CIVIL LAW
DAMAGES
TORTS
PRINCIPLES
Tort
It is a civil wrong wherein one person’s conduct causes a
compensable injury to the person, property or recognized
interest of another, in violation of a duty imposed by law.
Tort v. Breach of Contract
Contract duties are created by the promises of the parties,
while tort duties are imposed as rules of law. (De Leon,
2012).
Main functions of punishing tort
1. Compensation and Restitution – To compensate
persons sustaining a loss or harm as a result of
another’s act or omission, placing the cost of that
compensation on those who, in justice ought to bear
it.
2. Prevention – To prevent future losses and harm.
Civil liabilities which may arise due to an act or
omission of one, causing damage to another
1. Civil liability ex delicto, under Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code.
2. Independent civil liabilities, such as those:
a. Not arising from an act or omission complained
of as a felony, e.g., culpa contractual or
obligations arising from law under Article 31 of
the Civil Code (such as breach of contract or
tort), intentional torts under Articles 32 and 34,
and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the
Civil Code.
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
(in cases of defamation, fraud and physical
injuries).
NOTE: Either of these liabilities may be enforced against
the offender subject to the caveat under Article 2177 of
the Civil Code that the plaintiff cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of the defendant
(Santos v. Pizardo, G.R. No. 151452, July 29, 2005).
Tortious Act
A wrongful act. It is the commission or omission of an act
by one, without right, whereby another receives, some
direct or indirect injury, in person, property, or
reputation (De Leon, 2012).
GR: An action for damages can only be maintained by the
person directly injured, not by one alleging the collateral
injury.
XPN: There are instances where an injury to one may
operate to the injury of another, e.g. a lone parent cannot
UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS
201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
sue for the injury suffered by his child, but may maintain
an action in his own right for any damage suffered
associated to the injury.
Remedies for Torts (CPR):
1. Compensatory – actions for sum of money for the
damage suffered.
2. Preventive – prayer for injunction, and a writ of
preliminary injunction, and a temporary restraining
order, enjoining the defendant from continuing the
doing of the tortious conduct.
3. Restitution – to disgorge gains that the defendant
wrongfully obtained by tort.
THE TORTFEASOR
Persons liable for quasi-delict
Defendants in tort cases can either be natural or artificial
beings.
Pursuant to vicarious liability, a corporation may be held
directly and primary liable for tortious acts of its officers
or employees (Art. 2180).
Liability of Tortfeasors
The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable
for quasi-delict is solidary (Art. 2194). They are each
liable as principals, to the same extent and in the same
manner as if they had performed the wrongful act
themselves (Ruks Konsult and Construction v. Adworld
Sign and Advertising Corp., G.R. No. 204866, January 21,
2015).
Liability of the owner of a vehicle in case of an
accident (1996, 1998, 2002, 2009 BAR)
In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable
with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could
have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the
misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was
negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving
or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the
next preceding two months (Art. 2184).
Car owner not present in the vehicle
If the car owner is not present in the vehicle and the driver
was negligent, the injured party may still sue said owner
under Article 2180 (5) for imputed liability.
If no knowledge of owner of vehicle not liable
An owner of a vehicle cannot be held liable for an accident
involving the said vehicle if the same was driven without
his consent or knowledge and by a person not employed
by him (Duavit v. CA, G.R. No. 82318, May 18, 1989).
456
 DAMAGES
Liability of proprietors of buildings
1. 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. 2190). (1990, 2007 BAR)
2. By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or deposits
of infectious matter, constructed without
precautions suitable to the place (Art. 2191). (2002
BAR)
Rules on liability for collapse of a building (Art. 1723)
1. The collapse of the building must be within 15 years
from the completion of the structure.
2. The prescriptive period is 10 years following the
collapse.
3. If the engineer or architect supervises the
construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the
contractor.
4. The liability applies to collapse or ruin, not to minor
defects.
5. Even if payment has been made, an action is still
possible (Ibid.).
When a building collapses during an earthquake
GR: No one can be held liable in view of the fortuitous
event if the proximate cause of the collapse of the building
is an earthquake.
XPN: If the proximate cause is the defective designing or
construction, or directly attributable to the use of inferior
or unsafe material, it is clear that liability exists (Art. 1723,
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. CA, G.R. No. L-47851, October 3,
1986).
Joint Tortfeasors
Two or more persons who act together in committing a
wrong, or contribute to its commission, or assist or
participate therein actively and with common intent, so
that injury results to a third person from the joint
wrongful act of the wrongdoers (De Leon, 2012).
Test for Joint Tortfeasors
Whether a plaintiff has a single cause of action against
such tortfeasors or whether he has only a several cause of
action against each of them (PNB v. CA, G.R. No. L-27155,
May 18, 1978).
NOTE: They are solidarily liable for the damage caused
(Art. 2194; Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. CA, G.R. No.
126395, November 16, 1998).
Concurrent Negligence of Two or More Persons
Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or
omissions of two or more persons, although acting
independently, are in combination the direct and
proximate cause of a single injury to a third person
(Sabido v. Custodio, G.R. No. L-21512, August 31, 1966).
457
In case of injury to a passenger due to the negligence of
the driver of the bus on which he was riding and of the
driver of another vehicle, the drivers as well as the
owners of the two vehicles are jointly and severally liable
for damages (Tiu v. Arriesgado, G.R. No. 138060, September
1, 2004).
ACT OR OMISSION AND ITS MODALITIES
Quasi-Delict
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 (Art.
2176).
Elements of Quasi-Delict (1993, 1997, 2006, 2007,
2010 BAR)
1. Damage to the Plaintiff;
NOTE: It is the loss, hurt or harm which results from
injury. It differs from damages which term refers to
the recompense or compensation awarded for the
damage suffered (So Ping Bun v. CA, G.R. No. 120554,
September 21, 1999);
2. Negligence, by act or omission, of which defendant,
or some person for whose acts, must respond, was
guilty;
3. Connection of cause and effect between such
negligence and damage (FGU Insurance Corp. v. CA,
G.R. No. 118889, March 23, 1998).
Act
It is any bodily movement tending to produce some effect
in the external world, it being unnecessary that the same
be actually produced, as the possibility of its production
is sufficient (People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, March 19,
1990).
Fault or Negligence
It 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 (Art. 1173).
Foreseeability of harm
The test to determine existence of negligence, the actor
could not have reasonably foreseen the harm that would
befall him, it was ruled that he was not guilty of negligence
(Civil Aeronautics Administration v. CA, et al., G.R. No. L-
51806, November 8, 1988).
Rule when negligence shows bad faith
When negligence shows bad faith, responsibility arising
from fraud is demandable in all obligations (Art. 1171).
Furthermore, 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 (Art. 2201).
UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW
When is negligence excused
GR: Negligence is excused when events that transpired
were unforeseen or, which though foreseen, were
inevitable.
XPN:
1. In cases specified by law;
2. When declared by stipulation;
3. When the nature of the obligation requires the
assumption of risk
Principle of Vicarious Liability or Law on Imputed
Negligence (2001-2006, 2009, 2010 BAR)
Under Art. 2180, a person is not only liable for torts
committed by him, but also for torts committed by others
with whom he has a certain relation or for whom he is
responsible.
NOTE: A person or juridical entity is made liable solidarily
with a tortfeasor simply by reason of his relationship with
the latter.
Presumption of negligence on persons indirectly
responsible
The presumption of law is that there was negligence on
the part of the master or employer either in the selection
of the servant or employee (culpa in eligendo) or in the
supervision over him after the selection (culpa vigilando),
or both.
NOTE: A presumption which is juris tantum, not juris et de
jure, and can be rebutted only by showing proof of having
exercised and observed all the diligence of a good father
of a family (diligentissimi patris familias) (Tamagro v. CA,
G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992).
Nature of responsibility of Vicarious Obligor
Primary and direct, not subsidiary. He is solidarily liable
with the tortfeasor. His responsibility is not conditioned
upon the insolvency of or prior recourse against the
negligent tortfeasor (De Leon Brokerage v. CA, G.R. 15247,
February 28, 1962).
Persons Vicariously Liable (F-GOES-T)
1. Father, or in case of death or incapacity, mother:
a. Damage caused by minor children
b. Living in their company
2. Guardians:
a. For minors or incapacitated persons
b. Under their authority
c. Living in their company
3. Owners and managers of establishments:
a. For their employees
b. In the service of the branches in which they are
employed, or;
c. On the occasion of their functions
4. Employers:
a. Damages caused by employees and household
helpers
b. Acting within the scope of their assigned tasks
UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS
201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
c. Even if the employer is not engaged in any
business or industry
5. State – acting through a special agent and not when
the damage has been caused by the official to whom
the task done properly pertains.
6. Teachers or heads of establishments:
a. Of arts and trades
b. For damages caused by their pupils and
students or apprentices
c. So long as they remain in their custody (Art.
2180).
The actual tortfeasor is not exempted from liability
The minor, ward, employee, special agent, pupil, students
and apprentices who actually committed the delictual acts
are not exempted by the law from personal responsibility.
They may be sued and made liable alone as when the
person responsible for them or vicarious obligor proves
that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family
or when the minor or insane person has no parents or
guardians. In the latter instance, they are answerable with
their own property (Pineda, 2009).
Common Defenses
If the defendant has proven that they have observed all
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage, they shall not be responsible for damages.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY: PARENTS
Basis of vicarious liability of the parents (2005 BAR)
This liability is made natural as a logical consequence of
the duties and responsibilities of parents exercising
parental authority which includes controlling,
disciplining and instructing their children. In this
jurisdiction the parent’s liability is vested by law which
assumes that when a minor or unemancipated child living
with their parent, commits a tortious act, the parents are
presumed negligent in the performance of their duty to
supervise the children under their custody (Tamagro v.
CA, G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992).
Requisites of vicarious liability of the parents (21-CL)
1. The child is below 21 years of age
2. The child Committed a tortious act to the damage and
prejudice of another person
3. The child Lives in the company of the parent
concerned whether single or married (Pineda, 2009).
Minors v. Incapacitated Persons
Minor Incapacitated Persons
Those who are below 21 Persons beyond 21 years
years and not to those of age but are
below 18 years. incapacitated such as
those who are insane or
NOTE: R.A. 6809 did not imbecile.
amend Article 236 of the
Family Code with regard
to age.
458
 DAMAGES
“Nothing in this code shall be construed to derogate
from the duty or responsibility of parents and guardians
for children and wards below 21 years of age mentioned
in the second and third paragraphs of Art. 2180 of the
Civil Code” (RA 6809).
Thus, under the Family Code, there is no more alternative
qualification as to the civil liability of parents. The liability
of both father and mother is now primary and not
subsidiary (Libi vs. IAC, G.R. No. 70890, September 18,
1992).
Vicarious liability of other persons exercising
parental authority
In default of the parents or a judicially appointed
guardian, parental authority shall be exercised by the
following persons in the order indicated:
1. Surviving grandparents;
2. Oldest sibling, over 21 years old unless unfit or
unqualified;
3. Child’s actual custodian, over 21 years old unless
unfit or disqualified.
Adopted Children
Judicially adopted children are considered legitimate
children of their adopting parents (Sec. 17, RA 8552).
Thus, adopters are civilly liable for their tortious/criminal
acts if the children live with them and are minors.
Mother is not simultaneously liable with the father
The mother is not simultaneously liable with the father. It
is only in the case of death or incapacity of the father, that
the mother may be held liable.
NOTE: Consequently, the wife as a co-defendant with the
husband or if impleaded alone while the husband is alive
and well, may move to dismiss the case filed against her
for being premature (Romano v. Parinas, G.R. No. L-10129,
April 22, 1957).
Illegitimate Child
As for an illegitimate child, if he is acknowledged by the
father and live with the latter, the father shall be
responsible. However, if he is not recognized by the
putative father but is under the custody and supervision
of the mother, it is the latter who is the one vicariously
liable (Pineda, 2009).
VICARIOUS LIABILITY: GUARDIANS
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and
live in their company (Art. 2180).
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.
2182).
459
NOTE: The rules on vicarious liability of parents apply
the same to vicarious liability of guardians.
De facto guardians covered by Art. 2180
De facto guardians are relatives and neighbors who take
upon themselves the duty to care and support orphaned
children without passing through judicial proceedings
NOTE: They are liable for acts committed by children
while living with them and are below 21 years of age, the
law being applied by analogy (Pineda, 2009).
VICARIOUS LIABILITY:
OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF ESTABLISHMENTS
AND ENTERPRISES
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 (Art. 2180(4)).
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 (Ibid.(5)). (2005
BAR)
Owners and managers
The terms “owners and managers” are used in the sense
of “employer” and do not include the manager of a
corporation who himself is just an employee (Phil. Rabbit
Bus Lines v. Phil. American Forwarders, Inc., G.R. No. L-
25142, March 25, 1975).
To make the employer liable under Art. 2180, it must be
established that the injurious or tortious act was
committed at the time the employee was performing his
functions (Marquez v. Castillo, G.R. No. 46237, September
27, 1939).
NOTE: However, a manager who is not an owner but who
assumes the responsibility of supervision over the
employees of the owner may be held liable for the acts of
the employees (Pineda, 2009).
Requisites before an employer may be held liable
under Article 2180 (4) for the act of its employees
1. The employee was chosen by the employer
personally or through another;
2. The service is to be rendered in accordance with
orders which the employer has the authority to give
all times; and
3. That the illicit act of the employee was on the
occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to
him (Jayme v. Apostol, G.R. No. 163609, November 27,
2008).
UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW
VICARIOUS LIABILITY: EMPLOYERS
Employer
An employer includes any person acting directly or
indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an
employee and shall include the government and all its
branches, subdivisions and instrumentalities, all
government owned or controlled corporations and
institutions, as well as non-profit private institutions, or
organizations (Art. 97, PD 442).
Presumption on the negligence of the employer
The employer is presumed to be negligent and the
presumption flows from the negligence of the employee.
Once the employee’s fault is established, the employer can
then be made liable on the basis of the presumption that
the employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris
familias in the selection and supervision of its employees
(LRTA v. Navidad, G.R. No. 145804, February 6, 2003).
Remedies of the injured party in pursuing the civil
liability of the employer for the acts of his employees
1. If he chooses to file a civil action for damages based
on quasi-delict under Article 2180 and succeeds in
proving the negligence of the employee, the liability
of the employer is primary, direct and solidary. It is
not conditioned on the insolvency of the employee
(Metro Manila Transit Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 118069,
November 16, 1998).
2. If he chooses to file a criminal case against the
offender and was found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt, the civil liability of the employer is subsidiary.
The employer cannot use as a defense the exercise of
the diligence of a good father of a family.
NOTE: Once there is a conviction for a felony, final in
character, the employer under Article 103 of the RPC, is
subsidiary liable, if it be shown that the commission
thereof was in the discharge of the duties of the employee.
A previous dismissal of an action based on culpa aquiliana
could not be a bar to the enforcement of the subsidiary
liability required by Art. 103 RPC (Jocson, et al. v. Glorioso,
G.R. No. L-22686, January 30, 1968).
Vicarious liability Owners and Managers of
Establishment under Article 2180(5) (1991, 2001
BAR)
GR: It is required that the employee must be performing
his assigned task at the time that the injury is caused.
XPN: However, it is not necessary that the task performed
by the employee is his regular job or that which was
expressly given to him by the employer. It is enough that
the task is indispensable to the business or beneficial to
the employer (Filamer Christian Institute v. IAC, G.R. No.
75112, August 7, 1992).
NOTE: It is not required that the employer is engaged in
some kind of industry or work (Castilex Industrial
Corporation v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 132266 December 21,
1999).
UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS
201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
When a criminal case is filed against the offender, before
the employer’s subsidiary liability is exacted, there must
be proof that:
1. They are indeed the employer of the convicted
employee;
2. The former are engaged in some kind of industry;
3. The crime was committed by the employees in the
discharge of their duties; and
4. That the execution against the latter has not been
satisfied due to insolvency (Philippine Rabbit Bus
Lines, Inc. v. People, G.R. No. 147703, April 14, 2004).
Vicarious liability Owners and Managers of
Establishment v. Vicarious liability of Employers
Owners/Managers Employers (Par 5)
(Par 4)
Requires engagement in The employers need not
business on the part of be engaged in business or
the employers as the law industry.
speaks of “establishment
or enterprise”.
Covers negligent acts of Covers negligent acts of
employees committed employees acting within
either in the service of the the scope of their
branches or in the assigned tasks.
occasion of their
functions.
Q: OJ was employed as professional driver of MM
Transit bus owned by Mr. BT. In the course of his
work, OJ hit a pedestrian who was seriously injured
and later died in the hospital as a result of the
accident. The victim’s heirs sued the driver and the
owner of the bus for damages. Is there a presumption
in this case that Mr. BT, the owner, had been
negligent? If so, is the presumption absolute or not?
(2004 BAR)
A: YES, there is a presumption of negligence on the part
of the employer. However, such presumption is
rebuttable. The liability of the employer shall cease when
they prove that they observed the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage (Art. 2180). When the
employee causes damage due to his own negligence while
performing his own duties, there arises the juris tantum
presumption that the employer is negligent, rebuttable
only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good
father of a family (Delsan Transport Lines v. C & A
Construction, G.R. No. 156034, October 1, 2003). Likewise,
if the driver is charged and convicted in a criminal case for
criminal negligence, BT is subsidiarily liable for the
damages arising from the criminal act.
Q: After working overtime up to midnight, Alberto, an
executive of an insurance company drove a company
vehicle to a favorite Videoke bar where he had some
drinks and sang some songs with friends to "unwind."
At 2:00 a.m., he drove home, but in doing so, he
bumped a tricycle, resulting in the death of its driver.
May the insurance company be held liable for the
negligent act of Alberto? Why? (2001 BAR)
460
 DAMAGES
A: NO. The insurance company is not liable because when
the accident occurred, Alberto was not acting within the
assigned tasks of his employment.
It is true that under Art. 2180(5), employers are liable for
damages caused by their employees who were acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks. However, the
mere fact that Alberto was using a service vehicle of the
employer at the time of the injurious accident does not
necessarily mean that he was operating the vehicle within
the scope of his employment. In Castilex Industrial
Corporation v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 132266, December 21,
1999, the Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the
fact that the employee did some overtime work for the
company, the former was, nevertheless, engaged in his
own affairs or carrying out a personal purpose when he
went to a restaurant at 2:00 a.m. after coming out from
work. The time of the accident (also 2:00 a.m.) was
outside normal working hours.
Defenses available to an employer
1. Exercise of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of its employees (except in criminal
action); and
2. The act or omission was made outside working hours
and in violation of company’s rules and regulations.
Q: Would the defense of due diligence in the selection
and supervision of the employee available to the
employer in both instances? (1997 BAR)
A: The defense of diligence in the selection and
supervision of the employee under Article 2180 of the
Civil Code is available only to those primarily liable
thereunder, but not to those subsidiary liable under
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code (Yumul v. Juliano,
G.R. No. 47690, April, 28, 1941).
Employer’s liability under Art. 2180 NCC
Employer’s liability under Art. 100 RPC
CIVIL CODE RPC
Liability is direct, Liability is subsidiary.
primary, and solidary -
the employer may be
sued even without suing
the employee.
Diligence of a good father Diligence of a good
of a family is a defense. father of a family is not a
defense.
Employer is liable even if Petitioner must prove
not engaged in business. that the employer is
engaged in business.
Proof of negligence is by Proof beyond reasonable
mere preponderance of doubt is required.
evidence.
Q: Arturo sold his Pajero to Benjamin for P1M.
Benjamin took the vehicle but did not register the sale
with the Land Transportation Office. He allowed his
son Carlos, a minor who did not have a driver's
license, to drive the car to buy pan de sal in a bakery.
On the way, Carlos driving in a reckless manner
sideswiped Dennis, then riding a bicycle. As a result,
he suffered serious physical injuries. Dennis filed a
criminal complaint against Carlos for reckless
imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.
1. Can Dennis file an independent civil action
against Carlos and his father Benjamin for
damages based on quasi-delict?
2. Assuming Dennis' action is tenable; can Benjamin
raise the defense that he is not liable because the
vehicle is not registered in his name? (2006 BAR)
A:
1. YES. Dennis can file an independent civil action
against Carlos and his father for damages based on
quasi-delict there being an act or omission causing
damage to another without contractual obligation.
Under Section 1 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on
Criminal Procedure, what is deemed instituted with
the criminal action is only the action to recover civil
liability arising from the act or omission punished by
law. An action based on quasi-delict is no longer
deemed instituted and may be filed separately (Sec.
3, Rule 111, Rules of Court).
2. NO, Benjamin cannot raise the defense that the
vehicle is not registered in his name. His liability,
vicarious in character, is based on Article 2180
because he is the father of a minor who caused
damage due to negligence. While the suit will prosper
against the registered owner, it is the actual owner of
the private vehicle who is ultimately liable (See
Duavit v.CA, G.R. No. L-29759, May 18, 1989).The
purpose of car registration is to reduce difficulty in
identifying the party liable in case of accidents
(Villanueva v. Domingo, G.R. No. 144274, September
14, 2004).
v.
Q: A driver of a bus owned by company Z ran over a
boy who died instantly. A criminal case for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide was filed against
the driver. He was convicted and was ordered to pay
P2 Million in actual and moral damages to the parents
of the boy who was an honor student and had a bright
future. Without even trying to find out if the driver
had assets or means to pay the award of damages, the
parents of the boy filed a civil action against the bus
company to make it directly liable for the damages.
1. Will their action prosper?
2. If the parents of the boy do not wish to file a
separate civil action against the bus company,
can they still make the bus company liable if the
driver cannot' pay the award for damages? If so,
what is the nature of the employer's liability and
how may civil damages be satisfied? (2015 BAR)
A:
1. YES, the action will prosper. The liability of the
employer in this case may be based on quasi-delict
and is included within the coverage of independent
civil action. It is not necessary to enforce the civil
liability based on culpa aquiliana that the driver or
UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
461 F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW
employee be proven to be insolvent since the liability
of the employer for the quasi-delicts committed by
their employees is direct and primary subject to the
defense of due diligence on their part (Art. 2176; Art.
2180).
2. YES, the parents of the boy can enforce the subsidiary
liability of the employer in the criminal case against
the driver. The conviction of the driver is a condition
sine qua non for the subsidiary liability of the
employer to attach. Proof must be shown that the
driver is insolvent (Art. 103, RPC)
VICARIOUS LIABILITY: STATE
Aspects of liability of the State
1. Public/Governmental – Where the State is liable only
for the tortious acts of its special agents.
2. Private/Non-governmental – When the State is
engaged in private business or enterprise, it becomes
liable as an ordinary employer (NIA v. Fontanilla, G.R.
No. 61045, December 1, 1989).
NOTE: The State is only liable for the negligent acts of its
officers, agents and employees when they are acting as
special agents. The State has voluntarily assumed liability
for acts done through special agents (Pineda, 2009).
Special Agent
A special agent is one who receives a definite and fixed
order or commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties
of his office.
An employee who on his own responsibility performs
functions inherent in his office and naturally pertaining
thereto is not a special agent (Meritt v. Government of the
Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 11154, March 21, 1916).
NOTE: Where the government commissions a private
individual for a special governmental task, it is acting
through a special agent within the meaning of the
provision (Largo, 2007).
Liability of Provinces, Cities and Municipalities
As for local government units, “provinces, cities and
municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of,
or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the
defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public
buildings, and other public works under their control or
supervision’’ (Art. 2189).
VICARIOUS LIABILITY: TEACHERS AND HEADS OF
ESTABLISHMENTS OF ARTS AND TRADES
Teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any
damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while they
are under their custody, but this provision only applies to
an institution of arts and trades and not to any academic
educational institution (Exconde v. Capuno, et al., G.R. No.
L-10134, June 29, 1957).
In the case of Ylarde v. Aquino, G.R. L-33722, July 29, 1988,
the teacher Edgardo Aquino, after bringing his pupils to
UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS
201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
an excavation site dug by them, left them all by
themselves, and one of the pupils fell into the pit. A
teacher acted with fault and gross negligence because a
teacher who stands in loco parentis to his pupils would
have made sure that the children are protected from all
harm in his company.
Basis of the teacher’s vicarious liability
They are acting in Loco Parentis (in place of parents).
However teachers are not expected to have the same
measure of responsibility as that imposed on parent for
their influence over the child is not equal in degree. The
parent can instil more lasting discipline on the child than
the teacher and so should be held to a greater
accountability than the teacher or the head for the tort
committed by the child.
Rationale of vicarious liability of school heads and
teachers (2005 BAR)
The rationale of school heads and teachers liability for
tortious acts of their pupil and students, so long as they
remain in custody, is that they stand, to a certain extent,
as to their pupils and students, in loco parentis and are
called upon to “exercise reasonable supervision over the
conduct of the child.” This is expressly provided for in
Articles 349, 350 and 352 of the Civil Code (Pineda, 2009).
Application vicarious liability of 2180 not limited to
schools of arts and trade
The application of Article 2180 is not limited to school of
arts and trades. It applies to all, including academic
institutions where the teacher-in-charge is liable for the
acts of his students. In the case of establishments of arts
and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who shall
be liable (Amadora v. CA, G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988).
NOTE: There is really no substantial difference between
the academic and non-academic schools in so far as torts
committed by their students are concerned. The same
vigilance is expected from the teacher over the student
under their control and supervision, whatever the nature
of the school where he is teaching.
Age of student immaterial
Even if the student has already reached the age of
majority, the liability can be imputed to the teacher-in-
charge. Under Article 2180, age does not matter. Unlike
the parent who will be liable only if the child is still a
minor, the teacher is held answerable by the law for the
act of the student regardless of the age of the student
liable (Amadora v. CA, G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988).
Limitation to the liability of teachers and heads of
Schools
Teachers and Heads of schools are only liable if the
students remain in schools. If they are no longer in such
premises, their responsibility shall attach no more. Their
parents become responsible for them (Pineda, 2009).
462
 DAMAGES
A student is in custody of the school authorities Proximate Cause

The student is in the custody of the school authorities as Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and
long as he is under the control and influence of the school continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
and within its premises, whether the semester has not intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which
ended, or has ended or has not yet begun. The term the result would not have occurred.
“custody” signifies that the student is within the control
and influence of the school authorities. The teacher in NOTE: Proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate
charge is the one designated by the dean, principal, or cause; it’s not necessarily the nearest time, distance or
other administrative superior to exercise supervision space (People v. Elizalde, 59 Off. Gaz. 1241).
over the pupils or students in the specific classes or
sections to which they are assigned. It is not necessary Principle of concurrent causes
that at the time of the injury, the teacher is physically
present and in a position to prevent it. Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or
omissions of two or more persons, although acting
Article 218 of the Family Code v. Article 2180 of the independently, are in combination with the direct and
New Civil Code proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, and it
is impossible to determine what proportion each
ARTICLE 218 of the ARTICLE 2180 of the contributed to the injury, either of them is responsible for
Family Code New Civil Code the whole injury, even though his act alone might not have
School, its Teachers, head of caused the entire injury.
administrators, teachers establishment in arts and
engaged in child care are trades are made Efficient Intervening Cause (Novus Actus Interviens)
made expressly liable. expressly liable.
An efficient intervening cause is one which destroys the
Liability of school, its Neither such express causal connection between the negligent act and the
administrators, and solidary nor subsidiary injury and thereby negatives liability (Morril v. Morril, 60
teachers is solidary and liability is stated. ALR 102, 104 NJL 557).
parents are made
subsidiary liable. When Efficient Intervening Cause is not applicable

Students involved must Students involved are There is no efficient intervening cause if the force created
be a minor. not necessarily minors. by the negligent act or omission have either:
1. Remained active itself; or
NOTE: The nature of the liability of the persons 2. Created another force which remained active until it
enumerated under Art. 218 of the Family Code is directly caused the result; or
principally and solidary. 3. Created a new active risk of being acted upon by the
active force that caused the result (57 Am. Jur. 2d
Defenses available 507).

Their responsibility will cease when they prove that they PROXIMATE INTERVENING REMOTE CONCURRENT
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to CAUSE CAUSE CAUSE CAUSE
prevent damage. As regards the employer, if he shows to
the satisfaction of the court that in the selection and in the It is the cause One that That cause Causes
supervision of his employees he has exercised the care which, in destroys the which some brought about
and diligence of a good father of a family, the presumption natural and causal independent by the acts and
is overcome and he is relieved from liability (Layugan v. continuous connection force merely omissions of
IAC, G.R. No. L-49542, September 12, 1980). sequence, between the took third persons
unbroken by negligent act advantage of which makes
Q: A 15-year-old high school student stabs his any efficient and injury and to the defendant
classmate who is his rival for a girl, while they were intervening thereby accomplish still liable.
going out of the classroom after their last class. Who cause, negatives something Here, the
may be held liable? (2005 BAR) produces the liability. not the proximate
injury, and natural cause is not
A: Under Article 218 of the Family Code, the school, its without NOTE: effect necessarily the
administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or which the Foreseeable thereof. sole cause of
institution engaged in child care shall have special result would Intervening the accident.
parental authority and responsibility over the minor child not have causes cannot
while under their supervision, instruction or custody. occurred. be considered
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized sufficient
activities whether inside or outside the premises of the intervening
school, entity or institution. causes.

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
463 F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW
LEGAL INJURY knowledge that those results are substantially certain to
occur as a result of his actions (Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash
Injury, Damage and Damages 2d 197, 1955).

Injury The illegal invasion of a legal right. Doctrine of transferred intent

The loss, hurt, or harm which results
Damage
from the injury. It arises when a person intends to commit a tort against
The recompense or compensation one person and injury to another result instead. For
Damages intentional tort purposes, the intent will be deemed to be
awarded for the damage suffered.
transferred from the intended victim to the actual one
Right (U.S. v. Maisa, G.R. No. L-3728, September 25, 1907).

A right is a legally enforceable claim of one person against Seven major intentional torts (FITTED CAB)
another, that the other shall do a given act, or shall not do
a given act (Pineda, 2011). 1. False Imprisonment (Dignitary Tort)
2. Trespass to land
Kinds of rights 3. Trespass to chattels (Trover)
4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
1. Natural Rights – Those which grow out of the nature 5. Conversion
of man and depend upon personality. 6. Assault
7. Battery
E.g. right to life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
Major defenses to intentional torts
2. Political Rights – Consist in the power to participate, (DODD SLASH CORN)
directly or indirectly, in the establishment or
administration of government. 1. Defense of Others
2. Defense of land/chattels
E.g. right of suffrage, right to hold public office, right 3. Discipline
of petition. 4. Self defense
5. Legal Authority
3. Civil Rights – Those that pertain to a person by virtue 6. Shoplifter Detention
of his citizenship in a state or community. 7. Consent
8. Recapture of Chattels
Available remedies for a person whose rights have 9. Necessity
been violated
INTENTIONAL PHYSICAL HARM
Legal remedies are either preventive or compensatory.
Battery (Physical Injury)
Tort arising from Breach of Contract
A person commits battery of another if “he acts intending
A quasi-delict can be the cause for breaching a contract to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person or
that might thereby permit the application of principles a third person or an imminent apprehension of such a
applicable to tort even when there is a pre-existing contact.”
contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Elements
This rule can govern only where the act or omission
complained of would constitute an actionable tort 1. There must be a voluntary act;
independently of the contract (Far East Bank and Trust 2. That the person either (a) intended to cause a
Company v. CA, G.R. No. 108164, February 23, 1995). harmful or offensive contact with his body or with
the body of some third person or (b) intended to
INTENTIONAL TORTS cause a third person to have apprehension of such
harmful or offensive contact;
Intentional tort is a tort or wrong perpetrated by one who 3. That a harmful or offensive contact with the body of
intends to do that which the law has declared wrong as a person actually resulted;
contrasted with negligence in which the tortfeasor fails to 4. That the person in some sensed “caused” the harmful
exercise that degree of care in doing what is otherwise or offensive contact, either because he himself
permissible (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2004). touched another person or because he set in motion
some force that actually did the touching; and
Intentional torts are those which involve malice or bad 5. That the person did not consent to the contact.
faith.

Intent from the point of view of torts

Refers either to a person’s desire that certain

consequences result from his actions or even his

UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS 464

201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
 DAMAGES
ASSAULT (GRAVE THREAT) TRESPASS TO CHATTELS (TROVER)

Assault in the context of torts Trespass to chattels is where a person intentionally

interferes with personal property in someone else’s
It is the tort of acting intentionally and voluntarily causing possession.
the reasonable and imminent apprehension of an
immediate harmful or offensive contact. Elements (PAI)

Elements (LICA3 ) 1. The defendant took a voluntary Act which interfered

1. That a person committed a voluntary Act;
2. That the person’s act created in another person an
Apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive
contact with the latter’s person;
3. That the person Intended to cause either a harmful
or offensive contact or an apprehension of such a
contact;
4. That there was a Causal connection between the
attacker and the other person’s apprehension;
5. The victim Lacks consent.
with the plaintiff’s right of possession in the chattel.
It could either be dispossession (taking possession to
the exclusion of the owner) or intermeddling
(touching or harming it without removing it from the
owner’s possession);
2. The defendant Intended the interference; and
3. The plaintiff either Possessed or had the immediate
right to possess the same
NOTE: Damages must be proven if the act is
intermeddling, but if the act is dispossession, actual
damages need not be proven.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT CONVERSION

(DIGNITARY TORT/ILLEGAL DETENTION)
It is an intentional interference with the plaintiff’s
Elements of false imprisonment as a basis for tort personal property that is so substantial that it is fair to
liability (CACAI) require the defendant to pay the property’s full value.

1. An Act or omission on the part of defendant that Elements (DIP)

confines or restrains plaintiff
2. That plaintiff is confined or restrained to a bounded
area;
3. Intent
4. Causation
5. Awareness of the defendant of the confinement that
the defendant was actually harmed by it
Moral damages may be awarded to a victim of illegal
arrest and detention, especially if the victim is a minor, the
accused poked a knife at her, forcibly took her from
school, tied her hands and placed scotch tape on her
mouth (People v. Bisda, G.R. No. 140895, July 17, 2003).
TRESPASS TO LAND
Trespass to real property is a tort that is committed when
a person unlawfully invades the real property of another
(Aquino, 2005).
Art. 451 of the Civil Code provides that damages may be
awarded to the real owner if he suffered such damages
because he was deprived of possession of his property by
a possessor in bad faith or by a person who does not have
any right whatsoever over the property.
1. An act by the defendant that substantially interferes
with plaintiff's right of possession in a chattel in a
sufficiently serious fashion as justify the payment the
chattel's full value. (Dominion and Control);
2. Intent on the part of the defendant; and
3. Plaintiff was either in Possession of the chattel or had
the immediate right to possess it.
Conversion may include
1. Cases where the defendant deprived the plaintiff of
personal property for the purpose of obtaining
possession of a real property, as when a landlord
deprived his tenants of water in order for them to
vacate the lot they were cultivating.
2. Unjustified deprivation of access to property such as
unjustified disconnection of electricity service.
INTENTIONAL NON-PHYSICAL HARMS
VIOLATION OF PERSONAL DIGNITY
Rule with regard to the right of a person to his dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind

Elements (PAPI) Every person shall respect the dignity, personality,

privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other
1. The defendant committed a voluntary Act against the persons. The following and similar acts, though they may
plaintiff not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of
2. The defendant Physically invaded the real property action for damages, prevention and other relief:
owned by the plaintiff
3. Intent 1. Prying into the privacy of another's residence;
4. The plaintiff had the immediate right to the 2. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family
Possession of the land (as an owner living there or as relations of another;
a tenant renting it) 3. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his
friends; and

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
465 F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW
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. 26).
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
“Emotional distress” mean is any highly unpleasant
mental reaction such as extreme grief, shame,
humiliation, embarrassment, anger, disappointment,
worry, nausea, mental suffering and anguish, shock,
fright, horror, and chagrin (Aquino, 2005).
Requisites (ICE-D)
The plaintiff must show that:
1. The conduct of the defendant was intentional or in
reckless disregard of the plaintiff;
2. The conduct was extreme and outrageous;
3. There was a causal connection between the
defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s mental
distress; and
4. The plaintiff’s mental distress was extreme and
severe (MVRS Publications Inc. v. Islamic Da’wah
Council of the Philippines, G.R. No. 135306, January 28,
2003).
NOTE: Even if there was no intentional infliction of
emotional distress in one case, the SC recognized the
possibility that one may be made liable for the tort of
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
VIOLATION OF PRIVACY
Zones of privacy under the NCC, RPC, Rules of Court,
and special laws
1. That every person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons and any act of a person
of meddling and prying into the privacy of another is
punishable as an actionable wrong;
2. That a public officer or employee or any private
individual shall be liable for damages for any
violation of the rights and liberties of another person,
and recognizes the privacy of letters and other
private communications;
3. The RPC makes a crime the:
Violation of secrets by an officer,
Revelation of trade and industrial secrets, and
Trespass to dwelling.
4. Invasion of privacy is likewise an offense in special
laws such as the:
Anti-wiretapping law; and
Secrecy of bank deposits act; and
5. The Rules of Court provisions on privileged
communication.
Standard to be applied in determining the existence
of a violation of the right to privacy
The standard to be applied is that of a person of ordinary
sensibilities. It is relative to the customs of the time and
place, and is determined by the norm of an ordinary
person.
UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS
201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
It is an action for damages brought by one against another
whom a criminal prosecution, civil suit, or other legal
proceedings has been instituted maliciously and without
probable cause, after the termination of such prosecution,
suit or proceeding in favor of defendant therein
(Magbanua v. Junsay, G.R. No. 132659, February 12, 2007).
The gist of the action is the putting of legal process in
force, regularly, for the mere purpose of vexation or injury
(Drilon v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 107019, March 20, 1997).
Basis of such action
The statutory recognition of an action for damages based
on malicious prosecution (false accusation or denuncia
falsa) is found in Article 2219(8) of the Civil Code which
allows recovery of moral damages for malicious
prosecution. Article 21 and 2176 of the same Code may
also be invoked to justify the action (Lagman, et al. v. IAC,
et al., G.R. No. L-72281, October 28, 1998).
NOTE: Malicious prosecution, both in criminal and civil
cases, requires the elements of: (1) malice, and (2)
absence of probable cause (Yasoña v. De Ramos, G.R. No.
156339, October 6, 2004).
Presence of Probable Cause
The presence of probable cause signifies, as a legal
consequence, the absence of malice. The absence of
malice, therefore, involves good faith on the part of the
defendant. This good faith may even be based on mistake
of law.
Acquittal
Acquittal presupposes that criminal information is filed in
court and final judgment is rendered dismissing the case
against the accused. It is not enough that the plaintiff is
discharged on a writ of habeas corpus and granted bail.
Such discharge is not considered the termination of the
action contemplated to warrant the institution of a
malicious prosecution suit against those responsible for
the filing of the information against him.
Nevertheless, it is believed that prior “acquittal” may
include dismissal by the prosecutor after preliminary
investigation.
Elements
In criminal cases
1. The fact of the prosecution and the further fact that
the defendant was himself the prosecutor, and that
the action was terminated with an acquittal;
2. That in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted
without probable cause; and
3. The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal
malice (Yasoña v. Ramos, G.R. No. 156339, October 6,
2004).
To constitute malicious prosecution, there must be proof
that the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to
466
 DAMAGES
vex and humiliate a person, and that it was initiated offender to say that he expresses therein no more than his
deliberately, knowing that the charges were false and opinion or belief. The communication must be made in the
groundless (Pineda, 2009). performance of a “legal, moral, or social duty.”

In civil cases Doctrine of Privileged Communication

1. The defendant filed a civil action against the plaintiff
previously;
2. The action was dismissed for clear lack of merit or for
being baseless, unfounded, and malicious;
3. The defendant who filed the previous complaint as
plaintiff was motivated by ill-will or sinister design;
and
4. The present plaintiff suffered injury or damage by
reason of the previous complaint filed against him
(Pineda, 2009).
NOTE: A disbarment proceeding being judicial in
character may therefore be the basis for a subsequent
action for malicious prosecution (Ponce v. Legaspi, et al.,
G.R. No. 79184, May 6, 1992).
A communication that is protected by law from compelled
disclosure in a legal proceeding, or that cannot be used
against the person who made it (Black’s Law Dictionary,
2004).
Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are
absolutely privileged. The rationale is to allow lawyers
and judges and witnesses to speak their minds freely and
exercise their respective functions without incurring the
risk of a criminal prosecution or an action for damages
(Navarrate v. Genereso, G.R. No. 124245, February 15,
2000).
FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION
(FORMERLY DECEIT)

When an action for malicious prosecution premature Elements of misrepresentation in torts cases

If the action filed by a party is still pending trial, the filing 1. Affirmative Misrepresentation of a material fact;
by the defendant of an action based on malicious 2. Defendant knew that statement being made was
prosecution anchored on the first case is premature. Its False;
dismissal is in order (Cabacungan v. Corrales, G.R. No. L- 3. Intent;
6629, September 30, 1954). 4. Causation;
5. Justifiable reliance; and
DEFAMATION 6. Damages

Defamation, which includes libel and slander, means SEDUCTION

injuring a person’s character, fame or reputation through
false and malicious statements (Figueroa v. People, G.R. Seduction, by itself, is an act which is contrary to morals,
No. 159813, August 9, 2006). good customs and public policy. The defendant is liable if
he employed deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse
Requisites (DIP-M) of confidence in successfully having sexual intercourse
with another (Aquino, 2005)
1. It must be Defamatory;
2. It must be Malicious; Sexual Assault
3. It must be given in Publicity; and
4. The victim must be Identifiable (Alonzo v. CA, G.R. No. The defendant would be liable for all forms of sexual
110088, February 1, 1995). assault. These include rape, acts of lasciviousness and
seduction.
NOTE: “in publicity” is the communication of the
defamatory matter to some third person or persons. NOTE: Gender is immaterial in seduction and sexual
assault.
Kinds of Defamation
When there is no seduction
1. Libel - is a defamation committed by means of
writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, There is no seduction where the plaintiff, of adult age,
phonograph, painting or theatrical or maintained intimate sexual relations with the defendant,
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means. with repeated acts of intercourse; such conduct is
2. Slander - is an oral defamation. incompatible with the idea of seduction. Voluntariness
3. Slander by deed - is a crime committed by any person and mutual passion, though there was artful persuasions
who performs an act that costs dishonor, discredit or and wiles without fulfilling the promise of marriage is not
contempt upon the offended party in the presence of actionable (Tanjanco v. CA, G.R. No. L-18630, December 17,
other person or persons. 1966).

Defense of expressing his opinion or belief

Allegation that the offender merely expresses his opinion

or belief is not a defense in defamation cases. In order to
escape criminal responsibility, it is not enough for the

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
467 F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW
UNJUST DISMISSAL
Rule on dismissal of employees
It is a basic rule that an employer has a right to dismiss an
employee in the manner and on the grounds provided for
under the NCC. If the dismissal is for a valid cause, his
dismissal is consistent with the employer’s right to
protect his interest in seeing to it that his employees are
performing their jobs with honesty, integrity and good
faith (Marilyn Bernardo v. NLRC, G.R. No. 105819, March
15, 1996).
NOTE: However, such exercise of the right to terminate
must be consistent with the general principles provided
for under Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code. If there
is non-compliance with said provisions, the employer
may be held liable for damages.
Rule when dismissal was done oppressively
The right to dismiss an employee should not be confused
with the manner in which the right is exercised and the
effects flowing therefrom. If the dismissal is done anti-
socially or oppressively then the employer should be
deemed to have violated Art. 1701, NCC which prohibits
acts of oppression by either capital or labor against the
other, and Art. 21 (Quisaba v. Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer &
Plywood, Inc., G.R. No. L-38088, August 30, 1974).
VIOLATION OF RIGHTS COMMITTED BY PUBLIC
OFFICERS
Instances where a public officer can be liable for
damages
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 (Art. 34).
An action may be brought by any person suffering from
material or moral loss because a public servant refuses or
neglects, without just cause to perform his official duty
(Art. 27).
Requisites
1. Defendant is a public officer charged with the
performance of a duty in favor of the plaintiff;
2. He refused or neglected without just cause to
perform such duty (ministerial);
3. Plaintiff sustained material or moral loss as
consequence of such non-performance; and
4. The amount of such damages, if material
Intention of making public officers liable under Art 34
Art. 34 is intended to afford a remedy against police
officers who connive with bad elements, are afraid of
them or simply indifferent to duty.
UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS
201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
INTERFERENCE WITH RELATIONS
Four kinds of interference
Interference with:
1. Family relations;
2. Social relations;
3. Economic relations; and
4. Political relations.
FAMILY RELATIONS
ALIENATION OF AFFECTION
Alienation of affection consists of depriving one spouse of
the affection, society, companionship and comfort of the
other (Aquino, 2005).
The Family Code imposes on the spouses the obligation to
live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity,
and render mutual help and support (Art. 68).
Interference with such may result in the tort liability of
alienation of affection.
The gist of the tort is an interference with one spouse’s
mental attitude toward the other and the conjugal
kindness of marital relations resulting in some actual
conduct which materially affects it.
Scope of “alienation of affection”
Alienation of affections extends to all cases of wrongful
interference in the family affairs of others whereby one
spouse is induced to leave the other spouse or to conduct
himself or herself in a manner that the comfort of married
life is destroyed (Thomas M. Cooley and D. Avery Haggard,
Treatise on the Law of Torts).
Persons liable for alienation of affection
The defendant who purposely entices the spouse of
another, to alienate his or her affections with his or her
spouse, even if there are no sexual intimacies is liable for
damages under this article. Likewise, a person who
prevented the reconciliation of spouses after their
separation is liable for alienation of affections.
NOTE: It is not necessary that there is adultery or the
spouse is deprived of household services.
Liability of parents for alienation of affections
Parents may be liable for alienation of affections.
However, parents are presumed to act for the best
interest of their child. The law recognizes the right of a
parent to advise his/her child and when such advise is
given in good faith, the act, even if it results in separation,
does not give the injured party a right of action (Aquino,
2005).
NOTE: An action for alienation of affection against the
parents of one consort is does not lie in the absence of
proof of malice (Tenchaves v. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671, July
29, 1965).
468
 DAMAGES
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
A spouse has a legal obligation to live with his or her
spouse. If a spouse does not perform his or her duty to the
other, he may be held liable for damages for such omission
because the same is contrary to law, morals and good
customs.
Moral damages were awarded because of the wife’s
refusal to perform her wifely duties, her denial of
consortium and desertion of her husband. Her acts
constitute a willful infliction of injury upon her husband’s
feelings in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy (Tenchaves v. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671, July
29, 1965).
Desertion by a spouse
A spouse has a legal obligation to live with his/her spouse.
Failure of spouse to perform duty to the other entitles the
other to damages, of such omission is contrary to law,
morals, good customs and public policy.
CRIMINAL CONVERSATION (ADULTERY)
Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall
have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and
by the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her
to be married, even if the marriage was subsequently
declared void (Art. 333, RPC).
Concubinage
Concubinage is committed by a husband who shall:
1. Keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
2. Have sexual intercourse with her, under scandalous
circumstances, with a woman not his wife; or
3. Cohabit with her in any other place (Art. 334, RPC).
Liability for adultery or concubinage
Liability for adultery or concubinage based on the law on
torts not only moral damages but also for other
appropriate damages.
There is no legal basis for the imposition of moral
damages in case of bigamy (People v. Bondoc, G.R. No.
22573-R, April 21, 1959).
SOCIAL RELATIONS
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; and
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. 26).
NOTE: The enumeration is not limited because the acts
mentioned are just examples of acts violative of a person’s
469
rights to dignity, personality, privacy, and peace of mind.
Other “similar acts” are also covered within the scope of
the article.
Disturbance of Private Life or Family Relations of
another
A woman cannot be made liable for alienation of the
affections of the husband (of another) for being merely
the object of the affections of said husband. To be liable,
she must have done some active acts calculated to alienate
the affections of the husband.
She must, in a sense, be a “pursuer, not merely the
pursued” (Loper v. Askin, 164 N.Y.S. 1036).
Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his
friends
A person who committed affirmative acts intended to
alienate the existing friendship of one with his friends is
liable for damages (Pineda, 2009).
ECONOMIC RELATIONS
INTERFERENCE WITH
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
Any third person who induces another to violate his
contract shall be liable for damages to the other
contracting parties (Art. 1314).
The interference is penalized because it violates the
property rights of a party in a contract to reap the benefits
that should result therefrom (Lagon v. CA, G.R. No. 119107,
March 18, 2005).
NOTE: A party who has not taken part in it cannot sue or
be sued for performance or for cancellation thereof,
unless he shows that he has a real interest affected
thereby (De Leon, 2012).
Elements
1. Existence of a valid contract;
2. Knowledge on the part of the third person of the
existence of the contract;
3. Interference of the third person without legal
justification or excuse (So Ping Bun v. CA, G.R. No.
120554, September 21, 1999).
Rule regarding the extent of recovery against
defendant found guilty of interference with
contractual relations
Such defendant cannot be held liable for more than the
amount for which the party who induced to break the
contract can be held liable (Daywalt v. La Corporacion, G.R.
No. L-13505, February 4, 1919).
NOTE: It would seem that the rule is consistent with the
provisions of Article 2202 of the New Civil Code only if the
contracting party who was induced to break the contract
was in bad faith.
UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW
However, when there is good faith, the party who
breached the contract is only liable for consequences that
can be foreseen (Art. 2201).
Nature of the liability of the intermeddler
The liability of the intermeddler is solidary because the
former has committed a tortious act or quasi-delict where
liability is solidary (Art. 2941).
Malice of the intermeddler
GR: Malice is essential to make the intermeddler liable.
XPN: If the intention of the intermeddler is honest and
laudable such as when the interference is intended to
protect the contracting party he is intermeddling for, from
danger to his life or property, he should not be made liable
for damages for the breach of the contract.
Interference with prospective advantage
If there is no contract yet and the defendant is only being
sued for inducing another not to enter into a contract with
the plaintiff, the tort committed is appropriately called
interference with prospective advantage.
Rule on business interruption damages
Liability recognized
1. A business owner whose business was interrupted as
a result of a contractor’s delay in completing a
construction project could recover economic
damages from the contractor even though the
business owner had not suffered physical injury or
property damage.
2. A business owner is entitled to recover for business
damages interruption unaccompanied by physical
damage against a supplier of electrical power as a
result of the wrongful termination of the business
electrical services.
3. A business owner who did not sustain any property
damage as a result of a pollution of a waterway but
who suffered an interruption of their business could
recover damages from those responsible for the
pollution.
4. Economic damages could also be recovered against
people who cause the obstruction of a wharf or
landing.
5. A threat of a chemical explosion.
6. A tenant in a building who caused leaking sewer line.
UNFAIR COMPETITION
It consists in employing deception or any other means
contrary to good faith by which any person shall pass off
the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or
his business, or services for those of the one having
established goodwill, or committing any acts calculated to
produce such result (Sec. 29(2), RA 166).
UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS
201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
Basis of the award of damages in case of unfair
competition
It could either be:
1. The reasonable profit which the complainant would
have made had the defendant not infringed his rights
2. The profit which the defendant actually made out of
the infringement
3. Reasonable percentage based upon the amount of
gross sales of the defendant of the value of services
in connection with which the mark or trade names
was issued in the infringement of the complainant.
Elements
1. That the offender gives his goods the general
appearance of the goods of another manufacturer or
dealer;
2. That the general appearance is shown; (a) in the
goods themselves, or in the (b) wrapping of their
packages, or in the (c) device or words therein, or (d)
in any other feature of their appearance;
3. That the offender offers to sell or sells these goods or
gives other persons a chance or opportunity to do the
same with a like purpose; and
4. That there is actual intent to deceive the public or
defraud a competitor (NBI-Microsoft Corp. v. Hwang,
G.R. No. 147043, June 21, 2005).
Unfair competition included in Article 28
1. Passing off or disparagement of products (Sec. 168,
RA 8293);
2. Interference with contractual relations;
3. Interference with prospective advantage;
4. Fraudulent misappropriation against a competition;
and
5. Monopolies and predatory pricing
POLITICAL RELATIONS
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;
470
 DAMAGES
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
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 (Art. 32).
NOTE: The violation of a person’s rights under Article III
of the 1987 Constitution as contemplated in Art. 32
constitutes constitutional tort.
Purpose of Article 32
Its purpose is to provide a sanction to the deeply
cherished rights and freedoms enshrined in the
Constitution (Pineda, 2009).
Good faith not a defense in action for damages
founded on violation of constitutional rights
To be liable under Article 32 of the New Civil Code it is
enough that there is a violation of the constitutional rights
of the plaintiffs and it is not required that defendants
should have acted with malice or bad faith (Largo, 2007).
Judges’ liability for damages
GR: Judges are exempted from damages, if by performing
their duties in good faith, they happen to violate or impair
the rights and liberties mentioned in Article 32.
XPN: If the judge’s act or omission constitutes a violation
of the Revised Penal Code or other penal statute, the judge
is liable for damages aside from criminal liability (Pineda,
2009).
DEFENSES
Defense on interference
The defendants are free from liability if they can prove
that at the time of the commission, the plaintiff knew of
the act of interference or omission.
Defense of privilege in torts cases
To say that an act is “privileged” connotes that the actor
owes no legal duty to refrain from such contact.
471
Consensual v. Non-consensual privilege
Consensual privileges depend on the plaintiff agreeing to
the defendant’s otherwise tortious act. On the other hand,
non-consensual privileges shield the defendant from
liability for otherwise tortious conduct even if the plaintiff
objects to the defendant’s conduct.
Consent as a defense in torts cases and its basis
Typically, one cannot hold another liable in tort for
actions to which one has consented. This is frequently
summarized by the phrase "volenti non fit injuria" ("to a
willing person, no injury is done" or "no injury is done to
a person who consents"). It operates when the claimant
either expressly or implicitly consents to the risk of loss
or damage.
NOTE: Consent is willingness in fact for the conduct to
occur.
Some rules in determining whether consent is
present as a defense
1. It need not be communicated to the defendant;
2. In determining whether plaintiff consented,
defendant must reasonably interpret her overt act
and manifestations of her feelings; and
NOTE: The defendant’s subjective state is based on
the plaintiff’s objective actions.
3. Plaintiff has burden of proof to show intent to
commit the act, lack of consent, and harm.
Consent not a defense if the plaintiff or offended party
is a minor
For one to surrender the right to be free from intentional
interference by others, one must have the mental capacity
to consent. Defendant can be liable despite the fact that
the plaintiff was subjectively willing and communicated
that willingness to the defendant.
Conduct that injures another does not make the actor
liable to the other, even though the other has not
consented to it if:
1. An emergency makes it necessary or apparently
necessary to act before there is opportunity to obtain
consent or one empowered to consent for him, and
2. The actor has no reason to believe that the other
would decline.
Consent will not shield the defendant from liability if
it is procured by means of fraud or duress.
Courts invalidate consent procured by duress when
defendants threaten the plaintiff or plaintiff’s loved ones
with physical harm.
Self-defense as a defense
An actor is privileged to use reasonable force, not
intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm,
UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW
to defend himself against unprivileged harmful contract
which he reasonably believes that another is about to
inflict.
An actor is privileged to defend himself against another
by force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm when
he reasonably believes that:
1. The other is about to inflict upon him an intentional
contact and
2. He is thereby put in peril of death or serious bodily
harm which can safely be prevented only by
immediate use of such force.
NOTE: Court requires objective and subjective belief
(reasonable person could have seen the situation as
dangerous and subject believed that he was in danger).
Proof of a party claiming self-defense
A party claiming self-defense must prove not only that he
acted honestly in using force, but that his fears were
reasonable under the circumstances, and the means of
self-defense were reasonable.
The self-defense privilege extends to protecting total
strangers as well.
Self-defense made by an intervener
The force that may be used by an intervener to repel an
attack on another is measured by the force that the other
could lawfully use.
If the intervener is mistaken, even reasonably mistaken,
the privilege is unavailable if it would not be available to
the person to be protected.
The intervener’s mistake need only be reasonable; there
is no need to show that the victim also had the privilege to
defend himself.
Extent of the privilege to defend his property from
intrusions
An actor is privileged to use reasonable force, not
intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm,
to prevent or terminate another’s intrusion upon the
actor’s land if:
1. The intrusion is not privileged;
2. The actor reasonably believes that the intrusion can
be prevented only by the force used; and
3. The actor has first requested the other to desist or
the actor believes such request will be useless or
substantial harm will be done before it can be made.
The intentional infliction which is intended or likely to
cause death or serious bodily harm, for the purpose of
preventing or terminating the other’s intrusion upon the
actor’s possession of land, is privileged only if the actor
reasonably believes that the intruder is likely to cause
death or serious bodily harm.
Q: The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the
right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and
disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such
UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS
201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or
prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of his property (Art. 429). Is
the owner’s right provided for in the said article an
absolute right?
A: NO. In the following instances, this right may not be
invoked by the owner:
1. One may sacrifice the personal property of another
to save his life or the lives of his fellows;
2. One is privileged by necessity to trespass when there
is a serious threat to life and no other lifesaving
option is available; and
3. The owner of property may not eject a trespasser if
the trespasser requires entry to protest himself and
his property from harm.
NOTE: In these instances, intrusion is said to be
privileged. The necessity privilege to enter the land of
another in order to avoid serious harm is coupled with an
obligation on the part of the entrant to pay for whatever
harm he caused.
Recapture of property
In order for recapture of chattels to be raised as a defense,
two things must concur: first, possession by the owner,
and, second, a purely wrongful taking or conversion,
without a claim of right (Kirby v. Foster, 298 F.3d 219).
If personal property is involved, recapture of chattels is a
proper defense, if it is a real property, recapture of land is
a defense. Such recapture of land defense is most
frequently present in landlord-tenant disputes. It is
generally held by the courts that no privilege exists for a
landowner to forcibly enter the tenant's premises or
interfere with the tenant's person or property.
Discipline as a defense in intentional torts
Based on a person's status or profession, he may be
entitled to use reasonable force in order to discipline
others. If a person such as a teacher, parent, or military
official commits a tort which results in injury to a plaintiff,
as long as certain conditions are met, the defense of
discipline will excuse him from liability.
Necessity as a defense
Necessity is a tort defense that is used under unusual,
emergency circumstances where a defendant injures a
plaintiff in order to prevent a greater harm. The defendant
must prove that the harm inflicted on the plaintiff's
person or property was less than the harm that was
prevented.
Legal authority as a defense
May be invoked by the following:
1. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in
the lawful exercise of a right or office because an
officer of the law is protected by the legal system
when making an arrest, permitting that he properly
followed the legal process.
472
 DAMAGES
2. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued
by a superior for some lawful purpose (Art. 11(5-6),
RPC).
NOTE: Under the RPC, a justifying circumstance relieves
the offender not only from criminal liability but also from
civil liability
NEGLIGENCE
Negligence is the omission of that degree of diligence
which is required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponding to the circumstances of the persons, time
and place (Art. 1173).
Test of negligence
The test is would a prudent man, in the position of the
tortfeasor, foresee harm to the person injured as a
reasonable consequence of the course about to be
pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to take
precaution against its mischievous results, and failure to
do so constitutes negligence (Picart v. Smith, G.R. No. L-
12219, March 15, 1918).
Degrees of negligence
1. Simple negligence – Want of slight care and diligence
only.
2. Gross negligence – There is a glaringly obvious want
of diligence and implies conscious indifference to
consequences (Amadeo v. Rio Y Olabarrieta, Inc., G.R.
No. L-6870, May 24, 1954); pursuing a course of
conduct which would probably and naturally result
to injury (Marinduque Iron Mines Agents, Inc. v. The
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-
8110 June 30, 1956).
Circumstances to be considered in determining
whether an act is negligent
1. Person Exposed to the Risk – A higher degree of
diligence is required if the person involved is a child.
2. Emergency – The actor confronted with an
emergency is not to be held up to the standard of
conduct normally applied to an individual who is in
no such situation.
3. Social Value or Utility of Action – Any act subjecting
an innocent person to unnecessary risk is a negligent
act if the risk outweighs the advantage accruing to
the actor and even to the innocent person himself.
4. Time of the day – May affect the diligence required of
the actor (Art. 1173); e.g. a driver is required to
exercise more prudence when driving at night
5. Gravity of the Harm to be Avoided – Even if the odds
that an injury will result are not high, harm may still
be considered foreseeable if the gravity of harm to be
avoided is great.
6. Alternative Cause of Action – If the alternative
presented to the actor is too costly, the harm that
may result may still be considered unforeseeable to
a reasonable man. More so if there is no alternative
thereto.
7. Place – A man who should occasion to discharge a
gun on an open and extensive harsh, or in a forest
473
would be required to use less circumspection and
care, then if he were to do the same thing in an
inhabited town, village or city.
8. Violation of Rules and Statutes
a. Statutes
b. Administrative Rules
c. Private Rules of Conduct
9. Practice and Custom – A practice which is dangerous
to human life cannot ripen into a custom which will
protect anyone who follows it (Yamada v. Manila
Railroad Co., G.R. No. 10073, December 24, 1915).
Quantum of proof on negligence
The quantum of proof is preponderance of evidence (Rule
133(1), Rules of Court).
Burden of proof
GR: Plaintiff alleging damage due to negligent acts in his
complaint has the burden of proving such negligence
XPN: When the rules or the law provide for cases when
negligence is presumed.
Disputable presumptions of negligence
1. Motor vehicle mishaps – a driver is presumed
negligent if he:
a. was found guilty of reckless driving or violating
traffic regulations at least twice within the
preceding two months (Art. 2184); or
b. was violating any traffic regulation at the time of
the mishap (Art. 2185).
2. Possession of dangerous weapons or substances,
results in death or injury, except when the
possession or use thereof is indispensable in his
occupation or business (Art. 2188).
3. Common carrier are presumed to have been at fault
or acted negligently in case of death or injuries to
passengers. Unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence (Art. 1733 & 1755).
Intoxication not negligence per se
Mere intoxication is not negligence per se nor establishes
want of ordinary care. But it may be one of the
circumstances to be considered to prove negligence
(Wright v. MERALCO, G.R. No. L-7760, October 1, 1914).
Doctrine of Comparative Negligence
The negligence of both the plaintiff and 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 (Pineda,
2009)
The relative degree of negligence of the parties is
considered in determining whether, and to what degree,
either should be responsible for his negligence
(apportionment of damages).
NOTE: Under the modified form, the plaintiff can recover
only if his negligence is less than or equals that of the
UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW
defendant. Expressed in terms of percentages, a plaintiff
who is charged with 80% of the total negligence can
recover only 20% of his damages (De Leon, 2012).
GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY OR
REASONABLY PRUDENT MAN
General standard of diligence provided for under the
NCC
Bonus Pater Familias or that of a good father of a family.
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 (Art. 1173
(2)).
NOTE: In English law, he is sometimes referred to as the
man on top of a Clapham omnibus (Aquino, 2005)
Concept of a good father of the family (pater familias)
He is not and is not supposed to be omniscient of the
future; rather, he is one who takes precautions against
any harm when there is something before him to suggest
or warn him of the danger or to foresee it (Picart v. Smith,
G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918).
The law requires a man to possess ordinary capacity to
avoid harming his neighbors unless a clear and manifest
incapacity is shown; but it does not generally hold him
liable for unintentional injury unless, possessing such
capacity, he might ought to have foreseen the danger
(Corliss v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. L-21291, March 28,
1969).
Rule in case of fault or negligence of an obligor
1. Art. 1173 - Provides that 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.
NOTE: Art. 1171, responsibility arising from fraud is
demandable in all obligations. Any waiver of an
action for future fraud is void.
2. 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.
NOTE: 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 (Ibid.)
UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS
201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
Concept of Good Faith
Good faith refers to the state of the mind which is
manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It
consists of the intention to abstain from taking an
unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another.
(DBP v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 137916, December 8, 2004).
Application of standard of diligence to children
GR: The action of a child will not necessarily be judged
according to the standard of an adult.
XPN: If the minor is mature enough to understand and
appreciate the nature and consequences of his actions. In
such a case, he shall be considered to have been negligent.
NOTE: Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (RA 9344):
15 years of age or younger – age of absolute
irresponsibility.
Nevertheless, absence of negligence does not absolutely
excuse the child from liability, as his properties, if any, can
be held subsidiarily liable. Nor will such absence of
negligence excuse the child’s parent’s vicarious liability.
“Diligence before the fact”
The conduct that should be examined in negligence cases
is prior conduct or conduct prior to the injury that
resulted or, in proper cases, the aggravation thereof.
STANDARD OF CARE
STANDARD OF CONDUCT or
DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED
In General
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 (Article 1173(2)).
NOTE: Diligence of a good father of a family - bonus
pater familias - A reasonable man is deemed to have
knowledge of the facts that a man should be
expected to know based on ordinary human
experience (PNR v. IAC, G.R. No. 7054, January 22,
1993).
Persons who have Physical Disability
GR: A weak or accident prone person must come up
to the standard of a reasonable man, otherwise, he
will be considered as negligent.
XPN: If the defect amounts to a real disability, the
standard of conduct is that of a reasonable person
under like disability.
Experts and Professionals
GR: They should exhibit the case and skill of one who
is ordinarily skilled in the particular field that he is
in.
474
 DAMAGES
NOTE: This rule does not apply solely or exclusively
to professionals who have undergone formal
education.
XPN: When the activity, by its very nature, requires
the exercise of a higher degree of diligence
e.g. Banks; Common carriers
Insane Persons
The insanity of a person does not excuse him or his
guardian from liability based on quasi-delict (Arts.
2180 & 2182). This means that the act or omission of
the person suffering from mental defect will be
judged using the standard test of a reasonable man.
The bases for holding a permanently insane person
liable for his torts are as follows:
1. Where one of two innocent person must
suffer a loss it should be borne by the one
who occasioned it;
2. To induce those interested in the estate of
the insane person (if he has one) to
restrain and control him; and
3. The fear that an insanity defense would lead
to false claims of insanity to avoid liability
(Bruenig v. American Family Insurance Co.,
173 N.W. 2d 619(1970)).
NOTE: Under the RPC, an insane person is exempt
from criminal liability. However, by express
provision of law, there may be civil liability even
when the actor is exempt from criminal liability. An
insane person is still liable with his property for the
consequences of his acts, though they performed
unwittingly (US v. Baggay, Jr. G.R. No. 6659,
September 1, 1911).
Employers
That degree of care as mandated by the Labor Code
or other mandatory provisions for proper
maintenance of the work place or adequate facilities
to ensure the safety of the employees.
NOTE: Failure of the employer to comply with
mandatory provisions may be considered
negligence per se.
Employees
Employees are bound to exercise due care in the
performance of their functions for the employers.
Liability may be based on negligence committed
while in the performance of the duties of the
employee (Araneta v. De Joya, G.R. No. L-25172, May
24, 1974).
Owners, Proprietors and
Possessors of Property
GR: The owner has no duty to take reasonable care
towards a trespasser for his protection or even to
protect him from concealed danger.
XPN:
1. Visitors – Owners of buildings or premises owe
a duty of care to visitors.
475
2. Tolerated Possession - Owner is still liable if the
plaintiff is inside his property by tolerance or by
implied permission. However, common carriers
may be held liable for negligence to persons
who stay in their premises even if they are not
passengers
3. Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
4. State of Necessity – A situation of present danger
to legally protected interests, in which there is
no other remedy than the injuring of another’s
also legally protected interest.
Doctors
If a General Practitioner – Ordinary care and
diligence in the application of his knowledge and
skill in the practice of his profession
If a Specialist – The legal duty to the patient is
generally considered to be that of an average
physician.
Lawyers
An attorney is bound to exercise only a reasonable
degree of care and skill, having reference to the
business he undertakes to do (Adarne v. Aldaba, A.M.
No. 801, June 27, 1978).
UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM
Elements to be considered to determine if a person
has exposed himself to an unreasonable great risk
1. Magnitude of the risk;
2. Principal object;
3. Collateral object;
4. Utility of the risk; and
5. Necessity of the risk
If the magnitude of the risk is very great and the principal
object, very valuable, yet the value of the collateral object
and the great utility and necessity of the risk
counterbalanced those considerations, the risk is made
reasonable (Prosser and Keeton, Law of Torts, 1984 Ed.,
p.173, citing Terry, Negligence, 24 Harv. L. Rev. 40,42).
NOTE: In the Philippines, the courts do not use any
formula in determining if the defendant committed a
negligent act or omission. What appears to be the norm is
to give negligence a common sense, intuitive
interpretation (Aquino, 2005).
In the field of negligence, interests are to be balanced only
in the sense that the purposes of the actor, the nature of
his act and the harm that may result from action or
inaction are elements to be considered. Some may not be
considered depending on the circumstances.
The following are circumstances to be considered:
1. Time
2. Place
3. Emergency
4. Gravity of harm to be avoided
5. Alternative course of action
6. Social value or utility of activity
UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW
7. Person exposed to the risk (Ibid.).
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE (2000, 2009 BAR)
Persons are generally presumed to have taken ordinary
care of his concerns. There are however exceptions when
negligence is presumed:
1. Article 2184 - It is disputably presumed that a driver
was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless
driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice
within the next preceding two months.
2. Article 2185 - Unless there is proof to the contrary, it
is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has
been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic regulation.
NOTE: Proof of traffic violation required.
3. Article 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 possession or use thereof is
indispensable in his occupation or business.
NOTE: Proof of possession of dangerous weapons or
substances required.
4. Article 1756 - In case of death or injuries of
passengers, common carriers are presumed to have
been at fault or acted negligently, unless they prove
that they observed extraordinary diligence
prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755.
5. Captain of the ship doctrine - A surgeon is likened to
a captain of the ship, in that it is his duty to control
everything going on in the operating room. Thus,
negligence committed during the operation is
attributable to him.
NOTE: the negligence of an employee gives rise to the
negligence of the employer due to the diligence of the
selection of employees rule (Poblete v. Fabros, G.R. No. L-
29803, September 14, 1979).
Negligence is proven by
1. Direct evidence
2. Circumstantial evidence
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
The thing speaks for itself. Rebuttable presumption or
inference that defendant was negligent, which arises
upon proof that instrumentality causing injury was in
defendant’s exclusive control, and that the accident was
one which ordinarily does not happen in absence of
negligence. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 2004).
However, res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of substantive law
and, as such, does not create nor constitute an
independent or separate ground of liability. Instead, it is
considered as merely evidentiary or in the nature of a
procedural rule (Professional Services v. Agana, G.R. No.
126297, January 31, 2007).
UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS
201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
NOTE: It is also known as the “Doctrine of Common
Knowledge.”
Requisites for the application of the doctrine
Resort to the doctrine may be allowed only when:
1. The accident is of such character as to warrant an
inference that it would not have happened except for
the defendant’s negligence;
2. The accident must have caused by an agency or
instrumentality within the exclusive management or
control of the person charged with the negligence
complained of; and
3. The accident must not have been due to any
voluntary action or contribution on the part of the
person injured (Josefa v. MERALCO, G.R. No. 182705,
July 18, 2014).
Thus, it is not applicable when an unexplained accident
may be attributable to one of several causes, for some of
which the defendant could not be responsible (FGU
Insurance Corp. v. G. P. Sarmiento Trucking Co., G.R. No.
141910, August 6, 2002).
When doctrine is applicable
All that the plaintiff must prove is the accident itself; no
other proof of negligence is required beyond the accident
itself. It relates to the fact of an injury that sets out an
inference to the cause thereof or establishes the plaintiff’s
prima facie case. The doctrine rests on inference and not
on presumption. (Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Sps.
Sarangaya, G.R. No. 147746, October 25, 2005).
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies where a
passenger ship caught fire and sank while in the custody
of the petitioner to which it was brought for annual repair
because the fire that occurred and consumed the ship
would not have happened in the ordinary course of things
if reasonable care and diligence had been exercised by the
petitioner (Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. v.
William Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 132607, May 5, 1999).
Three uses and applications of the doctrine
1. In medical negligence cases;
2. In the exercise of abuse of judicial discretion cases
which will result in dismissal of the judge; and
3. In practical instances
Some cases where doctrine was held inapplicable
1. Where there is direct proof of absence or presence of
negligencp/e;
2. Where other causes, including the conduct of the
plaintiff and third persons, are not sufficiently
eliminated by the evidence;
3. When one or more requisite is absent (Aquino, 2005).
Test of Foreseeability
The court will place itself in the actor’s position to see if a
prudent man could have foreseen the resulting harm if the
conduct is pursued (Ibid.).
476
 DAMAGES
DEFENSES AGAINST NEGLIGENCE the consequences must be borne by the injured person
alone. The law affords no remedy for damages resulting
1. Due Diligence from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or
2. Accident or Fortuitous event wrong.
3. Damnum Absque Injuria
4. Presumption of Regularity NOTE: When the conjunction of damage and wrong is
5. Sudden peril doctrine/Emergency rule wanting there is no damnum absque injuria (Lagon v. CA,
6. Assumption of Risk G.R. No. 119107, March 18, 2005).
7. Contributory Negligence
8. Volenti non fit injuria Liability without Fault different from Damnum
9. Last Clear Chance Absque Injuria
10. Prescription
11. Waiver Liability without Fault includes:
12. Double Recovery a. Strict Liability – there is strict liability if one is
made independent of fault, negligence or intent
DUE DILIGENCE after establishing certain facts specified by law.
It includes liability for conversion and for
In order that due dilligence as a defense may be availed of injuries caused by animals, ultra-hazardous
in the selection and supervision of employees, the mere activities and nuisance.
formulation of company policies is not enough: it is b. Product Liability – is the law which governs the
necessary that they must be complied with (Metro Manila liability of manufacturers and sellers for
Transit Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 104408, June 21, 1993). damages resulting from defective products
(Aquino, 2005).
NOTE: There is no hard or fast rule on the quantum of
evidence needed to prove due to observance of all the PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY
dilligence of a good father of a family. Actual
implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance Mistakes committed by public officers are not actionable
with said rules is required. absent any clear showing of malice or gross negligence
amounting to bad faith (Farolan v. Solmac Marketing
ACCIDENT OR FOTUITOUS EVENT Corp., G.R. No. 83589, March 13, 1991).

An event which takes place by accident and could not have
been forseen. When the effect is found to be partly the
result of the participation of man, whether it be from
active intervention or neglect, the failure to act the whole
occurrence is humanized and removed from the rules
applicable to acts of God (Southern College, Inc. v. CA, G.R.
No. 126389, July 10, 1998).
NOTE: The relation of cause and effect must clearly be
shown.
Requisites:
1. The event must be independent of human will;
2. The occurrence must render it impossible for the
debtor to fulfill the obligaton in a normal manner;
3. The obligor must be free from participation in, or
aggravation of the injury to the creditor. It must be
impossible to foresee, or if it could be forseen, must
have been impossible to avoid (MIAA v. ALA
Industries Corp., G.R. No. 147349, February 13, 2004).
Liability in case furtuitous event and concurs
When act of God combines with the negligence of man
which results in injury, the defendant is liable for injury
(Ilocos Norte Electric Co. v. CA, G.R. No. L-53401, November
6, 1989).
DAMNUN ABSQUE INJURIA
(DAMAGE WITHOUT PREJUDICE)
SUDDEN PERIL DOCTRINE
(EMERGENCY RULE)
GR: One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger,
and is required to act without time to consider the best
means that may be adopted to avoid the impending
danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may have been a better
method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself
is brought about by his own negligence (Mc Kee v. IAC, G.R.
No. 68102-3, July 16, 1992).
XPN: The emergency was brought about by the
individual’s own negligence (Valenzuaela v. CA, G.R. No.
115024, Febuary 7, 1996).
NOTE: Emergency rule exempts common carriers from
liability.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK
The doctrine assumes that a plaintiff who voluntarily
assumes a risk of harm from the negligent conduct of the
defendant cannot recover from such harm (De Leon,
2012).
Elements
1. The plaintiff must know that the risk is present;
2. He must further understand its nature; and
3. His choice to incur it is free and voluntary.

A person who only exercises his legal rights does no

injury. If damages result from such exercise of legal rights,

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
477 F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW
Kinds of assumption of risk
1. Express waiver of the right to recover;
2. Implied assumption
a. Dangerous Conditions - A person who, knowing
that he is exposed to a dangerous condition,
voluntarily assumes the risk of such dangerous
condition may not recover from the defendant
who maintained such dangerous condition.
b. Contractual Relations - There may be an implied
assumption of risk if the plaintiff entered into
contractual relations 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 accept and consent to it, and to undertake to
look out for himself and to relieve the defendant
of the duty.
c. Dangerous Activities - A person who voluntarily
participates in dangerous activities assumes the
risks which are usually present in such
activities.
d. Defendant’s negligence - When the plaintiff is
aware of the risk created by the defendant’s
negligence, yet he voluntarily proceeds to
encounter it, there is implied assumption of risk
on the part of the plaintiff.
When rule does not apply
However, a person is excused from the force of the rule,
that when he voluntarily assents to a known danger he
must abide by the consequences, if an emergency is found
to exist or if the life or property of another is in peril, or
when he seeks to rescue his endangered property (Largo,
2007).
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
It 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 (Valenzuela v. CA, G.R. No. 115024,
February 7, 1996).
NOTE: A child under nine (9) years of age is conclusively
presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a
matter of law (Jarco Marketing Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 129792,
December 21, 1999).
Principle of contributory negligence cannot apply in
criminal cases through reckless imprudence
The principle of contributory negligence cannot be used
as defense in criminal cases through reckless imprudence
because one cannot allege the negligence of another to
evade the effects of his own negligence (People v.
Quinones, 44 O.G. 1520; People v. Orbeto, C.A. 430 O.G.
3173).
UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS
201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA
“to which a person assents is not deemed in law as
injury”
It refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury
which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has
knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger,
even if he is not negligent in doing so (Nikko Hotel Manila
Garden, et al. v. Reyes, G.R. No. 154259, February 28, 2005).
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
(DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERED PERIL)
This is also called as the “Humanitarian Negligence
Doctrine.” Where both parties are negligent but the
negligent act of one succeeds that of the other by an
appreciable interval of time, the one who has the last
reasonable opportunity to avoid the impending harm and
fails to do so, is chargeable with the consequences,
without reference to the prior negligence of the other
party (Picart v. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918).
The doctrine of last clear chance is a theory adopted to
mitigate the harshness of the contributory negligence of
the plaintiff (Phoenix Construction Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. L-
65295, March 10, 1987).
Requisites:
1. Plaintiff is placed in danger by his own negligent acts
and he is unable to get out from such situation by any
means;
2. Defendant knows that the plaintiff is in danger and
knows or should have known that the plaintiff was
unable to extricate himself therefrom; and
3. Defendant had the last clear chance or opportunity to
avoid the accident through the exercise of ordinary
care but failed to do so, and the accident occurred as
a proximate result of such failure (Pineda, 2009).
Instances when doctrine not applicable
1. When the injury or accident cannot be avoided by the
application of all means at hand after the peril has
been discovered (Pantranco North Expressway v.
Baesa, G.R. Nos. 79050-51, November 14, 1989);
2. If the defendant’s negligence is a concurrent cause
and which was still in operation up to the time the
injury was inflicted;
3. Where the plaintiff, a passenger, filed an action
against a carrier based on contract (Bustamante v. CA,
G.R. No. 89880, February 6, 1991);
4. If the actor, though negligent, was not aware of the
danger or risk brought about by the prior fraud or
negligent act;
5. In case of a collapse of a building or structure (De Roy
v. CA, G.R. No. 80718, January 29, 1988);
6. Where both parties are negligent (Philippine
National Railways v. Brunty, G.R. No. 169891,
November 2, 2006);
7. In case of collision, it applies in a suit between the
owners and drivers of colliding vehicles and not
where a passenger demands responsibility from the
carrier to enforce its contractual obligations (Tiu v.
Arriesgado, G.R. No. 138060, September 1, 2004).
478
 DAMAGES
NOTE: There is a different rule in case of collision of
vessels.
Q: Mr. and Mrs. R own a burned-out building, the
firewall of which collapsed and destroyed the shop
occupied by the family of Mr. and Mrs. S, which
resulted in injuries to said couple and the death of
their daughter. Mr. and Mrs. S had been warned by Mr.
& Mrs. R to vacate the shop in view of its proximity to
the weakened wall but the former failed to do so. Mr.
& Mrs. S filed against Mr, and Mrs. R an action for
recovery of damages the former suffered as a result of
the collapse of the firewall. In defense, Mr. and Mrs. R
rely on the doctrine of last clear chance alleging that
Mr. and Mrs. S had the last clear chance to avoid the
accident if only they heeded the former’s warning to
vacate the shop, and therefore Mr. and Mrs. R’s prior
negligence should be disregarded. If you were the
judge, how would you decide the case? (1990 BAR)
A: I would decide in favor of Mr. & Mrs. S. 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. 2190). As regards
the defense of last clear chance, the same is not tenable
because according to the Supreme Court in one case (De
Roy v. CA L-80718, January 29, 1988) the doctrine of last
clear chance is not applicable to instances covered by Art
2190 of the Civil Code. Further, in Phoenix Construction,
Inc. v. IAC, G.R. L-65295, March 10, 1987) the Supreme
Court held that the role of the common law "last clear
chance" doctrine in relation to Art. 2179 of the Civil Code
is merely to mitigate damages within the context of
contributory negligence.
PRESCRIPTION
The act of establishing authoritative rules. The effect of
the lapse of time in creating and destroying rights (Black’s
Law Dictionary, 2004).
Articles Period
10 years – written contract; obligation
1144
created by law and upon judgment
1146 6 years – oral contract and quasi-contract
All kinds of actions, when there is no special
1150 provision – shall be counted from the day
they may be brought
WAIVER
It is a legally enforceable claim of one person against
another, that the other shall do a given act, or shall not do
a given act (Pineda, 2011).
Requisites
1. Existence of a right;
2. Knowledge of the evidence thereof; and
3. An intention to relinquish it. (Valderama v. Macalde,
G.R. No. 165005, September 16, 2005).
479
DOUBLE RECOVERY
Prohibition against Double Recovery (2003, 2006
BAR)
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 (Art. 2177).
SPECIAL LIABILITY ON PARTICULAR ACTIVITIES
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
Product and service liability
Product Liability is the law which governs the liability of
manufacturers and sellers for damages resulting from
defective products. It is meant to protect the consumers
by providing safeguards when they purchase or use
consumer products (Aquino, 2005).
General principles to determine product liability
1. Regardless of the ground on which liability is
asserted, whether negligence, breach of warranty or
strict liability in tort, a manufacturer or seller of a
product cannot be held liable for injury allegedly
caused in the absence of proof that the product was
defective when it left the defendant’s possession or
control and that the injury was proximately caused
by the product.
2. Misuse of the product is a bar to recovery in a
products liability case based on strict liability in tort.
3. Privity of contract is not a requisite to recovery in a
products liability case based on breach of warranty.
Consumer Act (RA 7394)
It prohibits fraudulent sales, acts or practices. Chapter I of
Title III expressly provides for protection against
defective, unfair and unconscionable sales acts and
practices. The Act likewise contains provisions imposing
warranty obligations on the manufacturers and sellers.
This Act also imposes liability for defective service
“independently of fault.”
Persons made liable under the Consumer Act
The strict liability under the Act is imposed on the
manufacturer.
A manufacturer is any person who manufactures,
assembles or processes consumer products, except that if
the goods are manufactured, assembled or processed for
another person who attaches his own brand name to the
consumer products, the latter shall be deemed the
manufacturer. In case of imported products, the
manufacturer’s representatives or, in his absence, the
importer shall be deemed the manufacturer (Art. 4, RA
7394).
UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW
Kinds of defects in product
1. Manufacturing defect – defects resulting from
manufacture, construction, assembly and erection.
2. Design defect – defects resulting from design and
formulas.
3. Presentation defect – defects resulting from handling,
making up, presentation or packing of the products.
4. Absence of Appropriate Warning – defect resulting
from the insufficient or inadequate information on
the use and hazards of the products.
Defenses of a manufacturer and supplier
Art. 97 of the Consumer Act provides that the
manufacturer shall not be liable when it evidences:
1. That it did not place the product on the market;
2. That although it did place the product on the market
such product has no defect; and
3. That the consumer or the third party is solely at fault.
NOTE: On the other hand, Art. 99 of said Act provides that
the supplier shall not be liable when it is proven:
That there is no defect in the service rendered; and
That the consumer or the third party is solely at fault.
Remedies of a consumer in the Consumer Act
Sec. 60 of the law expressly provides that the court may
grant injunction restraining the conduct constituting the
contravention of illegal sales act and practices and/or
actual damages and such other orders as it thinks fit to
redress injury to the person affected by such conduct.
Product Liability by Manufacturers
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 (Art. 2187).
Requisites to cover on account of hidden defects
1. The defect must be hidden;
2. The defect must exist at the time the sale was made;
3. The defect must ordinarily have been excluded;
4. The defect must be important (it must render thing
unfit or considerably decrease fitness); and
5. The action must be instituted within the statute of
limitations (Nutrimix Feeds Corporation v. CA, G.R. No.
152219, October 25, 2004).
Doctrine of Limited Liability
A stipulation that limits liability is valid so long as it is not
against public policy. The liability of the common carrier
shall not exceed the value of the goods as that appearing
in the bill of lading (Edgar Cokaliong Shipping Lines, Inc. v.
UCPB General Insurance Co. Inc., G.R. No. 146018, June 25,
2006).
Q: Mabuhay Elementary School organized a field trip
for its Grade VI students in Fort Santiago, Manila Zoo,
and Star City. To be able to join, the parents of the
UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS
201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
students had to sign a piece of paper that reads as
follows:
"I allow my child (name of student),
Grade – Section, to join the school’s
field trip on February 14, 2014.
I will not file any claim against the
school, administrator or teacher in
case something happens to my child
during the trip."
Joey, a 7-year-old student of Mabuhay Elementary
School was bitten by a snake while the group was
touring Manila Zoo. The parents of Joey sued the
school for damages. The school, as a defense,
presented the waiver signed by Joey’s parents.
Was there a valid waiver of right to sue the school?
Why? (2014 BAR)
A: NO, there was no valid waiver of the right to sue the
school. A waiver to be valid must have three requisites 1)
existence of the right; 2) legal capacity of the person
waiving the right and 3) the waiver must not be contrary to
law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy or
prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
In the case presented, the waiver may be considered
contrary to public policy as it exonerates the school from
liability for future negligence. The waiver in effect allows
the school to not exercise even ordinary diligence.
STRICT LIABILITY
There is strict liability if one is made independent of fault,
negligence or intent after establishing certain facts
specified by law. It includes liability for conversion and
for injuries caused by animals, ultra-hazardous activities
and nuisance.
POSSESSOR AND USER OF AN ANIMAL
Liability for damages caused by the animals
GR: The possessor or whoever makes use of the animal is
liable independent of fault.
XPN: When the damage is caused by force majeure or by
the person who suffered the damage.
Rules on liability of owners for damage caused by his
animals
1. An owner is strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable
damage done by a trespass of his animals.
2. An owner is strictly liable to licensees and invitees
for injuries caused by wild animals as long as the
injured person did nothing to bring about the injury.
3. An owner is not strictly liable for injuries caused by
domestic animals unless he has knowledge of that
particular animal's dangerous propensities that are
not common to the species.
4. Strict liability will generally not be imposed in favor
of trespassers in the absence of the owner's
negligence. An exception is recognized for injuries
inflicted by vicious watchdogs.
480
 DAMAGES
Wild Beast Theory Public v. Private Nuisance

A person who for his own purposes brings on his land and Public Nuisance Private Nuisance
collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it Affects the public at large Affects the individual or a
escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does not do so, or such of them as may limited number of
is prima facie answerable for all the damages which is the come in contact with it. individuals only.
natural consequence of its escape. It is therefore
unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove negligence, and it is Remedies are indictable. Actionable, either for
no defense for a defendant to prove that he has taken all their abatement or for
possible precautions to prevent the damage (Ryland v. damages, or both.
Fletcher, L.R. 1 Ex. 265).
Complainant need not Complainant in private
Owner liable if victim is a stranger have property or use nuisance seeks to protect
interest in any property his own, current interest
The owner of an animal is not liable for injury caused by affected by the in the undisturbed
it to its caretaker. However, he may be held liable if the defendant’s conduct. enjoyment of or benefit
victim is a stranger (Afialde v. Hisole, G.R. No. L-2075, from property.
November 29, 1949).
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
Q: Primo owns a pet iguana, which he keeps in a man-
made pond enclosed by a fence situated in his One who maintains on his premises dangerous
residential lot. A typhoon knocked down the fence of instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to
the pond and the iguana crawled out of the gate of attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary
Primo’s residence. N, a neighbor who was passing by, care to prevent them from playing therefrom is liable to a
started throwing stones at the iguana, drawing the child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the
iguana to move towards him. N panicked and ran but child is a trespasser.
tripped on something and suffered a broken leg. Is
anyone liable for N’s injury? Explain. (2010 BAR) DAMAGES

A: No one is liable. The possessor of an animal or whoever
may make use of the same is responsible for the damage
which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This
responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should
come from force majeure or from the fault of the person
who has suffered damage (Art. 2183).
In legal contemplation, the term “damages” is the sum of
money which the law awards or imposes as a pecuniary
compensation, a recompense or satisfaction for an injury
done or wrong sustained as a consequence either of a
breach of a contractual obligation or a tortious act (MEA
Builders, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 121484, January 31, 2005).

NUISANCE NOTE: A complaint for damages is personal in nature

Any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of
property, or anything else which condition of property, or
anything else which:
1. Hinders or impairs the user of property;
2. Annoys or offends the senses;
3. Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality;
4. Injuries or endangers the health or safety of other; or
5. Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any
public highway or street, or any body of water.
(personal action).
Damages can only be paid with money
Damages can only be paid with money and not “palay”
because “palay” is not a legal tender currency in the
Philippines (Vda. Simeon Borlado v. CA, G.R. No. 114118,
August 28, 2001).
Kinds of damages (MENTAL)

Whether rights of property, of health, of comfort are so 1. Moral

injuriously affected by the noise that the sufferer is 2. Exemplary
subjected to a loss which goes beyond the reasonable 3. Nominal
limit imposed by him by the condition of living (Velasco v. 4. Temperate
MERALCO, G.R. No. L-18390, August 6, 1971). 5. Actual
6. Liquidated
Two fields of liability

1. Public Nuisance - the doing of or the failure to do

something that injuriously affects safety, health, or
morals of the public, or works some substantial
annoyance, inconvenience, or injury to the public
2. Private Nuisance - one which violates only private
rights and produces damage to but one or a few
persons, and cannot be said to be public

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
481 F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW

ACTUAL/
MORAL NOMINAL
COMPENSATORY
According to purpose
Actual or compensatory damages Awarded only to enable the injured Vindicating or recognizing the injured
simply make good or replace the loss party to obtain means, diversion or party’s right to a property that has been
caused by the wrong. amusement that will alleviate the violated or invaded (Tan v. Bantegui,
moral suffering he has undergone, by G.R. No. 154027, October 24, 2005).
reason of defendants culpable action
(Robleza v. CA, G.R. No. L-80364, June 28,
1989).
According to manner of determination
Claimant must produce competent No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary.
proof or the best evidence obtainable The assessment is left to the discretion Proof that a legal right has been
such as receipts to justify an award of the court according to the violated is what is only required.
therefore. Actual or compensatory circumstances of each case. However, Usually awarded in the absence of
damages cannot be presumed but must there must be proof that the defendant proof of actual damages.
be proved with reasonable certainty caused physical suffering, mental
(People v. Ereo, G.R. No. 124706, anguish, moral shock, etc. (Compañia
February 22, 2000). Maritima v. CA, G.R. No. L-31379, August
29, 1988).

GR: Actual damages must be GR: Factual basis must be alleged.

substantiated by documentary
evidence, such as receipts, in order to
prove expenses incurred as a result of
the death of the victim or the physical
injuries sustained by the victim
(Philippine Hawk Corporation v. Vivian
Tan Lee, G.R. No. 166869, February 16,
2010).
XPN: Damages for loss of earning
capacity may be awarded despite the
absence of documentary evidence
when:
(1) the deceased is self-employed and
earning less than the minimum wage
under current labor laws, in which
case, judicial notice may be taken of the
fact that in the deceased's line of work
no documentary evidence is available;
or (2) the deceased is employed as a
daily wage worker earning less than
the minimum wage under current labor
laws (Ibid.).
Ordinary
Aside from the need for the claimant to
satisfactorily prove the existence of the
factual basis of the damages, it is also
necessary to prove its causal relation to
the defendant’s act (People v. Manero,
G.R. Nos. 86883-85, January 29, 1993).
XPN: Criminal cases. Moral damages
may be awarded to the victim in
criminal proceedings in such amount
as the court deems just without need
for pleading or proof of the basis
thereof (People v. Paredes, G.R. No.
136105, October 23, 2001). The amount
of P50,000 is usually awarded by the
Court in case of the occurrence of death
Special/Ordinary
Special Special

NOTE: Ordinary Damages are those NOTE: Special Damages are those
generally inherent in a breach of a which exist because of special
typical contract circumstances and for which a debtor
in good faith can be held liable if he had
been previously informed of such
circumstances.

UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS 482

201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
 DAMAGES

EXEMPLARY/
TEMPERATE LIQUIDATED
CORRECTIVE

According to purpose

When the court is convinced that there
has been such a loss, the judge is
empowered to calculate moderate
damages rather than let the
complainant suffer without redress
(GSIS v. Labung-Deang, G.R. No.
135644, September 17, 2001).
Liquidated damages are frequently
agreed upon by the parties, either by
way of penalty or in order to avoid
controversy on the amount of
damages.
Exemplary or corrective damages are
intended to serve as a deterrent to
serious wrongdoings (People v. Orilla,
G.R. Nos. 148939-40, February 13,
2004).

According to manner of determination

May be recovered when the court finds
that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot, from
the nature of the case, be proved with
certainty. No proof of pecuniary loss is
necessary.
If intended as a penalty in obligations 1. That the claimant is entitled to
with a penal clause, proof of actual moral, temperate or compensatory
damages suffered by the creditor is not damages; and
necessary in order that the penalty 2. That the crime was committed with
may be demanded (Art. 1228). one or more aggravating
circumstances or the quasi-delict was
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary. committed with gross negligence, or in
contracts and quasi-contracts the act
must be accompanied by bad faith or
done in wanton, fraudulent,
oppressive or malevolent manner.

No proof of pecuniary loss is

necessary.

Special/Ordinary

Special Special Special

ACTUAL AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
Actual damages are such compensation or damages for an
injury that will put the injured party in the position in which
he had been before he was injured. They pertain to such
injuries or losses that are actually sustained and susceptible
of measurement (Filipinas (Pre-Fab Bldg.) Systems, Inc. v.
MRT Development Corp., G.R. Nos. 167829-30, November 13,
2007).
NOTE: To recover damages, the amount of loss must not
only be capable of proof but must actually be proven.
(1991, 1996, 2004 BAR)
Kinds of Actual or compensatory damages
actual damages (RCPI v. CA, G.R. No. L-55194, February 26,
1981).
Purpose of the law in awarding actual damages
Its purpose is to repair the wrong that has been done, to
compensate for the injury inflicted, and not to impose a
penalty (Algarra v. Sandejas, G.R. No. L-8385, March 24,
1914).
When victim is unknown
The fact that the victim remains unknown and no heirs have
come forward does not warrant the elimination of civil
indemnity (People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 92537, April 25,
1994).

1. Damnun Emergens/Dano Emergente (actual damages) Proving the loss

– all the natural and consequence of act or omission
complained of classified as one for the loss of what a
person already possesses
2. Lucrum Cessans/Lucro Cesante (compensatory
damages) – for failure to receive, as benefit, that which
would have pertained to him (expected profits)
(Calibre Trader’s, Inc. v. Bayer Philippines, Inc., G.R. No.
161431, October 13, 2010).
NOTE: Both actual and compensatory damages can be
granted at the same time to the plaintiff as provided under
Article 2200. In other words, there are two components to
GR: Loss must be proved before one can be entitled to
damages
XPN: Loss need not be proved in the following cases:
1. Liquidated damages previously agreed upon (Art.
2226).
NOTE: Liquidated damages take the place of actual
damages except when additional damages are
incurred.

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
483 F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW
2. Forfeiture of bonds in favor of the government for the “Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem
purpose of promoting public interest or policy (Far reasonable”
Eastern Surety and Insurance Co. v. CA, G.R. No. L-12019,
October 16, 1958) The prayer for “such other relief as this Honorable Court
3. Loss is presumed (Manzanares v. Moreta, G.R. No. L- may deem reasonable” may include actual damages
12306, October 22, 1918) although not alleged in the answer, if and when they are
4. When the penalty clause is agreed upon in the contract proved (Heirs of Basilisa Justiva v. Gustilo, G.R. No. L-16396,
between the parties (Art. 1226). January 31, 1963).

Civil liability ex delicto v. Actual or compensatory NOTE: It is broad enough to comprehend an application as
damages distinguished well for nominal damages and even exemplary damages.

Civil Indemnity Actual or Compensatory Article 21 of NCC cannot be used as a basis for award of
Ex Delicto Damages actual damages
Can be awarded without To be recoverable must
Article 21 of the NCC cannot be used as a basis for award of
need of further proof additionally be established
actual damages when there is a pre-existing contractual
than the fact of with reasonable degree of
relation between the parties (ACI Philippines, Inc. v. Coquia,
commission of the certainty (People v. Dianos,
G.R. No. 174466, July 14, 2008).
felony. G.R. No. 119311, October
07, 1998)
Abrazaldo Doctrine
How to ascertain amount of actual and compensatory
It holds that where the amount of the actual damage cannot
damage (Evidence of Actual Damage)
be shown that the heirs are entitled thereto, temperate
damages may be awarded (People v. Abrazaldo, G.R. No.
The amount of the damages should be determined with
124392, February 7, 2003).
reasonable certainty. It cannot be simply based on the mere
allegation of a witness without any tangible claim, such as
NOTE: Such temperate damages, taking into account
receipts or other documentary proofs to support such claim
current jurisprudence fixing the indemnity for death at
(Consolidated Industrial Gases, Inc. v. Alabang Medical P50,000, should be one half thereof, which is P25, 000
Center, Inc., G.R. No. 181983, November 13, 2013). (Ibid.).
NOTE: Rule applies to civil and criminal cases (People v.
Abaño y Cañares, G.R. No. 188323, February 21, 2011). Determination of amount of damages recoverable
GR: Documentary evidence should be presented to
Much is left to the discretion of the court considering the
substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning
moral and material damages involved. There can be no
capacity.
exact or uniform rule for measuring the value of a human
life.
XPN: Damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded
despite the absence of documentary evidence when:
The life expectancy of the deceased or of the beneficiary,
1. The deceased is self-employed and earning less than
whichever is shorter, is an important factor. Other factors
the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which
that are usually considered are:
case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the
1. Pecuniary loss to plaintiff or beneficiary;
deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is
2. Loss of support;
available; or 3. Loss of service;
2. The deceased is employed as a daily wage worker 4. Loss of society;
earning less than the minimum wage under current 5. Mental suffering of beneficiaries; and
labor laws (Philippine Hawk Corporation v. Vivian Tan 6. Medical and funeral expenses.
Lee, G.R. No. 166869, February 16, 2010).
NOTE: The formula that has gained acceptance over time
If amount admitted by a party
has limited recovery to net earning capacity. The premise is
obviously that net earning capacity is the person’s capacity
Even if there are no receipts and yet the amount claimed is
to acquire money, less the necessary expense for his own
admitted by a party, it should be granted (People v. Abolidor,
living (Philtranco Service Enterprises v. Felix Paras and
G.R. No. 147231, February 18, 2004).
Inland Trailways Inc., G.R. No. 161909, April 25, 2012).
Docketing fees must be based on allegation of actual
Computation of Unearned Income
damages
Formula:
The amount of damages claimed must be alleged not only in
the body of the complaint, petition or answer but also in the
Net Earning Capacity (x) = Life Expectancy X (Gross Annual
prayer portion thereof (Siapno v. Manalo, G.R. No. 132260, Income LESS Living Expenses) (People v. Asilan, G.R. No.
August 30, 2005). 188322, April 11, 2012).

UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS 484

201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
 DAMAGES
Legend: Payable not only to the lawyer but to the client, unless
Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy x (Gross Annual they have agreed that the award shall pertain to the
Income – Living Expenses) lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof
Life Expectancy = 2/3 x (80 – Age of the Deceased) (Benedicto v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 185020, October 6,
Living Expenses = 50% of gross annual income 2010).

Basis of Life Expectancy NOTE: In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation must be reasonable.
Life expectancy should not be based on the retirement age
of government employees, which is pegged at 65. In ORDINARY EXTRAORDINARY
calculating the life expectancy of an individual for the Nature
purpose of determining loss of earning capacity under Art. The reasonable An indemnity for damages
2206 (1), it is assumed that the deceased would have compensation paid to a ordered by the court to be
earned income even after retirement from a particular job lawyer for the legal paid by the losing to the
(Smith Bell Dodwell Shipping Agency Corp. v. Borja, G.R. No. services rendered to a prevailing party in
143008, June 10, 2002). client who has engaged litigation.
him.
Heirs cannot claim as damages the full amount of Basis
earnings of the deceased The fact of employment of Any cases authorized by
the lawyer by the client. law.
Said damages consist, not of the full amount of his earnings, To whom payable
but of the support they received or would have received from Lawyer Client
him had he not died in consequence of the negligence of the
bus' agent. Stated otherwise, the amount recoverable is not Recovery of attorney’s fees as actual damages (1991,
loss of the entire earning, but rather the loss of that portion 1994, 2002 BAR)
of the earnings which the beneficiary would have received.
In other words, only net earnings, not gross earning, are to GR: They are not recoverable
be considered.
XPN: (SWISS- MUD- ERC)
In fixing the amount of that support, the "necessary expenses 1. Stipulation between parties
of his own living" should be deducted from his earnings.
2. Recovery of Wages of household helpers, laborers and
Earning capacity, as an element of damages to one's estate skilled workers
for his death by wrongful act, is necessarily his net earning 3. Actions for Indemnity under workmen's compensation
capacity or his capacity to acquire money, less the necessary and employer liability laws
expense for his own living (Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. CA, et al., 4. Legal Support actions
G.R. No. L-25499, February 18, 1970). 5. Separate civil action to recover civil liability arising
from crime
Medical Expenses are in the nature of actual damage 6. Malicious prosecution
7. Clearly Unfounded civil action or proceeding against
Medical expenses are in the nature of actual damages which plaintiff
should be duly proved and the award for actual damages 8. When Double judicial costs are awarded
cannot be made on the basis of the doctor’s prescription 9. When Exemplary damages are awarded
alone (People v. Enguito, G.R. No. 128812, February 28, 10. Defendant acted in gross & evident bad faith in
2000). Refusing to satisfy plaintiff's just & demandable claim
11. When defendant's act or omission Compelled plaintiff
Adjustment fees do not constitute actual damages
to litigate with third persons or incur expenses to
protect his interest
Adjustment fees and expense of drivers in the recovery of
cargo lost at sea done voluntarily, though unsuccessfully, NOTE: If not pleaded and prayed for in the complaint,
does not constitute actual damages (Schmitz Transport & attorney’s fees are barred (Tin Po v. Bautista, G.R. No. L-
Brokerage Corp. v. Transport Venture, Inc., G.R. No. 150255, 55514, March 17, 1981).
April 22, 2005).
Furthermore, moral damages and attorney’s fees cannot be
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPENSES OF LITIGATION consolidated for they are different in nature and each must
be separately determined (Philippine Veterans Bank v.
Two concepts of Attorney’s fees NLRC, G.R. No. 130439, October 26, 1999).
1. Ordinary – reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer Attorneys’ fees is not available when the defendant
by this client for the legal services he has rendered to employer is not guilty of bad faith (Dalusong v. Eagle Clark
the latter. Shipping Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 204233, September 3,
2. Extraordinary –indemnity for damages ordered by the 2014).
court to be paid by the losing party in litigation to the
prevailing party. They are actual damages due to the
plaintiff (Art. 2208).

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
485 F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW
EXTENT OR SCOPE OF ACTUAL DAMAGES
IN CONTRACTS AND QUASI-CONTRACTS
Amount of actual damages
The amount of actual damages should be that which would
put the plaintiff in the same position as he would have been
if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now
getting compensation or reparation:
1. Property – value at the time of destruction, or market
value, plus, in proper cases, damages for the loss of use
during the period before replacement, value of use of
premises, in case of mere deprivation of possession.
2. Personal injury- medical expenses; if the qualifying
circumstance is present to justify the imposition of
death penalty, the civil indemnity should be no less
than P75,000. If the rape is simple rape, the civil
indemnity is P50,000 (People v. Bañago, G.R. No.
128384, June 29, 1999).
NOTE: Civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding
of the fact of rape and is automatically imposed upon
the accused without need of proof other than the fact
of the commission of the rape (American Home
Assurance Co v. Chua, G.R. No. 130421, June 28, 1999).
3. Death – Wake and burial expenses, P75,000 by way of
civil indemnity ex delicto which requires no proof other
than the fact of death of the victim and the assailant’s
responsibility therefor (People v. Tabarnero, G.R. No.
168169, February 24, 2010).
4. Physical Injuries – Moral damages of P30,000 may be
recovered by way of civil indemnity (Guillang v.
Bedania, G.R. No. 162987, May 21, 2009).
Mitigation of Actual Damages
Actual damages can be mitigated in the following cases:
1. For Contracts:
a. Violation of terms of the contract by the plaintiff
himself;
b. Enjoyment of benefit under the contract by the
plaintiff himself;
c. Defendant acted upon advice of counsel in cases
where the exemplary damages are to be awarded
such as under Articles 2230, 2231 and 2232;
d. Defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff’s injury or loss.
NOTE: Award of compensatory damages for breach of
contract may be ordered executed pending appeal
(Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v. Lantin,
G.R. No. L-59311, January 31, 1985).
2. For Quasi-contracts:
a. In cases where exemplary damages are to be
awarded such as in Article 2232;
b. Defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff’s injury or loss.
3. For Quasi-delicts:
a. That the loss would have resulted in any event
because of the negligence or omission of another,
and where such negligence or omission is the
UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS
201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
immediate and proximate cause of the damage or
injury;
b. Defendant has done his best to lessen the
plaintiff’s injury or loss (Pineda, 2009).
IN CRIMES AND QUASI-DELICTS
Art. 2206 provides that the amount of damages for death
caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least P75, 000,
even though there may have been mitigating circumstances
(People v. Tabarnero, G.R. No. 168169, February 24, 2010).
In addition to the amount to be awarded, the defendant
shall also be liable for the following:
1. 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;
NOTE: The article only mentioned heir. Consequently,
it cannot speak of devisees and legatees who are
receiving support from the deceased.
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 (1992, 1993, 2007 BAR).
NOTE: The petitioner has correctly relied on the holding in
Receiver for North Negros Sugar Company, Inc. v. Ybañez, G.R.
No. L-22183, August 30, 1968, to the effect that in case of
death caused by quasi-delict, the brother of the deceased
was not entitled to the award of moral damages based on
Article 2206 of the Civil Code (Sulpicio Lines Inc. v. Curso, G.R.
No. 157009, March 17, 2010).
IMPOSITION OF INTERESTS
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 upon, and in the absence of
stipulation, the legal interest, which is 6% per annum (Art.
2209).
Interest adjuudged upon demand with reasonable
certainty
No interest shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or
damages except when or until the demand can be
established with reasonable certainty (Solid Homes, Inc. v.
IAC, G.R. No. 74269, November 27, 2006).
486
 DAMAGES
INTEREST
Guidelines regarding the manner of computing legal
interest
1. Breach of obligation consisting in payment of a sum of
money (i.e., a loan or forbearance of money)
a. The interest due should be that which may have
been stipulated in writing
b. The interest due shall itself earn legal interest
from the time it is judicially demanded
c. Absence of stipulation, the interest is to be
computed from default (i.e., from judicial or extra
judicial demand) under and subject to the
provisions of Article 1169.
NOTE: Rate of interest shall be 6% per annum, in
the absence of express contract as to such rate of
interest including the rate allowed in judgments
(BSP Cir. No. 799, Series of 2013 amending Section
2 of Circular No. 905, Series of 1982).
2. Breach of obligation not consisting in payment of a sum
of money
a. An interest on the amount of damages awarded
may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the
rate of 6% per annum. (2002 BAR)
b. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on
unliquidated claims or damages except when or
until the demand can be established with
reasonable certainty.
c. Where the demand is established with reasonable
certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the
time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially.
NOTE: When such certainty cannot be so
reasonably established at the time the demand is
made, the interest shall begin to run only from the
date the judgment of the court is made (at which
time the quantification of damages may be
deemed to have been reasonably ascertained).
The actual base for the computation of legal
interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally
adjudged.
3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of
money becomes final and executory
The rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under
paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per
annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this
interim period being deemed to be by then an
equivalent to a forbearance of credit (Eastern Shipping
Lines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994). (2002
BAR)
Payment in breach regardless of source
When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law
contracts, quasi-contract delicts or quasi-delicts, is
breached, the contravenor can be held liable for payment of
interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages
(Ibid.).
487
Effectivity of 6% Legal interest per annum
Consequently, the 12% per annum legal interest shall apply
only until June 30, 2013. Come July 1, 2013 the new rate of
6% per annum shall be the prevailing rate of interest when
applicable (Nacar v. Gallery Frames and/or Felipe Bordey, Jr.,
G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013).
MORAL DAMAGES
It includes physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation, and similar injury (Art. 2217).
It is awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means,
diversions or amusement that will serve to alleviate the
moral suffering he has undergone by reason of the
defendant’s culpable action (Prudenciado v. Alliance
Transport System, Inc., G.R. No. L-33836, March 16, 1987).
NOTE: Moral damages apply both to natural and juridical
persons. It is only when a juridical person has good
reputation that is debased, resulting in social humiliation,
that moral damages may be awarded (San Fernando Regala
Trading, Inc. v. Cargill Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 178008,
October 9, 2013).
Nature of moral damages
Moral damages must be understood to be in the concept of
grants, not punitive or corrective in nature, calculated to
compensate the claimant for the injury suffered
(Comsavings Bank v. Spouses Capistrano, G.R. No. 170942,
August 28, 2013).
Act or omission must be with bad faith
The rule is settled that moral damages cannot be awarded
in the absence of a wrongful act or omission or fraud or bad
faith (Siasat v. IAC, G.R. No. L-67889, October 9, 1985).
Elements required for recovery (1991, 2002, 2003
BAR)
1. An injury clearly sustained by the claimant;
2. A culpable act or omission factually established;
3. The act or omission must be the proximate result of the
physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury; and
wrongful act or omission of the defendant as the
proximate cause of the injury sustained by the
claimant;
4. The award of damages predicated on any of the cases
stated in Art. 2219 (Amado v. Salvador, G.R. No. 171401,
December 13, 2007).
Court given discretion to determine moral damages
Trial courts are given discretion to determine moral
damages and the Court of Appeals can only modify or
change the amount awarded when they are palpably and
scandalously excessive “so as to indicate that it was the
result of passion, prejudice or corruption on the part of the
UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW
trial court” (Yuchengco v. Manila Chronicle Publishing Corp.,
G.R. No. 184315, November 25, 2009).
Each case must be governed by its own peculiar
circumstances (Fontana Resort and Country Club, Inc. v. Tan,
G.R. No. 154670, January 30, 2012).
When victim bearing a child
An award for the death of a person does not cover the case
of an unborn foetus that is not endowed with personality.
The damages recoverable by the parents of an unborn child
are limited to moral damages for the illegal arrest of the
normal development of the foetus on account of distress
and anguish attendant to its loss (Geluz v. CA, G.R. No. L-
16439, July 20, 1961).
Recovery of moral damages
GR: To recover moral damages, the plaintiff must allege and
prove:
1. The factual basis for moral damages and
2. The causal relation to the defendant’s act
XPN: Moral damages may be awarded to the victim in
criminal proceedings without the need for pleading of proof
or the basis thereof.
Moral damages may be recovered in the following and
analogous cases (1996, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2009 BAR)
1. A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
2. Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
3. Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
4. Adultery or concubinage;
5. Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
6. Illegal search;
7. Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
8. Malicious prosecution;
9. Acts mentioned in Article 309; and
10. Actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32,
34, and 35 (Art. 2219).
NOTE: Art. 2219 provides for criminal offenses resulting
from physical injuries and quasi-delicts causing physical
injuries.
Tortious acts referred to in chapter of human relations
of the NCC
The plaintiff may recover moral damages:
1. Willful acts contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy
2. Disrespect to the dignity, personality, privacy and
peace of mind of neighbors and other persons
3. Refusal or neglect of a public servant to perform his
official duty without just cause
4. Unfair competition in enterprise or in labor
5. Civil action for damages against accused acquitted on
reasonable doubt
6. Violation of civil rights
7. Civil action for damages against city or municipal
police force
8. When the trial court finds no reasonable ground to
believe that a crime has been committed after a
UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS
201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
preliminary investigation or when the prosecutor
refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings.
Moral damages may be awarded in cases referred to in the
chapter on human relations of the Civil Code without need
of proof that the wrongful act complained of had caused any
physical injury upon the complainant (Padillo v. Rural Bank
of Nabunturan, Inc., G.R. No. 199338, January 21, 2013).
Cases where moral damages is mandatory without need
of any proof
1. Rape cases
2. Murder cases
NOTE: same rule applies in frustrated murder cases
3. Homicide
In Robbery and other common crimes, the grant of moral
damages is not automatic, unlike in rape cases (People v.
Taño, G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000).
Civil indemnity different from moral damages in rape
In rape cases, civil indemnity is different from moral
damages. It is distinct from and should not be denominated
as moral damages which are based on different jural
foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of
sound discretion (People v. Caldona, G.R. No. 126019, March
1, 2001).
NOTE: In criminal proceedings for rape, plaintiff may not
prove the factual basis for moral damages as well as the
causal relation to the defendant’s act.
Amount of award in qualified rape
The recent judicial prescription is that the indemnification
for a rape victim is P75, 000 if the crime is committed or
effectively qualified by any circumstances under which the
death penalty is authorized by the applicable amendatory
laws (People v. Relanes, G.R. No. 175831, April 12, 2011).
Psychologically incapacity and moral damages
By declaring petitioner as psychologically incapacitated, the
possibility of awarding moral damages was negated, which
should have been proved by specific evidence that it was
done deliberately. Thus, as the grant of moral damages was
not proper, it follows that the grant of exemplary damages
cannot stand since the Civil Code provides that exemplary
damages are imposed in addition to moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages (Buenaventura v. CA,
G.R. No. 127358, March 31, 2005).
NOMINAL DAMAGES
Nominal damages are adjudged 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. 2221). (1991, 1994, 2005 BAR)
488
 DAMAGES
Purpose of nominal damages Spouses Labung-Deang, G.R. No. 135644, September 17,
2001).
In order that a right of the plaintiff which has been violated
or invaded by the defendant may be vindicated or Elements of Temperate Damages
recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the
plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. 1. Some pecuniary loss;
2. Loss is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
Elements of Nominal Damages 3. The damages awarded are reasonable.

1. Plaintiff has a right; LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

2. Such right is violated;
3. The purpose of awarding damages is to vindicate or
recognize the right violated.
Cases where nominal damages are awarded
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.
2222).
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 (Article 2223).
Nominal damages are small sums fixed by the court without
regard to the extent of the harm done to the injured party.
They are damages in name only and are allowed simply in
recognition of a technical injury based on a violation of a
legal right.
NOTE: Nominal damages cannot co-exist with
compensatory damages. Nominal damages are adjudged 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 (LRTA v. Navidad, G.R. No. 145804,
February 6, 2003).
TEMPERATE OR MODERATE DAMAGES
Temperate damages are those damages, which are more
than nominal but less than compensatory, and may be
recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss
has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with
certainty (Art. 2224).
Liquidated damages are fixed damages previously agreed
by the parties to the contract and payable to the innocent
party in case of breach by the other (Pineda, 2009).
Liquidated damages are those that the parties agree to be
paid in case of a breach. Under Philippine laws, they are in
the nature of penalties. They are attached to the obligation
in order to ensure performance. As a precondition to such
award, however, there must be proof of the fact of delay in
the performance of the obligation (Suatengco v. Reyes, G.R.
No. 162729, December 17, 2008).
Nature of Liquidated Damages
In case liquidated damages have been agreed upon, no
proof of loss is necessary in order that such liquidated
damages may be recovered (Scott Consultants & Resource
Devt. Corp., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 112916, March 16, 1995).
NOTE: Attorney’s fee is in the concept of actual damages
except that when it is stipulated and therefore in the form
of liquidated damages no proof of pecuniary loss is required
(Article 2216) (Santiago v. Dimayuga, G.R. No. L-17883,
December 30, 1961).
Liquidated damages v. Penalties
Liquidated Damages Penalties
Purpose
It is sum inserted in a It is sum inserted in a
contract as a measure of contract as a punishment
compensation for its for default, or by way of
breach. security for actual
damages which may be
sustained because of non-
performance.

Nature of Temperate Damages Nature

Its essence is a genuine An agreement to pay a
The allowance of temperate damages when actual damages covenanted pre-estimate stipulated sum on breach
were not adequately proven is ultimately a rule drawn from of damages. of contract irrespective of
equity, the principle affording relief to those definitely the damage sustained (De
injured who are unable to prove how definite the injury Leon, 2012).
(People v. De los Santos, G.R. No. 207818, July 23, 2014).
Legal Results
Rationale behind the temperate or moderate damages There is no difference between a penalty and liquidated
(1994 BAR) damages, as far as legal results are concerned (Lambert
v. Fox, G.R. No. L-7991, January 29, 1914).
The rationale behind temperate damages is precisely that
from the nature of the case, definite proof of pecuniary loss Liquidated damages may be equitably reduced when
cannot be offered. When the court is convinced that there
has been such loss, the judge is empowered to calculate
1. Iniquitous or unconscionable
moderate damages, rather than let the complainant suffer 2. Partial or irregular performance
without redress from the defendant’s wrongful act (GSIS v.

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
489 F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW
 CIVIL LAW
When principal obligation is void Award in Crime v. Award in Quasi-Delict

The nullity of the penal clause does not carry with it that of Award in Crime Award in Quasi-Delict
the principal obligation. An aggravating May be granted if the
circumstance, whether defendant acted with
The nullity of the principal obligation carries with it that of ordinary or qualifying gross negligence (BPI
the penal clause (Art. 1230). (People v. Vergara Y. Oriel Investment Corp. v. D.G.
and Inocencio Y. Paulino, Carreon Commercial
Rule governing in case of breach of contract G.R. No. 177763, July 3, Corp., G.R. No. 126524,
2013). November 29, 2001).
When the breach of contract committed by the defendant is
not the one contemplated by the parties in agreeing upon NOTE: In quasi-contracts, award of exemplary damages is
the liquidated damages, the law shall determine the discretionary (Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. CA, G.R.
measure of damages, and not the stipulation (Art. 2228). No. 127326, December 23, 1999).

EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES DAMAGES IN CASE OF DEATH

(2003, 2005, 2009 BAR)
Exemplary damages 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. 2229).
NOTE: They are also known as “punitive” or “vindictive”
damages
Rationale behind exemplary damages
The rationale behind exemplary damages is to provide an
example or correction for the public good and not to enrich
the victim (Rana v. Wong, G.R. No. 192861, June 30, 2014).
Cases where exemplary damages may be imposed as
accessory damages
GR: Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of
right (Art. 2233).
XPN: They can be imposed in the following cases:
1. Criminal offense – when the crime was committed with
one or more aggravating circumstances (Art. 2230);
2. Quasi-delicts – when the defendant acted with gross
negligence (Art. 2231);
3. Contracts and Quasi-contracts – when defendant acted
in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner (Art. 2232).
Requirements for an award of exemplary damages
1. The claimant’s right to exemplary damages has been
established;
2. Their determination depends upon the amount of
compensatory damages that may be awarded to the
claimant; and
3. The act must be accompanied by bad faith or done in
wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner
(Mendoza v. Spouses Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18,
2014).
Damages that can be recovered in case of death (MEA-
I3 )
1. Moral damages
2. Exemplary damages
3. Attorney's fees and expenses for litigation
4. Indemnity for death
5. Indemnity for loss of earning capacity
6. Interest in proper cases
Rules when crimes and quasi-delict has caused death
The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or
quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even
though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In
addition:
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. 2206).
NOTE: The plaintiff is entitled to the amount that he spent
during the wake and funeral of the deceased. However, it
has been ruled that expenses after the burial are not
compensable.
GRADUATION OF DAMAGES

Rules in graduation of damages in torts cases

Generally, the degree of care required is graduated

according to the danger a person or property attendant
upon the activity which the actor pursues or the

UNIVE RSIT Y O F S ANTO TO MAS 490

201 6 G OL D E N N O TE S
 DAMAGES
instrumentality he uses. The greater the danger the greater
the degree of care required.

However, foreseeability is not the same as probability. Even

if there is lesser degree of probability that damage will
result, the damage may still be considered foreseeable.

NOTE: The test as respects foreseeability is not the balance

of probabilities, but the existence, in the situation in hand,
of some real likelihood of some damage and the likelihood
is of such appreciable weight and moment to induce, or
which reasonably should induce, action to avoid it on the
part of a person or a reasonably prudent mind.

Rules in graduation of damages in crimes

In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be

respectively increased or lessened according to the
aggravating or mitigating circumstances (Art. 2204).

Reduction of damages in quasi-delict cases

In quasi-delict the contributory negligence of the plaintiff

shall reduce the damages he may recover (Art. 2214).

Reduction of damages in contracts, quasi-contracts and

quasi-delicts

The court can equitably mitigate the damages in contract,

quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts in the following instances
other than in Art. 2214:
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 (Art.
2215).

Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or

a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous
or unconscionable (Art. 2227).

MISCELLANEOUS RULES

The injured party is obligated to undertake measures that

will alleviate and not aggravate his condition after the
infliction of the injury or nuisance. The injured party has the
burden of explaining why he did not do so (Art. 2203).

Co-existence of Damages

Damages that Damages that

Damages that
cannot must
must co-exist
co-exist stand alone
Nominal Exemplary Nominal
Damages Damages must co- Damages
cannot co-exist exist with Moral,
with Temperate,
Exemplary Liquidated or
Damages Compensatory
Damages

UN IV ER S ITY OF S ANTO T OM AS
491 F ACULTY OF CIV IL L AW