Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

Torts and Damages

I . Concept/ Definition
The term “Tort” is of Anglo-American law-common law which is broader in scope than the
Spanish-Phil concept which is limited to negligence while the former includes international or
criminal acts. Torts in Philippine law is the blending of common-law and civil law system.

Quasi Delict refers to acts or omissions which cause damage to another, there being fault or
negligence on the part of the defendant, who is obliged by law to pay for the damages done.
Elements of Quasi Delict:
1. Damages suffered by the plaintiff
2. Fault or negligence of the defendant
3. Casual connection between the fault or negligence of the
defendant’s act and the damages incurred by the plaintiff (Andamo vs
IAC, 191 SCRA 426, ’96)
Article 2176 of the Civil Code applies when there’s no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties. However, the supreme court held
that even if there is contractual relation, there will still be quasi-delict since
“the act that break the contract may be also be tort”, in cases of Air France
vs Carrascaso, 18 SCRA 155; Singson vs BPI, 23 SCRA 1117, ’63; and
Fabre Jr vs CA, 259 SCRA 426
II. Distinctions
1. a. Fault signifies voluntary act or omission causing damages to the right of another giving rise
to an obligation of the actor to repair such damage.
Fault is of two (2) kinds:

i. Substantive and independent fault in that there is no pre-existing relation. This is


the one referred to Art. 2176 NCC and source of an obligation. It is also
known as culpa extra contractual or culpa aquiliana covered by Art. 2176
NCC.
ii. Fault as an incident in the performance of an obligation existing – is known as
contractual fault or culpa contractual governed by Art. 1170-73 of NCC.
b. Negligence consist in the omission to do certain acts which result to the damage to another.

2. As to Intennt to cause damage to another thru an act or omission:


a. It is culpa absence such intent, the actor’s liability is civil governed by the Civil
Code.
b. It is dolo presence of such intent and the act or omission becomes crime and the
actor’s civil liability is governed by the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
Distinctions – Importance of knowing these distinctions lies in filing the proper cause of action
against the tortfessor. The same act or omission which is faulty or negligent causing damage
produces civil liability arising from a crime under the Revised Penal Code or create an action for
quasi delict or culpa contractual under the Civil Code.

Illustrative Case: GSIS vs CA, 308 SCRA 559, ‘99


Facts: NFA National Food Authority – owner of Chevrolet truck insured by GSIS- CMVLI.
Victor Uy – owner of Toyota Tamaraw used as PU insured by Mabuhay Ins and Guarrantee –
CMVLI. On May 9, 1979 at Tabon-Tabon, Butuan City, the two vehicles collided resulting to
death and injuries to passengers of the Tamaraw and total wreck of the Tamaraw. 3 cases were
filed.

• (1) Civil Case No. 2196 for quasi-delict filed by UY vs NFA &
GSIS – recover damage to property. Won
• (2) Civil Case No. 2225 for culpa contractual filed by injured
passenger Taer vs Victor Uy and Mabuhay. Won.
• (3) Civil Case No. 2256 for quasi-delict NFA and driver
Corbeta, GSIS vs Victor Uy for culpa contractual and Mabuhay.
(Note: no criminal action was filed although it may be done had any of the injured parties
minded to. The action against the Insurers GSIS and Mabuhay are based on the insurance
contract of CMVLI whereby passengers injured have the right to sue directly the insurers)

3. Distinctions between Crimes and Culpa Aquiliana:


Crimes:
1. Crimes affected the public interest.
2. Penal law punishes/ corrects the criminal act.
3. Only acts covered by Penal Law are punished (Barredo vs Garcia, 73 Phil 607; J. Bocobo,
1940 : Taxi c lied with Carretela)
4. Guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Reservation to file separate civil action. No reservation, civil action is impliedly instituted
in the criminal action.
6. Employer’s liability is subsidiary.
Culpa Aquiliana:
1. Only private concern.
2. Repairs the damage by indemnification.
3. Covers all acts that are faulty or negligent.
4. Preponderance of evidence.
5. No reservation – it’s independent from crime.
6. Employer’s liability is solidary (Fabre Jr. vs CA, 259 SCRA 426)
Culpa Contractual
(i) Pre-existing obligation between the parties
(ii) Fault or negligence is incidental to the performance of the obligation
(iii) Defense of having exercised diligence of a good father of a family is not available, just
like in criminal action. Applied doctrine of Respondent Superior, or Master and
Servant Rule.
The result in the criminal case, whether acquittal, or conviction is irrelevant in the independent
civil action under the Civil Code (JBL Reyes: Dionisio vs Alyendia, 102 Phil 443, ’57, cited in
Mckee vs IAC, 211 SCRA 536) unless acquittal is based on the court’s declaration that the fact
from which the civil action arose did not exist, hence the dismissal of criminal action carries with
the extinction of the civil liability. (Andamo vs IAC, 191 SCRA 204, ’90 J. Fernan)
III. Doctrines/ Principles applied in Quasi-Delict or Tort cases availed of as defenses:
1. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the
doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
The failure to observe for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree of
care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such
person suffers injury. (Mckee vs IAC, 211 SCRA 517, ’92, citing Black Law Dictionary
and Judge Cooley: J. Davide Jr)

2. Emergency Rule – one who suddenly finds himself in a place 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 not to adopt what subsequently and upon
reflection may appear to be the better method, unless the emergency in which he finds
himself is brought about by his own negligence. (Gan vs CA, 165 SCRA 378, ’88, cited
in McKee case)
McKee vs IAC:
Facts: Two boys suddenly darted before McKee’s car forcing McKee to swerve the car to avoid
hitting the boys and in the process entered into the opposite lane and collided with the oncoming
cargo truck in the opposite lane.

Cases: to illustrate the exception expressed in “unless the emergency in which he finds himself is
brought about by his own negligence”.

Raynera vs Hicetas, 306 SCRA 102


Facts: At 2:00 A.M., Reynera was driving his motorcycle fast and bump a cargo truck he is
tailing. Raynera died.
Held: The proximate cause of the accident was his negligence of Raynera who was traveling
behind the cargo truck. He had the responsibility of avoiding bumping the vehicle in front of him
and who has control of the situation. The cargo truck rear was fully lighted.

Proximate cause is that cause which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produce the injury and without which the result would have not
occurred.

Austria vs CA, 327 SCRA 688


Facts: Austria driving her car very fast bumped a cargo truck improperly parked along the road.

Held: Proximate cause of collision is Austria’s driving recklessly such that he had no chance to
avoid the collision which was of her own making. She had the last clear chance but failed to take
steps to avoid hitting the cargo truck because she had no opportunity to do so.

Persons Liable for Quasi Delict: Culpa Aquiliana: Tort


Every person must, in the exercise with his rights and in the performance of his
duty, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith (Art 19
NCC)Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damages to another,
shall indemnify the latter for the same (Art 20 NCC) and any person who willfully causes loss or
injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage (Art 21 NCC)

Wassmer vs Velez, 12 SCRA 648 – Contrary to Good Customs


Facts: W and V set their wedding for Sept 4, 1954. Invitations were distributed to
relatives and friends. Wedding dresses purchased, reception contracted etc. 2 days before
the wedding V left for home in Mindanao and never heard again.

Held: the mere breach of promise of marry is not an accionable wrong, but to formally set
a wedding and go thru rites in preparing and publishing incurring expenses is palpably
and unjustly contrary to good customs for which the defendant is answerable in damages
under Art. 21 NCC.

Tortfeasor or Wrongdoer = Person acting with fault or negligence causing damage to


another is obliged to pay for the damages done (Art 2176 NCC)

Liability for one’s act of fault or negligence


Case: Dr Carillo va People, 229 SCRA 386 ‘94
Anesthesiologist was convicted for negligence for the death of a child who died a day
after operation for appendicitis. The physician did not make an intensive preparation such
as administration of antibiotics, gave and overdose of anesthesia and arbritary
administration of Nubian (pain killer) without examination of patient’s weight which
caused a heart attact.

Case: Batiquin vs CA, July 5, ’96 - a surgeon left a piece of rubber in the woman’s
uterus in caesarian operation
Person Vicariously Liable for Acts of Others (Art 2180)
The basis of vicarious liability is responsibility of a person over other persons under their
legal authority, control or influence. Violation or remission of duty arising from such
relationship makes them liable for damages caused by other person under their care or
charge.

1. Parent – father, if dead or incapacitated, mother are responsible for damages caused
by minor children living in their company (Art 2180 NCC)
2. Guardians – are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated person
who are under their authority and live in their company. (ibid)
Art 221. Family Code provides that parents and other persons exercising parental
authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the act or omission
or their unemancipated children living in their company and under parental authority
subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law.

The Basis of the civil liability which is primary-direct and solidary imposed by law is the
necessary consequence of parental authority exercise over their children. This authority
imposed a duty upon parents to support them, keep them company, educate and instruct
them, and grand the right to correcting punish with moderation. The parents are relieved
of this liability only upon proof that they have exercise the diligence of a good father of a
family (Exconde vs Capuno, 101 Phil 843) to prevent damage.

Case: Tamagro vs CA, 209 SCRA 519


Facts: a 10 year old boy shot and air gun a girl resulting to her death. The boy was
acquitted in the criminal suit for having acted without discernment. However a civil suit
was filed against the boy’s parent.

Held: The Anglo-American Tort Principle of parental liability is a specie of Vicarious


Liability, also known as Imputed Liability.

This liability is made natural as logical consequences 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 (NCC
and FC) which assumes that when a minor or unemancipated child living with their
parent, commits a tortuous act, the parents are presumed negligent in the performance of
their duty to supervice the children under their custody. A presumption which muris
tantum, not juris es de jure, rebuttable-overcome by proof having exercised and observed
all the diligence of a good father of a family (diligentissimi patris familias).

Note in this case the boy was adopted but it was the natural parent who were held liable
as they the actual physical custody of the boy at the time of the shooting. The adoption
was approved only after the shooting although the adoption proceeding was filed before
the shooting and in between the time the adaptor was abroad.

Case: Cuadra vs Monfort, 35 SCRA 160


Facts: Grade 6 pupil Maria C and Maria M were assigned by teacher to weed the grass in
the school premises. M found a plastic headband which she aloud she found an
earthworm and tossed it to C hitting the latter right eyes resulting to loss of said eye.

Held: The underlying basis of the liability imposed by Art 2176 is the fault or negligence
accompanying the act or omission there being no willfulness or intent to cause damage
thereby and in Art 2180 providing vicarious liability of parent although primarily.

It was not shown that the parent could have prevented the damage as their child was in
school and they have the right to expect their child to be under the care and supervision
of the teacher. Beside the act was an innocent prank and unusual among children at play
and which no parent could have any special reason to anticipate much less guard against.
Parent not held liable.

Where the minor or insane person causing damage to others has no parent or guardian/
the minor or insane person’s property shall answer the damage caused. (Art 2182)

3. Teachers or Heads of school of arts and trade (non-academic) are liable for
damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices remaining under
custody (Art 2180 NCC)
Exconde vs Capuno, 201 Phil 843
Facts: 15 year old elementary student after attending Rizal Day Parade boarded a jeep on
the way home. He took over the wheel and driving recklessly caused the vehicle to turn
over resulting to death of two passengers.

Held: Upon being found guilty of double homicide with reckless imprudence filed against
him, a separate civil action was filed whereby the father was hold solidarily liable for
damages under Art 1903 nor Art 2180 NCC. The school head was held no liable being
academic school.

Mercando vs CA, 108 Phil 414, 1960


Facts: A student of Lourdes Catholic School in QC during recess cut a classmate with
razor blade. Parent of the injured student sued the culprit for damages.

Held: Reiterated Exconda case – school not liable as it was not an establishment of arts
and trade (aside from the fact that it was not sued). Parent was held to be liable.

Palisoc vs Brillantes. 41 SCRA 548, 1971


Facts: A 16 year old student of Manila Technical Institute was killed in a fist fight by a
person who was not boarding in the school and of majority age.

Held: The school is being non-academic (arts and trade), the head of the school and
teacher in charge were solidarily liable with the assailant.

Amadora vs CA 160 SCRA 315, 1988 J. Cruz


Facts: It was summer of 1972 Alfredo Amadora about to graduate at the Colegio de San
Jose-Recoletes was shot to death by his classmate Pablito Daffon. Alfredo went to the
school to submit his “Report in Physic”.

Held: Art 2180 NCC applies to all schools, academic or non-academic. Teachers are
liable for acts of their student except where the school is technical in nature (arts and
trade establishment) in which case the head thereof shall be answerable.

“There is really no substantial difference distinction 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”. “x x x x The
distinction no longer obtains at present. x x x “

The student is in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control
and influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not ended,
or has ended or has not yet begun. The term “custody” signifies that the student is within
the control and influence of the school authorities. The teacher in charge is the one
designated by the dean, principal, or other administrative superior to exercise supervision
over the pupils or students in the specific classes or sections to which they are assigned. It
is not necessary that at the time of the injury, the teacher is physically present and in a
position to prevent it.
Thus, for injuries caused by the student, the teacher and not the parent shall be held
responsible if the tort was committed within the premises of the school at any time when
its authority could be validly exercised over him.

In any event, the school may be held to answer for the acts of its teacher or the head
thereof under the general principle of respondent superior, but it may exculpate itself
from liability by proof that it had exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. Such
defense they had taken necessary precautions to prevent the injury complained of and
thus be exonerated from liability imposed by Art 2180.

Basis of teacher’s vicarious liability is, as such, they 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. x x x
The parent can instill more lasting discipline more lasting disciple 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.

As the teacher was not shown to have been negligent nor the school remised in the
discharged of their duties, they were exonerated of liability.

(Note – the court view on increasing students activism likely causing violence resulting
to injuries, in or out of the school premises – J. Guttierez, Jr concurringly said many
student x x x view some teachers as part of the bourgeois and or reactionary group whose
advice on behavior deportment and other non-academic matters is not only resented but
actively rejected. It seems most unfair to hold teacher liable on a presumption juris
tantum of negligence for acts of students even under circumstances where strictly
speaking there could be no in loco parentis relationship.

The provision of Art 2180 NCC involved in this case has outlived its purpose. The court
cannot make law, it can only apply the law with its imperfections. However the court can
suggest that such a law should be amended or repealed.

4. The state is responsible when it acts thru a special agent but not when the damage
has been caused by the official to whom the task is done properly pertains (i.e.
function or duty) in which case Art 2176 is applied.
As a general rule, the state cannot be sued without its consent. (principle of immunity
from suit) This “consent” is manifested in legislative acts – enactment of laws making the
state suable as in this specific provision of the Civil Code, in RA 7160 – LGC of 1991
providing that LGU and their officials are not exempt from liability for death or injury to
person or damage to property (Sec 24).

The state – the state may not be sued without its consent. (Sec 3 Art XVI ’87
Constitution) This is the doctrine of immunity from suit or principle of non liability
(enuciated in the 1910 case of Forbes vs Chuco Tiaco & Crossfield, 16 Phil 534) was
originally founded upon an old maxim that “The King can do no wrong” prevailing
during the medieval England when the King was generally accepted as the State himself.
With the development of democratic thoughts and institution, the concept eventually lost
is moral force, the natural person-king is no longer the state but merely its representative
who may be removed by the people. i.e. thru impeachment. The modern basis of the
principle is that “immunity from suit is inherent in all sovereign states. The reason is
based on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the
authority that makes the law on which the right depends. (Kawananakoa vs Plyblank, 206
US 349 cited by Hector S. Deleon, 2002 Ed Textbook on the Phil Const)

The state (Govt) may be sued only with its consent which may be given

i. expressly – thru duly enacted statutes such as the ff:


a. CA NO. 327 amended by PD 14445 providing conditions under which the state
may be sued
b. Administrative Code of 1987
c. Civil Code Art 2180 – state acting thru special agent
d. Charters of public corp vesting them with power to sue and be sued, eg. RA
7610 – LGC
ii. Impliedly as in the ff cases:
a. When the Govt sues to recover money from individual who has claim against it,
the latter may set a counterclaim.
b. When the Govt engages in commercial business or enters into a contract, it can
be sued upon the theory that it has descended to the level of private individual
from which it can be implied that its has given its consent to be sued under the
contract and thereby divested itself of its sovereign character and its immunity
from suits. (National Airport Corp vs Teodoro, 91 Phil 203, Manila Hotel
Employees Assn. Vs Manila Hotel, 73 Phil 347)
The term State used in Art 2180 NCC refers to the Govt of the Republic of the
Philippines defined in Sec 2, 1987 Revised Administrative Code as the Corporate
Governmental entity thru which the functions of the govts are exercised throughout the
Phils, which included the various arms thru which political authority is made effective in
the Phils such as the autonomous regions and the local govt units (province, city,
municipality and barangay). The term does not include agency or instrumentality or other
entity which their enabling laws have invested with juridical personality separate and
distinct from that of the Republic of the Philippines (Fontanilla vs Maliaman, 194 SCRA
495 J. Paras)

The functions of govt is classified into (a) governmental or constituent involving exercise
of sovereignty and is compulsory, (b) proprietary or ministrant which is optional
(Fontanilla vs Maliaman)

The state – for the governmental function – the state can not be sued without its consent.
For the proprietary function of the govt may be sued without its consent which is
presumed have been given in advance.

The state may be sued only thru its Special Agent but not when the damage had been
caused by the official to whom properly it pertained to do the act performed (Merritt
Fontanilla case, 194 SCRA 503)

Special Agents are of two kinds


a. Public officials with a particular assigned tasks but is specially commissioned to do
such task foreign to his usual assigned governmental function.
b. Private person – not a public official, commissioned to perform non-governmental
function. A govt commissioning a private person for a special task is acting thru
special agent within the meaning of Art 2180 NCC
The state assumes the role of an ordinary employer and will be held liable for the special
agent’s torts (Fontanilla vs Malianan, ‘89)

Facts: Hugo Garcia is a regular employee of National Irrigation Administration (NIA) a


govt agency created by its charter RA 3601 amended by PD 552 for the purpose of
undertaking integrated irrigation project. Garcia driving the agency official pick-up
bumped a bicycle ridden by Fontanilla resulting to his death. The victim’s parent filed a
civil action against NIA and its driver Garcia who was found guilty of driving recklessly.
NIA was ordered to pay, NIA appealed raising the issue that as govt agency performing
govt function is not liable as being a part of the state, cannot be sued.

Held: the state or govt agency performing governmental function may be held liable for
tort committed by its employees when it acts thru a special agent.

While NIA is a govt agency performing governmental function, however it is suable


because its charter provides that it may be sue or be sued, thus consent of the state for
NIA to be sued has already given, so that the rule on immunity from suit normally
extended to govt agencies performing governmental functions is no longer available to
NIA. By waiving that immunity from suit in its charter, NIA open itself to suits.

Thus NIA was held responsible for the negligent act of its employee Garcia who is not a
special agent. (J. Padilla separate opinion in Fontanilla vs Maliaman Resolution in 1991,
194 SCRA 499)

Palafox vs Ilocos Norte Prov, 102 Phil 1186


Facts: Province’s truck on its was to the river for gravel and sands to be used in the
construction and repair of its road (a governmental function) runs over a pedestrian
resulting to the latter’s death.

Held: The province was not liable because its employee driver at the time of the accident
was performing his regular duties and is not a special agent.

Rosete vs The Auditor General, 81 Phil 453


Facts: A fire broke out in the Emergency Control Administration (a govt office) due to
the negligence of its employee in igniting recklessly his cigarette lighter near a drum of
gasoline in the office’s warehouse resulting to destruction of buildings adjoining the
warehouse. Victims sued the officers of the Emergency Control Admin.

Held: As ECA or its officers were shown to have acted not as special agent of the govt in
storing gasoline in the warehouse, the Govt is not responsible for the damages caused
thru such negligence.

Republic vs Palacio, 23 SCRA 899


Facts: The Irrigation Service Unit, an office/agency under the Dept of Public Works and
Communication was sued for tort and the Sheriff of Manila garnished the deposit of the
ISU in the PNB, Manila.

Held: The ISU being an office in the govt and its fund is a public fund. It is being shown
that the ISU was guilty of tort, however the sate not its fund is not liable because the ISU
was not a special agent. Under Art 2180 the state is liable only for tort caused by its
special agent.

GAA vs CA, 167 SCRA 28, ‘88


Facts: GAA charges fees for the use of the Airport’s terrace or viewing deck where one
gets a better view of arriving and departing passengers at the airport. The deck had an
elevated portion (4 inches) which caused a viewer to fall breaking his thigh bone. He
sued CAA for hospital expenses. CAA raised the defense of being a govt agency subject
of immunity from suit.

Held: While CAA is a govt agency however it is performing a proprietary functions –


business and under its charter it is empowered to sue and be sued. Thus it cannot avail the
immunity from suit accorded to govt agencies performing strictly governmental function.
(Malong vs PNR, 138 SCRA 63 which ruled that PNR is not immune from suit as it does
not exercise sovereignty but purely proprietary – business function)

NIA vs IAC, 214 SCRA 35, ‘92


Held: Damages caused by the officials of NIA for its negligence in the construction of the
canal which caused damages to nearby land, NIA is liable under Art 2176 NCC as NIA’s
official are not special agent in performing their official assigned duties and functions.

LGU are liable for damages for the death or injuries suffered by any person by reason of
defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public building and other public works
under their control or supervision. (Art 2189)

LGU’s and their official are not exempt from liability for death or injury to persons or
damage to property. (Sec 24, RA 7160 LGC of 1991)

Municipality of San Fernando, La Union vas Firme, 195 SCRA 692, ‘91
Facts: Municipal’s dump truck on way to the Naguilian River to get gravel and sands for
the repair of roads (a governmental function) collided with a passenger jeep resulting the
death of passenger of the latter vehicle. Civil action was filed against the Municipality.

Held: Municipalities being agencies of the State, when performing governmental


functions enjoy sovereignty and thus immune from suit unless it is shown that they are
performing proprietary function.

However, they may be held liable if it can be shown acting thru a special agent. The
Municipality’s driver is not a special agent and so the Municipal is not liable, only the
driver.

Palma vs Graciano, 99 Phil 92


Facts: A governor and a Mayor filed a criminal charge which was dismissed for being
groundless. They were sued.

Held: The prosecution of a crime is a governmental function, not a corporation action. In


the discharged thereof, the Province or City or Municipality is not liable for tortuous acts
of its officers. Only the public officers acting tortuously (beyond the scope of their
authority) are personally liable because the mantle of immunity from suit accorded to
their office is not available for their tortuous acts.

Republic vs Sandoval, 20 SCRA 124, 1993


Facts: Jan 22, 1987 known as Black Saturday – the Mendiola Massacre of Rallyist who
were shot as they march toward Malacañang. Heirs of the dead rallyist sued the Republic
and Military Officers and soldiers. Judge Sandoval dismiss their suit invoking State’s
immunity from suit.

Held: Instances when the suit against the state

a. when the Republic is sued by name


b. when the suit is against an unincorporated govt agency
c. when the suit is against a govt officer but the ultimate liability will fall on the state and
not on the officer
d. when the govt perpetrated injustice on the citizen (De los Santos vs IAC, 223 SCRA
11)
In this case, the state is not liable for the civil liability arising from criminal acts of the
military for violating BP Blg 880 which prohibits unnecessary firing in dispensing public
assembly. The doctrine of immunity from suit will not be applied to the military officers
who have acted beyond the scope of their authority because in so doing they are deemed
to ceased to be a public officers but a private person liable like any other private persons
for doing wrongful acts.

De los Santos vs IAC, 223 SCRA 11, ‘93


Facts: Min of Public works while carrying on its project of constructing roads and creeks
took over the portion of privately owned land without or against the consent of the owner
who sued. Immunity from suit was invoked.

Held: when a govt thru its agency takes away private property without going to legal
process of expropriation and paying just compensation, a suit may be properly
maintained against the govt. The civil action may be based under Art 32 NCC and the
constitutional provisions on rights against privation of property without due process of
law and without just compensation.

The doctrine of immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for the perpetration of
injustice on its citizens. (J. Romero)
Resume on State’s liability for tort
The state is liable fro the tortuous acts only of its special agent but not of its public
officials in the performance of their assigned usual duties and functions who are liable
under Art 2176 NCC and not Art 2180 NCC

Rationale: there can be no legal rights as against the authority that grants such rights. This
is known as doctrine of immunity from suit which is very essence of sovereignty. It is
expressed in the constitution that the state cannot be sued without its consent (Sec 3, Art
XVI). The state’s consent is manifested expressly in the form its legislative enactments of
statues (Art 2180 NCC, Sec 24 LGC of 1991, Act No 3083 relating money claims arising
from contract) and impliedly when the state enters into contract in its proprietary or
private capacity, or when the sate itself sues, opens itself to counterclaim, or perpetrate
injustice to its citizen.

5. Employers: Master
a. Owner and Manager of establishment or enterprises are liable for damage
caused by their employees in the service of employment or on the occasion of
their functions.
b. Employer of household helper though not engaged in any business or industry
are liable for damages caused by helper acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks.
Basis of Liability is not “Respondent Superior (Anglo-American doctrine where the
negligence of the employee is conclusively presumed to be the negligence of the
employer) but on the relationship of Pater-Familias, (master-servant) a theory basing the
liability of the master ultimately on his own negligence and not that of the servant as
manifested in his negligence in the selection of their employee-servant (culpa eligiendo)
or in the supervision over their employee-servants (culpa in vigilando). This negligence is
prima facie presumption juris tantum- overcome or rebutted by proof that they have
observed and exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family (diligantissimi bonus
fater familias). The theory is deduced from the last par of Art 2180 NCC providing the
responsibility shall cease upon proof of exercise of the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent the damage.

The term “Manager” in Art 2180 is used in the sense of employer, not employee.

Case: Phil Rabbit Bus Lines Inc vs Phil Am Forwarder, Mar 25, 1975
Facts: An action for damages was brought against Phil Am Forwarded and its Manager
Balingit for negligent act of their driver. Balingit moved to dismiss the action against him
for though he was manager, however, he was just an employee of the company.
Held: Balingit is not liable because he was just a mere employee though designated as
“Manager”.

The relationship of employer-employee or master-servant must first be established to


exist before the employer/master will be held liable.

Case: Phil Shell Petroleum Co vs CA, 221 SCRA 389


Facts: Gas station proprietor was sued for selling adulterated gas with water. He settled
amicably the suit and then Phil Shell for the negligence of Feliciano who was hired in
undertaking hydro pressure test in the underground storage tank which was cracked
causing water to seep into the tank.

Held: Phil Shell is not liable because Feliciano was not its employee. It was shown that
Phil Shell has no control over Feliciano who do business of his own, used his own tools
and worked on his own time charging a fixed lump sum for every piece of work.
Feliciano was an independent contractor and not an employee and thus he alone is liable.

Case: Cuison vs Norton & Harisson Co, 55 Phil 18


Facts: Ora was employed by defendant company charged in directing and controlling
transport business of the Co. On the day of the accident, one of the company’s truck was
leaded with logs which were not properly tied. The ties were loosened during the trip.
They stopped to rearrange the ties but before they could do so a child passing beside the
truck was hit by a log falling from the truck.

Held: Ora beingan employee of the company, the latter is responsible for the negligence
in the loading of logs which caused the death of the boy.

Distinction of employer’s liability under Art 2180 NCC and Revised Penal Code.
Civil Code
1. Direct and primary – solidary, employer is sue even without suing the employee
2. Defense of exercise of diligence of a good father of the family to be relieve of liability
3. Employer is liable even if not engaged in business
4. Proof of negligence is by mere preponderance of evidence
Revised Penal Code
1. Subsidiary – arising after the employee’s guilt
2. Diligence of a good father is not a defense
3. Must prove employer is engaged in business
4. Proof beyond reasonable doubt of evidence
5. Owners of Motor vehicle (Art 2184)
a. Owner is in the motor vehicle is solidary liable with his driver
b. Owner is not in the motor vehicle with the driver is subsidiary liable
Case: Chapman vs Underwood, 27 Phil 374
Facts: Underwood riding in his car and his driver suddenly turned to the wrong side of
the street and hit the plaintiff. Driver was negligent. Was the owner liable too?

Held: Where the owner had reasonable opportunity to observe his driver and to direct the
latter to cease there from, becomes himself responsible for such acts. On the other hand,
if the driver, by sudden act of negligence and without opportunity to prevent the acts or
its continuance, the owner is not responsible.

Caedo vs Tu Khe Thai, 26 SCRA 419


Facts: Yu was riding in his Cadillac driven by Bernardo saw a carratela about 8 meters
away. Instead of slowing down veered to the left to overtake and in so doing the car hit
the carratella’s left wheel and skidded obliquely hitting the on coming car of Caedo who
despite slackened speed to avoid the collision was hit resulting to the injuries of Caedo
and his passengers. Yu’s driver was negligent. Was Yu liable?

Held: The basis of the master/employer’s liability in civil law is not respondent superior
but rather the relationship of Pater Familias. The theory is that ultimately the negligence
of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of timely correction, reflects the
master’s negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent the injury or damage (J.
Makalintal)

The owner of the car Yu was not liable because he did not see the carretela at a distance,
however, he could not anticipated his driver’s sudden decision to pass the carretela. The
time element was such that there was not reasonable opportunity for Yu to assess the
danger involved and warn the driver accordingly.

Former owner of Motor Vehicle are liable for the tortuous acts of the new owner.

Case: Equitable Leasing Corp vs Suyom, Sept 5, 2002


Facts: “Equitable” sold to Lim a Fuso tractor. After the sale’s price was fully paid, a deed
of sale executed by “Equitable” in favor of Lim who had not registered the sale with the
LTO. While the tractor was driven by Lim’s employee, it rammed into a house causing
death and injuries and damages.

Held: This court (SC) has consistently held that regardless of the sales made of motor
vehicle, the registered owner is the lawful operator insofar as the public and third persons
are concerned. Consequently it is directly and primary liable for the consequences of its
operation in contemplation of the law. The owner of record is the employer of the driver
while the actual owner is considered as merely its agent.

Since “Equitable” remained the registered owner, it could not escape primary liability.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi