QUASI DELICT

An action for quasi-delict

is founded on the existence of
a negligent act.
 Motive not material

Motive is not material in negligence cases.

The defendant may still be held liable even
if the act was meant to be a practical joke.
 Kinds of negligence
• 1. Culpa criminal;
• 2. culpa aquiliana; and
• 3. culpa contractual.
Culpa criminal Culpa aquiliana or
culpa ex-contractual
(quasi-delict)
Legal basis of liability
There can be no There can be a quasi-delict
crime unless there is as long as there is a fault or
a law clearly negligence resulting in
punishing the act. damage or injury to another
Nature of Negligence
Direct, substantive Direct, substantive and
and independent independent
Criminal intent
Essential for criminal Not necessary, fault or
liability to exist negligence without intent will
suffice
Culpa contractual
the obligation arises
from the breach of the
contract because of
defendant’s failure to
exercise due care in its
performace
Incidental to the
performance of an
existing obligation based
on a contract
Not necessary
Culpa criminal Culpa aquiliana or culpa ex- Culpa contractual
contractual(quasi-delict)
Proof needed
Proof beyond Preponderance of evidence Preponderance of
reasonable doubt evidence
Existence of pre-existing contractual obligation
No pre-existing No pre-existing obligation There is a pre-exisiting
obligation express/implied contractual
obligation
Defense of “Good father of a family”
Cannot be A complete and proper Not a complete and proper
interposed if the defense insofar as defense in the selection
employee is parents,guardians, and supervisions of
insolvent, the employees are concerned. employees but can mitigate
employer is liability for damages
subsidiarily liable
Culpa criminal Culpa aquiliana
Presumption of negligence
The innocence of the No presumption of
accused is presumed negligence, injured party
until the contrary is must prove the
proven negligence of the
defendant, otherwise,
the complaint of injured
party will be dismissed
Nature of the right violated
Public right. Private right. It is a
A crime is a wrong wrongful act against a
against the state private individual
Governing law
Governedby article 365 Governed by Art. 2176;
of the RPC Articles 1172-1174 are
also applicable( Civil
Culpa contractual
There is a presumption
of negligence as long as
it can be proved that
there was breach of
contract.
Defendant must prove
that there was no
negligence in the
performance of the
contract.
Private right
Governed by articles
1170-1174 of the CC
 Degrees of negligence
1. Simple negligence
failure to exercise the standard of care
that a reasonably prudent person would
have exercised in a similar situation.
2. Gross negligence
there is a want of even slight care and
diligence and implies conscious
indifference to consequences; pursuing a
course of conduct which would naturally
and probably result to injury; utter
disregard of the consequences

In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may

be granted if the defendant acted with
gross negligence( Civil Code, Article 2231)
 CASE
A crossed check with the notation”
account payee only” can only be deposited
in the named payee’s account. It is gross
negligence for a bank to ignore this rule
solely on the basis of a third party’s oral
representation of having a good title,
thereto…Such misplaced reliance on
empty words is tantamount to gross
negligence, which is the “ absence of or
failure to exercise even slight cares or
diligence, or the entire absence of care,
evincing a thoughtless disregard of
consequences without exerting any effort
to avoid them.” ( Equitable Banking v
Special Steel Products, G.R. No. 175350,
June 13, 2012)
 Articles 2176 to 2194 governs
quasi-delict
Article 2176-Defines quasi-delict and its
requisites.
Article 2177- Civil liability arising from a
quasi-delict vs civil liability arising from
delict.
Article 2178-Articles 1172-1174 are
applicable to quasi-delict.
Article 2179- Effect of plaintiff’s own
negligence.
Article 2180 – Defines the responsibility of
father or mother; guardians;
owners/managers of establishments;
employer; state; teachers/heads of
establishments of Arts and
Trades(FGO-EST).
Article 2181-FGO-EST’s reimbursement for
what they paid for damages caused by
their dependents or employees.
Article 2181- States the requirements in
order that minor or insane person’s
properties may be held answerable.
Article 2183-The possessor or user of
animals is liable for damages it may
cause.
Article 2184- The owner of the motor vehicle
is solidarily liable with his driver.
Article2185- The driver is presumed
negligent if , at the time of the mishap, he
was violating any traffic regulation
Article 2186-Every owner of a vehicle shall
file a bond (CTPL) to answer for damages
to third persons.
Article 2187- Imposes liability to
manufacturers and possessors of
foodstuffs, drinks, etc. if the death or injury
is caused by the noxious substances used
by them.
Article 2188- Prima facie presumption of
defendant’s negligence if death or injury
results from his possession of dangerous
weapons or substances, except when
possession or use of the same is
indispensable in his occupation or
business.
Article 2189- Province, cities, and
municipalities are liable for damages for
death or injuries caused to any person
because of defective public works under
their control and supervision.
Article 2190-Due to lack of necessary
repairs, the owner of the building/structure
is responsible for the damages caused by
its collapse.

Article 2191- Proprietor’s other

responsibilities on explosion of machinery,
excessive smoke, falling trees, and
emanation from tubes, etc.
Article 2192- Liability of engineer, architect
or contractor if the damage is the result of
a defect in the construction.

Article 2193- Head of the family’s liability for

falling objects.

Article 2194- Solidary liability when there are

two or more persons who are joint
tortfeasors and they are guilty of only one
quasi-delict
Art 2176 of CC.
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
and is governed by the provisions of this
chapter.
• Article 2177 CC.
Responsibility for fault or negligence
under the preceding article is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil liability
arising from negligence under the Penal
Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant.
 Quasi-delicts, elements
• Damages suffered by the plaintiff
• Fault or negligence of the defendant or
some other person for whose acts he must
respond
• Connection of cause and effect between
the fault or negligence of defendant and
the damages incurred by the plaintiff
 Elements (Paras version)
• Act or omission
• Presence of fault or negligence
• Damages to another
• Causal connection between fault or
negligence and the damage
• No pre-existing contractual relation
(Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Inc vs CA)
 TWO VIEWS
• MAJORITY VIEW- Article 2176 includes
intentional torts.
• MINORITY VIEW- Article 2176 is limited to
negligence. Intentional and malicious acts
are governed by the Revised Penal Code
while negligent acts or omissions are
covered by Article 2176 of the Civil Code
(AQUINO, Torts and Damages, supra at 8-
10)
PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
The quantum of proof required is
preponderance of evil (RULES OF
COURT, RULE 133, Sec.1)
 BURDEN OF PROOF
GENERAL RULE: Plaintiff alleging damage
due to negligent acts in his complaint has
the burden of proving such negligence
EXCEPTIONS: When the rules provide for
causes when negligence is presumed
1. Disputable Presumptions of Negligence
a. Motor vehicle Mishaps- a driver is presumed
negligent if he:
i. was found guilty of reckless driving or
violating traffic regulations at least
twice within the preceding two; or
ii. was violating any traffic regulation at the time
of the mishap.
NOTE: R.A. 4136 provides for instances of
traffic rules commonly violated by the drivers,
such as exceeding registered capacity and
obstruction of traffic.
B. Possession of dangerous weapons or
substances, such as firearms and poison that
results in death or injury, except when the
possession or use thereof is indispensable in his
occupation or business.
C. Common carriers are presumed to have been at
fault or acted negligently in case of death or
injuries to passengers. Unless they prove that
they observed extraordinary diligence prescribed
in Articles 1733 and 1755.
 NEGLIGENCE
• Omission of that degree of diligence required by
the nature of the obligation and corresponding to
the circumstances of persons, time and
place(Art 1173)
• 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 do
• Conduct which creates undue risk of harm to
another, the failure to observe that degree of
care, precaution and vigilance that the
circumstance justly demand, whereby that other
person suffers injury
• It is the failure to observe for the protection of
interest of another person that degree of care,
precaution, and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand. It is want of care
required by the circumstances.
 Questions to test negligence
• Did the defendant in doing the alleged
negligent act use the reasonable care and
caution which an ordinarily prudent person
would have used in the same situation?
• Could a prudent man, in the case under
consideration, foresee harm as a result of
the course actually pursued?
• To constitute quasi-delict, it is not enough
to establish negligence. It is equally
imperative that the fault or negligence be
the proximate cause of the damage or
injury suffered by the plaintiff
• One who alleged negligence must prove it
Conduct is negligent when a prudent man
in the position of the tort-feasor would
have foreseen that affect harmful to
another was sufficiently probable to
warrant his disregard of the conduct or
guarding against its consequences (Picard
v Smith , GR No. L-12219, March 15,
1918)
 DILIGENCE BEFORE THE ACT
The conduct that should be examined in
negligence cases is conduct prior tot eh injury or
the aggravation thereof( St Francis High School
vs CA, GR No. 82465, Feb 25, 1991).

NOTE: The state of mind of the actor is not

important . Good Faith or use of sound
judgement is immaterial.
Only juridical fault is subject to liability and not
moral fault
 Cases where ARTICLE 2176 is not
Applicable
a. Where there was a pre-existing
contractual relationship of employer and
employee between the parties and there is
merely breach of contract, except when
the act of breaching the contract is also
tortious.
 Cases where ARTICLE 2176 is not
Applicable
b. When the fault or negligence is punished
by law as a crime where Art 100 of the
RPC will be applicable.

c. Bar by prescription if the action for quasi-

delict is instituted after 4 years.
d. The injury suffered by a person is the
result of a tortious event without human
intervention.

e. If there is no damage or injury caused to

anotehr party; and

f. Where there is no breach of contract that

an airline acted in wanton, fraudulent or
malevolent manner, there is no basis for
the award of any form of damages.
 EXCEPTIONS(CONT…)
2. Res Ipsa Loquitur ( the thing or
transaction speaks for itself)
The thing which caused the injury, without
the fault of the injured, is under the
exclusive control of the defendant and the
injury is such that it would not have
occurred if he, having such control use
proper care.
Res Ipsa Loquitur is applied in conjunction with
the doctrine of common knowledge ( Jarcia, Jr
vs People, GR NO. 187926).

The doctrine is not meant to and does not

dispense with the requirement of proof of
culpable negligence against the party charged,
rather, it merely determines and regulates what
shall be preima facie evidence thereof, and
helps the plaintiff in proving a brach of the
duty(Solidum vs People, GR NO 192123)
 REQUISITES OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR
1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does
not occur in the absence of someone’s
negligence;
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the
exclusive control of the defendant or
defendants;
3. The possibility of contributing conduct which
would make the plaintiff responsible is
eliminated( Rogelio Ramos vs CA, GR No.
124354, December 29, 1999)
“Control of the Instrumentality” which caused
the damages

It is the fundamental element. Such

element of control must be shown to be
within the dominion of the defendant.

Res Ipsa Loquitor is inapplicable:

1. If there is a direct proof of absence or presence
of negligence(Huang vs Phil Hotelier, Inc. , GR
NO. 180440, December 5, 2012)
 Res Ipsa Loquitor is inapplicable

2. When an unexplained accident may be

attributable to one of several causes, for
someone of which defendant could be
held responsible(FGU Insurance Corp vs
G.P. Sarmiento Trucking Corporation, GR
No. 141910, August 6, 2010)
 Circumstances that may affect the
determination of Negligence
1. Person exposed to the Risk
Higher degree of diligence is required if a
child is involved, even if a trespasser
because entry of children in vacant lot
may be forseeable.
 Circumstances that may affect the
determination of Negligence
2. Emergency
Emergency Rule or Sudden Peril Doctrine
Gen. Rule: An individual suddenly in a situation
of danger, required to act without much time to
consider the best means to avoid the impending
danger is not guilty of negligence if he fails to
undertake what subsequently and upon
reflection may appear to be a better solution.
Reason: A person who is confronted with a
sudden emergency may be left with no
time for thought and must make a speedy
decision largely upon impulse or instinct.
Exception: The emergency rule cannot be
invoked if the person invoking it found
himself in danger which he himself created
though his own negligence ( Delsan
Transport v C and A Construction, Inc, GR
No. 156034, October 1, 2003)
 CASE
• In McKee v IAC, plaintiff swerved his
vehicle to avoid hitting two children. The
SC held that any reasonable and ordinary
prudent man would have tried swerving
the car away from where they were even if
this would mean entering the opposite
lane(GR NO. L-68102, July 16, 1992)
3. Social Value or Utility Action
Any act subjecting an innocent person to
unnecessary risk is a negligent act if the
risk outweighs the advantage accruing tot
eh actor and even to the innocent person
himself.

4. The time of the day may affect the

diligence required by the actor e.g. more
prudence is required when driving at night.
5. Gravity of harm to be avoided
Even if the odds that an injury will result are not
high, harm may still be considered foreseeable if
the gravity of harm to be avoided is great.

6. Alternative courses of action

If the alternative presented tot eh actor is too
costly, the harm that may result may still be
considered unforeseeable to a reasonable man.
More so if there is no alternative thereto.
7. Place
The place where the actor is located may
affect the diligence required from him
e.g higher degree of diligence is required
when travelling in a wet and slippery road
than in a dry road.
 STANDARD OF CARE
Diligence of a Good father of a Family( Pater
Familias) (CC , Article 1173 in relation to Article
2178)
What should be determined in negligence cases
is what is foreseeable to a good father of a
family.

A good father of a family is also referred to as

the reasonable man, man of ordinary
intelligence and prudence, or ordinary
reasonable prudent man.
The law requires a man to possess ordinary
capacity to avoid harming his neighbor unless a
clear and manifest incapacity is shown; but it does
not generally hold him liable for unintentional injury
unless, possessing such capacity, he might and
ought to have foreseen the danger(Corliss v Manila
Railroad Co. GR No. L-21291, March 28, 1969)

The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the

omission of that degree of diligence, which is
required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds with the circumstances of the persons,
time and place
Circumstances Material in Determining
Negligence
1. Women
In Valenzuela vs CA(GR NO 115024,
Feb. 7, 1996) it appears to require a
different standard of care for women
under the circumstances indicated
therein. It can also be argued that the
same conclusion can be reached if it was
a man who was in the position of the
actor.
2. Intoxication
Gen Rule: Mere intoxication is not
negligence nor establishes want of
ordinary care. But it may be one of the
circumstances to be considered to prove
negligence.

Exception: A driver is presumed negligent

if he is violating any traffic regulation at the
time of mishap.
3. Nature of Activity
When persons imposed upon themselves
certain obligations and noncompliance therewith
will be considered negligence(e.g. railroad
company on having a gate at a railroad
crossing).

4. Experts and Professionals

An expert should exhibit the care and skill of one
ordinarily skilled in the particular field that he is
in.
5. Physical Disability
Gen Rule: A weak or accident –prone person
must meet the standard of a reasonable man,
otherwise, he will be considered as negligent.

Exception: if the defect amounts to a real

disability, the standard of conduct is that of a
reasonable person under like disability.

6. Insanity
Under the RPCV, an insane person is exempt
from criminal liability. But may not be exempted
from civil liability.
Under the Civil Code, the insanity of a person
does not excuse him or his guardian from
liability based on quasi-delict(CC Articles 2180
and 2182).

Bases for holding an Insane person liable for his

tort:
a. Between two innocent persons, the loss
should be borne by the one who occasioned it;
b. to induce those interested in the estate of the
insane person torestrain and control him; and
c. the fear that insanity would lead to false claims
of insanity and avoid liability.

7. Children
The care and caution required of a child is according
to his maturity and capacity only and this is to be
determined in each case by the circumstances of
the case.

Art 12(2) of the RPC had been impliedly repealed by

the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act(RA 9344),
which raised the age of absolute responsibility from
9 to 15 years of age.
Liability Without Fault: a child under 15 years
can still be subsidiarily liable with his property(RPC
100). Absence of negligence does not necessarily
mean absence of liability.

If the child is legally incapable of discernment, the

parents or any person exercising parental authority
over him may still be liable if proper diligence in
supervising the child was not observed. The actor
himself is liable up to the extent of his properties.
8. Knowledge and experience of the actor.
There are matters which a prudent man is
conclusively presumed to know based on
knowledge and experience, e.g familiarity of the
place means knowledge of the makeup of the
same area; or the basic laws of nature or
physics.
Other Factors to Consider in Determining the
Presence of Negligence
1. Violation of Rules and Statutes
a. Statutes and Ordinances
Gen Rule: Violation of a statutory duty is
negligence per se. When the law mandated
that a certain degree of diligence be observed
the standard of care required is no longer
what a reasonably prudent man would do but
what the law requires.
 Non-compliance with statutes is not sine qua
non of negligence. One cannot avoid a charge
of negligence. One cannot avoid a charge of
negligence by showing that the act or omission
was of itself lawful or not violative of any statute
or ordinance(e.g. liable for negligence even if
driving below the speed limit)

EXCEPTIONS:
1. When the unusual conditions occur and strict
observance may defeat the purpose of the rule
that may even lead to adverse results; or
2. When the Statute provides that the violation merely
establishes a presumption of negligence( Tedia vs
Eliman, 280 NY 124, 19NE 2D 987, 1939).

b. Administrative Rules
violation of a rule promulgated by administrative
agencies in not negligence per se, but may be evidence
of negligence( Marinduque Iron Mines Agents Inc vs The
Workmen’s Compensation Commission, GR NO L-8110)

c. Private Rules of Conduct-Violation of rules imposed by

private individuals(e.g employers) is merely a possible
evidence of negligence
d. Proximate Cause

2. Practice and Custom

Compliance /non-compliance with the
same does not necessarily mean that the
actor was negligent/not –negligent
respectively.
 PROXIMATE CAUSE
• That cause which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would
not have occurred
 PROXIMATE CAUSE
• Proximate legal cause s that acting first and producing
the injury, either immediately or by setting other events
in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain
of events, each having a close causal connection with its
immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as a natural and
probable result of the cause which first acted, under
such circumstances that the person responsible for the
first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent
person, have reasonable ground to expect at the
moment of his act or default that an injury to some
person might probably result therefrom
 PROXIMATE CAUSE
• The dominant or immediate cause; the cause
that sets the others in motion; the efficient
cause, the one that necessarily sets the other
causes in operation. Had it not happened, the
injury would not have occurred
• It need not be the sole cause or necessarily the
direct cause or the one which is nearest in time
or place to the result
 PROXIMATE CAUSE
• It is determined by the facts of each case
upon mixed considerations of logic,
common sense, policy and precedent.
 Proximate cause; examples
• A passenger boxes a bus driver who
subsequently loses control of the vehicle
• Meralco leaves an exposed live wire and a
subsequent electrocution follows because
somebody touches the wire
• Somebody neglects to cover his ditch filled with
hot water and a child carelessly falls into it, the
negligence is the proximate cause, though the
contributory negligence of the child would
reduce the account of recoverable damages
(Bernal v House)
• If the damaged vehicle is driven by a reckless
driver who made the vehicle travel at a very high
rate of speed and on the wrong side of the road,
it is clear that this negligence was the proximate
cause of the collision(Tuason v Luzon
Stevedoring)
• Omission to perform a duty such as the placing
of warning signs on the site of the excavation
constitutes the proximate cause only when the
doing of said act would have prevented the
injury (PLDT v CA)
 Instances when negligence is
presumed by law
• Driver was negligent, if he had been found
guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic
regulations at least twice within the next
preceding 2 months (Art 2184 CC)
• A person driving a motor vehicle has been
negligent if at the time of mishap, he was
violating traffic rules (Art 2185, CC)
• There is prima facie presumption of
negligence on the part of the defendant if
the death or injury results from his
possession of dangerous weapons or
substances, such as firearms and poison,
except when the possession or use
thereof is indispensable in his occupation.
 CASES
• GR 175512, VILLACAR TRANSIT V
CATUBIG, 2011
• GR 190022, PNRC, et al V VIZCARA,
2012
• GR 162987, GUILLANG v BEDANIA, 2009
• GR 184905, RAMOS v COL Realty Corp,
2009
• GR 156037, Mercury Drug v Baking, 2007
 LAST CLEAR CHANCE
• Negligence of the plaintiff does not
preclude a recovery for the negligent of
the defendant where it appears that the
latter , by exercising reasonable care and
prudence, might have avoided injurious
consequences to the plaintiff
notwithstanding the plaintiff’s negligence
• Where both parties are negligent, but the
negligent act of one is appreciably later in
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(Pantranco case)
 LAST CLEAR CHANCE:
ELEMENTS
• Plaintiff was in a position of danger and by
his own negligence, become unable to
escape from such position by the use of
ordinary care, either because it became
physically impossible for him to do so or
he was totally unaware of the danger
• Defendant knew that plaintiff was in a
position of danger and further knew, or in
the exercise of ordinary care, should have
known , that the plaintiff was unable to
escape therefrom
• Thereafter, defendant had the last clear
chance to avoid the accident by the
exercise of ordinary care but failed to do
so and the accident occurred as a
proximate cause of such failure
• LCC not applied where the party charged
is required to act instantaneously and if,
the injury cannot be avoided by the
application of all means at hand after the
peril is or should have been discovered
• LCC does not apply to a case where a
building collapses and causes damage to
another
• LCC does not apply if the plaintiff was not
negligent, that is only the defendant was
negligent.
• It cannot be applied if defendant’s negligence is
a concurrent cause and which was still in
operation up to the time the injury was inflicted.
In other words, it cannot be applied in the field of
joint tortfeasors and it cannot be invoked as
between defendants who are concurrently
negligent
• LCC does not arise where the plaintiff, a
passenger, filed an action against a carrier
based on contract
• LCC is not applicable if the actor , though
negligent, was not aware of the danger or
risk brought about by a prior fraud or
negligent act.
 CASE
Driver of bus encroached into the lane of
an incoming jeepney and failed to return
the bus immediately to its own upon
seeing the jeepney coming from the
opposite direction.
Issue: Should the doctrine of LCC be
applied?
opportunity
Ruling: LCC finds no application on this case. In
order for the doctrine to be applicable, it is
necessary to show that the person who allegedly
had the last opportunity to avert the accident
was aware of the existence of the peril or should
, with exercise of due care, have been aware of
it.
Further, LCC can never be appled where the
party charged is required to act instantaneously,
and if the injury cannot be avoided by the
application of all means at hand after the peril is
or should have been discovered.
 RES IPSA LOQUITUR
• Where the thing which causes injury is
shown to be under the management of the
defendant, and the accident is such as in
the ordinary course of things does not
happen if those who have the
management use proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of
explanation by defendant that the accident
arose from want of care (Ma-ao Central
Co v CA, GR 83491)
• It is a recognition of the postulate that, as a
matter of common knowledge and experience,
the very nature of certain types of occurrences,
may justify an inference of negligence on the
part of the person who controls the
instrumentality causing the injury in the absence
of some explanation by the defendant who is
charged with negligence. It is grounded in the
superior logic of ordinary human experience and
on the basis of such experience or common
knowledge, negligence maybe deduced from the
mere occurrence of the accident itself. Hence, it
is applied in conjunction with the doctrine of
common knowledge
 RIL: REQUIREMENTS
• Accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily
occur unless someone is negligent
• That the instrumentality or agency which caused
the injury was under the exclusive control of the
person charged with negligence
• That the injury suffered must not have been due
to any voluntary action or contribution on the
part of the person injured
 RIL; examples
• Absence of the fish plates whatever the cause or
reason- is by itself alone proof of the negligence
of the petitioner; guilty of negligence
notwithstanding the defense of due diligence(
derailment of locomotive was caused by
protruding rails which had come loose because
they were not connected and fixed in place by
fish plates-strips of iron attached to the rails by 4
bolts, 2 on each side, to keep the rails aligned)
(Ma-ao Central vs CA)
• The doctrine recognizes that parties may
establish prima facie negligence without
direct proof of negligence . This is invoked
when under the circumstances, direct
evidence is absent and not readily
available. (Ludo v CA)
• Caltex liable for the damage done to the
property of its neighbor when fire broke
out in a Caltex service station while
gasoline from a tank truck was being
unloaded into an underground storage
tank through a hose and the fire spread to
and burned neighboring houses. (no
explanation given-want of care (Africa v
Caltex)
• Fire started in a furniture manufacturing
shop which spread through the
neighboring house; previous to the fire,
several demands were made to the owner
of the shop to construct firewall but the
latter never heeded; cause of fire
unknown; owner liable for damages (FF
Cruz v CA)
• A barge was towed down the Pasig River
by tugboats of the same company, the
barge rammed against one of the wooden
piles of the bridge, smashing the posts
and causing the bridge to list; company
liable for the damage ( presumption of
fault against a moving vessel that strikes a
stationery object)
RP v Luzon Stevedoring)
• Applied to a doctor performing simple
caesarian section leaving a piece of
rubber (torn of a surgeon’s glove) on the
right side of the uterus of the plaintiff
causing infections to plaintiff’s uterus and
ovary (Batiquin v CA)
• Plaintiffs injured because ceiling of
moviehouse collapsed without sufficient
explanation (Gotesco v Chatto)
• Vessel of William lines caught fire and
sank while it was in the dockyard of Cebu
shipyard for annual dry docking and repair
(Cebu shipyard v William lines)
 RIL; not applicable
• If there is a direct proof of absence or
presence of negligence
• If other causes, including the conduct of
the plaintiff and third persons, are not
sufficiently eliminated by the evidence.
(unexplained accident may be attributable
to one of several causes, some of which
defendant could not be responsible)
• If property not in control
 APPLICATION OF RIL TO MEDICAL
MALPRACTICE
Situations when doctrine is applied:
• leaving of a foreign object in the body of
the patient after an operation;
• Injuries sustained on a healthy part of the
body which was not under , or in the area,
of treatment;
• Removal of the wrong part of the body
when another part was intended
• Knocking out of a tooth while the patient’s
jaw was under anesthetic for the removal
of his tonsils;
• Loss of an eye while the patient plaintiff
was under the influence of anethestic,
during or following an operation for
appendicitis
DOCTRINE NOT AUTOMATICALLY APPLICABLE
TO ALL CASES OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

• RIL is not a rigid or ordinary doctrine to be

perfunctorily used but a rule to be
cautiously applied, depending upon the
circumstances of each case.
• It is generally restricted to situations of
malpractice cases where a layman is able
to say, as a matter of common knowledge
and observation that the consequences of
 professional care were not as such as would
ordinarily have followed if due care had been
exercised.
• RIL is not available in a malpractice suit if the
only showing is that the desired result of an
operation or treatment was not
accomplished.
 ASSUMPTION OF RISK
• Plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of
harm arising from the negligent or reckless
conduct of the defendant cannot recover
for such harm
• Assumes through contract which maybe
implied, the risk of known danger,
intentional exposure to known danger;
embraces mental state of willingness;
pertains to the preliminary conduct of
getting into a dangerous employment or
relationship; it means voluntarily incurring
the risk of accident, which may not occur,
and which the person assuming the risk
may be careful to avoid; and it defeats
recovery because it is a previous
abandonment of the right to complain if an
accident occurs
 ELEMENTS
• Plaintiff must know that the risk is present
• He must further understand its nature, and
• His choice to incur it is free and voluntary
• Volenti non fit injuria – to which a person
assents is not esteemed in law as an
injury OR one is not legally injured if he
has consented to the act complained of or
was willing that it should occur.
 examples
• Maintaining a house near a railroad track
assumes the usual dangers attendant to the
operation of a locomotive
• Spectators at sports events, customers at
amusement parks, guests who find dangerous
conditions when they enter business premises
are deemed to have assumed the risk ordinarily
attendant thereto, so long as proper warning
was made
• Despite warning that that it is still
dangerous to take the vehicle from the
repair shop because the repairs are still
untested, one nevertheless took the
vehicle from the shop with the express
waiver of liability in favor of the proprietor
• Caretaker of carabaos who was gored and
thereafter died as a result of the injuries
• Professional athletes who are deemed to
assume the risks of injury incident to their
trade
• Plaintiff has been supplied with a product
which he knows to be unsafe, he is
deemed to have assumed the risk of using
such unsafe product; defense in
Consumer Act; implied admission
Assumption of Risk; not applicable
• Not available to employer in cases covered by
the Workmen’s Compensation Act
• Where one person created a danger and
another person, with knowledge and
appreciation of its existence, voluntarily
assumes the risk of such danger but is not
injured by it, even though he is injured in some
other way in attempting to withdraw from the
scene after the degree of danger increases
• When one voluntarily assents to a known
danger, he must abide by the
consequences, if an emergency is found
to exist or if the life or property of another
is in peril or when he seeks to rescue his
endangered property
 DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE
• Invoked as a partial defense
• Conduct on the part of the plaintiff which
falls below the standard to which he
should conform for his own protection and
which is legally contributing cause ,
cooperating with the negligence of the
defendant in bringing about the plaintiff’s
harm
• Act or omission amounting to want or
ordinary care on the part of the person
injured which, concurring with the
defendant’s negligence, is the proximate
cause of the injury. To hold a person as
having contributed to his injuries, it must
be shown that he performed an act that
brought about his injuries in disregard of
warnings or signs of an impending danger
to health and body(GR 83491)
“When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence
was only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may
recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate
the damages to be awarded.”
(Art 2179, CC)
• Plaintiff who is partly responsible for his
own injury should not be entitled to
recover damages in full but must bear the
consequences of his own negligence
• Children below nine years old are
incapable of contributory negligence
• Not a defense in criminal cases committed
through reckless imprudence(GR 40452)
 EFFECT OF CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE OF PLAINTIFF
• If contributory negligence was the
proximate cause of the accident, there can
be no recovery (walking along the railroad
track and suddenly cross the path about 3
meters from the running locomotive;
bumping the vehicle in front of him)
• If proximate cause was still the negligence of the
defendant, the plaintiff can still recover
damages, but the amount of damages will be
mitigated due to his contributory negligence
(plaintiff hurrying home at night, driving faster,
turned off headlights near the intersection, did
not see the dump truck that was parked askew
and sticking out onto the road lane without any
warning lights or reflector devices)
 FORTUITOUS EVENT
• ART. 1174. A person is not liable if the
cause of the damage was fortuitous ; an
event which could not be foreseen or
which though foreseen, was inevitable
• A defense
 ELEMENTS
• 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
• It must be impossible to foresee the event
or if it can be foreseen, it must be
impossible to avoid
 ELEMENTS
• Occurrence must be such as to render it
impossible to fulfill his obligation in a
normal manner, and
• Obligor must be free from any participation
in the aggravation of the injury resulting to
the creditor
When an act of God combines or concurs
with the negligence of the defendant to
produce an injury, the defendant is liable if
the injury would not have resulted but for
his own negligent conduct or omission.
The whole occurrence is humanized and
removed from the rules applicable to acts
of God.
It is believed that even if the defendant is
still liable, the court may equitably mitigate
the damages if the loss, even in part,
would have resulted in any event because
of fortuitous event( art 2215 (4), CC)
Any aggravation of the injury due to
fortuitous event should be taken into
consideration in the assessment of
defendant’s liability.
 CASES
LCC
• GR 167363 Sea Loader v Grand Cement
(2010)
• GR 166869 Phil Hawk Corp v Lee (2010)
• GR 190022 PNRC et al v Vizcara (2012)
CN
• GR 173259 PNB v Cruz et al (2011)
• GR 160709 Lambert v Castillon (2005)
 Cases, continuation
RES IPSA
• GR 187926 Jarcia Jr v People(2012)
• GR 146635, Macalinao v Ong (2005)

Assumption of risk
• GR 165548 and 167879 Phil Realty v Ley
Construction and vice versa (2011)
Affirmative duties and miscellaneous activities

1. Duty to rescue
Duty to Rescuer- one who was hurt to rescue
another who was injured through negligence
may recover damages from the person who
originally caused ( not the rescued person)
Requisites to make a tortfeasor liable to
the rescuer
1. The tortfeasor was negligent to the person
rescued and such negligence caused the peril
or the appearance of peril to the person
rescued;
2. The peril or the appearnance of peril was
imminent;
3. A reasonable prudent person who would
have concluded such peril or appearance of
peril existent; and
4. The rescuer acted with reasonable care in
effectuating the rescue

DUTY TO RESCUE:
General Rule: A person who refuses to render
assistance is not liable
EXCEPTIONS:
Limited duty to rescue
A. In cases specified in Article 275 of the RPC
1. To render assistance to any wounded person
in danger of dying found in an uninhabited
place, when assistance can be rendered
without danger to himself;
2. To render assistance to another whom one
has actually wounded or injured;
3. to deliver an abandoned child under seven
years of age to the authorities or his family
or take him in a safe place.
B. No driver of a motor vehicle concerned in a
vehicular accident shall leave the scene of the
accident without aiding the victim unless he is
excused from doing so (RA 4136, Land
Transportation and Traffic Code, Sec 55)
C. Individuals required by law to take care of
another person e.g parents to their children
or guardians to their wards.
D. The defendant in special relationships (
Common Carrier-passenger, Inkeeper-guest)
 DUTIES OF OWNERS , PROPRIETORS AND
POSSESSORS OF PROPERTY
General Rule: The owner has no duty to take
reasonable care towards a trespasse for his
protection or even to protect him from
concealed danger.
EXCEPTIONS:
a. Visitors- owners of buildings or premises owe
a duty to care to visitors. Common carriers
may be held liable for negligence to persons
who stay in their premises even if they ar not
passengers
b. Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
c. Tolerated Possession- the owner is still liable
if the plaintiff is inside his property by
tolerance or by implied permisssion
d,. State of Necessity( CC, Article 432)
A situation of present danger to legally
protected interests, where the only remedy is
injuring another’s also legally protected
interest.
For the defense of state of necessity to be
availing, the greater injury feared should not
have been brought about by the negligence or
imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of
the actor.
DUTIES OF PROPRIETORS OF BUILDINGS

The proprietor of a buildings or structure is

responsible for the damages resulting from its
partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack
of necessary repairs.
Proprietors shall also be responsible for
damages caused:
a. By the explosion of machinery which has not
been taken care of it with due diligence, and
the inflammation of explosive substances
which have not been kept in a safe and
adequate place;
b. By excessive smoke, which may be harmful
to persons or property;
c. By the falling trees situated at or near
highways or lanes, if not caused by force
majeure;
d. by emanations from tubes, canals , sewers or
deposits of infectious matter, constructed
without precautions suitable to the place.
If damage referred to in the two preceeding
articles should be the result of any defect in
the construction mentioned in art 1723, the
third person suffering damages may proceed
only against the engineer or architect or
contractor in accordance with said article,
within the period fixed ( Article 2192, NCC)
Liabilities of the Engineer and
Contractor
The engineer or architect or the contractor
shall be responsible for the damages if the
building which they built shall , within 15
years from the completion of the structure,
collapse for reasons attributable to
negligence.
If the engineer or architect supervises the
construction, he shall be solidarily liable with
the contractor.
Note: Acceptance of the building, after
completion does not imply waiver of any
cause of action by reason of any defect
mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The
action must be brought within ten years
following the collapse of the building( NCC,
Article 1723, par(2))
DUTIES OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES
EMPLOYERS
In quasi-delictual actions against the employer,
the employee may use Labor Code provisions
imposing upon the employee duties for
proper maintenance of the workplace or
adequate facilities to ensure the safety of its
employees.
Failure of the ER to comply with said
mandatory provisions may be considered
negligence.
 COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE

If an injured person receives

compensation for his injuries from a
source wholly independent of tortfeasor,
the payment should not be deducted from
the damages which he would otherwise
collect from the tortfeasor.
 EMPLOYEES
Employees are bound ton exercise due
care in the performance of their functions for the
employers. Liability may be based on negligence
committed while in the performance of the duties of
the employee.
An employee is liable for a tort when he neglects to
perform his duties properly to the damage of the
firm which he was an officer. It is of no moment that
he occupied a contractual position as the
existnce of contract between the parties is not
a bar to the commission of a tort and the
subsequent recovery of damages(Araneta v
De Joya, GR No. L-25172)
 DUTIES OF BANKS
• The business of banks is one affected by
public interest. Banks are expected to
exercise the highest degree of diligence in the
selection and supervision of their employees.
• A bank’s gross negligence in dishonoring a
well-funded check , aggravated by its
unreasonable delay in repairing error, calls for
an award of moral and exemplary damages.
The resulting injury to the check writer’s
reputation and peace of mid needs to be
recognized and compensate( Solidbank Corp
v Sps Araneta, GR No. 152720)
 DUTIES OF COMMON CARRIERS

 Duty to accept passengers and goods

without discrimination;
 To seasonably deliver the goods or bring
the passenger to the destination;
 To deliver the goods to the proper person;
and
 To exercise extraordinary diligence in the
performance of its duties.
 DUTY TO EXERCISE EXTRAORDINARY
DILIGENCE
• A common carrier is required to faithfully
comply with his obligation to deliver the
goods and to ferry the passenger to the
point of destination.
• Compliance with this obligation must be
with the element of integrity in the sense
that the goods should be delivered in the
same condition that they be received and
to transport passengers without
encountering any harm or loss.
• Art 1755 of the CC obliges the carrier to
carry the passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight could provide,
using the utmost diligence of a very
cautious person with due regard for all the
circumstances.
 Limitation of liability
A stipulation between the common carrier and
the shipper or owner limiting the liability of the
former for the loss, destruction, or deterioration
of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary
diligence shall be valid, provided it be:
• In writing, signed by the shipper or owner;
• Supported by a valuable consideration other
than the service rendered by the common
carrier; and
• Reasonable, just and not contrary to public
policy [Article 1744].
 DUTIES OF DOCTORS
• General Practitioner- the standard of care
demanded is ordinary care and diligence in
the application of his knowledge and skill in
the practice of his profession
• Specialist- the legal duty to the patient is
generally considered to be that of an average
specialist , not that of an average physician
 VICARIOUS LIABILITY
• ART 2180. The obligation imposed by Art.
2176 is demandable not only for one’s
own acts or omissions, but also for those
persons for whom one is responsible
• Father or mother with respect to minor children
who live in their company
• Guardians with respect to persons under their
authority who live in their company
• Owners and managers of enterprise with respect
to employees
• Employers with respect to their employees and
household helpers
• State acting through a special agent
• Teachers and heads of arts and trades with
respect to students and apprentices under their
custody
 FATHER/MOTHER
• PD 603 ART 58. Torts. Parents and
guardians are responsible for the damage
caused by the child under their parental
authority in accordance with the civil code
• Responsibility not simultaneous but
alternative, father first if alive or
capacitated
• Ordinary diligence as a defense
• Extends to those exercising substitute parental
authority or special parental authority (art.221,
Family Code)
• In the absence of parents or guardian, parental
authority is exercised in the following order:
surviving grandparents, oldest brother or sister,
over 21 years of age unless unfit or disqualified;
child’s actual custodian, over 21 years of age
unless unfit or disqualified
 OWNERS/MANAGERS
REQUISITES
• Employee was chosen by employer
personally or through another
• Services are to be rendered in accordance
with orders which the employer has the
authority to give at all times
• Illicit act of employee was on the occasion
or by reason of the functions entrusted to
him
• There is a presumption of negligence of
employer
• Defense; exercised diligence of good father of
family in the selection and supervision of
employee
• Employee must be engaged in employer’s
business at the time of injurious occurrence and
not deviating from employer’s business for his
own purpose (except common carriers)
• Injured party may recover from the
employers directly, regardless of the
solvency of their employees (Philtranco vs
CA)
• 2180 liability is direct and primary
 LIABILITY OF STATE
• State’s agent, a public official must be specially
commissioned to do a particular task but that
such task must be foreign to said official’s usual
governmental functions
• If agent is not public official commissioned to do
non-governmental functions, state assumes the
role of employer
• Private individual is commissioned to do special
government task- covered by this provision
• GR 55963 Fontanilla vs Maliaman
• GR 61045 NIA vs Fontanilla
 TEACHERS/HEADS
• Responsibility like that of parents
• Defense of observing the diligence
required
• May include students of age already
• May cover activities outside the school but
authorized
 Summary of liability
(Amadora v CA)
• Makes teachers and heads liable for acts of
students and apprentices whether the latter are
minors or not
• Teacher-in charge is liable for the acts of his
students; school and administrators not liable
• Head of school not teacher, is liable where injury
is caused in a school of arts and trade
• Liability of a teacher subsists whether the
school is academic or non-academic
• Liability is imposed only if the pupil is
already in the custody of the teacher or
head. The student is in the custody of
school authorities as long as he is under
the control and influence of the school and
within its premises, whether the semester
has not yet begun or has already ended
 EMPLOYER, HEAD OF OFFICE,
EDUCATIONAL/TRAINING
INSTITUTION
• Sexual harassment cases (RA 7877),
solidary liability
• Working scholars considered employees
for purposes of applying Art 2180 (Filamer
vs IAC)
• Employee and employer solidary liable
• Registered owner rule; except stolen
vehicle
 OTHERS
• Motor vehicle: Owner present solidarily
liable with the driver (Art 2184)
• Provinces, cities and municipalities liable
for damages for death or injuries as a
result of defective roads, streets, bridges,
public building etc under their control or
supervision