TORTS MEM-AID

Tort- A tort is a private or civil wrong or injury, including actions for breaches of contract in bad faith, for which the court will
provide a remedy in the form of an action for damages. (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Classes of Torts:

1. Negligence Torts – there is fault or negligence. Quasi-Delict.(Art. 2176)

2. Intentional Torts – it would depend on the presence of negligence. It deals with intent of a particular actor or
defendant that causes damage to the plaintiff. (Article 26)
3. Strict Liability Torts – a tort where the law has determined that some activities are so dangerous that an individual
engaging in those activities is liable for damages regardless of the intent or negligence resulting therefrom

Examples of Strict Liability Torts

1.) Maintenance of a Fire Hazard(RA 9513) – if you maintain a fire hazard, even if you don’t maintain it intentionally, but it is a
hazard, then you can be held liable. It is a strict liability tort.

2.) Article 2183. 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

Example: You were the one held responsible for taking care of my carabao. Consequently, the carabao got away and skewered
another person. Such person was injured. Were you negligent? No. Was there intent on your part? No. But, you are still held
liable because of strict liability.

3.) Article 2187— Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death
or injuries caused by any noxious or harmful substances used, although no contractual relation exists between them and the
consumers.

Discussion: You were responsible of manufacturing of the product. But, someone died or got sick because of your product.
Since it is a strict tort liability—you are still held liable despite the absence of direct contractual liability.

4.) Article 2193— The head of a family that lives in a building or a part thereof, is responsible for damages caused by things
thrown or falling from the same.

5.) Article 1711 – imposes an obligation on owners of enterprises and other employers to pay for the death or injuries to their
employees

6.) Nuisance Article 696 – There is strict liability on the part of the owner or possessor of the property where a nuisance is
found because he is obliged to abate the same irrespective of the presence or absence of fault or negligence

Elements of Negligence Torts. (Art.2176)

1.) Duty—The person must owe a duty or service to the plaintiff in question;(Art.1173)
2.) Breach—The individual who owes the duty must violate the duty or obligation;
a. The breach must be the proximate causation for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.
3.) Damages—An injury then must arise because of that specific obligation; and
4.) Causation—The cause of the injury must have been reasonable foreseeable as a result of the person’s negligent
actions.

Definition of Proximate Causation – Proximate cause it the cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces injury without which the result would not have occurred.
Efficient Intervening Cause – the cause which destroys the causal connection between the negligent act and injury and thereby
negates liability

Aims of the law of tort – four basis on which different torts rested:

1) Appeasement – to restore the claimant to his spiritual (not necessarily physical) status quo ante;
- to appease. That would
be your talio; your retribution, rather than exacting proportionality or reciprocity.

Physical restoration – kung nabangga imong sakyanan, ipa-ayo imong sakyanan.

Spiritual restoration – nakabangga ka ng tao, it lead to the amputation of his arm. You pay him damages for spiritual
appeasement, because maybe he will forget that he no longer has an arm if you give him a lot of money. It gives him means,
methods, amusements to forget.

2) Justice or vindication – to bring relief to the distress, disturbance or damage suffered by the claimant caused by the wrong
committed by the tortfeasor;

3) Deterrence – to set an example for the public good so that similar tortuous conduct will be avoided;

E.g you know for a fact that your neighbor is a reckless driver. Nakasuhan sya and was made to pay P1 million in the form of
damages. If that’s the case, then maybe I should be careful in driving, so that I won’t be made to pay P1 million like my
neighbor.

4) Compensation – to compensate the plaintiff for unreasonable harms they have sustained.

Element necessary to establish quasi-delict:

1.) Damage
2.) Negligence
3.) Relation of cause and effect between the two

Types of Diligence required under the Civil Code:

1.) Diligence agreed upon by the parties

2.) Diligence required by law – default standard of care
3.) Extraordinary

Extraordinary diligence when required by law:

1.) Common Carries

2.) Public utility companies
3.) BIR and Customs Examiners
4.) Banks, in certain cases (acting in fiduciary capacity)
5.) Board of Canvassers during election
6.) Officers of the Securities and Exchange Commission
7.) Respondent Public Officer in Writ of Amparo Cases

RES IPSA LOQUITOR – means that in certain instances, the presence of facts and circumstances surrounding the injury clearly
indicate negligence on the part of the defendant. The maxim applies whenever it is so improbably that such accident would
have happened without the fault of the defendant, that a reasonable man could find without further evidence that it was so
caused.

Requisites of application
 1. The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent;
2. The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with
negligence; and
3. The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.

Traditional Elements of a Quasi-Delict

1. There must be an act or omission;

2. There must be fault or negligence attendant in the same act or omission;
3. There must be damage caused to another person;
4. There must be a causal connection between the fault or negligence and the damage; and
5. There must have been no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. (Meaning, they are not otherwise
bound by a contract)
It has been held many times by the Supreme Court that, if the manner of breaching a contract is in itself tortuous, there can be
a viable cause of action for culpa aquiliana, even if there is a pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties. (Article
21. Basis)

DEFENSES IN QUASI-DELICT CASES

1. That the defendant was not negligent

2. DAMNUN ABSQUE INJURIA – damage without wrong
3. That the plaintiffs own negligence is the proximate cause of the loss
4. Contributory Negligence (Art.2179) – only mitigates the damages.
5. Prescription – within 4
6. Assumption of Risk (Art. 1174)
7. Force Majeure
8. Due Diligence in Selection and Supervision (Art.2180, last paragraph)

Doctrine of Last Clear Chance – in essence, is to effect that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is
appreciably later in the time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be
attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is
chargeable with the consequences thereof.

Requisites of Force Majeure:

1.) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or of the failure of the debtor to comply with his obligation
must be independent of the human will (ex. A building is destroyed by an earthquake; typhoon destroys ship and cargo);
2.) It must be impossible to foresee the event or, if it could be foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid (ex. Earthquake is
impossible to foresee and impossible to avoid; that a typhoon will strike is impossible to foresee and avoid but see Tan
Chiong Sian vs Inchausti &C Co., 22 Ohil. 152);
3.) The obligor must be free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury resulting to the creditor.