Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Tort
- A tort is a wrong independent of a contract, which arises from an act or omission of a person which causes some injury or
damage directly or indirectly to another person.
- Based on Article 2176 “Whoever by act of omission causes damage to another, there boing fault or negligence is obliged to
pay for damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called
a quasi-delict.
- It is important to note that the foundation of the legal liability of the defendant is the contract of carriage, and that the
obligation to respond for the damage which plaintiff has suffered arises, if at all, from the breach of contract by reason of the
failure of defendant to exercise due care in its performance.
- The proof on the part of the defendant that the negligence of his servant or agents caused the breach of the contract would
not constitute a defense to the action.
- In an action for breach of contract of carriage, all that is required of plaintiff is to prove the existence of such contract and its
non-performance by the carrier through the latter’s failure to carry the passenger safely to his destination.
- There is a clear case of breach of contract by the petitioner in adding extraneous and libelous matters in the message sent
to the private respondent.
- Since the negligence may be hard to substantiate in some cases, we may apply the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur by
considering the presence of facts or circumstances surrounding the injury.
Syquia vs. CA
- There was an alleged breach of the defendant of its obligation to deliver a defect-free concrete vault designed to protect the
remains of the deceased.
- There is no negligent act on the part of the defendant to justify an award of damages against it. Had there been actual
negligence on the part of the defendant, it would be held liable not for quasi-delict but for culpa contractual since there is a
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.
FEBTC vs. CA
- The supplemental card was lost which caused the cancellation of the card and upon presentment the card of respondent
was dishonored and caused him to feel embarrassed.
- In culpa contractual, moral damages may be recovered where the defendant is shown to have acted in bad faith or with
malice in the breach of contractual obligation.
- Where without a pre-existing contract between two parties, an act of omission can nonetheless amount to an actionable tort
by itself, the fact that the parties are contractually bound is no bar to the application of quasi-delict provisions to the case.
Here, the respondent’s damage claim is predicated solely on their contractual relationship, without such agreement, the act
or omission complained of cannot by itself held to stand as a separate cause of action or as an independent actionable tort.
- The relationship between the school and the student is a contract, in which a student, once admitted by the school is
considered enrolled for one semester.
- The fee was not part of the school-student contract entered into at the start of the school year. Hence, it could not be
unilaterally imposed to the prejudice of the enrollees.
- An academic institution may be held liable for tort even if it has an existing contract with its students, since the act that
violated the contract may also be a tort since the cause of action is based on Article 19 and 21.
- It does not follow that a person who is not criminally liable is also free from civil liability. While the guilt of the accused in a
criminal prosecution must be established beyond reasonable doubt, only preponderance of evidence is required in a civil
action for damages. The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the civil liability only when it includes a declaration that the fact
from which the civil liability migh arise did not exist.
- The death of the accused during the pendency of the appeal or before the judgment of conviction becomes final extinguished
his criminal liability but not his civil liability should the liability arise from a quasi-delict. Therefore the liability of the employer
still subsists. The liability of the employer is not subsidiary but solidary with his driver (unless no negligence on the part of
employer).
Dulay vs. CA
- The security guard shot and killed Atty. Dulay
- There is no justification for limiting the scope of Art. 2176 to acts or omissions resulting from negligence, but also acts which
are voluntary and intentional.
- Since the action is based on quasi-delict, the petitioner may proceed directly against the accused and his employer. The
liability of the employer under Art. 2180 is direct and immediate, it is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent
employee and a prior showing of the insolvency of such employee. Therefore it is incumbent upon the employer to prove
that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of employee.
Chua vs. CA
- When a person commits a crime, he offends two entities: 1) the society in which he lives in or the State 2) the individual
member of the society whose person, right, honor or property has been damaged.
- Private respondent did not waive the civil action nor did not reserve the right to institute it separately or institute the civil
action for damages arising from the offense charge therefore Lydia Hao’s counsel may interfere in the criminal action being
the representative of the private offended party (corporation).
- The failure of the Prosecution to prove his criminal negligence with moral certainty did not forbid a finding against him that
there was preponderant evidence of his negligence to hold him civilly liable.
Article 32: When the public officer or employee, or any private individuals who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats,
violates or in any manner impeded or impairs any of the rights and liberties (enumerated) of another person shall be liable
for damages.
Article 33: In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct
from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal
prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
Article 34: When a member of a city or municipality 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.
Article 36: Prejudicial questions, which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or proceed.
Prejudicial question is a question which arises in a case, the resolution of which is the logical antecedent of the issue involved
in said case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.
- At the time of the filing of the complaint for damages, the cause of action ex quasi-delicto had already prescribe, Nonetheless,
petitioners can purse the remaining avenue opened for them by their reservation, the surviving cause of action ex delicto.
- Dismissal of the action based on culpa aquiliana is not a bar to the enforcement of the subsidiary liability of the employer
based on Article 103 of the RPC especially the latter action had been expressly reserved.
- Victims of negligence or their heir have a choice between an action to enforce the civil liability arising from culpa criminal
under Art. 100 of RPC and an action for quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) under Art.2176-2194 of NCC
- If the action chosen is for quasi-delict, the plaintiff may hold the employer liable for the negligent act of its employee, subject
to the employer’s defense of exercise of the diligence of a good father of the family. If the action chosen is for culpa criminal,
the plaintiff can hold the employer subsidiarily llable only upon proof of prior conviction of its employee.
- The spouses in this case are suing for quasi-delict not for culpa criminal.
Abuse of Rights
Article 19: Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his
due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Sea Commercial Co. Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
- SEACOM transacted directly with FSDC despite the dealership agreement with JII, which deprived JII of profits.
- The Court has already ruled that the right of the employer to dismiss an employee should not be confused with the manner
in which the right is exercised and the effect flowing therefrom. If the dismissal is done abusively, then the employer is liable
for damages to the employee.
- Article 21 refers to acts contra bonus mores and has the following elements: (1) There is an act which is legal; (2) but which
is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; and (3) it is done with intent to injure.
- Parenthetically, the manner by which Ms. Lim asked Mr. Reyes to leave was likewise acceptable and humane under the
circumstances. In this regard, we cannot put our imprimatur on the appellate court’s declaration that Ms. Lim’s act of
personally approaching Mr. Reyes (without first verifying from Mrs. Filart if indeed she invited Mr. Reyes) gave rise to a
cause of action "predicated upon mere rudeness or lack of consideration of one person, which calls not only protection of
human dignity but respect of such dignity."7 Without proof of any ill-motive on her part, Ms. Lim’s act of by-passing Mrs. Filart
cannot amount to abusive conduct especially because she did inquire from Mrs. Filart’s companion who told her that Mrs.
Filart did not invite Mr. Reyes. If at all, Ms. Lim is guilty only of bad judgment which, if done with good intentions, cannot
amount to bad faith.
Ang vs. Ang (Factors to be considered whether a case is a Nuisance or Harassment Suit)
- Prohibition against nuisance and harassment suits. - Nuisance and harassment suits are prohibited. In determining whether
a suit is a nuisance or harassment suit, the court shall consider, among others, the following:
(1) The extent of the shareholding or interest of the initiating stockholder or member;
(2) Subject matter of the suit;
(3) Legal and factual basis of the complaint;
(4) Availability of appraisal rights for the act or acts complained of; and
(5) Prejudice or damage to the corporation, partnership, or association in relation to the relief sought.
- In case of nuisance or harassment suits, the court may, motu proprio or upon motion, forthwith dismiss the case.
- a plain reading of the allegations in the Complaint would readily show that the case x x x was mainly filed to collect a debt
allegedly extended by the spouses Theodore and Nancy Ang to [SMBI]. Thus, the aggrieved party is not SMBI x x x but the
spouses Theodore and Nancy Ang, who are not even x x x stockholders.
- However, Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that a person who, by act or omission, causes damage to another through
fault or negligence may be held liable in damages. By making it appear that he owns the disputed properties, putting security
guards thereat to inti[mi]date, harass or cause the rightful owner and his representatives and by providing the escape
vehicle, more than sufficient evidence was established on the civil liability of private respondent under Article 2176 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines.
- In the case at bar, it is clear that respondent violated the principle embodied in Article 19 of the Civil Code which mandates
that "every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his
due, and observe honesty and good faith." When a right is exercised in a manner which discards these norms resulting in
damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which the actor can be held accountable.
- It is the contractual obligation of the school to timely inform and furnish sufficient notice and information to each and every
student as to whether he or she had already complied with all the requirements for the conferment of a degree or whether
they would be included among those who will graduate.
- However, while petitioner was guilty of negligence and thus liable to respondent for the latter's actual damages, we hold that
respondent should not have been awarded moral damages. We do not agree with the Court of Appeals' findings that
respondent suffered shock, trauma and pain when he was informed that he could not graduate and will not be allowed to
take the bar examinations. At the very least, it behooved on respondent to verify for himself whether he has completed all
necessary requirements to be eligible for the bar examinations.
- At this point, the finding of the Court of Appeals of bad faith and malice on the part of petitioners has no factual basis. Good
faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. 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. Bad faith, on the other hand, does not simply connote bad
judgment to simple negligence. It imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a
breach of known duty due to some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud. Malice connotes ill will or
spite and speaks not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm
H.L. Carlos Construction Inc. Vs. Marina Properties Corporation (Unjust Enrichment Requisites)
- To allow MPC to acquire the partially accomplished project without paying for labor cost escalation validly incurred would
constitute unjust enrichment at the expense of petitioner. There is unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code when
(1) a person is unjustly benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another. Since
petitioner had rendered services that were accepted by MPC, then the former should be compensated for them. Labor cost
escalation, in this case, has already been earned by petitioner.
Benguet Corporation vs. DENR Mines Adjudication Board (Where there is no unjust enrichment)
- There is no unjust enrichment in the instant case as the cancellation of the RAWOP, which left Benguet without any legal
right to participate in further developing the mining claims, was brought about by its violation of the RAWOP. Hence, Benguet
has no one to blame but itself for its predicament.
CHAPTER 1
Quasi-contracts
Article 2142. Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to the juridical relation of quasi-contract
to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another. (n)
Article 2143. The provisions for quasi-contracts in this Chapter do not exclude other quasi-contracts
which may come within the purview of the preceding article. (n)
SECTION 1
Negotiorum Gestio
Article 2144. Whoever voluntarily takes charge of the agency or management of the business or property
of another, without any power from the latter, is obliged to continue the same until the termination of the
affair and its incidents, or to require the person concerned to substitute him, if the owner is in a position
to do so. This juridical relation does not arise in either of these instances:
(1) When the property or business is not neglected or abandoned;
(2) If in fact the manager has been tacitly authorized by the owner.
In the first case, the provisions of articles 1317, 1403, No. 1, and 1404 regarding unauthorized contracts
shall govern.
In the second case, the rules on agency in Title X of this Book shall be applicable. (1888a)
Article 2145. The officious manager shall perform his duties with all the diligence of a good father of a
family, and pay the damages which through his fault or negligence may be suffered by the owner of the
property or business under management.
The courts may, however, increase or moderate the indemnity according to the circumstances of each
case. (1889a)
Article 2146. If the officious manager delegates to another person all or some of his duties, he shall be
liable for the acts of the delegate, without prejudice to the direct obligation of the latter toward the owner
of the business.
The responsibility of two or more officious managers shall be solidary, unless the management was
assumed to save the thing or business from imminent danger. (1890a)
Article 2147. The officious manager shall be liable for any fortuitous event:
(1) If he undertakes risky operations which the owner was not accustomed to embark upon;
(2) If he has preferred his own interest to that of the owner;
(3) If he fails to return the property or business after demand by the owner;
(4) If he assumed the management in bad faith. (1891a)
Article 2148. Except when the management was assumed to save property or business from imminent
danger, the officious manager shall be liable for fortuitous events:
(1) If he is manifestly unfit to carry on the management;
(2) If by his intervention he prevented a more competent person from taking up the management.
(n)
Article 2149. The ratification of the management by the owner of the business produces the effects of an
express agency, even if the business may not have been successful. (1892a)
Article 2150. Although the officious management may not have been expressly ratified, the owner of the
property or business who enjoys the advantages of the same shall be liable for obligations incurred in his
interest, and shall reimburse the officious manager for the necessary and useful expenses and for the
damages which the latter may have suffered in the performance of his duties.
The same obligation shall be incumbent upon him when the management had for its purpose the
prevention of an imminent and manifest loss, although no benefit may have been derived. (1893)
Article 2151. Even though the owner did not derive any benefit and there has been no imminent and
manifest danger to the property or business, the owner is liable as under the first paragraph of the
preceding article, provided:
(1) The officious manager has acted in good faith, and
(2) The property or business is intact, ready to be returned to the owner. (n)
Article 2152. The officious manager is personally liable for contracts which he has entered into with third
persons, even though he acted in the name of the owner, and there shall be no right of action between
the owner and third persons. These provisions shall not apply:
(1) If the owner has expressly or tacitly ratified the management, or
(2) When the contract refers to things pertaining to the owner of the business. (n)
Article 2155. Payment by reason of a mistake in the construction or application of a doubtful or difficult
question of law may come within the scope of the preceding article. (n)
Article 2156. If the payer was in doubt whether the debt was due, he may recover if he proves that it was
not due. (n)
Article 2157. The responsibility of two or more payees, when there has been payment of what is not due,
is solidary. (n)
Article 2158. When the property delivered or money paid belongs to a third person, the payee shall
comply with the provisions of article 1984. (n)
Article 2159. Whoever in bad faith accepts an undue payment, shall pay legal interest if a sum of money
is involved, or shall be liable for fruits received or which should have been received if the thing produces
fruits.
He shall furthermore be answerable for any loss or impairment of the thing from any cause, and for
damages to the person who delivered the thing, until it is recovered. (1896a)
Article 2160. He who in good faith accepts an undue payment of a thing certain and determinate shall
only be responsible for the impairment or loss of the same or its accessories and accessions insofar as
he has thereby been benefited. If he has alienated it, he shall return the price or assign the action to collect
the sum. (1897)
Article 2161. As regards the reimbursement for improvements and expenses incurred by him who unduly
received the thing, the provisions of Title V of Book II shall govern. (1898)
Article 2162. He shall be exempt from the obligation to restore who, believing in good faith that the
payment was being made of a legitimate and subsisting claim, destroyed the document, or allowed the
action to prescribe, or gave up the pledges, or cancelled the guaranties for his right. He who paid unduly
may proceed only against the true debtor or the guarantors with regard to whom the action is still effective.
(1899)
Article 2163. It is presumed that there was a mistake in the payment if something which had never been
due or had already been paid was delivered; but he from whom the return is claimed may prove that the
delivery was made out of liberality or for any other just cause. (1901)
SECTION 3
Other Quasi-Contracts *
Article 2164. When, without the knowledge of the person obliged to give support, it is given by a stranger,
the latter shall have a right to claim the same from the former, unless it appears that he gave it out of piety
and without intention of being repaid. (1894a)
Article 2165. When funeral expenses are borne by a third person, without the knowledge of those
relatives who were obliged to give support to the deceased, said relatives shall reimburse the third person,
should the latter claim reimbursement. (1894a)
Article 2166. When the person obliged to support an orphan, or an insane or other indigent person
unjustly refuses to give support to the latter, any third person may furnish support to the needy individual,
with right of reimbursement from the person obliged to give support. The provisions of this article apply
when the father or mother of a child under eighteen years of age unjustly refuses to support him.
Article 2167. When through an accident or other cause a person is injured or becomes seriously ill, and
he is treated or helped while he is not in a condition to give consent to a contract, he shall be liable to pay
for the services of the physician or other person aiding him, unless the service has been rendered out of
pure generosity.
Article 2168. When during a fire, flood, storm, or other calamity, property is saved from destruction by
another person without the knowledge of the owner, the latter is bound to pay the former just
compensation.
Article 2169. When the government, upon the failure of any person to comply with health or safety
regulations concerning property, undertakes to do the necessary work, even over his objection, he shall
be liable to pay the expenses.
Article 2170. When by accident or other fortuitous event, movables separately pertaining to two or more
persons are commingled or confused, the rules on co-ownership shall be applicable.
Article 2171. The rights and obligations of the finder of lost personal property shall be governed by articles
719 and 720.
Article 2172. The right of every possessor in good faith to reimbursement for necessary and useful
expenses is governed by article 546.
Article 2173. When a third person, without the knowledge of the debtor, pays the debt, the rights of the
former are governed by articles 1236 and 1237.
Article 2174. When in a small community a majority of the inhabitants of age decide upon a measure for
protection against lawlessness, fire, flood, storm or other calamity, any one who objects to the plan and
refuses to contribute to the expenses but is benefited by the project as executed shall be liable to pay his
share of said expenses.
Article 2175. Any person who is constrained to pay the taxes of another shall be entitled to reimbursement
from the latter.
Advanced Foundation Systems Corporation vs. New World Properties & Ventures
- Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession
of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.
- To allow New World to acquire the finished project at a price far below its actual construction cost would undoubtedly
constitute unjust enrichment for the bank to the prejudice of AFCSC. Such unjust enrichment, as previously discussed, is
not allowed by law.
- Guillermo was personally liable for the illegal dismissal of Uson since Guillermo uses the corporation to avoid liability to
Uson.
Nature of Solidarity
- For failure of the appellant Sy Bon Ping to rebut the legal presumption of his negligence in the selection and supervision of
this employee, 8 he is likewise responsible for the damages caused by the negligent act of his employee (driver) Salvador
Mendoza, and his liability is primary and solidary.
- But although the employer is solidarity liable with the employee for damages, the employer may demand reimbursement
from his employee (driver) for whatever amount the employer will have to pay the offended party to satisfy the latter's claim.
- Indubitably, petitioner and Yoro cooperated in committing the tort. They even had provisions in their MOA as to how they
would divide the treasure if any is found within or outside petitioner’s property line. Thus, the MOA, instead of exculpating
petitioner from liability, is the very noose that insures that he be so declared as liable.
Parents Liability
- It must be borne in mind that, according to Manresa, the reason behind the joint and solidary liability of presuncion with their
offending child under Article 2180 is that is the obligation of the parent to supervise their minor children in order to prevent
them from causing damage to third persons.
- Accordingly, in Our considered view, Article 2180 applies to Atty. Hill notwithstanding the emancipation by marriage of
Reginald. However, inasmuch as it is evident that Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill has
become milling, subsidiary to that of his son.
Libi vs.IAC
- It is still the duty of parents to know the activity of their children who may be engaged in this dangerous activity involving the
menace of drugs. Had the defendants-appellees been diligent in supervising the activities of their son, Wendell, and in
keeping said gun from his reach, they could have prevented Wendell from killing Julie Ann Gotiong. Therefore, appellants
are liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code
- We believe that the civil liability of parents for quasi-delicts of their minor children, as contemplated in Article 2180 of the
Civil Code, is primary and not subsidiary. In fact, if we apply Article 2194 of said code which provides for solidary liability of
joint tortfeasors, the persons responsible for the act or omission, in this case the minor and the parents are solidarily liable.
Tamargo vs. CA
- We do not believe that parental authority is properly regarded as having been retroactively transferred to and vested in the
adopting parents, the Rapisura spouses, at the time the air rifle shooting happened. We do not consider that retroactive
effect may be given to the decree of adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting parents accruing at a time when
adopting parents had no actual or physically custody over the adopted child. Retroactive affect may perhaps be given to the
granting of the petition for adoption where such is essential to permit the accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor of
the adopted child. In the instant case, however, to hold that parental authority had been retroactively lodged in the Rapisura
spouses so as to burden them with liability for a tortious act that they could not have foreseen and which they could not have
prevented (since they were at the time in the United States and had no physical custody over the child Adelberto) would be
unfair and unconscionable
- Garcia may not have intended to cause the consequences which followed after the release of the HBsAG test result.
However, his failure to comply with the laws and rules promulgated and issued for the protection of public safety and interest
is failure to observe that care which a reasonably prudent health care provider would observe. Thus, his act or omission
constitutes a breach of duty.
- "Supervision and control" means the authority to act directly whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation
to a subordinate; direct the performance of duty; restrain the commission of acts; review, approve, revise or modify acts and
decisions of subordinate officials or units.
- Respondent did not exercise the degree of care and diligence required of a good father of a family, much less the degree
of care required of someone dealing with dangerous weapons, as would exempt him from liability in this case.
Meaning of Employers
- Hence, under the allegations of the complaint, no tortious or quasi-delictual liability can be fastened on Balingit as manager
of Phil-American Forwarders, Inc., in connection with the vehicular accident already mentioned because he himself may be
regarded as an employee or dependiente of his employer, Phil-American Forwarders, Inc.
Martin vs. CA
- In the case at bar, no evidence whatsoever was adduced by the plaintiff to show that the defendant was the employer of
Nestor Martin at the time of the accident. The trial court merely presumed the existence of the employer-employee
relationship and held that the petitioner had not refuted that presumption. It noted that although the defendant alleged that
he was not Nestor Martin's employer, "he did not present any proof to substantiate his allegation."
- Petitioners Mercury Drug and Ganzon have similarly failed to live up to high standard of diligence expected of them as
pharmacy professionals. They were grossly negligent in dispensing ear drops instead of the prescribed eye drops to De
Leon. Worse, they have once again attempted to shift the blame to their victim by underscoring his own failure to read the
label.
Ortaliz vs Echarri
- Defendant-appellee, however, claims that there is no allegation in the complaint that "the defendant was engaged in some
kind of industry and that the employee had committed the crime in the discharge of his duties in connection with such
industry," hence the defendant cannot be held subsidiarily liable for the crime committed by his driver and therefore the
complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. But paragraph 5 of Article 2180 refutes this contention
for it clearly provides that "Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of
their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry."
- The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. Where there is a solidary obligation on
the part of debtors, as in this case, each debtor is liable for the entire obligation. Hence, each debtor is liable to pay for the
entire obligation in full. There is no merger or renunciation of rights, but only mutual representation. Where the obligation of
the parties is solidary, either of the parties is indispensable, and the other is not even a necessary party because complete
relief is available from either. Therefore, jurisdiction over Foronda is not even necessary as Tuazon may collect damages
from Mrs. Cerezo alone.
- In this case, the employee was engaged in the performance of his governmental duties, as distinguished from corporate or
proprietary functions - the government is not liable.
- The Government does not undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or agents whom it employs, since
that would involve in all its operations in endless embarrassments, difficulties, losses and which would be subversive of the
public interest.
- There is basis for the claim that over-all injury occurred and lodged in the Philippines. There is likewise no question that
private respondent is a resident Filipina national, working with petitioner, a resident foreign corporation engaged here in the
business of international air carriage. Thus, the "relationship" between the parties was centered here, although it should be
stressed that this suit is not based on mere labor law violations. From the record, the claim that the Philippines has the most
significant contact with the matter in this dispute, raised by private respondent as plaintiff below against defendant (herein
petitioner), in our view, has been properly established.
- Article 233. The person exercising substitute parental authority shall have the same authority over the person of the child
as the parents.
- In no case shall the school administrator, teacher or individual engaged in child care exercising special parental authority
inflict corporal punishment upon the child.
- When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is established a contract between them, resulting in
bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to provide the student
with an education that would presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary tools and skills to pursue higher education
or a profession. On the other hand, the student covenants to abide by the school's academic requirements and observe its
rules and regulations.
- The fact, however, that respondents’ daughter, Jasmin, died as a result of the dead and rotting tree within the school’s
premises shows that the tree was indeed an obvious danger to anyone passing by and calls for application of the principle
of res ipsa loquitur.
- The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies where (1) the accident was 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 been 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.
Mercado vs. CA
- It would be seem that the clause "so long as they remain in their custody," contemplates a situation where the pupil lives
and boards with the teacher, such that the control, direction and influence on the pupil supersedes those of the parents. In
these circumstances the control or influence over the conduct and actions of the pupil would pass from the father and mother
to the teacher; and so would the responsibility for the torts of the pupil. Such a situation does not appear in the case at bar;
the pupils appear to go to school during school hours and go back to their homes with their parents after school is over. The
situation contemplated in the last paragraph of Article 2180 does not apply, nor does paragraph 2 of said article, which
makes father or mother responsible for the damages caused by their minor children. The claim of petitioner that responsibility
should pass to the school must, therefore, be held to be without merit. (repealed decision)
- There is nothing in the law that requires that for such liability to attach the pupil or student who commits the tortious act must
live and board in the school, as erroneously held by the lower court, and the dicta in Mercado (as well as in Exconde) on
which it relied, must now be deemed to have been set aside by the present decision.
Amadora vs. CA
- After an exhaustive examination of the problem, the Court has come to the conclusion that the provision in question should
apply to all schools, academic as well as non-academic. Where the school is academic rather than technical or vocational
in nature, responsibility for the tort committed by the student will attach to the teacher in charge of such student, following
the first part of the provision. This is the general rule. In the case of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof,
and only he, who shall be held liable as an exception to the general rule. In other words, teachers in general shall be liable
for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be
answerable.
- There is really no substantial distinction between the academic and the non-academic schools insofar as torts committed
by their students are concerned. The same vigilance is expected from the teacher over the students under his control and
supervision, whatever the nature of the school where he is teaching. The suggestion in the Exconde and Mercado Cases is
that the provision would make the teacher or even the head of the school of arts and trades liable for an injury caused by
any student in its custody but if that same tort were committed in an academic school, no liability would attach to the teacher
or the school head. All other circumstances being the same, the teacher or the head of the academic school would be
absolved whereas the teacher and the head of the non-academic school would be held liable, and simply because the latter
is a school of arts and trades.
PSBA vs. CA
- When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is established a contract between them, resulting in
bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to comply with. For its part, the school undertakes to provide the student
with an education that would presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary tools and skills to pursue higher education
or a profession. On the other hand, the student covenants to abide by the school's academic requirements and observe its
rules and regulations. (not based on quasi-delict but on breach of contract since the accused is a third person/outsider)
- Ordinarily, the liability of teachers does not extend to the school or university itself, although an educational institution may
be held liable under the principle of RESPONDENT SUPERIOR. It has also been held that the liability of the employer for
the [tortuous] acts or negligence of its employees is primary and solidary, direct and immediate and not conditioned upon
the insolvency of or prior recourse against the negligent employee.
- The schools' power to instill discipline in their students is subsumed in their academic freedom and that "the establishment
of rules governing university-student relations, particularly those pertaining to student discipline, may be regarded as vital,
not merely to the smooth and efficient operation of the institution, but to its very survival.
St. Lukes College of Medicine vs. Perez
- Petitioners failed to take the necessary precautions to guard their students against foreseeable harm. In the case at bar, it
is well to remember that the victims were in the Cabiao Community Clinic because it was a requirement of petitioners. the
Cabiao Community Clinic is to be considered as part of the campus premises of St. Luke's. In the course description of the
clerkship program in preventive and community medicine, it is stated that the Cabiao Community Clinic serves as the base
operation of the clerkship program. The students were complying with an obligation under the enrollment contract, they were
rendering medical services in a community center as required by petitioners. It was thus incumbent upon petitioners to
comply with their own obligations under the enrollment contract - to ensure that the community center where they would
designate their students is safe and secure, among others.
Sole Proprietorship
The collateral source rule is designed to strike a balance between two competing principles of tort law: (1) a plaintiff is
entitled to compensation sufficient to make him whole, but no more; and (2) a defendant is liable for all damages that
proximately result from his wrong. A plaintiff who receives a double recovery for a single tort enjoys a windfall; a defendant
who escapes, in whole or in part, liability for his wrong enjoys a windfall. Because the law must sanction one windfall and
deny the other, it favors the victim of the wrong rather than the wrongdoer.
Thus, the tortfeasor is required to bear the cost for the full value of his or her negligent conduct even if it results in a windfall
for the innocent plaintiff. (Citations omitted)
As seen, the collateral source rule applies in order to place the responsibility for losses on the party causing them. 43Its
application is justified so that "'the wrongdoer should not benefit from the expenditures made by the injured party or take
advantage of contracts or other relations that may exist between the injured party and third persons."44Thus, it finds no
application to cases involving no-fault insurances under which the insured is indemnified for losses by insurance companies,
regardless of who was at fault in the incident generating the losses. Here, it is clear that MMPC is a no-fault insurer. Hence,
it cannot be obliged to pay the hospitalization expenses of the dependents of its employees which had already been paid
by separate health insurance providers of said dependents.