TORTS AND DAMAGES

CONCEPT OF TORT

Etymology
The word is derived from the Latin "tortus" or "twisted." [Prosser & Keeton]
"Tort" is found in the French language, and was at one time in common use in English as a
general synonym for "wrong." [Ibid.]

Definition
Broadly speaking, a tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which the court will
provide a remedy in the form of an action for damages. [Ibid.]

Legal Basis
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict xxx.

All the elements of a quasi-delict are present, to wit: (a) damages suffered by the plaintiff; (b)
fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and
(c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the
damages incurred by the plaintiff. [Andamo v. IAC, 1990]

PNR v. CA, 2007 — Amores was driving when he came to a railroad crossing. He stopped before
crossing then proceeded. But just as he was at the intersection, a PNR train turned up and
collided with his car, killing him. There was neither a signal nor a crossing bar at the intersection
to warn motorists and aside from the railroad track, the only visible warning sign was a
dilapidated "stop, look, and listen" sign. No whistle blow was heard from the train before the
collision. The SC held PNR liable, and that Amores did everything, with absolute care and
caution, to avoid the collission.

Doctrine: Negligence has been defined as ‘the failure to observe for the protection of the
interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.

Corinthian Gardens v. Tanjangco, 2008 — The Cuasos built their house on a lot adjoining that
owned by the Tanjangcos. Their plan was approved by Corinthian Gardens. It turned out,
however, that the house built encroached on the lot of the Tanjangcos. The SC found Corinthian
Gardens negligent for conducting only "table inspections," when it should have conducted
actual site inspections, which could have prevented the encroachment.

Doctrine: A negligent act is an inadvertent act; it may be merely carelessly done from a lack of
ordinary prudence and may be one which creates a situation involving an unreasonable risk to
another because of the expectable action of the other, a third person, an animal, or a force of
nature. A negligent act is one from which an ordinary prudent person in the actor's position, in
the same or similar circumstances, would foresee such an appreciable risk of harm to others as
to cause him not to do the act or to do it in a more careful manner.

Jarco Marketing v. CA, 1999 — Zhieneth, 6 years old, was pinned down by a gift-wrapping
counter at a department store, when her mother momentarily let her go to sign a credit card
slip. She died. The SC found Jarco Marketing negligent, since it did not employ safety measures
even when it knew that the counter was unstable. That Zhieneth was negligent, that she
climbed the counter, is incredible.

Doctrine: A conclusive presumption runs in favor of children below 9 years old that they are
incapable of contributory negligence. Notes: The 9-year mark was adopted from the Sangco's
discussion on the matter, citing the same age mark for determining discernment in criminal law.
This analogy, however, is erroneous since discernment, in criminal law, is used to determine the
existence of criminal intent, which is wildly different from negligence.

US v. Pineda, 1918 — Santos bought medicine in Santiago Pineda’s pharmacy for his sick horses.
He was given the wrong medicine. His horses died. The SC held him criminally liable under The
Pharmacy Law.

Doctrine: The profession of pharmacy is one demanding care and skill. The responsibility of the
druggist to use care has been variously qualified as "ordinary care," "care of a specially high
degree," "the highest degree of care known to practical men." In other words, the care required
must be commensurate with the danger involved, and the skill employed must correspond with
the superior knowledge of the business which the law demands. Caveat emptor does not apply
because the pharmacist and the customer are not in equal footing in this kind of transaction.
Notes: Even when the mistake is not fatal, the pharmacist will still be held liable if the rule laid
down applied. Also, caveat emptor may apply in cases of well-known medicine.

Mercury Drug v. De Leon, 2008 — Judge De Leon was given a prescription by his doctor friend
for his eye. He bought them from Mercury Drug but he was given drops for the ears. When he
applied the drops to his eyes, he felt searing pain. Only then did he discover that he was given
the wrong medicine. Mercury Drug invoked the principle of caveat emptor. The SC held Mercury
Drug and its employee liable for failing to exercise the highest degree of diligence expected of
them.

Doctrine: The profession of pharmacy demands care and skill, and druggists must exercise care
of a specially high degree, the highest degree of care known to practical men. In other words,
druggists must exercise the highest practicable degree of prudence and vigilance, and the most
exact and reliable safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct of the business, so that
human life may not constantly be exposed to the danger flowing from the substitution of deadly
poisons for harmless medicines.

Professional Services v. Agana, 2007 — After her hysterectomy operation at Medical City,
Natividad found out that two pieces of sponges were left inside her, which has caused her pain
for a long time. The SC held Dr. Ampil, the surgeon who closed the incision, liable, ruling that
leaving foreign substances in the wound after the incision has been closed in at the very least
prima facie negligence. It is inconsistent with due care, raising an inference of negligence. It is
even considered as negligence per se. Also, when the operation was finished, it was found out
that two sponges were missing.

Doctrine: Once a physician undertakes the treatment and care of a patient, the law imposes on
him certain obligations. To escape liability, he must possess that reasonable degree of learning,
skill and experience required by his profession. At the same time, he must apply reasonable care
and diligence in the exercise of his skill and the application of his knowledge, and exert his best
judgment.

Lucas v. Tuaño, 2009 — Lucas consulted Dr. Tuaño regarding his "sore eyes." He was prescribed
a medicine. Not long after, however, his sore eyes turned into a viral infection. Maxitrol was
then prescribed. The infection subsided. Upon discovery that Maxitrol increased the chance of
contracting glaucoma, he consulted Dr. Tuaño, who brushed it aside. His right eye became blind
because of glaucoma. On consultation to another physician, Lucas was informed that his
condition would require long-term care. The SC absolved Dr. Tuaño. It found that Lucas failed to
discharge the burden of proof by failing to present expert testimony to establish the standard of
care required, breach, and proximate causation, which requires expert testimony.

Doctrine: Just like any other proceeding for damages, four essential elements i.e., (1) duty; (2)
breach; (3) injury; and (4) proximate causation, must be established in medical negligence cases.
In accepting a case, the physician, for all intents and purposes, represents that he has the
needed training and skill possessed by physicians and surgeons practicing in the same field; and
that he will employ such training, care, and skill in the treatment of the patient. This standard
level of care, skill and diligence is a matter best addressed by expert medical testimony, because
the standard of care in a medical malpractice case is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of
experts in the field. Notes: The action was primarily based on Article 2176. However, instead of
using the three elements for quasidelict, the elements of the common-law tort was used.