Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

Definition, Elements - Assignment #1

A. Nature of Quasi-delict
1. Iniego v. Judge Purganan, G. R. No. 166876, March 24, 2006
Actions for damages based on quasi-delicts are primarily and effectively actions for the recovery of
a sum of money for the damages suffered because of the defendants alleged tortious acts, and are
therefore capable of pecuniary estimation.

The amount of damages claimed is within the jurisdiction of the RTC, since it is the claim for all kinds
of damages that is the basis of determining the jurisdiction of courts, whether the claims for
damages arise from the same or from different causes of action. -Depending on the amount of
damages claimed, may be MTC.

B. Distinguished from Tort, Crime, Contract


1. Capitulo v. Laroya, G.R. No. 145391. August 26, 2002
The criminal case is based on culpa criminal punishable under the Revised penal Code while the civil
case is based on culpa aquiliana actionable under Articles 2176 and 2177.

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.

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.

Any aggrieved person can invoke these articles provided he proves, by preponderance of evidence,
that he has suffered damage because of the fault or negligence of another. Either the private
complainant or the accused can file a separate civil action under these articles. There is nothing in
the law or rules that state only the private complainant in a criminal case may invoke these articles.

Rule 1. Sec. 1. Par. 6. Institution of criminal and civil actions.


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.
2. Guaring, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 108395. March 7, 1997
Acquittal of the accused, even if based on a finding that he is not guilty, does not carry with it the
extinction of the civil liability based on quasi delict.
The civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not
extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not
happened or has not been committed by the accused.
The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the liability of the accused for damages only when it includes
a declaration that the facts from which the civil might arise did not exist. Thus, the civil liability is
not extinguished by acquittal where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only
preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases.
3. Safeguard Security Agency v. Tangco, G.R. No. 165732, December 14, 2006

An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to 2 separate civil liabilities on the part
of the offender. 1. Civil liability ex delict, under article 100 of the RPC; and 2. Independent civil
liabilities, such as those (a) not arising from an act or omission complained of as a felony (culpa
contractual or obligations arising from law under article 31 of the Civil Code, intentional torts under
Articles 32 and 34, and culpa aquiliana under article 2176 of the Civil Code) or (b) where the injured
party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action under
article 33 of the civil code. Either of these liabilities may be enforced against the offender subject
to the caveat under article 2177 of the Civil Code that the offended party cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission or under both causes.

Culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict is separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from crime.

Diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision of employees- includes the formulation of
suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper instructions
intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has relations
through his or its employees and the imposition of necessary disciplinary measures upon employees
in case of breach or as may be warranted to ensure the performance of acts indispensable to the
business of and beneficial to their employer.

C. Elements
1. Cagayan Il Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Rapanan and Tangonan, G.R. No.
199886, December 3, 2014
Elements necessary to establish a quasi-delict case are:
1. Damages to the plaintiff;
2. negligence, by act or omission, of the defendant or by some person for whose acts the defendant
must respond, was guilty;
3. The connection of cause and effect between such negligence and the damages.
2. Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corporation v. Borja, G.R. No. 143008.
June 10, 2002

ll. Classification of Torts


A. Negligent Torts- Defendant does not intend an invasion of plaintiff’s right but is aware
that, by his behavior, he is taking unreasonable risks.
B. Intentional Torts- Defendant is consciously aware that his conduct is wrongful
C. Strict Liability
1. Art. 2187, NCC
Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable
for death or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used, although no contractual
relation exists between them and the consumers.
2. Art. 100 Consumer Act
The Tortfeasor
A. Direct Tortfeasor
B. Persons made responsible for others
C. Nature of Liability

IV. Concepts and Doctrines A. Res Ipsa


Loquitur
1. Carna and Yellow Bus Line, Inc. v. Gepaya-Lim, G.R. No. 218014,
December 07, 2016

Res Ipsa loquitur- That the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the
defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those
who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an
applanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.

Elements:
1. The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent;
2. The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the
person in charge;
3. The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution of the
person injured.

B. Damnum Absque Unjuria


1. The Orchard & Country Club, Inc. v. Yuhico, G.R. No. 191033, January 11,
2016
Injury- the illegal invasion of a legal right
Damage- loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury;
Damages- recompense or compensation awarded for the damages suffered.
Damnum Absque Injuria- there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss
or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty.
C. Substitute Parental Authority
1. Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. v. Abejar, G.R. No.
170631, February 10, 2016
Rule 3. Section 2. Parties in interest.- A real party in interest is the party who stands to e benefited
or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise
authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party in interest.

Art. 216. (Family Code) In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the following persons
shall sexercise substitute parental authority over the child in the order indicated:
1. The surviving grandparent, as provided in art. 214;
2. The oldest brother or sister, over 21 years of age, unless unfit or disqualified;
3. The child’s actual custodian, over 21 years of age, unless unfit or disqualified.

Art. 233. (Family Code) The person exercising substitute parental authority shall have the same
authority over the person of the child as the parents.
Art. 2180. (NCC) 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.
The 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 observe all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
2. Rosaldes v. People, G.R. No. 173988, October 8, 2014

Persons liable
1 . Filcar Transport Services v. Espinas, G.R. No. 174156, June 20,
2012
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 registered owner of the motor vehicle is considered as the employer of the tortfeasor-driver,
and is made primarily liable for the tort committed by the latter under article 2176, in relation
with article 2180 of the civil code.
The registered owner of the motor vehicle is the employer of the negligent driver, and the actual
employer is considered merely as an agent of such owner.
Under the Civil law principle of unjust enrichment, the registered owner of the motor vehicle has a
right to be indemnified by the actual employer of the driver of the amount that he may be
required to pay as damages for the injury caused to another.
For the purpose of holding the registered owner of the motor vehicle primarily and directly liable
for damages under article 2176, in relation with article 2180, of the Civil Code, the existence of an
employer-employee relationship, as it is understood in labor relations law, is not required. It is
sufficient to establish that Filcar is the registered owner of the motor vehicle causing damage in
order that it may be held vicariously liable under article 2180 of the Civil Code.
2. St. Josephs College v. Miranda, G.R. No. 182353, June 29, 2010 Special
Parental Authority
Doctrine of Command responsibility
Art. 218. (family Code) in relation to article 2180 of the NCC, bestows special parental authority on
the following persons with the corresponding obligation
Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged
in child care shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under
their supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the
premises of the school, entity or institution.
3. Del Carmen Jr., v. Bacoy, G.R. No. 173870, April 25, 2012
The registered owner of any vehicle, even if not used for public service, would primarily be
responsible to the public or to 3rd persons for injuries caused the latter while the vehicle was being
driven on the highways or streets.
4. syki v. Begasa, C.R. No. 149149. October 23, 2003
Employer’s vicarious liability under Art. 2180.
The employer must not merely present testimonial evidence to prove that he had observed the
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee, but he must
also support such testimonial evidence with concrete or documentary evidence.
5. Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. v. Abejar, G.R. No. 170631,
February 10, 2016- Employer's liability

VI. Degree of Diligence


1. Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Tentmakers Group, Inc., G.R.
No. 171050, July 4, 2012
The Diligence required of banks is more than that of a Roman pater familias or a good father of a
family. The highest degree of diligence is expected.
Vil. Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur
1 . FGU Insurance Corporation v. G.P. Sarmiento Trucking
Corporation, G.R. No. 141910. August 6, 2002
They did not apply res ipsa loquitur.
Res ipsa loquitur generally finds relevance whether or not a contractual relationship exists between
the plaintiff and the defendant, for the inference of negligence arises from the circumstances and
nature of the occurrence and not from the nature of the relation of the parties. Nevertheless, the
requirement that responsible causes other than those due to defendants conduct must first be
eliminated, for the doctrine to apply, should be understood as being confined only to pure tort since
obviously the presumption of negligence in culpa contractual, immediately attaches by a failure of
the covenant or its tenor.
2. Perla Compania de Seguros v. Sps Sarangaya, G.R. No. 147746,
October 25, 2005
The test to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows:
Did the defendant committing the alleged negligent act, use reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person in the same situation would have employed?
3. When not applicable
VI". No Double Recovery Rule - Art. 2177, NCC
1. Rafael Reyes Trucking Corporation v. People, C.R. No. 129029. April 3, 2000
In negligence cases, the aggrieved party has the choice between:
1. an action to enforce civil liability arising from crime under article 100 of the RPC;
2. a separate action for quasi delict under article 2176 of the civil code of the Philippines.
Once the choice is made, the injured party can not avail himself of any other remedy because he
may not recover damages twice for the same negligent act or omissions of the accused.
2. Equitable Leasing Corporation v. Suyom, G.R. No. 143360, September 5, 2002

IX. Negligence — Assignment #2


A. Definition
1. Mendoza v. Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014
Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person,
that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such
other person suffers injury.

Art. 2185. Of the Civil Code provides that unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that
a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating
any traffic regulation.

Proximate cause- 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.
Proximate legal cause- that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting
other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close
causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting
the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances
that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person,
have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person
might probably result therefrom.

Vicarious liability/imputed negligence- A person who has not committed the act or omission which
caused damage or injury to another may nevertheless be held civilly liable to the latter either directly
or subsidiarily under certain circumstances.
2. Makati Shangri-La Hotel v. Harper, G.R. No. 189998, August 29,
2012
Negligence is want of care required by the circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an
absolute term, and its application depends upon the situation of the parties, and the degree of
care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably impose. Where the danger is great, a high
degree of care is necessary.
3. Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corporation v. Borja, G.R. No.
143008. June 10, 2002
B. Test of Negligence
1. Alano v. Magud-Logmao, G.R. No. 175540, April 7, 2014
C. Presumption of Negligence - Arts. 2184, 2185 and Att. 2188, NCC
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the
former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due diligence, prevented the
misfortune. It is disputable presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found
guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next
preceding 2 months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable.
Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a
motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic
regulations.
Art. 2188. There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if
the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such
as firearms and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his
occupation or business.
1. GreenStar Express, Inc. v. Universal Robina Corporation, G.R. No. 205090,
October 17, 2016
The appropriate approach is that in cases where both the registered-owner rule and article 2180
apply, the plaintiff must first establish that the employer is the registered owner of the vehicle in
question. Once the plaintiff successfully proves ownership, there arises a disputable presumption
that the requirements of art 2180 have been proven. As a consequence, the burden of proof shifts
to the defendant to show that no liability under article 2180 has arisen.
2. Raynera, et. al v. Orpilla, G.R. No. 120027, April 21, 1999
3. Picartv. Smith, C.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918
Test of negligence- Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that person would have
used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence.
The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment
of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy or
negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.
D. Circumstances to Consider in determining Negligence
1. Time and Place
Time
A driver is required to exercise more prudence if he is driving at night.
Place
A man who would have occasion to discharge a gun on an open and extensive marsh, or in a forest
would be required to use less circumspection and care, than if he were to do the same thing in an
inhabited town, village or city.
Travelling on a slippery road requires a higher degree of diligence than driving on a dry road.
2. Emergency Rule
1. Engada v. CA, G.R. No. 140698, June 20,2003
Emergency Rule- An individual who suddenly finds himself in a situation of danger and is required
to act without much time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending
danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what subsequently and upon reflection
may appear to be a better solution, unless the emergency was brought by his own negligence.
2. Valenzuela v. CA, C.R. No. 115024, February 7, 1996
Emergency rule ulit.
3. Gravity of Harm to be avoided
Even if the odds that an injury will result are not high, harm may still be considered forseeable if the
gravity of harm to be avoided is great.
When human life is at stake, due care under the circumstances requires everything that gives
reasonable promise of preserving life to be done regardless of the difficulties.
4. Alternative course of action
Choosing between killing 1 or killing 5 situations.
5. Social or utility of Activity
The absence of a viable alternative should also be examined in the light of the social value of the
activity involved. The diligence which the law requires an individual to observe and exercise varies
according to the nature of situation which he happens to be in, and the importance of the act which
he has to perform
E. Proof of Negligence
1. Burden of Proof
F. Defenses
1 . Assumption of Risk- Volenti non fit injuria- that to which a person assents is not
deemed in law an injury.
1. Requisites
a. The plaintiff must know that the risk is present;
b. He must further understand its nature, and that;
c. His choice to incur it is free and voluntary.
2. Kinds
A. Express waiver of the right to recover;
There is assumption of risk if the plaintiff, in advance, has expressly waived his right to recover
damages for the negligent act of the defendant.
A person cannot contract away his right to recover damages resulting from negligence. Such
waiver is contrary to public policy and cannot be allowed. However, the waiver contemplated by
this prohibition is the waiver of the right to recover before the negligent act was committed. If
waiver was made after the cause of action accrued, the waiver is valid and may be construed as a
condonation of the obligation.
B. Implied Assumptions:
B.1 Dangerous activities;
Persons who voluntarily participate in dangerous activities assume the risks which are usually
present in such activities.
B.2 Contractual Relations;
There may be implied assumption of risk if the plaintiff entered into a contractual relation with
the defendant. By entering into a relationship freely and voluntarily where the negligence of the
defendant is obvious, the plaintiff may be found to have accepted and consented to it.
B.3 Defendant’s Negligence;
Where the plaintiff is aware of the risk created by the defendant’s negligence, yet he voluntarily
decided to proceed to encounter it, there is an implied admission
2. Prescription
i. Cerezo v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Company, G.R. No. L-10107, February 4,
1916
Ordinary care did not require the shoring of the trench walls at the place where the deceased met
his death. The even properly comes within the class of those which could not be foreseen; and,
therefore, the defendant is not liable under the civil code.
Contributory negligence involves the notion of some fault or breach of duty on the part of the
employee; and since it is ordinarily his duty to take some precaution for his own safety when
engaged in hazardous occupation, contributory negligence is sometimes defined as a failure to use
such care for his safety as ordinarily prudent employees in similar circumstances would use.
ii. Jimmy co v. CA, G.R. No. 124922, June 22, 1998
It is not a defense for a repair shop of motor vehicles to escape liability simply because the damage
or loss of a thing lawfully placed in its possession was due to carnapping. Carnapping per se cannot
be considered as a fortuitous event. The fact that a thing was unlawfully and forcefully taken from
another’s rightfully possession, as in cases of carnapping, does not automatically give rise to a
fortuitous event. To be considered as such, carnapping entails more than the mere forceful taking
of another’s property. It must be proved and established that the event was an act of God or was
done solely by 3rd parties and that neither the claimant nor the person alleged to be negligent has
any participation.
3. Plaintiffs own conduct
4. Fortuitous Event
1. Mariano, Jr. v. Callejas, G.R. No. 166640, July 31, 2009
2. College Assurance Plan v. Belfranlt Development Inc., G.R. No.
155604, November 22, 2007
Art. 1174. Of the civil code defines a fortuitous event as that which could not be foreseen, or
which, though foreseen, was inevitable. Whether an act of god or an act of man, to constitute a
fortuitous event it must be shown that:
a. the cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or of the failure of the obligor to
comply with its obligations was independent of human will;
b. it was impossible to foresee the event or, if it could have been foreseen, to avoid it;
c. The occurrence rendered it impossible for the obligor to fulfill its obligations in normal manner;
d. said obligor was free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury or loss.
5. Contributory Negligence
1 . Travel & Tours Advisers, Inc. v. Cruz, C.R. No. 199282, March 14,
2016
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 defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
2. Sps. Vergara v. Torrecampo Sonkin, G.R. No. 193659, June 15,
2015
3. Dumayag v. People, G.R. No. 172778, November 26, 2012
Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause
to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for
his own protection.
4. Philippine National Bank v. F.F. Cruz, C.R. No. 173259, July
25, 2011

6. Last Clear Chance


A negligent plaintiff can nonetheless recover if he is able to show that the defendant or
another person had the last opportunity to avoid the accident.

Assignment #3

x. Standard of Conduct: Good Father of a Family• -art. 1163, NCC) Xl. Affirmative
Duties and Miscellaneous Activities
Art. 1163. Every person obliged to give something is also obliged to take care of it with
the proper diligence of a good father of a family, unless the law or the stipulation of
the parties requires another standard of care.
Good father of a family- A man of ordinary intelligence and prudence or an ordinary
reasonable prudent man.
A reasonable man deemed to have knowledge of the facts that a man should be expected
to know based on ordinary human experience.

There is a general negative duty of care toward others.


There is no general affirmative duty of care for the benefit of another.
Positive duties exist only when there is a special relationship.

Affirmative duties
Law sometimes imposes affirmative duties. These include affirmative duties that are
imposed because of the public interest involved or the special relationship between
certain individuals, particularly EER.
These also include affirmative duties that become legal duties because they refer to
principles of social conduct so universally recognized as to be demanded that they be
observed as a legal duty.
A. Nature of Misfeasance and Nonfeasance
Misfeasance- breach of general duty of care
Nonfeasance- Breach of an affirmative duty or “omission”
1. Duty to Rescue
In common law, there is no such duty to rescue. In Civil law, the failure to help a victim of an
accident might be morally reprehensible, the person who abstained from helping the victim is not
legally responsible.
2. Duty to Rescuer
Duty to a rescuer is not an affirmative duty imposed by law.
The duty to the rescuer is part of the general negative duty of the actor.
To make a tortfeasor liable to the rescuer:
1. The defendant tortfeasor was negligent to the person rescued and such negligence caused the
peril or appearance of peril to the person rescued;
2. the peril or appearance of peril was imminent;
3. A reasonably prudent person who would have concluded such peril or appearance of peril
existent.
The rescuer acted with reasonable care in effectuating the rescue.
B. Owners, Proprietors and Possessors
Art. 428. NCC. Owners have the right to enjoy, dispose of, and recover his property.
1 . Trespassers
The owner has no duty to take reasonable care towards a trespasser for his protection or even to
protect him from concealed danger.
The trespasser comes on to the premises at his own risk.
The owner has not duty to maintain his property in such a dangerous-free state just to prevent a
trespasser from being injured.
2. Tolerated Possessor
Owner is liable if the plaintiff is inside his property by tolerance or by implied permission.
3. Visitors
Owners of buildings or premises owe a duty of care to visitors.
4. Children and Attractive Nuisance Rule
Limitation to the rule on contributory negligence.
Under the rule, an owner is liable if he maintains in his premises dangerous instrumentalities or
appliances of a character likely to lure children in play and he fails to exercise ordinary care to
prevent children of tender age from playing therewith or resorting thereto.
A nuisance is, by its very nature, harmful to the community or to certain persons.
Attractive nuisance is considered a nuisance only because it attracts certain kinds of persons,
children.
Liability exists even if the child is a trespasser so long as he is not of sufficient age or discretion.
Attractive nuisance Rule is not applicable:
In bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or artificial
feature other than the mere water and its location
5. State of Necessity
6. Liability to Neighbors and Third Persons
No duty is owed to trespasser demonstrate the fact that ownership is not absolute.
It is subject to limitations imposed by the very fact of the owner’s membership in the community.
Art. 431. NCC. Provides that an owner cannot use his property in such a manner as to injure the
rights of others.- Sic utero tuo ut alienum non laedas
7. Liability of Proprietors of Buildings
Art. 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its
total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs.
Art. 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for damages caused:
a. by the explosion of machinery which has not been taken care of with due diligence, and the
inflammation of explosive substances which have not been kept in a safe and adequate place;
b. by excessive smoke, which may be harmful to persons or property;
c. by the falling of trees situated at or near highways or lanes, if not caused by force majeure;
d. by emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits of infectious matter, constructed without
precautions suitable to the place.
C. Employers and Employees
1. Employers
Employee may use the provisions of the Labor Code that imposes upon the employer certain
duties with respect to the proper maintenance of the work place or the provision of adequate
facilities to ensure the safety of the employees.
Art. 162. LC. Safety and health standards. The Secretary of Labor and employment shall by
appropriate orders, set and enforce mandatory occupational safety and health standards to
eliminate or reduce occupational safety and health hazards in all workplaces and institute new,
and update existing, programs to ensure safe and healthful working conditions in all places of
employment.
Art. 156. LC. First-aid treatment. Every employer shall keep in his establishment such first-aid
medicines and equipment as the nature and conditions of work may require, in accordance with
such regulations as the Department of labor and Employment shall prescribe.
The employer shall take steps for the training of a sufficient number of employees in first-aid
treatment.
Impliedly agree to use reasonable care to provide reasonably safe premises and places in and
about which the servant is required to work,
To furnish reasonable safe and suitable machinery and a sufficient supply of proper materials,
tools and appliances for the work to be done,
At all times during the continuance of work to repair and to keep in the same safe suitable
condition the places, machinery, and appliances.
2. Employees
Bound to exercise due care in the performance of their functions for the employers.
Absent such due care, the employees may be held liable.
Liability may be based on the negligence committed while in the performance of the duties of the
employee.
Malpractice
A. Medical Malpractice
1 . Standard of care
Required to exercise ustmost diligence in the performance of their tasks.
Doctor-patient relationship:
Created when the professional services of a physician are rendered to and accepted by another for
purposes of medical and surgical treatment. A contractual relationship, hence, liability of a doctor
for negligence may arise from contract.
2. General practitioners v. specialists
General Practitioner: Ordinary care and diligence in the application of his knowledge and skill in his
practice of the profession.
Specialists: Generally considered to be that of an average specialist, not that of an average
physician.
3. Locality Rule
Each physician has a duty to have a practical working knowledge of the facilities, equipment,
resources and options reasonably available to him or her as well as the practical limitation on the
same.
4. Neighborhood Rule
A physician is under a duty to the patient to exercise that degree of care, skill and diligence which
physicians in the same general neighborhood and in the same general line of practice ordinarily
possess and exercise in like cases.
5. Cases:
1 . Li v. sps. Soliman, G.R. No. 165279, June 7, 201 1
Medical negligence is that type of claim which a victim has available to him or her to redress a
wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm. In order to successfully
pursue such a claim, a patient must prove that a health care provider, in most cases a physician,
either failed to do something which a reasonable prudent health care provided would have done,
or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that
the failure or action caused injury to the patient.
Medical negligence cases are best proved by opinions of expert witnesses belonging in the same
general neighborhood and in the same general line of practice as defendant physicial or surgeon.
2. Cayao-Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete, G.R. No. 159132,
December 18, 2008
4 Elements of medical negligence cases:
1. Duty; 2. Breach; 3. Injury; 4. Proximate causation.
3. Professional Services, Inc. v. CA, C.R. No. 126297, February 2,
2010

B. Res Ipsa Loquitur


1 . Bastan v. People, G.R. No. 187926, February 15, 2012
2. Ramos v. CA, G.R. No. 124354. December 29, 1999
C. Lost Chance Rule
Allows a plaintiff to obtain damages from a defendant for a heightened risk of death or injury, even
if the plaintiff cannot prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the ultimate injury was caused
by the defendant’s negligence.
A right to recover in lost chance cases.
D. Doctrine of Informed Consent
Unless excused, the doctor must secure the consent of his patient to a particular treatment or an
investigative procedure.
Consent may be express or implied.
Presence of doctor-client relationship must be established before the doctrine of informed consent
can be applied.
4 Elements:
1. Physician had a duty to disclose material risks;
2. The physician failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks;
3. As a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient consented to treatment she
otherwise would not have consented to;
4. Plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment.
E. Captain of the Ship Doctrine
The surgeon is likened to a ship captain who must not only be responsible for the safety of the crew
but also of the passengers of the vessel.
1. Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297, January 31,
2007
F. Liability of Hospitals
1. Vicarious Liability
Assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a particular legal
relationship to the person who did act negligently.
2. Doctrine of Corporate Responsibility
The Judicial answer to the problem of allocating hospitals’ liability for the negligent acts of health
practitioners, absent facts to support the application of vicarious liability. Its formulation proceeds
from the judiciary’s acknowledgement that in these modern times, the duty of providing quality
medical service 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.
G. Nurses
H. Pharmacists
Negligence of Lawyers
J. Accountants and Auditors

Xlll. Causation
A. Proximate Cause
B. Cause-in-fact tests
C. Substantial factor test
D. NESS Test- A particular condition was a cause of a specific
consequence if and only if it was a necessary element of a set of
antecedent actual conditions that was sufficient for the occurrence of
the consequence.
E. First Stage Only
1 . Mendoza v. sps. Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014
2. Philippine National Railways v. Vizcara, G.R. No. 190022, February 15, 2012

3. People v. Villacorta, C.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011


A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such remote cause did nothing
more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible,
if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive,
unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would not have happened but
for such condition or occasion. If no danger existed in the condition except because of the
independent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause. And if an independent negligent
act or defective condition sets into operation the instances, which result in injury because of the
prior defective condition, such subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause.
4. Guianio v. Makati Shangri-la Hotel, G.R. No. 190601, February 7,
2011
The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasi-delicts, not in actions
involving breach of contract. The doctrine is a device for imputing liability to a person where there
is no relation between him and another party. In such a case, the obligation is created by law
itself. But, where there is a pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, it is the parties
themselves who create the obligation and the function of the law is merely to regulate the
relation thus created.
5. Ramos v. C.O.L. Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 184905, August 28,
2009
F. Tests of Proximate Cause
1. Efficient and Intervening Cause
I. Universal International Investment (BVI) Ltd v. Ray Burton
G.R. No. 182201, November 14, 2016
2. People v. Acuram, C.R. No. 117954, April 27, 2000

END OF SCOPE FOR MIDTERMS


Vicarious Liability - Assignment #4
A. Doctrine of Respondeat Superior
B. Parents and other Persons Exercising Parental Authority
1. Liability for Acts of Minors
2. Liability for Acts of Children of Majority Age
C. Liability of Guardians of Incapacitated Adults
D. Schools, Teachers and Administrators
1. Under the Family Code