CHAPTER I (INTRODUCTION) Obligation a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do.

. - a juridical relation whereby a person (called the debtor) may demand from another (called the creditor) the observance of a determinate conduct ( to give, to do, or not to do), and in case of breach, may demand satisfaction from the assets o the latter Arias Ramos). Sources 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. of Obligations: Law Contracts Quasi-delict Quasi-contract Acts or Omissions punished by law, Crimes

Contract- is the meeting of minds of two persons, whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render service. Property- all things that are, or may be the object of appropriation Civil Laws- a mass of percepts that determine or regulate the relation that exist between the members of society for the protection of private interests Quasi-contract implied in face of contract, in where a court acts as if an actual contract when one may have been implied by the law, in order to prevent another party from being unjustly enriched. Tort - an unlawful violation of private right not created by contract, which gives rise to an action for damages. An act or omission which gives rise to an injury to another, without pre-existing lawful relation in which the act or omission may be said to be from natural outgrowth or incident. Private or civil wrong to another, other than breach of contract, in which the court will provide a remedy to the injured party in the form damages. The legal wrong committed to a person, independent of a contract. Types of Torts I. Negligence - The act or omission which produced injury to another, without intending the same -The omission of that degree of diligence required by the nature of the obligation, which corresponds to the circumstances of persons, place and time. (Art 1173) - Done without malice. II. Intentional Torts - Conduct in which the actor desires the consequences of his act, or he believes that the consequences will substantially result from it. - Done with malice. III. Strict Liability in Torts - The person is made liable independent of fault or negligence upon the submission of proofs of certain facts. Major Purposes of Torts Law 1. To provide a peaceful means of adjusting the rights of parties who might otherwise take the law in their own hands. 2. To deter wrongful conduct 3. To encourage a more socially responsible behavior 4. To restore injured parties to their original condition, in so for the law can do this by compensating them for their injuries. Fundamental Principles Upheld in the New Civil Code: 1. Equity and Justice Equity = justice according to natural and divine law, Justice = giving a person his due 2. Democracy to promote a democratic way of life founded on human life and happiness 3. Respect for Human Dignity part of human lifes amelioration, touchstone of all laws is to exalt human life. Who can sue or tort A. Plaintiff- any person who has been injured a tortuous conduct, can be a natural or artificial person. B. Defendants- the actor or tortfeasor held liable for the injury done to another, can be natural or artificial beings Remedies- may be compensatory (damages) or preventive (injunctions). ********************************************************************************** CHAPTER II (NEGLIGENCE)

Negligence- is the act or omission which caused injury without intending the same. - the failure to exercise due care in performing an act or omission, where an injury wouldnt happen had the actor performed the needed care or precaution. The want of care required by the circumstances. - the omission of the degree of care required by the nature of the obligation, which corresponds to the circumstances of person, place and time (Art.1173) Types of Negligence I. Culpa-Aquiliana type of negligence in which the liability is founded from the act of negligence itself. Governed by Quasi-delict discussed in Art. 2176 of New Civil Code. Elements of Quasi-delict: a. There must be an act or omission b. Which caused injury to another c. Which should have causal relation to the prior d. (debatable)Provided that there is no pre-existing legal relation between the two parties II. III. Culpa-Contractual type of negligence which source of obligation is the contract itself, arising from the mere breach of it. Criminal Negligence type of negligence which resulted to injury that is comparable to a felony or crime, done without malice but by mere negligence or lack of precaution or needed care. a. b. Simple imprudence- lack or precaution displayed in situation where the damage impending to be causes is not immediate or the danger does not clearly manifest Reckless imprudence- consist of voluntary, but without malice, act or omission from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to do act, in consideration of his occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and circumstances regarding person, place and time. Culpa-Aquiliana Quasi 2176) delict (art Culpa-Contractual Contract, breech of it through Criminal Negligence Penal Laws Code/Criminal

Kinds of Negligence Source of Obligation

Culpa Aquiliana - concerns private rights - covers private individuals - indemnification is made damages or injunctions by awarding of

Crimes -concerns public interest/safety - covers the state and the public -through penalty or punishment

- much broader, covers all kinds of fault or negligence

- acts are punished only if there are penal laws clearly covering them

Concurrence of causes of action- a single act or omission may give rise to two or more causes of actions. The obligation based on one is distinct from the other. This can happen in case where the breach of the contract is caused by a tort itself. Test of Negligence Question: Did the defendant, in doing the alleged negligent act, use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? - if not, then he is guilty of negligence. Negligence is conduct the determination of negligence concerns what the person did or did not do. The state of mind, good faith or sound judgment, motives are all immaterial. The test is if an ordinary person of prudence would do the same when placed in the shoes of the defendant. Risk- a potential of a danger which is apparent, or should be apparent to one in the position of the actor Foreseeability the ability of the actor to envision or foresee the consequences (injury) or risk of his conduct.

Probability- the chance of an event to likely happen, high rate of possibility. Test of foreseeability involves the question of probability. Circumstances to consider (in determination of negligence): 1. Time 2. Place 3. Emergency *Doctrine of State of Emergency one cannot expect a person under the situation of emergency to act in the same manner as person who is not would. 4. Gravity of harm to be avoided weight of the injury 5. Alternative course of action options that actor could have done instead 6. Social value or utility of action relevance of the conduct to the society 7. Person exposed to the risk Standard of Conduct- the standard of conduct used in Philippines is paterfamilias, or as a good father of a family. Good father of a family- refers to as the reasonable man, man of ordinary intelligence and prudence. Termed as ordinarily reasonable prudent man. - a reasonable man is deemed to have a knowledge of facts that a man should be expected to know based on ordinary human experience. * Children age of 9 below is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence. - 9 to 15 of age there is disputable presumption of negligence, is exempted from criminal liability if acted with discernment. Determined based on the actors physical capability, intelligence, emotional and mental maturity, etc.. *Physical disability a weak, clumsy or accident prone person must come up to the standard of a reasonable man, otherwise, he will be considered negligent. - the law views that it is not reasonable that weakness should be deemed negligence, for one should be aware that his weakness can bring harm to others - the rule is different if the defect is not mere weakness but real disability. One cannot expect a person with disability to act as he is not. The standard of conduct to which he must conform to avoid being negligent is that a reason of people under like disability. *Experts and Professionals standard to perform the amount of care expected from an ordinary person of same expertise/level. - determination of negligence should be made with expert testimony of the same profession *Nature of Activity based on nature/demand of work *Intoxication does not necessarily amount to negligence, but can be considered as an additional factor that can influence the conduct of a person. Immaterial if the actor still conforms to the standard of a good father of a family. *Insanity under general rule, exempts from criminal liability. Guardians, however, is not exempted from civil liability. *Gender- not a differentiating factor in displaying needed care in particular circumstances Other factors in determination of negligence *Negligence per se- violation of statutory duty is seen as z breach of duty *Administrative rules- not necessarily negligence * Proximate cause

Proof of Negligence I. Burden of proof a duty of the party to produce evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defenses by the amount of evidence required by the law. It is for plaintiff to establish his cause of action, or up to the defendant to establish his claim. *General rule, plaintiff has the burden of proof, but in cases of negligent per se, the burden is shifted to the defendant. II. Presumption prima facie- legally adequate case, self-evidences which can give rise to presumption IV. Res Ipsa Loquitur doctrine use in cases where the plaintiff doesnt have the evidences to establish his claims readily available. - literally translates to the thing speaks for itself, it is a rebuttable presumption or inference that defendant was negligent which arises from the proof that the instrumentality that caused the injury is

of exclusive control of the defendant, and such injury wouldnt ordinarily happen if negligence hadnt occurred. - the doctrine does not apply if there is a direct proof of absence or presence of negligence Elements that need to be observed in invoking Res Ipsa: 1. Inference of negligence- the accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someones negligence. 2. Exclusive control of the defendant- caused by an instrumentality within exclusive control of the defendant 3. Freedom from contributory negligence- free from possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff also responsible.

CHAPTER III RESCUE 1. Duty to the Rescuer - Man has the natural inclination to respond to accident, and rescue. Man has an innate dislike to see a fellow creature suffer. Danger invites rescue. - courts make defendants liable for the injury received by persons who rescue another who are under distress caused by the same, based on the concept mentioned above. Duty to Rescue - There is no general duty to rescue. Duty to rescue is moral duty, but not a legal one. Limited Duty to Rescue (Imposed by the Revised Penal Code Art. 275) - Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of ones own victim: 1. anyone who shall fail to render help to a person wounded, in great medical need or in danger of dying in an uninhabited place, where he can help the person without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall constitute a greater harm 2. anyone who shall fail to help or assist a person whom he accidentally wounded or injured 3. anyone who found a child under 7 years old and failed to deliver the same to the authorities or to his family or guardians, or shall fail to take him to a safe place. TRESPASSERS - The owner has no duty to take reasonable care towards trespasser for his protection or even to protect him from concealed danger. The trespasser comes on to the premises at his own risk. A. VISITORS AND TOLERATED POSSESSORS - Owners are liable if the plaintiff inside his property by tolerance or implied permission. B. CHILDREN - under the attractive nuisance rule, an owner is liable if he maintains in his premise dangerous instrumentalities or appliances that are likely to lure children, and if he fails to exercise in maintaining ordinary care to prevent children of tender age from playing or resorting thereto. - attractive nuisance instrumentalities or appliances that attract the interest or ignite the curiosity of certain people like children, which has the potential to expose the latter at harm. C. STATE OF NECESSITY - Owners and possessors of real estate also owe a duty to allow trespassers, who are in state of necessity, to enter their properties. - owner of the thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same if the act is necessary to avert an imminent danger and threatened damage, compared to damages arising from the interference, is much greater. - may refer to either to the collision of equal or of unequal rights. - assumed that in time of danger, it is not expected that a person will arrive at a nicely balanced judgment of the comparative seriousness of two alternative evils. USE OF PROPERTY THAT INJURES OTHERS Article 431 of the NCC provides that an owner cannot use his property in such manner as to injure the rights of the others. LIABAILITY OF PROPREITORS OF BUILDINGS- third persons who suffered damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect or contractor if the damages referred should be result in any defect in construction. Nuisances such as smoke coming from buildings cannot be measured, and in that sense irreparable. What the court can best provide is an appropriate injunction. EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEE

2.

1. Employers- failure on the part of the employer is to maintain a safe and conducive working environment for his employees is covered by the provisions of the Labor Code, making such act a violation to statute or negligence per se. 2. Employees are bound to exercise due care in the performance of their functions for the employers. Absence of due care will constitute liability to the employees. BANKS- the business of banks is one affected with public interest. Due to the nature of its functions, a bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationships. Depositors expect the bank to treat his account with utmost fidelity and to record every single transaction up to the last centavo. COMMON CARRIERS- due to the nature of their business and for reason of public interest are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of passengers transported by them according to all circumstances of each case. The law provides that common carriers will be liable for all loss, destruction, and deterioration of the goods unless the same is caused only by the ff: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Flood, storms, quakes and natural calamities Act of public enemy in war, whether international or civil Act or omission of the owner Character of the goods, defects of packaging or container Order or act of competent public authority

DOCTORS- primary objective of the medical profession is the preservation of life and maintenance of the health of the people. > Standard of care- expected to perform degree of care and diligence comparable to the one from an ordinary person of same profession and level. Average level is the comparison point. > Captain of the Ship Doctrine- doctors are likened to captain of the ship, responsible not only for the passengers but also for the vessels. They are responsible for everything that goes wrong within the four corners of the operating room > Not Warrantors - doctors do not guarantee the success of medical operations. They are not warrantor of life. Test of negligence in medical field involves elements of duty, breach, injury, and proximate cause. >Proof Claim of negligence for doctors needs to be supported by expert testimony from the same field and level. Res ipsa can also be invoked, under usual and ordinary conditions, if there is no other way of coming up with evidence to support the claim. LIABILITY OF HOSPITALS AND CONSULTANTS - Hospitals are liable for the negligence of its employees, for they are the one who hire, fire, and exercise real control over them. It includes consultants who undergone the same qualification and assessments similar to regularly-employed doctors. - Basis of liability is the principle of Patria Potestas, where the hospital is expected to act with ordinary diligence of a good father of a family in ensuring that no such negligence will happen. Once the negligence is shown on the part of the plaintiff, the burden of proof now is shifted to the respondent to establish that they have displayed the abovementioned standard of conduct. This is observed in the hiring and supervision of the hospitals over their employees. LAWYERS it is the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence. It is his responsibility to identify the task he should and shouldnt undertake based on his qualification. - like any human, he is not prone to err and is not responsible for all the errors and mistakes, as long as he serve his client with honesty and best of his skill and knowledge. - he expected to display not an extraordinary diligence, but one of an ordinary lawyer. He is not a warrantor of his clients success, and not liable for the latters loss.

CHAPTER 4 (DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE) - maybe partial or complete defense, either mitigate liability or complete bar recovery. I. Plaintiffs conduct and contributory negligence - victim of negligence is likewise expected to due exercise due care in avoiding injury himself. - he ought to conform to the standard of a reasonable man for his own protection. A. Plaintiffs negligence as the proximate cause: - when the plaintiffs negligence is the proximate cause of the injury, he cannot recover damages.

B. Contributory/Comparative Negligence: *Comparative Negligence (Rule): - any rule in which the relative degree of negligence of both parties is considered in determining whether, and to what degree, either should be responsible for their respective negligence. Negligence is being compared and weighted to each other. - under common law: Contributory Negligence completely bars recovery, Comparative Negligence merely mitigates. The principle of Contributory Negligence, which follows the idea of Comparative Negligence, is being observed in the PH. **Definition of Contributory Negligence (Art 2179 of NCC) - a negligent act or omission on the part of the plaintiff, which although not the proximate cause of his injury contributed to his own damage. - if the plaintiffs negligence is contributory, the liability of the defendant is mitigated. ***Imputed Contributory Negligence where the actor is different from the person made being liable - Defendants liability maybe mitigated if the plaintiff is not directly negligent but another person, whose liability is imputed to plaintiff. FORTUITUOS EVENTS events that cannot be foreseen, or though which can be foreseen but inevitable. - an unexpected event or act of God, which could neither be foreseen nor resisted, such as floods, shipwrecks, conflagration, compulsion, insurrection, destruction of buildings caused by unforeseen accidents, and other occurrences of similar nature. - in determination of F.E., it is necessary to show the relation of cause and effect. Essential Characteristics/Requisites of Fortuitous Events: 1. the cause of the unexpected and unforeseen occurrence, and the failure of the dependant to perform his obligation is independent of the human will. 2. the occurrence is impossible to foresee, or can be foreseen but impossible to prevent or avoid 3. the occurrence must be as such to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner 4. the obligor must be free from any participation in aggravation of the injuries suffered by the creditor. ASSUMPTION OF RISK Requisites: 1. The plaintiff must know that the risk is present 2. He must further understand its nature 3. His decision to incur it is free and voluntary *Express waiver for the right to recover there is an assumption of risk if the plaintiff waived his right to recover. A waiver cannot be made if it is contrary to public policies. Rights can be waived unless the waiver is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, public policy, prejudicial to third person with a right recognized by the law. *Implied Assumption: A. Dangerous Condition - person who is exposed to a dangerous situation, voluntarily and knowingly assumes the risk of the same, cannot recover damages from the person maintain the said condition. E.g. person who maintains his house along railroad, and audience of sports event. B. Contractual Relation there is an assumption of risk when a person enters a contract. It is a common defense of an employer. C. Dangerous Activities there is an assumption of risk when a person involves himself with activities he knows could bring him injury. D. Defendants Negligence an assumption of risk exists when plaintiff is aware of a defendants negligence, yet he decided to proceed to encounter it. EFFECT OF DEATH the obligation of the defendant will not extinguish upon death, even during the pendency of the case. Death does not bar the plaintiff to recover from his injury. It continues by the substitution of legal representatives in behalf of the defendant. PRESCRIPTION PERIOD The prescriptive period for quasi-delicts is 4 years after the accident. Elements of Cause of Action 1. There is a right in favor of the plaintiff at whatever law or whatever means it arises 2. The defendant has the obligation to respect that right

3. There is an act or omission on the part of the defendant that is violating to the right of the plaintiff Doctrine of Relations Back a principle in which a fiction of law is made to treat something that was done today as something that has been done in an antecedent period of time. This is used to adjust the commencement of the prescription period of the law, particularly in circumstances where the injury was discovered after a time that was passed the said period. INVOLUTARINESS contracts that resulted from force or intimidation is considered voidable. - under Penal Code, a person who caused damaged to another because of the force or intimidation employed upon him, is subsidiary liable to the injury of the offended party. In such case, the liability is not based in negligence, but strict liability.

CHAPTER 5 (CAUSATION) Proximate Cause- the cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which, the result would have occurred. - from which it out to be forseen or reasonably anticipated by the person of ordinary prudence to produce the injury complained as a natural and probable consequence of the same. (Injects the element of foreseeability). Remote Cause- as that cause which some independent force merely took advantage of to accomplish something not the natural effect thereof. Nearest Cause- cause that is nearest based on point of time, not necessarily the proximate or efficient cause. - a mere preexisting condition upon which is to be distinguished from a mere pre-existing condition upon the efficient operates. Concurrent causes- causes that occur at the same time, which lead to the injury of another - the test is to see if either one of them is sufficient to cause the injury, accounting it independently from the other cause. - both causes are treated as combination which produced a single injury to the plaintiff, both of the defendants are held liable. It is impossible to determine what proportion each contributed to the injury. - plaintiff cannot recover if the negligence of both the plaintiff and defendant is the proximate cause of the injuy. TEST OF PROXIMATE CAUSE determination of proximate cause involves not only the relation of cause and effect, but also consideration of public policy which limits the liability of the defendant. - proximate means because of convenience, of public policy, of rough sense of justice, the law arbitrarily declines to trace as a series of events beyond a certain point.

CHAPTER 6 (INTENTIONAL TORTS) Chapter 2 of the Preliminary title of the New Civil Code (according to the Code of Commission) - is formulated with basic principles that are to be observed for the rightful relationship of human beings and for the stability of social order - the chapter is designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience. Catch All Provisions (Art 19, 20, 21) - created to encapsulate or cover all moral wrongs in the society that would impossible for the statute to impossible specify. - created to provide an adequate legal remedy for all the untold moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory laws. >>> Art 19 Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. - contains the Principle of Abuse of Rights, which sets certain standards in exercise of ones rights and performance of duties, which is to act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. Elements of Abuse of Right 1. There is a legal right or duty

2. Exercised in bad faith 3. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring others Test of Abuse of Right if the right is exercised for the only purpose of causing harm or injury to others, and is contrary to its socio-economic purpose. >>> Article 20- Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligent cause damages to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. - speaks for general sanctions for all other provisions of law which do not specify their own sanctions. Called self-executory because it is operative by nature. It imposes sanction without need for proceedings. >>>> Article 21 Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs and public policy, shall compensate the latter for the damage. - deals with contra bonus mores, universally wrong or immoral Elements of Contra Bonus Mores, Art 21 1. There is an act that is legal 2. Contrary to morals, good customs and public policy 3. Done to injure others Breach of Promise to Marry by general rules, breach of promise to marry is not actionable. It becomes actionable if there are circumstances that make it under the purview of the catch all provisions, producing damage to another. Cases where the breach of promise to marry becomes actionable: 1. Financial damage 2. Social humiliation was caused by one of the parties 3. Moral seduction **Seduction (alluring) - an act of winning the love or sexual favor of someone- enticing someone astray from right behavior **sexual assault (with force) - Conduct of a sexual or indecent nature toward another person that is accompanied by actual or threatened physical force or that induces fear, shame, or mental suffering. - a statutory offense that provides that it is a crime to knowingly cause another person to engage in an unwanted sexual act by force or threat; "most states have replaced the common law definition of rape with statutes defining sexual assault" **Abortion - As a general rule, no recovery can be made for an unborn child. Birth determines personality, therefore in an unborn child doesnt carry a personality (Juridical capacity and capacity to act), which is the basis for recovery. Parents can only recover for damages from injuries they personally suffered. **Illegal Dismissal - dismissal is warranted if the employee is guilty of misconduct, his dismissal is consistent with the employers right to protect its interest in seeing to it that its employees are performing their jobs with honesty, integrity and good faith. - employers are held liable if the manner of dismissal is anti-social, contrary to morals, good customs and public policy. **Malicious Prosecution- refers to criminal prosecution, civil suit or other legal proceedings that has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause, after termination of such prosecution, in favor of the defendant therein. - aims to put legal process in force for the mere purpose of vexation or injury Elements of MP 1. The fact that the defendant himself was the prosecutor, instituting the action, which was finally terminated with an acquittal. (prior acquittal, enough dismissal by investigation) 2. In bringing the action, the defendant acted without probable cause 3. The prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice (sole purpose of vexing and humiliating) *Malfeasance- unjust performance of some act which the party had no right, or which he had contracted not to do *Misfeasance- erroneous performance of a legal action, official commits an error or improper action that is not illegal *Nonfeasance- failure to act when one is under a duty to act

CHAPTER 7 (HUMAN DIGNITY) Art 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbor and other persons. The following and other similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief: 1. Prying into the privacy of anothers residence 2. Meddling with or disturbing the private life and family relations of another 3. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends 4. Vexing or humiliating another on account to his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defects, or other personal condition Report of the Code Commission (about Human Dignity) - the sacredness of human personality is a concomitant of every plan for human amelioration. - the touchstone of every system of laws, of the culture and civilization of every country, is how far it dignifies man - if the statutes insufficiently protect persons from being unjustly humiliated, in short, if human personality is not properly exalted, then the laws are indeed defective Terms > Seizure taking possession of persons or property by legal process > Self-incrimination- testifying against oneself, can expose to criminal prosecution > Liberty exercise of the right of the person to use his faculties given by the creator subject only to limitation that he does not violate laws and the right of another > Equal protection of law - all person subject to legislation should be all treated alike > Probable Cause facts and circumstances (antecedent to the issuance of a warrant), sufficient in themselves to induce a man to rely upon them and act of pursuance thereof. - reasonable grounds for holding a belief, esp such as will justify bringing legal proceedings against a person or will constitute a defence to a charge of malicious prosecution. > Right of privacy- right of a person to be left and let alone - right to live without interference by the public in matters in which the public is not necessarily concerned > Right to Silence- constitutional guarantee which protects the right of the accused to silence, which states that refusal to testify may not be deemed as a presumption of guilt and should not be taken against him.

Scope of Protection 1. Sec 1 - right not to be deprived of life, liberty and property w/o due process of law and right for equal protection of the law 2. Sec 2 right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures of persons, houses, papers, and effects - except that there is a warrant based on a probable cause personally determine by judge after examination of all evidences and witnesses before, and particularly describing the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. 3. Sec 3- right for privacy of communication and correspondence, except there is a lawful order of the court, or when public order and safety as requires by the law 4. Sec 6 liberty of abode, and to change dwelling within the limits of the law, except there is a lawful order of the court. Right to travel is only impaired in cases that concerns national interest public safety and health, as may be provided by the law. 5. Sec 8- Right of people, both public and private employees, to form unions, associations and societies for purposes not contrary to law 6. Sec 17 No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. (Self-incrimination) ********************************** Two part test of expectation of privacy 1. Whether by his conduct, the individual has exhibited and expectation of privacy 2. and whether this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable * factual circumstances determines the reasonableness of this expectation, but can be diminished by customs, physical surroundings and particular activities.

Persons entitled to relief 1. Natural Person basis of right to privacy is the injury to the feelings and sensibilities

2. Juridical Person can only invoke right of unreasonable search and seizures. The right of privacy can only invoked by members of corporation as a form of their individual right from their private capacity, based on the injury of their individual feelings and not for the corp. as a whole *Right to privacy, like any other personal right, ceases upon death of the person Standard- the standard to be applied in determining if there was a violation of the right is that of a person of ordinary sensibilities. It is relative to the customs of time and place, and is determined by the norms of an ordinary person. Four types of invasion of privacy I. Intrusion of plaintiffs seclusion or solitude, or unto his private affairs II. Public disclosure of private facts embarrassing personal facts disclosed III. Publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the publics eye IV. Appropriation for the defendants gain, commercial appropriation of likeness, unwarranted use on advertisements I. Intrusion entering or thrusting to another person, place or property without welcome, invitation of fitness - tort law of intrusion aims to protect the locational and psychological privacy of a person. - not limited to physical trespass of property, but also includes peeping, snooping, eavesdropping on people in private place >>> In public place- people cannot expect privacy in public places in the rationale that whenever they are in the said places, they become part of the public view available to the public sight. Being such, they should assume to be susceptible to photography and recording, like how anyone can describe a public place in a written or verbal manner. Exceptions: one should not automatically make public everything he does in public, to the extent that it constitutes harm and embarrassment to another. Requisites where a recording can be used as a evidence 1. reasonable ground that the crime was committed 2. such evidence is needed and essential for the conviction of the person committing the crime 3. there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidences Art 4200 makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. - law gives no distinction if the party who made the recording is different from the party involved in the communication - gives a complete ban on tape recorded conversation taken w/o the authorization of all parties - similar to the principle of right against self-incrimination - doesnt cover communication of a person to the public, only bet. 2 private individuals, the nature of the conversation is immaterial Public information- Right to information - generally there is no intrusion into the right of privacy of another if the information to be sought are matters of public record, especially if the people invoking are public officers and the matters involved are of public interests. Exceptions: if there is a violation to the privacy of the individual and the matters sought does not involve public concern. Contract of Carriage- required by law to exercise extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of its passengers and goods. Has the duty to make sure that no dangerous objects are brought inside the vehicle. - passengers cannot be subject to unusual search, verbal inquiry should be enough except if there outwardly perceptible factors that can lead to suspicion or incident of threat. (plain view doctrine), should be done according to proper procedure II. Publication of Private Facts torts where private affairs and activities are unwarrantedly publicized, where the matters involved are outside of public interest Elements of Publication of Private Facts 1 . There is a public disclosure 2. The fact disclosed is a private fact 3. the matter must be one that if offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities

Requisites of actionable violation of right of privacy

1. if publicity is given to a private fact 2. w/o the consent of the person 3. immaterial if it constitutes a crime, as long as it was done for injuring the person or commercial/ business gain which aggravates the violation of the right >>>> The limits of freedom of expression are reached when the expression touches upon matters of essentially private concern. Public person enjoys a limited right of privacy, unless already in his private dwelling. Publicity does not extend to fictionalized or novelized representation of the person. Official proceeding no violation unless provided by law or determined by court, except in purpose of prejudicing the parties >>>> it is immaterial if the publication constitutes a criminal offense such as libel, in producing a cause of action such as award of damages, prevention and other relief III. False Light- putting a person in a position or being made as someone or something he is not, immaterial if the act is done in positive or negative intent or yields same effects. Actually made in public. Defamation the publication lowers the self-esteem of the person, affects the reputation. Abosulute publicity is not required as long there is a 3rd person/party involved. IV. Commercial Appropriation of Likeness commercial exploitation, name, likeness, achievements, identifying characteristics, actual performances and fictitious characters created by the performer. - unwarranted publication or unauthorized use of photographs of a person for commercial purposes is an invasion of rights - private persons claim for right of privacy for this tort is the injury of feelings caused by the publicity. Celebrities for their economic interest, treating their name as part of their property. Interference with family and other relation - alienation of spouse to the affection of others, unless it constitutes adultery and concubinage, is not condemned by the law as it may shock the society Alienation of affection torts where interference of the obligation of the spouse is made, which consists of depriving one spouse of the affection, society, companionship and comfort of the other. - it affects the mental attitude of the spouse to another, and induce him/her to perform conduct(s) that can potentially destroy the marital life. - parents are not treated liable for alienation if they acted with good faith for the purpose of saving their son/ daughters from ill-treatment. A justification is needed otherwise, where malice should be established. The legal presumption in such cases is that the parents would do things that they see best for the interest of their child. - establishment of malice is also needed for non-relatives of spouse who cause alienation of affection to his/her partner. Vexation and Humiliation one is liable for vexing or humiliating another because of their religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defects, or other personal condition. Sexual harassment- maybe committed by one having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work, or training or education environment against the person whom the influence is exerted. Parties 1. Principal by inducement any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment, or who cooperates in the commission thereof by another without which the injury wouldnt happen 2. Employer, head of the office it is the duty of the head/employer to provide a safe environment for its employees and prevent any act of sexual harassment, and provides procedures for the resolution, settlement or prosecution of such acts. How committed 1. sexual favor is offered as condition in hiring or granting incentives, advancements, promotions or other privileges, or refusal of such would result to denial or deprivation of opportunities, etc. 2. impair of rights of employees of rights or privileges under the labor laws 3. acts that result to intimidation, offensive or hostile environment

>>>> Quid pro quo cases cases where defendants condition hiring or granting incentives, advancements, promotions or other privileges on sexual favors. Sexual favors are elicited in return for something else. >>>> Hostile Environment cases involves allegation that employees/students perform their task in an offensive or abusive environment Requisites of H.E 1. that he/she is subjected to sexual advances, request for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of sexual nature 2. that the conduct was unwelcome 3. that the conduct was sufficiently severe to alter the conditions of the victims employment and create an abusive environment >>>> Standard of Conduct standard used in determining if the if the plaintiff is found in a hostile environment if of a reasonable man used in cases of negligence. However, the court should place itself on the perspective of the victim, as there cannot be a prescribed standard due to the difference of the nature of the effect of the issue on the two genders. A gender-conscious examination is to be observed by the court, to put women in equal footing with men regarding such kind of incidents. Requisites for just cause of dismissal 1. the act/conduct performed must be serious 2. it must relate to the performance of the employees duties 3. must show that the employees has become unfit to continue working for the employer

CHAPTER 9 (CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM DELICT) Basis of Liability- every person criminally liable for felony is also civilly liable Crime has dual character 1. against the state for disturbance of social order, criminal liability 2. against the private person for the injury, civil liability * Not all crimes give rise to civil liability, especially if not injury is experienced by a private person Civil liability- based on the obligation of everyone to repair or relief injury, regardless whether the same is punished as a crime. Founded on damage or injury. Persons liable 1. principal 2. accomplices 3. accessories separate amount of liability as determined by the court * each of them is solidarily liable for ones insolvency about the determined liability * if two persons are determined to be civilly liable, the court will determine the amount of liability for each What is included in civil liability? 1. restitution to restore plaintiff to his original condition 2. reparation repairing of the value damaged by the injury, court will determine taking into consideration the price and sentimental value 3. indemnification prevention/protection from further harm, not only for the injured party but also to the family or 3rd person who suffered for the reason of the crime Circumstances affecting civil liability Circumstance(s)- that external condition bearing an act, which consequently affects its non-essentials, but cannot touch its substance. 1. Justifying circumstances those that can lead to exemption of liability by making the act as legal. The person is deemed not to have transgressed the law, and is free from criminal liability. - free the person from civil liability, especially if acts were performed in the state of necessity 2. Exempting circumstances those that merely exempts the person from punishment. Only applies to person qualified for the cause of imputability, and not to other principals, accomplices, accessories

-involves the case of unimputability, in cases where 1. the actor is a minor, below nine yrs of age or above 9 but below 15 yrs who acted with discernment 2. imbecile or insane person 3. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances those that mitigate or compel the court to provide the maximum punishment imposed by the law Grounds for exemptions 1. Justificatory causes- comprises of ground for exemption from penalty due to the lawfulness of the act in the circumstances 2. Causes of unimputability comprises of grounds for exemption from penalty because the person lacks the outward freedom to act for himself or the intelligence to required to understand the consequences of his acts. 3. Grounds of absolution other grounds of exemption from criminal liability for doing an act generally punishable by the law, scattered throughout the penal code. No special name was termed for this ground. In plea of justification all persons involved in the crime is free from criminal and civil liability, for the reason that the law deems that no such crime took place In plea of unimputability only the person making the plea is exempted from liability, all other principals, accomplices and accessories who are not are deemed liable and all other persons involved is held civilly liable *terms > > > > Impute- to charge into ones account, legally, impose as a charge, to make the act or speech as the persons own. Imputability is the quality by which an act is ascribed or accounted to person as its author or doer. Guilt- an element of responsibility, the fact that would make a person responsible for a crime/act committed. Responsibility the obligation to suffer the consequences (penal and/or civil liability) of an act/crime