I.

Principles

A. Abuse of Right; Elements

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. Velayo v. Shell Co. Shell was one of the creditors of CALI. CALI became insolvent and called all of its creditors, including Shell, to a meeting. CALI told the creditors that it was broke but that it had an airplane in the US, which it was planning to sell to PAL so that it could raise more money to pay its debts. On the same day, acting upon the knowledge of (1) the insolvency of CALI, and (2) the existence of the plane, Shell assigned its credit to Shell USA. Shell USA then sued CALI in a California court and attached the plane as security. Thus, the plane was placed beyond the reach of CALI and the other creditors. The assignee in insolvency of CALI filed an action against Shell for damages for taking advantage of the information that it acquired to the prejudice of CALI and the other creditors. ISSUE: Whether Shell is liable for damages. HELD: Shell is liable for damages. Shell took advantage of its knowledge that insolvency proceedings were to be instituted by CALI if the creditors did not come to an understanding as to the distribution of the insolvents assets among them. Believing that it was improbable for the creditors to arrive at such an understanding, it schemed and effected the transfer of credit to its sister corporation in the US, thereby disposing of CALIs plane and depriving CALI of the opportunity to recover it. It is liable for damages under Article 19 of the Civil Code, which provides that any person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performances of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. This is implemented by Article 21 which prescribes that any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

B. Unjust Enrichment

Art. 22. Every person who through an act or performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him. Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited.

Elements of Unjust Enrichment: 1. There must be enrichment on the part of the defendant. 2. There is a concomitant injury to the plaintiff. 3. There is no just cause or legal ground for the enrichment. Pecson v. CA Pecson owned a commercial lot on which he built a four-door two-storey apartment building. For failure to pay realty taxes amounting to 12K, the lot was sold at public auction by the City Treasurer to Nepomuceno. Nepomuceno in turn sold the property to the spouses Nuguid. Pecson filed a case questioning the validity of the auction sale. The trial court dismissed the complaint but held that the sale did not include the apartment building. The Nuguid spouses filed a motion for delivery of possession of the lot and the apartment building, citing Article 546 of the Civil Code (rules on builder in good faith). The spouses offered to pay the cost of construction spent by Pecson in 1965 as indemnity under Art. 448 and 546 of the Civil Code. ISSUE: How much indemnity should be paid by the Nuguid spouses to Pecson? HELD: The Nuguid spouses should pay the current market value of the apartment bulding on the

lot. For this purpose, the parties should be allowed to present evidence on the current market value. The objective of Article 546 of the Civil Code is to administer justice between the parties involved. It was formulated in trying to adjust the rights of the owner and possessor in good faith of a piece of land, to administer complete justice to both of them in such a way as neither one nor the other may enrich himself of that which does not belong to him. Guided by this precept, it is therefore the current market value of the improvements which should be made the basis of reimbursement. A contrary ruling would unjustly enrich the Nuguid spouses who would otherwise be allowed to acquire a highly valued income-yielding four-unit apartment building for a measly amount.

II.

Classification of Torts

A. According to manner of commission: intentional, negligent and strict liability

III.

The Tortfeasor
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being no fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage done (art 2176)

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

A. The Direct Tortfeasor

1. In General a. Quasi-delicts under Article 2180, how interpreted Family Code, Arts. 218-219, 221

Article 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

(1) Elements; definition

Elements Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is

obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. The elements of a quasi-delict are: 1. Fault or Negligence 2. Damage 3. Causal connection between the negligence and the damage Problem: X was driving a car when he ran over a stone. The stone hit a pedestrian on the head. The pedestrian died. Is X liable for quasi-delict? Answer: No, because there was no negligence on the part of X. Problem: A suppliers employees went on strike, as a result of which the supplier failed to deliver his goods to his client. Can the client sue the supplier for quasi-delict? Answer: No. Although there was damage, there was no negligence. [Client should sue based on breach of contract instead] CASES: Andamo v. IAC Emmanual and Natividad Andamo owned a parcel of land adjacent to that of the Missionaries of Our Lady of La Sallette. Within the land or Our Lady, waterpaths and an artificial lake were constructed, allegedly inundating and eroding the Andamos land. This caused a young man to drown, damaged the Andamos crops and fences, and endangered their lives. The Andamos instituted a criminal action against the officers and directors of Our Lady for destruction by means of inundation under Art. 324 of the RPC. Subsequently, they filed a civil case for damages against the respondents. Upon motion of respondents, the civil case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, since the criminal case instituted ahead of the civil case was still unresolved. This was based on the provision of the Rules of Court which provides that criminal and civil actions arising from the same offense may be instituted separately, but after the criminal action has been commenced, the civil action cannot be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action. ISSUE: Whether the civil action should have been dismissed. HELD: No. The civil action should not have been dismissed since it was based, not on crime, but on quasi-delict. All the elements of a quasi-delict are present: 1. damages suffered by the plaintiff; 2. fault or negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and 3. connection of the cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. In this case, the waterpaths and contrivances built by respondent are alleged to have inundated the land of petitioners. This was caused by the failure of the defendant to install drainage pipes that could have prevented the inundation. There is therefore a causal connection between the act of building the waterpaths without providing for an adequate drainage system and the damage sustained by the petitioners. Article 2176 covers not only acts not punishable by law but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed to recover damages on both scores and would only be entitled to the bigger award of the two.

(2) Distinguished from culpa contractual and culpa criminal

CULPA AQUILIANA OBJECT ACTION QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE Complaint is against negligence Damages for quasidelict Evidence *once the driver is proven negligent, employer is presumed negligent (rebuttable presumption) Exercise of ordinary diligence on the part of the driver; Exercise of diligence in the selection and supervision of the driver on the part of the employer CULPA CONTRACTUAL Violation of contract of carriage Breach of contract with damages Preponderance of Evidence

DEFENSES

Exercise of extraordinary diligence (in contract of carriage, the diligence required of the common carrier is extraordinary)

CASES Cancio v. Isip Cancio filed 3 counts of violation of BP22 against Isip, who had issued 3 bad checks. The case was dismissed. Subsequently, 3 cases for estafa were filed. The case was dismissed again. Cancio then filed a civil case for

collection of sum of money to recover the value of the 3 checks from Isip. Isip moved to dismiss on the ground that the action is barred by res judicata and that Cancio was guilty of forum shopping. ISSUES: 1. Whether the civil action for collection is barred by res judicata. 2. Whether there was forum shopping. HELD: No to both. An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities: 1. ex delicto under Art. 100 of the RPC; and 2. independent civil liabilities such as: a. those not arising from an act or omission complained of as a felony, such as culpa contractual, violations of Articles 31, 32, and 34 of the Civil Code, and culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code; b. where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal action (ex: Art. 33 of the Civil Code) Digests by Sheryl, Cayo, Rosa 2 Lecture Notes and Notes from Jona Bautistas Reviewer Either may be enforced against the offender, but the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission or under both causes. Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, civil liability ex delicto is deemed instituted with the criminal action, but the offended party may file the separate civil action before the prosecution starts to present evidence. However, the independent civil actions may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without any reservation in the criminal action. In this case, the basis of the complaint is culpa contractual. It is an independent civil action which is based on Isips breach of a contractual obligation. This may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings, regardless of the result of the latter. There is no res judicata because there is no identity of causes of action. Imson v. CA This case arose from a vehicular collision involving Imsons car and a truck registered under the names

b. Indirect liability for intentional acts c. Presumption of negligence on persons indirectly responsible d. Nature of liability; joint or solidary? 2. In Particular a. Parents
PARENTS - The father, and in case of his death or incapacity, the mother are responsible for damage caused by minor children who live in their company. Father and Mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over common children. In case of disagreement, father's decision shall prevail (art 211). NOTE: Persons liable for the act of minors other than parents. a. Those exercising substitute parental authority b. Surviving grandparents c. Oldest sibling, over 21 years old unless unfit or unqualified d. Childs actual custodian, over 21 years old unless unfit or disqualified