and there
has been no imminent and manifest danger to the property or
business, the owner is liable as under the first paragraph of the
preceding article, provided:
(1) The officious manager has acted in good faith, and
(2) The property or business is intact, ready to be returned to the
owner. (n)
Solutio Indebiti
Art. 2159. Whoever in bad faith accepts an undue payment, shall pay
legal interest if a sum of money is involved, or shall be liable for fruits
received or which should have been received if the thing produces
fruits.
10. RA 7877 - Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995
AN ACT DECLARING SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNLAWFUL IN THE
EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR TRAINING ENVIRONMENT, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
SECTION 3. Work, Education or Training -Related, Sexual Harassment
Defined. Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is
committed by an employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of
the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any
other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy
over another in a work or training or education environment,
demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the
other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for
submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is
committed when:
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the
hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued
employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable
compensation, terms of conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the
refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or
classifying the employee which in any way would discriminate,
deprive
Page 24 of 24
or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect
said employee;
(2) The above acts would impair the employee's rights or privileges
under existing labor laws; or
(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive
environment for the employee.
In an education or training environment, sexual harassment is
committed:
(1) Against one who is under the care, custody or
supervision of the offender;
(2) Against one whose education, training,
apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the offender;
(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a
passing grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships, or the
payment of a stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges, or
consideration; or
(4) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or
offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice. Any
person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual
harassment as herein defined, or who cooperates in the commission
thereof by another without which it would not have been committed,
shall also be held liable under this Act.
SECTION 5. Liability of the Employer, Head of Office, Educational or
Training Institution. The employer or head of office, educational or
training institution shall be solidarily liable for damages arising from
the acts of sexual harassment committed in the employment,
education or training environment if the employer or head of office,
educational or training institution is informed of such acts by the
offended party and no immediate action is taken.
SECTION 6. Independent Action for Damages. Nothing in this Act shall
preclude the victim of work, education or training-related sexual
harassment from instituting a separate and independent action for
damages and other affirmative relief.