TORTS AND DAMAGES

2nd Semester, SY 2016-2017

2 Units

Atty. Ophelia Pilar E. Rubio-Zamora

Course Requirements:

Attendance
Recitations
Case Digests
Quizzes

Grading System

Mid Term: (50%)

Class Standing: 50%
Recitations 65%
Case Digests - 15%
Quizzes - 20%
Midterm Exam: 50%

Final Term: (50%)

Class Standing: 50%
Recitations 65%
Case Digests - 15%
Quizzes - 20%
Final term Exam: 50%

Final Grade: (100%)

Course Outline

References:
TORTS AND DAMAGES by Timoteo B. Aquino, 2001
NOTES ON TORTS AND DAMAGES by Judge Alicia Gonzalez-Decano, 2004

I. Introduction

II. Preliminary Considerations

A. Sources of Philippine Tort Law
B. Purposes and Fundamental Purposes of Tort Law
C. Classification of Torts
D. Difference between Culpa Aquiliana, Culpa contractual and Crime
E. Difference between Fault and Dolo

1
 F. Elements of Quasi-delict
G. Negligence under Article 2176 of the Civil Code
H. Negligence under Article 1173 of the Civil Code
I. Criminal Negligence under Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code

III. NEGLIGENCE
A. DEFINITION AND TEST OF NEGLIGENCE
Cases:
1. PLDT vs. CA, GR No. 57079, September 29, 1989
2. Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. CA, GR No. 53401, November 6,
1989
3. Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil. 809
4. People vs. Delos Santos, 355 SCRA 415 (2001)
5. Evelyn Acuna vs. Rodolfo A. Alventara, Sheriff IV, RTC, Br.50,
Villasis, Pangasinan (A.M. No. 01-1463, March 20, 2001)
6. Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping M.V., et.al. vs. Phil.
Insurance Co., In., GR No. 14133, June 5, 2002

B. UNREASONABLE OR UNDUE RISKS & FORSEEABILITY

Cases:
1. Phoenix Construction vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 353 (1987)
2. Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District, 104 Phil 398 (1958)
3. Civil Aeronautics Administration vs. Court of Appeals and Ernest E.
Simke, G.R. No. L-51806, November 8, 1988

C. PROBABILITY
Cases:
1. Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 30
(1998)

D. CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY AFFECT THE DETERMINATION OF

NEGLIGENCE:
a. Time
b. Place
c. Emergency
d. Gravity of Harm to be Avoided
e. Alternative Cause of Action
f. Social Value or Utility of Activity
g. Person Exposed to the Risk

Cases:
1. Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co., 16 Phil. 8 (1910)
2. United States vs. Bonifacio, 34 Phil. 65 (1916)
3. Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 303 (1996)
4. Julian del Rosario vs. Manila Electric Co., 57 Phil. 478 (1932)

E. STANDARD OF CONDUCT: GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY

2
 Cases:
1. Julian del Rosario vs. Manila Electric Co., 57 Phil. 478 (1932)
2. Federico Ylarde, et al. vs. Edgardo Aquino, 163 SCRA 697, July 29,
1988
3. Culion Ice, Fish and Electric Co. vs. Phil. Motors Corporation, 55
Phil. 129 (1930)
4. Dr. Ninevetch Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 282 SCRA 188 (1997)
5. E.M. Wright vs. Manila Electric R.R. & Light Co., G.R. No. 7760,
October 1, 1914

F. STANDARD IN DECIDING NEGLIGENCE CASES

Cases:
1. Preciolita V. Corliss vs. The Manila Railroad Co., 27 SCRA 674
(1969)
2. Victorino Cusi and Pilar Pobre vs. Philippine National Railways, G.R.
No. L-29889, May 31, 1979

G. PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
a. Burden of proof
b. Presumptions:
Article 2184, NCC
Article 2185, NCC
Article 2188, NCC

c. Res Ipsa Loquitor

Applicability of the Rule
Cases:
1. Ma-ao Central Co., Inc. vs. C.A.
2. Africa vs. Caltex (Phil.), Inc., G.R. No. L-12986, March 31, 1966
3. F.F. Cruz and Co., Inc. vs. The Court of Appeals, et. Al., G.R.
No. L-52732, August 29, 1988
4. Republic of the Philippines vs. Luzon Stevedoring Corp., G.R.
No. L-21749, September 29, 1967
5. Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA
59
6. Batiquin vs. Court of Appeals, 258 SCR 334 (1996)

Cases (when doctrine held inapplicable)

1. S.D. Martinez, et.al. vs. William Van Buskirk, G.R. No. L-5691,
December 27, 1910
2. Espiritu vs. Philippine Power and Dev. Co., C.A.- G.R. No. L-
3240-R, September 20, 1949
3. Radio Communications of the Phils., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et
al., G.R. No. L-4478, August 29, 1986

3
IV. DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE CASES
A. PLAINTIFFS OWN NEGLIGENCE AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE
Article 2179, NCC

Cases:
1. PLDT vs. SPOUSES ESTEBAN
2. KIM vs. PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXI, CO., 58 Phil. 838 (1933)

B. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Cases:
1. M.H. RAKES vs. THE ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY, G.R.
No. L-1719, January 23, 1907
2. PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC. and ARMANDO U. CARBONEL vs.
THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and LEONARDO
DIONISIO, G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987

C. FORTUITOUS EVENT
Cases:
1. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, et al. vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS, GAUDENCIO C. RAYO, et al., 222 SCRA 415, G.R. Nos.
103442-45, May 21, 1993
2. SOUTHEASTERN COLLEGE, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.,
G.R. No. 126389, July 10, 1998
3.
D. ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Requisites
Kinds:
a. Express Waiver of the Right to Recover
b. Implied Conditions
Cases:
1. TRANSPORTO vs. MIJARES (1961)
E. PRESCRIPTION
Computation of Period
Article 1146, NCC

V. CAUSATION
A. PROXIMATE CAUSE
a. Definition
Cases:
1. Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA
83, 1998)
2. Singapore Airlines Limited vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 243 SCRA
619(1991)
3. Syjuco vs. Manila Railroad Company, CA- G.R. No. 22631-R,
December 17, 1959
4. Prospero Sabido vs. Carlos Custodio, 124 Phil. 516, 1966
5. Fransisco Vinluan vs. The Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-21477-
81, April 29, 1966

4
 b. Tests of Proximate Cause
Cause-In-Fact Tests
Cases:
1. Consolacion Gabeto vs. Agaton Araneta, 42 Phil. 252 (1921)
2. Pilipinas Bank vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 435,
1994

Cause and Condition

Cases:
1. Phoenix Construction vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
2. Rodrigueza, ET AL. VS. The Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No.
15688, November 19, 1921

Efficient and Intervening Cause

Definition and Concept
Cases:
1. McKee vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (211 SCRA 517)
2. Vda. De Bataclan, et al. vs. Mariano Medina, 102 Phil. 181
(1957)
3. Mercedes M. Teague vs. Elena Fernandez, 51 SCRA 181
(1973)
4. The Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company vs. The Government
of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. L-4195, February 18, 1908
5. Filomeno Urbano vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.
No. 72964, January 7, 1988

B. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Definition
Plaintiffs Negligence is the Cause
Compound Cases
Part of the Same Causal Set
Defendants Negligence is the Only Cause

C. LAST CLEAR CHANCE

Elements and Conditions of the Last Clear Chance Doctrine

Cases:
1. PLDT vs. CA
2. Glan Peoples Lumber and Hardware, et al. vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 70493, May 18, 1989
3. Phoenix Construction, Inc. Vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.
No. 65295, March 10, 1987
4. Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Maricar Bascos Baesa, et al., G.R.
Nos. 79050-51, November 14, 1989
5. LBC Air Cargo vs. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 619 (1995)

When Doctrine is Not Applicable

5
D. HUMAN RELATIONS: INTENTIONAL TORTS
Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the New Civil Code

Cases:
1. Grand Union Supermarket vs. Jose J. Espino, Jr., G.R> No. L-
48250, December 28, 1979
2. Enrique J.L. Ruiz, et.al. vs. The Secretary of National Defense, G.R.
No. L-15526, December 28, 1963
3. Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,
176 SCRA 778 (1989)

Abuse of Rights
Elements
Cases:
1. University of the East vs. Romeo A. Jader, G.R. No. 132344,
February 17, 2000
2. Arturo P. Valenzuela, et.al. vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals,
et.al., G.R. No. 83122, October 19, 1990

Acts Contra Bonus

Elements
Breach of Promise To Marry
General Rule
Exception
Cases:
1. De Jesus vs. Syquia, 58 Phil. 866
2. Wassmer vs. Velez, 12 SCRA 648 (1964)
3. Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals, et.al., February 19,
1993
4. Apolonio Tanjanco vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Araceli Santos,
G.R. No. L-18630, December 17, 1966

Seduction and Sexual Assault

Cases:
1. Cecilio Pe, et al. vs. Alfonso Pe, G.R. No. L-17396, May 30, 1962

Desertion by a Spouse
Cases:
1. Pastor B. Tenchaves vs. Vicenta F. Escano, et al., G.R. No. L-19671,
July 26, 1966

Trespass and Deprivation of Property

Articles 451, 448 and 456
Cases:
1. Cogeo Cubao Operators and Drivers Association vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 100727, March 18, 1992

6
 Disconnection of Electricity or Gas Service
Cases:
1. Manila Gas Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-44190,
October 30, 1980
2. Manial Electric Company, et al. vs Court of Appeals, GR No. L-
39019, January 22, 1988

Abortion and Wrongful Death

Cases:
1. Antonio Geluz vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-16439,
July 20, 1961

Malicious Prosecution
Definition
Elements
Cases:
1. Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. vs. The Hon. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 81262, August 25, 1989
2. Drilon vs. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 211 (1997)
3. Manila Gas Corp vs CA (1980)

Public Humiliation
Cases:
1. Rafael vs. The Honorable Oscar Leviste, G.R. No. 51832, April 26,
1989
2. Grand Union Supermarket, Inc. vs. Jose J. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. L-
48250, December 28, 1979

E. HUMAN DIGNITY
Article 26

Privacy
Constitutional Right to Privacy
a. Scope of Protection: Bill of Rights Sec. 1, 2, 3(1), 6, 8 & 17
Interference with Family and Other Relations
Cases:
1. Tenchavez vs. Escano, G.R. No. L-19671, November 29,
1965
Vexation and Humiliation

F. TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION

Articles 32, 33 & 34

Article 32: Violation of Civil and Political Rights

Rationale
How Committed
Persons Liable

7
 Superior Officers
Subordinate Officers
Cases:
1. Rogelio Aberca, et. Al. vs. Maj. Gen. Fabian Ver, et al., G.R.
No. L-69866

Article 33: Defamation, Fraud and Physical Injuries

Defamation, Definition
Requisites
Persons Liable (Article 360, RPC)
Proof of Truth (Article 361, RPC)
Defenses:
1. Absolutely Privileged Matters
2. Qualified Privilege
Cases:
1. Arturo Borjal vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January
14, 1999
2. Esteban C. Manuel vs. The Hon. Ernani Cruz-Pano, G.R. No.
L-46079, April 17, 1989

Fraud
Cases:
1. Elenita Ledesma Silva, et al. vs. Esther Peralta, G.R. No. L-
13114, November 25, 1960

Physical Injuries

Article 34: Neglect of Duty

G. CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM DELICT

Persons Liable
What is included in Civil Liability
Circumstances Affecting Civil Liability
Justifying and Exempting Circumstances
Case:
1. Anita Tan vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Co., et al., 91 Phil
672 (1952)
Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
Extinction and Survival of Liability
Effect of Death
Effect of Pardon
Case:
1. People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Bayotas, 236
SCRA 239 (1994)
Prejudicial Question

H. THE DEFENDANTS
Article 2176, NCC

8
Joint Tort-feasors
Article 2194,NCC
Motor Vehicle Mishaps
Article 2184, NCC
Vicarious Liability (Imputed Negligence)
Statutory Provision:
Article 2180, 2181 and 2182, NCC
Articles 101, 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code
Article 58 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code (PD No. 603)

Parents & Other Persons Exercising Parental Authority:

Liability for Acts of Minors
Basis of Liability
Persons Liable
Nature of Liability
Liability for Acts of Children of Majority Age

Civil Liability Ex Delicto, Article 101 of the RPC

Defense of Exercise of Due Diligence

Cases:
1. Cuadra, et al. vs. Alfonso Monfort, 35 Phil. 160 (1970)
2. Macario Tamargo, et al. vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et
al., 209 SCRA 518 (1992)
3. Cresencio Libi, et al. vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court,
et al., 214 SCRA 16 (1962)

Liability of Guardians of Incapacitated Adults

Rule 92, Revise Rules of Court
Articles 38 and 39, NCC

Schools, Teachers and Administrators

Article 218, Family Code
Article 2180, NCC
Article 103, RPC
Persons Liable
Supervision, Instruction or Custody

Cases:
1. Jose S. Amadora, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,
G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988
2. Phil. School of business Administration vs. Court of
Appeals, 205 SCRA 729 (1992)

Employers
Article 2180, NCC
Article 103, RPC

9
 Innkeepers and Hotelkeepers
Article 102, RPC

I. STRICT LIABILITY
Article 2183 and 2193 of the New Civil Code

1. ANIMALS
Case: Purita Miranda Vestil and Agustin Vestil vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 74431,
November 6, 1989

2. FALLING OBJECTS
Article 2193

3. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS
Article 1711 and 1712 of the Civil Code

4. NUISANCE
a. Definition
b. Kinds
c. Strict Liability and Persons Liable
d. Abatement
Cases: Velasco vs. Manila Electric Company, 40 SCRA 342
(1971)

J. DAMAGES
1. Definition
2. Damnum Absque Injuria
Case: Spouses Cristino and Brigida ustodio, et al. vs Court of
Appeals, et al., 253 SCRA 483
3. Kinds of Damages
Article 2197
a. Actual or Compensatory, Articles 2199, 2200, 2201, 2202, 2205,
2206
Case: Manzanares vs. Moreta, 38 Phil. 823
b. Moral Damages
c. Nominal and Temperate Damages
Articles 2221, 2222, 2223, 2224 and 2225
Cases:
1. Rogelio Ramos vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 124354,
December 29, 1999
2. Araneta vs. Bank of America, 40 SCRA 114 (1971)
d. Liquidated Damages
Articles 2226, 2227 and 2228
e. Exemplary or Corrective Damages
Articles 2230, 2231, 2232, 22333, 2234 and 2235

10