Torts &damages

215
I. TORTS
San Beda College of Law
TORTS AND DAMAGES
TORT
An unlawful violation of private
right, not created by contract,
and which gives rise to an action
for damages.
It is an act or omission producing
an injury to another, without any
previous existing lawful relation
of which the said act or omission
may be said to be a natural
outgrowth or incident.
NOTES:
An unborn child is NOT
entitled to damages. But
the bereaved parents
may be entitled to
damages, on damages
inflicted directly upon
them. (Geluz vs. CA, 2
SCRA 802)
Defendants in tort cases
can either be natural or
artificial being.
Corporations are civilly
liable in the same
manner as natural
persons.
Any person who has been
injured by reason of a
tortious conduct can sue
the tortfeasor.
The primary purpose of a
tort action is to provide
compensation to a
person who was injured
by the tortious conduct
of the defendant.
Preventive remedy is
available in some cases.
Classes of Torts:
A. Negligent Torts
B. Intentional Torts
C. Strict Liability
MEMORY AID IN CIVIL LAW
A. NEGLIGENT TORTS
Involve voluntary acts or omissions
which result in injury to others
without intending to cause the same
or because the actor fails to exercise
due care in performing such acts or
omissions.
NEGLIGENCE
The omission of that degree of
diligence which is required by the
nature of the obligation and
corresponding to the circumstances
of persons, time and place. (Article
1173 Civil Code)
Kinds of Negligence:
1. Culpa Contractual (contractual
negligence)
Governed by CC
provisions on
Obligations and
Contracts,
particularly Arts.
1170 to 1174 of the
Civil Code.
2. Culpa Aquiliana (quasi-delict)
Governed mainly by Art. 2176 of the
Civil Code
3. Culpa Criminal (criminal negligence)
Governed by Art. 365 of the Revised
Penal Code.
NOTES:
The 3 kinds of negligence furnish
separate, distinct, and independent
bases of liability or causes of action.
A single act or omission may give rise
to two or more causes of action.
Culpa Contractual Culpa Aquiliana
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON : Vida Bocar, Joyce
Vidad EDP : Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon
SUBJECT HEADS: Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations),
Alejandro Casabar(Property), Ma.
Rhodora
Ferrer(Wills and Succession), Ian Dominic Pua(Obligations and Contracts), Sha Elijah
Dumama(Sales and Lease),

John Stephen
Quiambao(PAT), Christopher Cabigao(Credit Transactions), Ligaya Alipao(Torts and
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
Ma. Ricasion Tugadi (Conflicts of Law)
216
The foundation of
the liability of the
defendant
is the contract
In breach of contract
committed through
the negligence of
employee, the
employer cannot
erase his primary and
direct liability by
invoking exercise of
diligence of a good
father of a family in
the selection and
supervision of the
employee.
It is a separate
source of obligation
independent of
contract
In quasi-delict the
presumptive
responsibility for the
negligence of his
servants can be
rebutted by proof of
the exercise of due
care in their selection
and supervision.
Culpa Aquiliana Crime
Only involves private
concern
The Civil Code by
means of indemnification
merely
repairs the damage
Includes all acts in
which any kind of

fault or negligence
intervenes
Liability is direct and
primary in quasidelict
Affect the public
interest
The Revised Penal
Code punishes or
corrects criminal act
Punished only if there
is a penal law clearly
covering them
Liability of the
employer of the
actor-employee is
subsidiary in crimes
QUASI-DELICT
Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault
or negligence is obliged to pay for
the damage done. (Article 2176 Civil
Code)
Essential Requisites for a quasidelictual
action:
1.
Act or omission constituting fault or
negligence;
2. Damage caused by the said act or
omission; and
3. Causal relation between the damage
and the act or omission.
Tests of Negligence
1. 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?
If not then he is guilty of
negligence.
2. Could a prudent man, in the case
under consideration, foresee harm as
a result of the course pursued?
If so, it was the duty of the actor

to take precautions to guard
against harm.
NOTES:
Negligence is a conduct - the
determination of the existence of
negligence is concerned with what
the defendant did or did not do
The state of mind of the actor is
not important; good faith or use of
sound judgment is immaterial. The
existence of negligence in a given
case is not determined by reference
to the personal judgment but by the
behavior of the actor in the situation
before him. (Picart vs. Smith)
Negligence is a conduct that creates
an undue risk of harm to others.
The determination of negligence is a
question of foresight on the part of
the actor FORESEABILITY.
Even if a particular injury was
not foreseeable, the risk is still
foreseeable if possibility of
injury is foreseeable.
Forseeability involves the
question of PROBABILITY, that is,
the existence of some real
likelihood of some damage and
the likelihood is of such
appreciable weight reasonably to
induce, action to avoid it.
Calculation of Risk
Interests are to be balanced only in
the sense that the purposes of the
actor, the nature of his act and the
harm that may result from action or
inaction are elements to be
considered.
Circumstances to consider in
determining negligence: (PEST-GAP)
1. Time
2. Place
3. Emergency
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE

Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
217
Emergency rule
GENERAL RULE: An individual who
suddenly finds himself in a situation
of danger and is required to act
without much time to consider the
best means that may be adopted 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.
EXCEPTION: When the emergency
was brought by the individuals own
negligence. (Valenzuela vs. CA 253
SCRA 303).
4. Gravity of Harm to be
avoided
5. Alternative Course of Action
If the alternative
presented to the actor is too
costly, the harm that may result
may be still be considered
unforeseeable to a reasonable
man.
6. Social value or utility of
activity
7. Person exposed to the risk
GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY (pater
familias):
- this is the standard of conduct used in
the Philippines
- a man of ordinary intelligence and
prudence or an ordinary reasonable
prudent man
a reasonable man deemed to have
knowledge of the facts that a man should
be expected to know based on ordinary
human experience. (PNR vs IAC, 217
SCRA 409)
- a prudent man who is expected to know
the basic laws of nature and physics, e.g.
gravity.
SPECIAL RULES
1. Children
The action of the child will not
necessarily be judged according to
the standard of an adult. But if the
minor is mature enough to
understand and appreciate the
nature and consequence of his
actions, he will be considered
negligent if he fails to exercise due
care and precaution in the
commission of such acts.
NOTES:
The law fixes no arbitrary age at
which a minor can be said to have
the necessary capacity to understand
and appreciate the nature and
consequence of his acts. (Taylor vs.
Meralco, 16 Phil 8)
Applying the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code, Judge Sangco
takes the view that a child who is 9
or below is conclusively presumed to
be incapable of negligence. In the
other hand, if the child is above 9
years but below 15, there is a
disputable presumption of absence
of negligence.
Absence of negligence does not
necessarily mean absence of
liability.
Liability without fault: a child under
9 years can still be subsidiarily liable
with his property (Art. 100, RPC)
Absence of negligence of the child
may not excuse the parents from

their vicarious liability under Art.
2180 NCC or Art. 221 FC.
2. Physical Disability
Mere weakness of a person will
not be an excuse in negligence
cases.
However if defect amounts to a
real disability the standard of
conduct is that of a reasonable
person under like disability.
3. Experts and professionals
They should exhibit the care and
skill of one who is ordinarily
skilled in the particular field that
he is in.
When a person holds himself out
as being competent to do things
requiring professional skill, he
will be held liable for negligence
if he fails to exhibit the care and
skill of one ordinarily skilled in
the particular work which he
attempts to do.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
218
An expert will not be judged
based on what a non-expert can
foresee.
The rule regarding experts is
applicable not only to
professionals who have
undergone formal education.
4. Nature of activity
There are activities which by
nature impose duties to exercise
a higher degree of diligence.
Examples:
a. Banks, by the very
nature of their work, are
expected to exercise the
highest degree of
diligence in the selection
and supervision of their
employees.
b. Common carriers are
required to exercise
extraordinary diligence
in the vigilance over
their passengers and
transported goods.
(Article 1733 Civil Code).
5. Intoxication
GENERAL RULE: Mere intoxication is
not negligence, nor does the mere fact
of intoxication establish want of ordinary
care. But it may be one of the
circumstances to be considered to prove
negligence.
EXCEPTION: Under Art. 2185 of the
Civil Code, it is presumed that a person
driving a motor vehicle has been
negligent if at the time of the mishap,
he was violating any traffic regulation.
6. Insanity
The insanity of
a person does
not excuse him
or his guardian
from liability
based on quasidelict.
Bases for
holding an
insane person
liable for his
tort:
a.Where one of two innocent persons
must suffer a loss, it should be
borne by the one who occasioned

it.
b. To induce those interested in the
estate of the insane person to
restrain and control him.
c.The fear that an insanity would
lead to false claims of insanity
and avoid liability.
7. Women
In determining the
question of contributory
negligence in performing
such act, the age, sex,
and condition of the
passengers are
circumstances
necessarily affecting the
safety of the passenger,
and should be
considered. (Cangco vs.
Manila Railroad Co. GR
No.12191, October 14,
1918)
Although there is no
unequivocal statement of
the rule, Valenzuela vs.
CA 253SCRA303 appears
to require a different
standard of care for
women under the
circumstances indicated
therein.
However, Dean Guido
Calabresi believes that
there should be a
uniform standard
between a men and a
women.
Other Factors to Consider in
Determining Negligence:
A. VIOLATION OF RULES AND
STATUTES
1. Statutes
GENERAL RULE: Violation of a
statutory duty is NEGLIGENCE PER SE
(Cipriano vs. CA, 263SCRA711). When the
Legislature has spoken, the standard of

care required is no longer what a
reasonably prudent man would do under
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
219
the circumstances but what the
Legislature has commanded.
EXCEPTIONS:
a. When unusual conditions
occur and strict observance may
defeat the purpose of the rule and
may even lead to adverse results.
b. When the statute
expressly provides that violation of
a statutory duty merely establishes
a presumption of negligence.
NOTE: Rule as to proof of proximate
cause
GENERAL RULE: Plaintiff must show
that the violation of the statute is the
proximate or legal cause of the injury
or that it substantially contributed
thereto. (Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc.
vs. CA 300SCRA20)
EXCEPTION: In cases where the
damage to the plaintiff is the damage
sought to be prevented by the statute.
In such cases, proof of violation of
statute and damage to the plaintiff
may itself establish proximate cause.
(Teague vs. Fernandez 51SCRA181).
2.Administrative Rule
Violation of a
rule
promulgated
by
administrative
agencies is not
negligence per
se but may be
EVIDENCE OF
NEGLIGENCE.
3.Private Rules of Conduct.
Violation of
rules imposed
by private
individuals
(e.g.
employers) is
merely a
POSSIBLE
EVIDENCE OF
NEGLIGENCE.
B. PRACTICE AND CUSTOM
Compliance with the practice and
custom in a community will not
automatically result in a finding
that the actor is not guilty of
negligence. Non-compliance with
the practice or custom in the
community does not necessarily
mean that the actor was negligent.
In Yamada vs. Manila Railroad Co.,
the owner of an automobile struck
by a train while crossing the tracks
sought to establish absence of
negligence of its driver by
evidence of a custom of
automobile drivers of Manila by
which they habitually drove their
cars over the railroad crossings
without slackening speed. The SC
rejected the argument by ruling
that: a practice which is dangerous
to human life cannot ripen into
custom which will protect anyone
who follows it.
C. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTES
Compliance with a statute is not

conclusive that there was no
negligence.
Example: A defendant can still be
held liable for negligence even if
he can establish that he was
driving below the speed limit.
Compliance with the speed limit is
not conclusive that he was not
negligently driving his car.
Gross Negligence - Negligence where
there is want of even slight care and
diligence.
PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
GENERAL RULE:
If the plaintiff alleged in his
complaint that he was damaged
because of the negligent acts of
the defendant, the plaintiff has
the burden of proving such
negligence. (Taylor vs.
MERALCO 16Phil8)
The quantum of proof required is
preponderance of evidence.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
220
(Rule 133 Revised Rules of
Court)
EXCEPTIONS: Exceptional cases when
the rules or the law provides for cases
when negligence is presumed.
A. Presumptions of Negligence
B. Res Ipsa Loquitur
A. Presumptions of Negligence
1. In motor vehicle
mishaps, the owner is
presumed negligent if he
was in the vehicle and he
could have used due
diligence to prevent the
misfortune. (Article 2184
Civil Code)
2. It is disputably presumed
that a driver was
negligent if he had been
found guilty of reckless
driving or violating
traffic regulations at
least twice for the next
preceding two months.
(Article 2184 Civil Code)
3. The driver of a motor
vehicle is presumed
negligent if at the time
of the mishap, he was
violating any traffic
regulation. (Article 2185
Civil Code)
4. GENERAL RULE: Prima
facie presumption of
negligence of the
defendant arises if death
or injury results from his
possession of dangerous
weapons or substance.
EXCEPTION: When such possession or
use is indispensable to his occupation or
business. (Article 2188 Civil Code)
5. GENERAL RULE:
Presumption of
negligence of the
common carrier arises in
case of loss, destruction
or deterioration of the
goods, or in case of
death or injury of
passengers.
EXCEPTION: Upon proof of exercise of
extraordinary diligence.

B. Res Ipsa Loquitur
The thing or transaction speaks
for itself.
It is a rule of evidence peculiar
to the law of negligence which
recognizes that prima facie
negligence may be established in
the absence of direct proof, and
furnishes a substitute for specific
proof of negligence.
Requisites of Res Ipsa Loquitor:
1. The accident was of a kind which
ordinarily does not occur in the
absence of someones negligence;
2. The instrumentality which
caused the injury was under the
exclusive control and management of
the person charged with negligence;
and
3. The injury suffered must not
have been due to any voluntary
action or contribution on the part of
the person injured; absence of
explanation by the defendant.
In Africa vs. Caltex (Phil.) Inc.
Mar 31, 1966, defendant Caltex
was liable for damage done to
the property of its neighbors
when fire broke out in a Caltex
service station. The gasoline
station, with all its appliances,
equipment and employees, was
under the control of the
defendant. The persons who
knew how the fire started were
the defendant and its
employees, but they gave no
explanation whatsoever.
The doctrine is not applicable if
there is direct proof of absence
or presence of negligence. (S.D.
Martinez, et al vs. William Van
Buskirk)
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE

Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
221
AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES AND
MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES:
1. Duty to Rescue
A. Duty to the rescuer
The defendants are liable for
the injuries to persons who
rescue people in distress
because of the acts or
omissions of the said
defendants.
There is liability to the
rescuer and the law does not
discriminate between the
rescuer oblivious to the peril
and the one who counts the
costs.
The risk of rescue, if only not
wanton, is born of the
occasion.
One who was hurt trying to
rescue another who was
injured through negligence
may recover damages.
(Santiago vs. De leon CA-GR
No.16180-R March 21, 1960)
Danger of personal injury or
death.
B. Duty to rescue
GENERAL RULE: There is no general
duty to rescue; a person is not liable for
quasi-delict even if he did not help a
person in distress.
EXCEPTIONS: A limited duty to rescue
is imposed in certain cases:

Abandonment of persons in danger and
abandonment of ones own victim is
considered, under certain circumstances
as a crime against security (Article 275
RPC); and
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. (Section 55 RA 4136 [Land
Transportation and traffic Code])
2. Owners, Proprietors and Possessors
of Property
GENERAL RULE: The owner has no duty
to take reasonable care towards a
trespasser for his protection or even to
protect him from concealed danger.
NOTE: Damage to any person resulting
from the exercise of any rights of
ownership is damage without injury
(Damnum absque injuria)
EXCEPTIONS:
a. Visitors and tolerated possession
The owner is still liable if the
plaintiff is inside his property by
tolerance or by implied permission.
Owners of buildings or
premises owe duty of care to
visitors.
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance
One who maintains on his premises
dangerous instrumentalities or
appliances of a character likely to
attract children in play, and who
fails to exercise ordinary care to
prevent children from playing
therewith or resorting thereto, is
liable to a child of tender years who
is injured thereby, even if the child
is technically a trespasser in the
premises.
NOTE: A swimming pool or pond or
reservoir of water is NOT considered
attractive nuisance. (Hidalgo
Enterprises vs. Baladan 91 Phil 488)

State of Necessity
The owner of a thing has no right to
prohibit the interference of another
with the same if the interference is
necessary to avert imminent danger
and the threatened damage,
compared to the damage arising to
the owner from the interference, is
much greater. (Article 432 Civil
Code)
It is also a recognized justifying
circumstance under the RPC.
In both the Civil Code and the
RPC, the owner may demand from
the person benefited, indemnity for
the damages.
Use of properties that injures another
An owner cannot use his property
in such a manner as to injure the
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
222
rights of others. (Article 431
Civil Code).
Hence the exercise of the right
of the owner may give rise to an
action based on quasi-delict if
the owner negligently exercises
such right to the prejudice of
another.
Liability of Proprietors of buildings
New Civil Code include provisions
that apply to proprietors of a
building or structure which

involve affirmative duty of due
care in maintaining the same:
Articles 2190 and 2191.
Third persons who suffered
damages may proceed only
against the engineer or architect
or contractor if the damage
referred to in Articles 2190 and
2191should be a result of any
defect in construction.
Nevertheless, actions for
damages can still be maintained
under Article 2176 for damages
resulting from proprietors
failure to exercise due care in
the maintenance of his building
and that he used his property in
such a way that he injured the
property of another.
3. Employers and Employees
A. Employers
Actions for quasi-delict can
still be maintained even if
employees compensation is provided
for under the Labor Code.
In quasi-delictual actions
against the employer, the employee
may use the provisions of the Labor
Code which imposes upon the
employer certain duties with respect
to the proper maintenance of the
work place or the provisions of
adequate facilities to ensure the
safety of the employees.
Articles 1711 and 1712 of
the Civil Code impose liability
without fault on the part of the
employers.
B. Employees
Employees are bound to exercise due
care in the performance of their
functions for the employers; absence
such due care, the employee may be
held liable.
4. Banks
The business of banks is one
affected by public interest.
Because of 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 relationship.
(PBC vs. CA [1997])
5. Common carriers
From the nature of their
business and for reasons of
public policy, they are bound
to exercise extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over
the goods and the safety of the
passengers.
The case against the common
carrier is for the enforcement
of an obligation arising from
breach of contract.
The same act which breached
the contract may give rise to
an action based on quasi
delict. (Air France vs
Carrascoso, L21438, Sept. 28,
1996)
6. Doctors
A. STANDARD OF CARE
The proper standard is
whether, the physician if a
general practitioner, has
exercised the degree of care
and skill of the average
qualified practitioner, taking
into account the advances in
the profession.
A physician who holds himself
out as a specialist should be
held to the standard of care
and skill of the average
member of the profession
practicing the specialty, taking
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE

Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
223
into account the advances in
the profession.
B. THE CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP DOCTRINE
The head surgeon is made
liable for everything that goes
wrong within the four corners
of the operating room.
It enunciates the liability of
the surgeon not only for the
wrongful acts of those under
his physical control but also
those wherein he has extension
of control.
C. NOT WARRANTORS
Physicians are not warrantors
D. PROOF
of cures or insurers against
personal injuries or death of
the patient.
Expert testimony should be
offered to prove that the
circumstances are constitutive
of conduct falling below the
standard of care employed by
other physicians in good
standing when performing the
same operation.
Medical malpractice can also
be established by relying on
the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitor; in which case the
need of expert testimony is
dispensed with because the

injury itself provides the proof
of negligence. (Ramos vs. CA,
GR No.124354, December 29,
1999)
Example: The doctrine was
applied in a case of removal of
the wrong part of the body
when another part was
intended.
Two pronged evidence:
a. Evidence as to the
recognized standards of the medical
community in the particular kind of
case; and
b. A showing that the
physician departed from this
standard in his treatment.
Four elements
in medical
negligence
cases: duty,
breach, injury
and proximate
causation
E. LIABILITY OF HOSPITALS AND
CONSULTANTS
There is no employer-employee
relationship between the
hospital and a physician
admitted in the said hospitals
medical staff as an active or
visiting consultant which would
hold the hospital liable solidarily
liable for the injury suffered by a
patient under Article 2180 of the
Civil Code. (Ramos vs. CA GR No
124354, April 11, 2002)
The contract between the
consultant and the patient is
separate and distinct the
contract between the hospital
and the patient. The first has
for its object the rendition of
medical services by the
consultant to the patient, while

the second concerns the
provision by the hospital of
facilities and services by its staff
such as nurses and laboratory
personnel necessary for the
proper treatment of the patient.
(Ramos vs. CA GR No 124354,
April 11, 2002)
7. Lawyers
An attorney is not bound to
exercise extraordinary
diligence but only a reasonable
degree of care and skill, having
reference to the business he
undertakes to do.
DEFENSES IN NEGLIGENCE CASES
Kinds of defenses:
A. Complete completely bars
recovery
B. Partial mitigates liability
1. PLAINTIFFS CONDUCT AND
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
224
a. Plaintiffs own
negligence as the proximate
cause
When the plaintiffs own
negligence was the immediate and
proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. (Article
2179 Civil Code)
b. Contributory
negligence
Conduct on the part of the
injured party contributing as a
legal cause to the harm he has
suffered which falls below the
standard to which he is required to
conform for his own protection.
(Valenzuela vs. CA 253SCRA303)
If the plaintiffs negligence was
only contributory, the immediate
and proximate cause of the injury
being the defendants lack of due
care, the plaintiff may recover
damages but the courts shall
mitigate the damages to be
awarded (Article 2179 Civil Code).
Doctrine of Comparative
Negligence
The
relative degree of negligence of
the parties is considered in
determining whether and to what
degree, either should be
responsible for his negligence
(apportionment of damages).
This is
the doctrine being applied in our
jurisdiction wherein the
contributory negligence of the
plaintiff does not completely bar
recovery but merely results in
mitigation of liability; it is a partial
defense.
The
court is free to determine the
extent of the mitigation of the
defendants liability depending
upon the circumstances.
2. IMPUTED CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE
Negligence is imputed if the
actor is different from the person
who is being made liable.
The defendant will be
subject to mitigated liability even if

the plaintiff was not himself
personally negligent but because the
negligence of another is imputed to
the plaintiff.
It is applicable if the
negligence was on the part of the
person for whom the plaintiff is
responsible, and especially, by
negligence of an associate in the
transaction where he was injured.
3. FORTUITOUS EVENTS
Essential requisites:
a.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;
b. It must be impossible to
foresee the event which
constitutes the caso fortuito, or
if it can be foreseen, it must be
impossible to avoid;
c.The occurrence must be such as
to render it impossible for the
debtor to fulfill his obligation in a
normal manner; and
d. The obligor must be free
from any participation in the
aggravation of the injury resulting
to the creditor.
NOTE: When an act of God concurs
with the negligence of 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. (NAPOCOR vs. CA [1993])
GENERAL RULE: It is a complete
defense and a person is not liable if
the cause of the damage is a fortuitous
event.
EXCEPTION: It is merely a partial
defense and the courts may mitigate
the damages if the loss would have

resulted in any event (Art. 2215(4)
Civil Code).
4. ASSUMPTION OF RISK
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
225
Volenti non fit injuria: One is not
legally injured if he has consented
to the act complained of or was
willing that it should occur.
It is a complete defense.
Elements:
a. The plaintiff must know that
the risk is present;
b. He must further understand
its nature; and that
c. His choice to incur it is free
and voluntary.
KINDS:
a. Express
waiver of
the right
to recover
There is assumption
of risk if the
plaintiff, in advance
has expressly waived
his right to recover
damages for the
negligent act of the
defendant.
NOTE: A person cannot contract away his
right to recover damages resulting from
negligence. Such waiver is contrary to

public policy and cannot be allowed.
However, the waiver contemplated by
this prohibition is the waiver of the right
to recover before the negligent act was
committed.
If waiver was made after the cause
of action accrued, the waiver is valid and
may be construed as a condonation of
the obligation.
b. Implied
Assumptio
ns
i. Dangerous Conditions
A person who, knowing that he
is exposed to a dangerous condition
voluntarily assumes the risk of such
dangerous condition may not recover
from the defendant who maintained
such dangerous conditions.
Example: A person who maintained
his
house
near
a
railroad
track
assumes
the
usual
dangers
attendant
to
the opera-tion of a locomotive.
(Rodrigueza vs. Manila Railroad Co.,
GR No. 15688, Nov. 19, 1921).
ii. Contractual Relations
There may be implied
assumption of risk if the plaintiff
entered into a contractual relation
with the defendant. By entering into
a relationship freely and voluntarily
where the negligence of the
defendant is obvious, the plaintiff

may be found to accept and consent
to it.
EXAMPLES:
a) The employees assume the
ordinary risks inherent in the
industry in which he is employed.
- As to abnormal risks, there
must be cogent and convincing
evidence of consent.
b) When a passenger boards a
common carrier, he takes the risks
incidental to the mode of travel he
has taken.
iii. Dangerous Activities
Persons who voluntarily
participate in dangerous activities
assume the risks which are usually
present in such activities.
EXAMPLE: A professional
athlete is deemed to assume the
risks of injury to their trade.
iv. Defendants negligence
When the plaintiff is aware of
the risk created by the defendants
negligence, yet he voluntarily
decided to proceed to encounter it,
there is an implied admission.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
226
EXAMPLE: If the 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.
5. DEATH OF THE DEFENDANT
Death of the defendant does not
extinguish the obligation based
on quasi-delict.
An action survives even if the
defendant dies during the
pendency of the case if the case
is an action to recover for an
injury to persons or property by
reason of tort committed by the
deceased. It is no defense at all.
6. PRESCRIPTION
An action based on quasi-delict
prescribes in four years from the
date of the accident. (Article
1146 Civil Code)
Relations Back Doctrine
An act done at one time is
considered by fiction of law to have
been done at some antecedent
period. (Allied Banking Corp vs. CA,
1989)
EXAMPLE: A doctor negligently
transfused blood to a patient that
was contaminated with HIV. If the
effect became apparent only after
five (5) years, the four (4) year
prescriptive period should commence
only when it was discovered.
7. INVOLUNTARINESS
It is a complete defense in quasidelict
cases
and
the
defendant
is
therefore
not
liable
if
force
was
exerted
on him. (Aquino, Torts
and Damages)
EXAMPLE: When the defendant
was forced to drive his vehicle by
armed men. He was, at pain of
death, forced to drive at a very
fast clip because the armed men
were escaping from the
policemen. The defendant
cannot be held liable, if a
bystander is hit as a
consequence.
CAUSATION
Proximate Cause
That cause which in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury,
without which the result would
not have occurred.
Remote Cause
That cause which some
independent force merely took
advantage of to accomplish
something not the natural effect
thereof.
Nearest Cause
That cause which is the last link
in the chain of events; the
nearest in point of time or
relation.
Proximate cause is not
necessarily the nearest cause
but that which is the procuring
efficient and predominant
cause.
Concurrent Causes
The actor is liable even
if the active and
substantially
simultaneous operation
of the effects of a third
persons innocent,
tortious or criminal act

is also a substantial
factor in bringing about
the harm so long as the
actors negligent
conduct actively and
continuously operate to
bring about harm to
another. (Africa vs.
Caltex)
Where several causes
producing the injury are
concurrent and each is
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
227
an efficient cause
without which the injury
would not have
happened, the injury
may be attributed to all
or any of the causes and
recovery may be had
against any or all of the
responsible persons.
Where the concurrent or
successive negligent
acts or omissions of two
or more persons,
although acting
independently, are in
combination the direct
and proximate cause of
a single injury to a third
person, and it is
impossible to determine
what proportion each
contributed to the
injury, either of them is
responsible for the
whole injury, even
though his act alone
might not have caused
the entire injury; they
become joint tortfeasors
and are
solidarily liable for the
resulting damage under
Article 2194 of the Civil
Code.
NOTE: Primary cause remains the
proximate cause even if there is an
intervening cause which merely
cooperated with the primary cause and
which did not break the chain of
causation.
Tests of Proximate Cause
Two-part test
1. Cause-in-fact Test
2. Policy Test
NOTE: In determining the proximate
cause of the injury, it is first necessary
to determine if the defendants
negligence was the cause-in-fact of the
damage to the plaintiff. (Cause-in-fact
test)
If the
defendants negligence was not
the cause-in-fact, the inquiry
stops.
If it is, the
inquiry shifts to the question of limit
of the defendants liability. (Policy
test)
CAUSE-IN-FACT TESTS:
1. But-For Test
The defendants conduct is the
cause-in-fact if damage would
not have resulted had there been
no negligence on the part of the

defendant. Conversely,
defendants negligent conduct is
not the cause in fact of the
plaintiffs damage if the
accident could not have been
avoided in the absence thereof.
2. Substantial Factor test
The conduct is the cause-in-fact
of the damage if it was a
substantial factor in producing
the injuries.
In order to be a substantial
factor in producing the harm,
the causes set in motion by the
defendant must continue until
the moment of the damage or at
least down the setting in motion
of the final active injurious force
which immediately produced or
preceded the damage.
NOTE: If the defendants conduct was
already determined to be the cause in
fact of the plaintiffs damage under the
but for test, it is necessarily the cause in
fact of the damage under the substantial
factor test.
3. NESS Test
The candidate condition may still
be termed as a cause where it is
shown to be a necessary element
in just one of several co-present
causal set each independently
sufficient for the effect.
Two ways by which co-presence may
manifest itself:
a. Duplicative causation
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
228
When two or more sets operate
simultaneously to produce the
effect; the effect is overdetermined.
b.
Pre-emptive causation
When, though coming about first
in time, one causal set trumps
another potential set lurking in the
background; the causal potency of
the latter is frustrated.
Multiple causation
If there are a number of
candidate conditions, which,
taken one at a time, would not
in fact have been sufficient to
cause the accident and the
accident was a cumulative effect
of all the candidate conditions.
Policy Tests:
1. Foreseea
bility Test
2. Natural
and Probable Consequence Test
3. Natural
and Ordinary or Direct Consequence
Test
4. Hindsight
Test
5. Orbit of
Risk Test
6. Substanti
al Factor
Test
Policy Tests may be divided into Two
Groups:
1. FORESIGHT PERSPECTIVE/
FORESEEABILITY TESTS
The defendant is not liable for
the unforeseeable consequences
of his acts
Liability is limited within the risk
created by defendants negligent
acts.
2. DIRECT PERSEPECTIVE/ DIRECT
COSEQUENCES TESTS
The defendant
is liable for
damages which
are beyond the
risk.
Direct
consequences
are those
which follow in
sequence from
the effect of
defendants act
upon
conditions
existing and
forces already
in operation at
the time
without
intervention of
any external
forces, which
come into
active
operation
later.
Tests applied in the Philippines:
New Civil Code has a
chapter on Damages
which specifies the kind
of damage for which the
defendant may be held
liable and the extent of
damage to be awarded
to the plaintiff.
Cause-in-fact Tests:
1. But-for test
2. Substantial
Factor test
3. NESS test
Policy
test:
The
directne
ss
approac
h is
being
applied
in this
jurisdict
ion.
NOTE: The definition of proximate cause
which includes the element of foresight
is not consistent with the express
provision of the Article 2202 of the New
Civil Code; a person may be held liable
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
229
whether the damage to the plaintiff may
be unforeseen.
Cause and Conditions
It is no longer practicable to
distinguish between cause and
condition.
The defendant may be liable even if
only created conditions, if the
conditions resulted in harm to either
person or property.
EXAMPLES of Dangerous Conditions:
1. Those that are
inherently
dangerous
2. Those where a
person places a
thing which is
not dangerous in
itself in a
dangerous
position.
3. Those involving
products and
other things
which are
dangerous
because they are
defective.
Efficient Intervening Cause
One which destroys the causal
connection between the
negligent act and the injury and
thereby negatives liability.
There is NO efficient intervening
cause if the force created by the
negligent act or omission have
either:
1. Remained active itself, or
2. Created another force which
remained active until it directly
caused the result, or
3. Created a new active risk of
being acted upon by the active force
that caused the result.
EXAMPLE: The medical findings, show
that the infection of the wound by
tetanus was an efficient intervening
cause later or between the time Javier
was wounded to the time of his death.
(People vs. Rellin 77 Phil 1038)
NOTES:
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora

John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
A cause
is not an
interveni
ng cause
if it was
already
in
operatio
n at the
time the
negligent
act is
committ
ed.
Foreseea
ble
interveni
ng causes
cannot
be
consider
ed
sufficient
interveni
ng
causes.
The
intervent
ion of
unforese
en and
unexpect
ed cause
is not
sufficient
to
relieve
the
wrongdo
er from
conseque
nces of
negligenc
e if such
negligenc
e
directly
and
proximat
ely
cooperat
es with
the
independ
230
ent
cause in
the
resulting
injury.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
A. Plaintiffs negligence is
the cause
Plaintiffs
negligence is
not contributory
if it is necessary
and sufficient to
produce the
result.
EXAMPLES:
1. Only the
plaintiff
was
negligent
.
2. Defendan
ts
negligenc
e is not a
part of
the
causal
set which
is a part
of the
causal
chain.
3. Plaintiff
s
negligenc
e was
preemptive
in
nature.
B. Compound Causes
P
l
a
i
n
t
i
f
f

t
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
s
n
e
g
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
m
a
y
h
a
v
e
d
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
,
t
h
a
t
i
t
,
i
231
i
s
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
t
o
b
r
i
n
g
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
b
u
t
h
i
s
n
e
g
l
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
i
g
e
n
c
e
o
c
c
u
r
s
s
i
m
u
l
t
a
n
e
o
u
s
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
d
e
f
e
n
d
a
n
t
;
t
h
e
232
l
a
t
t
e
r
s
n
e
g
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
i
s
e
q
u
a
l
l
y
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
b
u
t
n
o
t
n
e
c
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
b
r
i
n
g
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
d
a
m
a
g
e
w
o
u
l
d
233
s
t
i
l
l
h
a
v
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
e
d
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
g
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
l
a
i
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
n
t
i
f
f
.
P
l
a
i
n
t
i
f
f
s
n
e
g
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
i
s
n
o
t
m
e
r
e
l
y
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
y
234
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
i
t
i
s
a
c
o
n
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
c
a
u
s
e
.
N
o
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
C. Part of the same causal
set
Neither plaintiffs negligence
nor defendants negligence
alone is sufficient to cause
the injury; the effect would
result only if both are present
together with normal
background conditions.
Negligence of the plaintiff
cooperated with the
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
y
c
a
n
b
e
h
a
d
.
(
A
q
u
i
n
o
,
T
o
r
t
s
a
n
d
D
a
m
a
g
e
s
)
235
negligence of the defendant
in order to bring about the
injury; determination of
proximate cause is only a
matter of degree of
participation.
D. Defendants Negligence
is the Only cause
Defendants negligence was
sufficient AND necessary to
bring about the injury.
However, if plaintiffs
negligence increased or
aggravated the resulting
damage or injury liability of
the defendant should also be
mitigated under contributory

negligence rule or under the
doctrine of avoidable
consequences.
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance or
Discovered Peril
The negligence of the plaintiff
does not preclude a recovery for
the negligence of the defendant
where it appears that the
defendant, by exercising
reasonable care and prudence,
might have avoided injurious
consequences to the plaintiff
notwithstanding the plaintiffs
negligence.
Alternative Views:
1. Prevailing view
Doctrine is applicable in
this jurisdiction.
Even if plaintiff was
guilty of antecedent
negligence, the
defendant is still liable
because he had the last
clear chance of avoiding
the injury.
2. Minority View
The historical function of the
doctrine was to mitigate the
harshness of the common law
rule of contributory
negligence which prevented
any recovery at all by the
plaintiff who was also
negligent even if his
negligence was relatively
minor as compared with the
wrongful act or omission of
the defendant.
The doctrine has no role in
this jurisdiction where
common law concept of
contributory negligence has
itself been rejected in Article
2179 of the Civil Code.

3. Third View
There can be no conflict
between the doctrine of last
clear chance and doctrine of
comparative negligence if the
former is viewed as a rule or
phrase of proximate cause;
However, the doctrine of last
clear chance is no longer
applicable if the force
created by the plaintiffs
negligence continues until the
happening of the injurious
event.
Cases when the doctrine was held
inapplicable (PICCA)
1. If the p laintif f was not
negligent.
2. The party charged is required to
act i nstantaneously , and if the
injury cannot be avoided by the
application of all the means at
hand after the peril is or should
have been discovered.
3. If defendants negligence is a
c oncurrent cause and which was
still in operation up to the time
the injury was inflicted.
4. Where the plaintiff, a passenger,
filed an action against a carrier
based on c ontract.
5. If the actor, though negligent,
was not a ware of the danger or
risk brought about by the prior
fraud or negligent act.
B. INTENTIONAL TORTS
Include conduct
where the actor
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora

John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
236
desires to cause the
consequences of his
act or believes that
the consequences
are substantially
certain to result
from it.
They are found in
Chapter 2 of the
Preliminary Title of
the NCC entitled
Human Relations.
Although this chapter
covers negligent
acts, the torts
mentioned herein
are mostly
intentional in nature
or torts involving
malice or bad faith.
HUMAN RELATIONS
1. Principle of Abuse of Rights
(ART.19)
Elements:
a. Legal right or duty;
b. The right or duty is exercised in bad
faith; and
c. For the sole intent of prejudicing or
injuring another.
E
X
A
M
P
L
E
:
If
t
h
e
p
ri
n
c
i
p
a
l
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
u
n
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
a
n
a
g
e
n
c
y
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
s
e
lf
i
s
h
r
e
a
s
o
n
s
237
NOTE: This rule is a departure from the
traditional view that a person is not
liable for damages resulting from the
exercise of ones right.
2. Article 20 of the Civil Code
Speaks
of the
general
sanction
for all
other
provisio
ns of
law
which
do not
especial
ly
provide
for their
own
sanction
.
.
(
V
a
l
e
n
z
u
e
l
a
v
s
.
C
A
,
1
9
0
S
C
R
A
1
)
NOTE: Article 20 does not distinguish;
the act may be done willfully or
negligently.
3. Acts contra bonus mores (Article 21

Civil Code)
Elements:
a. Act which is legal;
b. The act is contrary to morals, good
customs, public order or public
policy; and
c. The act is done with intent to injure.
NOTE: Damages are recoverable even if
no positive law was violated.
Kinds:
a. Breach of promise to marry
GENERAL RULE: Breach of promise to
marry by itself is not actionable.
EXCEPTION: In cases where there is
another act independent of the breach
of promise to marry which gives rise to
liability:
1. Cases where there was financial
damage.
2. Social humiliation caused to one
of the parties.
3. Where there was moral
seduction.
NOTES:
Moral seduction, although not
punishable, connotes the idea of
deceit, enticement, superior power
or abuse of confidence on the part of
the seducer to which the woman has
yielded. (Gashem Shokat Baksh vs.
CA)
Sexual intercourse is not by itself a
basis for recovery; damages could
only be awarded if the sexual
intercourse is not a product of
voluntariness or mutual desire.
b. Seduction without breach of
promise to marry
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora

John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
238
Seduction, by itself, is also an
act contrary to morals, good
customs and public policy.
The defendant is liable if he
employed deceit,
enticement, superior power
or abuse of confidence in
successfully having sexual
intercourse with another even
if he satisfied his lust without
promising to marry the
offended party.
It may not even matter that
the plaintiff and the
defendant are of the same
gender.
c. Sexual assault
Defendant is liable for all
forms of sexual assault
including crimes defined
under the RPC as rape, acts
of lasciviousness and
seduction.
d. Desertion by a spouse
A spouse has a legal
obligation to live with his/her
spouse.
If a spouse does not perform
his/her duty to the other, he
may be liable for damages for
such omission because the
same is contrary to law,
morals, good customs and
public policy.
e. Trespass and Deprivation of
Property
2 KINDS:
1) Trespass to and/or
deprivation of real property

Liability for damages under
the RPC and Article 451 of the Civil
Code requires intent or bad faith.
Article 448 of the Civil Code
in relation to Article 456 does not
permit action for damages where the
builder, planter, or sower acted in
good faith. The landowner is limited
to the options given to him under
article 448, that is to appropriate
whatever is built or planted or to
compel the builder or planter to
purchase the portion encroached
upon. (Aquino, Torts and Damages)
A builder in good faith who
acted negligently may be held liable
under Art. 2176 NCC.
2) Trespass to or deprivation of
personal property
In the field of tort, trespass
extends to all cases where a person
is deprived of his personal property
even in the absence of criminal
liability.
NOTE: It may cover cases where the
defendant was deprived of personal
property for the purpose of obtaining
possession of real property
EXAMPLE: The defendant
who was landlord, was held liable
because he deprived the plaintiffs,
his tenants, of water in order to
force them to vacate the lot they
were cultivating. (Magbanua vs. IAC
137 SCRA 352)
3) Disconnection of electricity
or gas service
The right to
disconnect and deprive the
customer, who unreasonably fails to
pay his bills, of electricity should be
exercised in accordance with the law
and rules.
Example: If a
company disconnects the electricity

service without prior notice as
required by the rules, the company
commits a tort under Article 21 NCC.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
239
f. Abortion and Wrongful Death
Damages may be recovered
by both spouses if:
1) the abortion was caused
through the physicians
negligence, or
2) was done intentionally
without their consent
g. Illegal Dismissal
Husband of a
woman who
voluntarily
procured her
abortion may
recover
damages from
the physician
who caused the
same on
account of
distress and
mental anguish
attendant to the
loss of the
unborn child
and the
disappointment
of his parental
expectation.
(Geluz vs. CA
2SCRA802)
The right of the employer to
dismiss an employee should
not be confused with the
manner in which the right is
exercised and the effects
flowing therefrom;
If the dismissal was done antisocially
and
oppressively, the
employer should be deemed
to have violated Article 1701
of the Civil Code (which
prohibits acts of oppression
by either capital or labor
against the other) and Article
21 NCC.
An employer may be held
liable for damages if the
manner of dismissing is
contrary to morals good
customs and public policy.
EXAMPLE: False imputation
of misdeed to justify dismissal
or any similar manner of
dismissal which is done
abusively.
h. Malicious Prosecution
An action for damages
brought by one against
another whom a criminal
prosecution, civil suit, or
other legal proceeding has
been instituted maliciously
and without probable cause,
after the termination of such
prosecution, suit or
proceeding in favor of the
defendant therein.
The gist of the action is
putting legal process in force
regularly, for mere purpose of

vexation or injury. (Drilon vs.
CA [1997])
Elements:
1. The fact of the prosecution and
the further fact that the
defendant was himself the
prosecutor; and that the action
was finally terminated with an
acquittal;
2. That in bringing the action, the
prosecutor acted without
probable cause;
3. The prosecutor was actuated or
impelled by legal malice.
NOTES:
Malice is the
inexcusable intent to
injure, oppress, vex,
annoy or humiliate.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
240
Presence of probable
cause signifies absence
of malice.
Absence of malice
signifies good faith on
the part of the
defendant; good faith
may even be based on
mistake of law.
Acquittal presupposes
that a criminal
information is filed in
court and final
judgment rendered
dismissing the case;
nevertheless, prior
acquittal may include
dismissal by the
prosecutor after
preliminary
investigation. (Globe
Mackay and Radio Corp.
vs. CA; Manila Gas Corp
vs. CA)
i. Public Humiliation
Damages may be awarded in
cases where the plaintiff
suffered humiliation through
the positive acts of the
defendant directed against
the plaintiff.
Example: The defendant was
held liable for damages under
Art. 21 for slapping the
plaintiff in public. (Patricio
vs. Hon. Oscar Leviste,
[1989])
NOTES:
Under
Article
21,
damages
are
recover
able
even
though
no
TORTS AGAINST HUMAN DIGNITY
TYPES:
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
positive
law was
violated
.
An
action
can only
prosper
when
damage,
material
or
otherwis
e, was
suffered
by the
plaintiff
. An
action
based
on
Articles
19-21
will be
dismisse
d if the
plaintiff
merely
seeks
recogn
ition.
Under
Articles
19 and
21, the
defenda
nt may
likewise
be
guilty of
a tort
even if
he acted
in good
faith.
(Grand
Union
Superm
arket
vs.
Espino)
241
1. Violation of the right of privacy
Reasonableness of a persons
expectation of privacy depends
on a two-part test:
a) Whether by his conduct, the
individual has exhibited an
expectation of privacy.
b) Whether this expectation is one
that the society recognizes as
reasonable.
NOTES:
GENERAL RULE: Right to privacy can
be invoked only by natural persons;
Juridical persons cannot invoke such
right because the entire basis of right to
privacy is an injury to the feelings and
sensibilities of a party, a corporation
would have no such ground.
EXCEPTION: Right against unreasonable
searches and seizure can be invoked by a
juridical entity.
GENERAL RULE: Right to privacy is
purely personal in nature, hence:
1) It can be invoked only by
the person whose privacy
is claimed to have been
violated.
2) It can be subject to
waiver of the person
whose privacy is sought
to be intruded into.
3) The right ceases upon
the death of the person.

EXCEPTION: A privilege may be given
to the surviving relatives of a deceased
person to protect his memory but the
privilege exist for the benefit of the
living, to protect their feelings and to
prevent the violation of their own rights
in the character and memory of the
deceased.
Standard to be
applied in
determining if
there was a
violation of the
right is that of a
person with
ordinary
sensibilities. It
is relative to the
customs of time
and place and is
determined by
the norm of an
ordinary person.
Four Types of Invasion of Privacy
a. Intrusio
n upon plaintiffs seclusion or solitude
or into his private affairs
It is not limited to cases where
the defendant physically trespassed into
anothers property. It includes cases
when the defendant invades ones
privacy by looking from outside
(Example: peeping-tom).
GENERAL RULE: There is no invasion of
right to privacy when a journalist records
photographs or writes about something
that occurs in public places.
EXCEPTION: When the acts of the
journalist should be to such extent that
it constitutes harassment or overzealous
shadowing.
The freedom of the press has never
been construed to accord newsmen
immunity from tort or crimes committed
during the course of the newsgathering.

There is no intrusion when an
employer investigates an employee or
when the school investigates its student.
RA 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 (Ramirez vs CA, Sept.
28, 1995)
Use of a telephone extension for
purposes of overhearing a private
conversation without authorization does
not violate RA 4200.
NOTE: There are instances where the
school might be called upon to exercise
its power over its student for acts
committed outside the school premises
and beyond school hours in the
following:
1. In cases of violation of school
policies or regulations occurring in
connection with school sponsored
activity off-campus; or
2. In cases where the misconduct of
the student involves his status as a
student or affects the good name
and reputation of the school.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
242
b. Publicat
ion of Embarrassing Private Facts
Requisites:
1. Publicity is given to any private

or purely personal information about
a person;
2. Without the latters consent; and
3. Regardless of whether or not
such publicity constitutes a criminal
offense, like libel or defamation, the
circumstance that the publication
was made with intent of gain or for
commercial and business purposes
invariably serves to aggravate the
violation of the right.
PUBLIC FIGURE - A
person, who by his accomplishments,
fame or mode of living or by adopting a
profession or calling which gives the
public a legitimate interest in his doings,
his affairs and his character.
NOTE: Public figures, most especially
those holding responsible positions in
government enjoy a more limited right
to privacy compared to ordinary
individuals.
The interest sought to be
protected is the right to be free from
unwarranted publicity, from the
wrongful publicizing of the private
affairs and activities of an individual
which are outside the realm of
legitimate public concern.
The publication of facts
derived from the records of official
proceedings which are not otherwise
declared by law as confidential,
cannot be considered a tortious
conduct.
c. Publicit
y which places a person in a false
light in the public eye
The interest to be protected in
this tort is the interest of the
individual in not being made to
appear before the public in an
objectionable false light or false
position.
EXAMPLE: Defendant was held liable
for damages when he published an

unauthorized biography of a famous
baseball player exaggerating his
feats on the baseball field,
portraying him as a war hero. (Spahn
vs. Messner)
If the publicity given to the
plaintiff is defamatory, hence an
action for libel is also warranted; the
action for invasion of privacy will
afford an alternative remedy.
May be committed by the media
by distorting a news report.
Tort of Putting
Another in False
Light
Defamation
1. As to gravamen of claim
The gravamen of
claim is not the
reputational harm
but rather the
embarrassment of a
person being made
into some-thing he is
not
The gravamen of
claim is the reputational
harm
2. As to publication
The statement should
be actually made in
public
Publication is
satisfied if a letter is
sent to a third person
3. As to the defamatory character of the
statements
Defendant may still
be held liable even if
the statements tells
something good
about the plaintiff
What is published
lowers the esteem in
which the plaintiff is

held
d. Commer
cial appropriation of likeness
The unwarranted publication of a
persons name or the unauthorized
use of his photograph or likeness for
commercial purposes is an invasion
of privacy.
With respect to celebrities,
however, the right of publicity is
often treated as a separate right
that overlaps but is distinct from the
right of privacy. They treat their
names and likeness as property and
they want to control and profit
therefrom.
2. Interference with Family and other
relations
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
243
The gist of the tort is an
interference with one spouses
mental attitude toward the other
and the conjugal kindness of marital
relations resulting in some actual
conduct which materially affects it.
It extends to all cases of
wrongful interference in the family
affairs of others whereby one spouse
is induced to leave the other spouse
or conduct himself or herself that
the comfort of married life is
destroyed.
If the interference is by
the parents of the spouse, malice
must be proven.
3. Intriguing to Cause Alienation
4. Vexation and Humiliation
Discrimination against a person
on account of his physical defect,
which causes emotional distress, may
result in liability on the part of the
offending party.
Sexual Harassment falls under
this category.
- a civil action separate and distinct from
the criminal action may be
commenced under RA 7877.
- 2 types of Sexual harassment:
a) quid pro quo cases
b) hostile environment cases
TORTS WITH INDEPENDENT CIVIL
ACTIONS
1. Violation of civil and political
rights (Article 32)
Although the same normally
involves intentional acts, it can also
be committed through negligence.
Public officer who is a
defendant cannot escape liability
under the doctrine of state
immunity; the said doctrine applies
only if acts involved are done by
officers in the performance of their
official duty within the ambit of
their powers; officers do not act
within the ambit of their powers if
they violate the constitutional rights
of persons.
2. Defamation, Fraud, and
Physical injuries (Article 33)
A. Defamation
Defamation is an invasion of the
interest in reputation and good
name, by communication to others
which tends to diminish the esteem
in which the plaintiff is held, or to
excite adverse feelings or opinion

against him.
Includes the crime of libel and
slander.
RPC considers the statement
defamatory if it is an imputation of
circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit or contempt of
natural or juridical person or to
blacken the memory of one who is
dead.
Requisites for one to be liable
for defamatory imputations:
NOTES:
a. It must be defamatory
b. It must be malicious
c. It must be given publicity
d. The victim must be
identifiable
Test in determining the
defamatory character of the
imputation: A charge is sufficient if
the words are calculated to induce the
hearers to suppose and understand
that the person/s against whom they
were uttered were guilty of a certain
offense, or are sufficient to impeach
their honesty, virtue, or reputation, or
to hold the person/s up to public
ridicule.
Dissemination to a number of persons
is not required, communication to a
single individual is sufficient
publication.
GENERAL RULE: Every defamatory
imputation is presumed to be
malicious, even if it be true, if no
good intention or justifiable motive
for making it is shown.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. A private communication made
by any person to another in the
performance of any legal, moral
or social duty; and
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE

Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
244
2. A fair and true report, made in
good faith, without any
comments or remarks, of any
judicial, legislative or other
official proceedings which are
not of confidential nature, or of
any statement, report, or speech
delivered in said proceedings or
of any other act performed by
public officers in the exercise of
their functions.
It is not sufficient that the
offended party recognized himself as
the person attacked or defamed, it
must be shown that at least a third
person could identify him as the
object of the libelous publication.
In order to escape liability, the
defendant may claim that the
statements made are privileged.
Two kinds of privileged
communication:
1) Absolutely privilege
Those which are not actionable
even if the author acted in bad
faith.
2) Qualifiedly privilege
not actionable unless found to
have been made without good
intention or justifiable motive.
B. Fraud
Elements of deceit
1)The defendant must have made
false representation to the

plaintiff
2)The representation must be one
of fact
3)The defendant must know that
the representation is false or be
reckless about whether it is false
4)The defendant must have acted
on the false representation
5)The defendant must have
intended that the false
representation should be acted
on
6)The plaintiff must have suffered
damage as a result of acting on
the false representation
Half-truths are
likewise included; it is actionable if
the withholding of that which is not
stated makes that which is stated
absolutely false.
Misrepresentati
on upon a mere matter of opinion is
not an actionable deceit.
C. Physical injuries
Battery an intentional infliction
of a harmful or offensive bodily
contact; bodily contact is offensive if
it offends a reasonable persons
sense of dignity.
Assault intentional conduct by
one person directed at another
which places the latter in
apprehension of immediate bodily
harm or offensive act.
Includes bodily injuries causing
death.
Physical injuries which resulted
because of negligence or imprudence
is not included in Article 33; they are
already covered by Article 2176 of
the Civil Code.
3. Neglect of duty by police
officers (Article 34)
Subsidiary liability of cities and
municipalities, is imposed so that

they will exercise great care in
selecting conscientious and duly
qualified policemen and exercise
supervision over them in the
performance of their duties.
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM DELICT
Every person criminally liable for
a felony is also civilly liable. (Article
100 RPC)
The reason is because a crime
has a dual character: as an offense
against the State and against the
private person injured by it.
Dual character of crimes applies
to cases governed by special laws.
Example: violation of the BP 22
results in criminal and civil liability.
There is civil liability even if the
offense is a public offense, like in
bigamy.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
245
Persons liable are the principal,
accomplice and accessories.
It includes restitution, reparation
of damages and indemnification of
consequential damages.
The rule on proximate cause in
quasi-delict cases is applicable to
cases involving civil liability arising
from delict. Art. 2202, NCC
Circumstances affecting Civil Liability
1. Justifying
circumstances
Defendant is free from civil
liability if justifying circumstances
are properly establishes.
2. Exempting
Circumstances
They do not erase the civil
liability.
3. Mitigating and
Aggravating Circumstances
Damages to be adjudicated
may either be decreased or
increased depending on the presence
of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances.
Effect of Death
A. DEATH AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT:
extinguishes criminal liability of the
person liable but will not extinguish
the civil liability.
B. DEATH BEFORE FINAL
JUDGMENT:
GENERAL RULE: The defendant is
relieved from both criminal and civil
liability arising from criminal
liability.
EXCEPTION: In case of libel and
physical injuries wherein the
plaintiff initially opted to claim
damages in the criminal proceeding
can file another case under Article
33 of the Civil Code.
Effect of Pardon
Pardon does not erase civil
liability.
While pardon removes the
existence of guilt so that in the
eyes of the law the offender is
deemed innocent and treated as
though he never committed the
offence, it does not operate to
remove all the effects of the
previous conviction.
DEFENDANTS IN TORT CASES
Concurrent Negligence or Acts

1. Joint Tort-feasors
All the persons who
command, instigate,
promote, encourage,
advice, countenance,
cooperate in, aid, or
abet the commission of a
tort, or who approve of
it after it is done, if
done for their benefit;
they are each liable as a
principal, to the same
extent and in the same
manner as if they have
performed the wrongful
act themselves.
The responsibility of two
or more persons liable
for quasi-delict is
solidary (Article 2194
Civil Code); they are not
liable pro rata, they are
jointly and severally
liable for the whole
amount.
2. Motor vehicle mishaps
The owner is solidarily liable
with the driver, if the former,
who was in the vehicle, could
have, by the use of due
diligence, prevented the
misfortune. (Article 2184 Civil
Code)
Solidary liability is imposed on
the owner not because of his
imputed liability but because his
own omission is a concurring
proximate cause of the injury.
Vicarious Liability or Doctrine of
Imputed Negligence
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
246
A person is not only liable for torts
committed by himself, but also
for torts committed by others
with whom he has a certain
relation or for whom he is
responsible. (Article 2180 Civil
Code)
Exercise of diligence of a good father of
a family to prevent damage is a
defense.
Doctrine of Respondeat
Superior the liability is strictly
imputed, the employer is liable
not because of his act or
omission but because of the act
or omission of the employee;
employer cannot escape liability
by claiming that he exercised
due diligence in the selection or
supervision of the employee.
GENERAL RULE: Vicarious liability in
the Philippines is not governed by the
doctrine of respondeat superior;
employers or parents are made liable not
only because of the negligent or
wrongful act of the person for whom
they are responsible but also because of
their own negligence:
1) Liability is imposed on
the employer because he failed
to exercise due diligence in the
selection or supervision of the
employee
2) Parents are made liable
because they failed to exercise
due diligence
EXCEPTION: Doctrine of
respondeat superior is applicable in:
1) liability of employers
under Article 103 of the RPC
2) liability of a partnership
for the tort committed by a
partner
Persons Vicariously Liable: (Article
2180 of the Civil Code)
1. The Father, or in case of death or
incapacity, mother
For damage caused by:
a) minor children
b) living in their company
NOTES:
This has already
been modified
by Art. 221 of
the Family Code
to the extent
that the
alternative
qualification of
the liability of
the father and
the mother has
been removed.
The basis of liability for the
acts or omissions of their minor
children is the parental authority
that they exercise over them,
except for children 18 to 21.
The same foreseability test
of negligence should apply to
parents when they are sought to
be held liable under Art. 2180,
NCC
The liability is not limited to
parents, the same is also
imposed on those exercising
substitute and special parental
authority, i.e., guardian.
The liability is present only
both under Art 2180 of the NCC
and Art 221 of the Family Code if
the child is living in his parents

company.
Parental authority is not the
sole basis of liability. A teacher
in charge is still liable for the
acts of their students even if the
minor student reaches the age of
majority.
The parents or guardians can
still be held liable even if the
minor is already emancipated
provided that he is below 21
years of age.
Parents and other persons
exercising parental authority can
escape liability by proving that
they observed all the diligence
of a good father of a family to
prevent damages. (Art. 2180)
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
247
The burden of proof rests on
the parents and persons
exercising parental authority.
2. Guardians
For damage caused by
a. minors or incapacitated
persons
b. under their authority
c. living in their company
3. Owners and managers of
establishments
a) their employees
b) in the service of the branches in
which they are employed, or
c) on the occasion of their
functions
4. Employers
For damages
cause by:
a) employees and household
helpers
b) acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks
c) even if the employer is not
engaged in any business or
industry
NOTES:
Liability of the employer can be
established by proving the existence
of an employer-employee
relationship with the actor and the
latter caused the injury while
performing his assigned task or
functions.
The vicarious liability attaches only
when the tortuous conduct of the
employees relates to or is in the
course of his employment.
While the employer incurs no
liability when an employees
conduct, act or omission is beyond
the range of employment, a minor
deviation from the assigned task of
an employee, however does not
affect the liability of an employer.
(Valenzuela vs. CA, 253 SCRA 303)
It is a defense that the employer
exercised proper diligence in the
selection and supervision of
negligent employee.
5. State
a) a special agent
b) not when the damage has been
caused by the official to whom the
task done properly pertains
Public officers
who are guilty
of tortuous
conduct are
personally liable
for their
actions.
6. Schools, Teachers and
Administrators
a) pupils and students or
apprentices
b) in their custody
statutory basis:
if student is minor Art. 219, FC
NOTES:
if student is no longer a
minor Art. 2180, Civil Code
Applies also to teachers of
academic institutions.
Liability attaches to the
teacher-in-charge.
The school itself is now
solidarily liable with the teacherin-charge.
The liability extends to acts
committed even outside the
school so long as it is an official
activity of the school.
Whenever the school or
teacher is being made liable, the
parents and those exercising
substitute parental authority are
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
248

not free from liability because
Art. 219 of the Family Code
expressly provides that they are
subsidiarily liable.
Art. 2180 makes teachers
and heads liable for acts of
students and apprentices
whether the latter are minors or
not.
GENERAL RULE: The teacher-in-charge
is liable for the acts of his students. The
school and administrators are not liable.
EXCEPTION: It is only the head of the
school, not the teacher who is held liable
where the injury is caused in a school of
arts and trade.
The liability of
the teacher subsists whether the
school is academic or nonacademic.
Liability is
imposed only if the pupil is
already in the custody of the
teacher or head. The student is
in the custody of the school
authorities as longs as he is
under the control and influence
of the school and within its
premises whether the semester
had not yet begun or has already
ended.
The
victim of negligence is likewise
required to exercise due care in
avoiding injury to himself.
Other Persons Vicariously Liable:
1. Innkeepers and
Hotelkeepers
They are civilly liable
for crimes committed in
their establishments in
cases of violations of
statutes by them, in
default of persons
criminally liable.
(Article 102 Revised

Penal Code)
They are subsidiarily
liable for the
restitution of goods
taken by robbery or
theft within their houses
from guests lodging
therein, or for payment
of the value thereof,
provided that:
a. The
innkeeper
was notified
in advance
of the
deposit of
such goods
within the
inn; and
b. The guest
shall have
followed
the
directions
which such
innkeeper
or his
representati
ve may
have given
with
respect to
the care
and
vigilance
over the
goods.
2. Partnership
Partnership or every partner
is liable for torts committed
by one of the partners acting
within the scope of the firm
business, though they do not
participate in, ratify, or have
knowledge of such torts.

Partners are liable as joint
tort-feasors.
Vicarious liability is similar to
the common law rule on
respondeat superior.
Liability is entirely imputed
and the partnership cannot
obviously invoke diligence in
the selection and supervision
of the partner.
3. Spouses
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
249
a. absolu
te
comm
unity
of
proper
ty
The absolute
community
property shall
be for liabilities
incurred by
either spouses
by reason of
crime or quasidelict
in
case
of
absence
or
insufficiency of
the exclusive
property of the
debtor-spouse.
(Article 94
Family Code)
Payments shall
be considered
advances to be
deducted from
the share of the
debtor spouse
upon liquidation
of the
community.
b. conjug
al
partne
rship
of
gains
GENERAL RULE: Pecuniary indemni-ties
imposed upon the husband or wife are
not chargeable against the conjugal
partnership but against the separate
properties of the wrongdoer.
EXCEPTION: Conjugal partnership
should be made liable:
1) When
the
profits
have
inured to
the
benefit
of the
partners
hip, or
2) If one of
the
spouses
committ
ed the
tort
while
performi
ng a
business
or if the
act was
supposed
to
benefit
the
partners
hip.
c. regim
e of
separa
tion of
proper
ty
Each spouse is
responsible for his/her
separate obligation.
C. STRICT LIABILITY
When the person is made
liable independent of fault or
negligence upon submission of
proof of certain facts
specified by law.
NOTE: Strict liability tort can be
committed even if reasonable care was
exercised and regardless of the state of
mind of the actor at that time.
TYPES:
1. Animals
GENERAL RULE: The possessor of an
animal or whoever may make use of the
same is responsible for the damages
which it may cause although it may
escape or be lost.
EXCEPTION: When the damage was
caused by force majeure or by the
person who suffered the damage.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE

Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
250
NOTES:
If the
acts of a
third
person
cannot
be
foreseen
or
prevente
d, then
the
situation
is similar
to that
of force
majeure
and the
possessor
is not
liable.
(Francisc
o, Torts
and
Damages
)
Art. 2183
is
applicabl
e
whether
the
animal is
domestic
,
domestic
ated, or
wild.
2. Falling objects
The head of a family that lives in a
building or a part thereof is responsible
for damages caused by things thrown or
falling from the same. (Article 2193 Civil
Code)
The term head of the
family is not limited to the
owner of the building, and it
may even include the lessee
thereof. (Dingcong vs.
Kanaan, 72 Phil 14)
3. Liability of employers
Article 1711 of the NCC
imposes an obligation on
owners of enterprises and
other employers to pay for
the death or injuries to their
employees.
Liability is strict because it
exists even if the cause is
purely accidental.
If the mishap was due to the
employees own notorious
negligence, or voluntary act
or drunkenness, the employer
shall not be liable for
compensation.
When the employees lack of
due care contributed to his
death or injury, the
compensation shall be
equitably reduced.
If the death or injury is due
to the negligence of a fellowworkman
the latter and the
employer shall be solidarily
liable for compensation.
If a fellow-workers
intentional or malicious act is
the only cause of the death or
injury, the employer shall not

be answerable unless it
should be shown that the
latter did not exercise due
diligence in the selection or
supervision of the plaintiffs
fellow-worker.
4. Nuisance
Any act, omission,
establishment, business,
condition of property, or
anything else which:
a. Injures or endangers the health or
safety of others;
b. Annoys or offends the senses;
c. Shocks, defies or disregards decency
or morality;
d. Obstructs or interferes with the free
passage of any public highway or
street, or any body of water; or
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
251
e. Hinders or impairs the user of
property. (Article 694 Civil Code)
There is strict liability on the
part of the owner or
possessor of the property
where a nuisance is found
because he is obliged to
abate the same irrespective
of the presence or absence of
fault or negligence.
Every successive owner or
possessor of property who

fails or refuses to abate a
nuisance in that property
started by a former owner or
possessor is liable therefore
in the same manner as the
one who created it. (Article
686 Civil Code)
5. Product liability by manufacturers
Manufacturers and processors
of foodstuffs, drinks, toilet
articles and similar goods
shall be liable for death or
injuries caused by any noxious
or harmful substances used,
although no contractual
relation exists. (Article 2187
Civil Code)
Other cases of liability without fault:
Proprietor of a building or structure, for
damages resulting from its
total or partial collapse, if it
should be due to lack of
necessary repairs. .
Breach of implied warranties.
Consumer Act (R.A. 7394) any Filipino
or foreign manufacturer,
producer and importer,
independently of fault shall
be liable for redress for
damages caused to consumers
by defects resulting from:
design;
manufacture;
construction;
assembly and erection;
formulas and handling and making up; or
presentation or packing of their products
as well as for the insufficient
or inadequate information on
the use and hazards thereof.
4. Even when an act or event causing
damage to anothers 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. (Art.
23 Civil Code)
PRODUCT AND SERVICE LIABILITY
Alternative theories on basis of liability
1. Fraud or misrepresentation
Not all expression of opinion
are actionable
misrepresentations if they are
established to be inaccurate.
2. Warranties
The Consumer Act recognizes
that the provisions of the
Civil Code on conditions and
warranties shall govern all
contracts of sale with
conditions and warranties.
Retailer shall be subsidiarily
liable under the warranty in
case of failure of both the
manufacturer and distributor
to honor the warranty.
Privity of contract is not
necessary.
3. Negligence
In product liability law,
certain standards are already
imposed by special laws, rules
and regulations of proper
government agencies; certain
acts or omissions are
expressly prohibited by the
statutes thereby making
violation thereof negligence
per se.
It is negligence per se if
manufacturer manufactured
products which do not comply
with the safety standards
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
252
promulgated by appropriate
government agencies.
4. Delict
The liability may be based on
criminal negli-gence under
the RPC or violation of any
special law.
5. Strict liability
Manufacturers and
processors of foodstuffs,
drinks, toilet articles,
and similar goods, shall
be liable for death or
injuries caused by any
noxious or harmful
substances used
although no contractual
relation exists. (Article
2187 Civil Code)
Privity of contract is not
required.
It does not preclude an
action based on
negligence (quasi-delict)
for the same act of
using noxious or harmful
substances.
Article 97 and 99 of the
Consumer Act imposes
liability on defective
products and services
upon manufacturers
independent of fault.
Knowledge of the
manufacturer is not
important; the focus is
on the condition of the
product and not on the

conduct of the
manufacturer or seller.
DEFENSES:
A. The manufacturer, builder,
producer, or importer shall not
be liable when it evidences:
1) That it did not place the
product on the market
2) That although it did
place the product on the market
such product had no defect
3) That the consumer of
third party is solely at fault. (Article
97 Consumer Act)
B. The supplier of the services shall
not be held liable when it is
proven:
1) That there is no defect in the
service rendered
2) That the consumer of third party
is solely at fault. (Article 99 Consumer
Act)
Requisites: The
plaintiff should allege
and prove that:
1) The product was defective;
2) The product was manufactured
by the defendant;
3) The defective product was the
cause of his injury.
4 KINDS OF DEFECTIVE
PRODUCTS
1. manufacturing defect
2. design defect
3. presentation defect
4. absence of appropriate warning
BUSINESS TORTS
1. Interference of contracts
Elements:
a. existence of a valid contract
b. knowledge on the part of the third
person of the existence of the contract
c. interference of the third person
without legal justification.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE

Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
The
existenc
e of a
contract
is
necessar
y and
the
breach
must
occur
because
of the
alleged
act of
253
interfer
ence;
No
action
can be
maintai
ned if
the
contract
is void.
Malice is
not
essentia
l.
Element
s of
privileg
e to
interfer
e
1)The defendants purpose is a
justifiable one, and
2)The actors employ no means of
fraud or deception which are
regarded as unfair.
Extent
of
Liability
:
A. Rule in Daywalt vs. La
Corporation 39PHIL587
Defendant
cannot be held liable for more than
the amount for which the
contracting party who was induced
to break the contract can be held
liable.
B. Rule under Article 2201
and 2202 Civil Code
1) If
in bad faith: defendant is liable for
all natural and probable
consequences of his act or omission,
whether the same is forseen or
unforeseen.
2) If
in good faith: defandant is liable
only for consequences that can be
foreseen.
2. Interference with prospective
advantage
It is a tort committed when
there is no contract yet and
the defendant is only being
sued for inducing another not
to enter into a contract.
3. Unfair competition.
Unfair Competition in
agricultural, commercial, or
industrial enterprises, or in
labor, through the use of
force, intimidation , deceit,

machination or any unjust or
oppressive or highhanded
method shall give rise to a
right of action by a person
who thereby suffers damage.
CASES INCLUDED:
a. passing off and disparagement of
products
b. interference
c. misappropriation
d. monopolies and predatory pricing
4. Securities Related Torts
Kinds
a. Fraudulent Transactions
b. Misstatements or Omission of
statement of a material fact
required to be stated
Defendants are free
from liability if they can
prove that at the time
of the acquisition the
plaintiff knew of the
untrue statement or if
he was aware of the
falsity.
Extent of Damages:
Not exceeding triple the
amount of the
transaction.
Prescriptive Period:
Action must be brought
within 2 years after
discovery of facts
constituting the cause
of action and within 5
yrs after such cause of
action accrued.
DAMAGE
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
II. DAMAGES
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
254
The detriment, injury or loss
which are occasioned by
reason of fault of another in
the property or person.
DAMAGES
The pecuniary compensation,
recompense or satisfaction
for an injury sustained or as
otherwise expressed, the
pecuniary consequences
which the law imposes for the
breach of some duty or
violation of some rights.
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA (Damage
Without Injury)
A person may have suffered
physical hurt or injury, but
for as long as no legal injury
or wrong has been done,
there is no liability.
There is no liability even if
there is damage because
there was no injury.
There can be damage without
injury.
In order that a plaintiff may
maintain an action for the
injuries of which he
complains, he must establish
that such injuries resulted
from a breach of duty which
the defendant owed to the
plaintiff.
Injury Damage Damages
Legal
invasion of
a legal
right
NOTES:
Loss, hurt
or harm
which
results
from the
injury
The recompense
or
compensation
awarded for
the damage
suffered
A
complaint for damages is a personal
action. (Baritua vs. CA, 267 SCRA
331)
Proof of
pecuniary loss is necessary to
successfully recover actual damages
from the defendant. No proof of
pecuniary loss is necessary in case of
moral, nominal, temperate,
liquidated or exemplary damages.
The
assessment of such damages, except
liquidated ones, is left to the
discretion of the court according to
the circumstances of each case.
Kinds of damages (MANTLE)
1. A ctual or Compensatory
2. M oral
3. N ominal
4. T emperate or moderate
5. L iquidated
6. E xemplary or corrective
A. ACTUAL OR
COMPENSATORY
DAMAGES
Comprehends not only the value of
the loss suffered but also that of the
profits which the obligee failed to
obtain.
Classification:
1. D
ano emergente loss of what a
person already possesses
2. L
ucro cessante failure to receive
as a benefit that would have
pertained to him
NOTE: The latter type includes:
1. Loss or impairment of
earning capacity in cases of
temporary or permanent
personal injury.
2. Injury to the plaintiffs
business standing or commercial
credit.
In crimes and quasi-delict, the
defendant shall be liable for all
damages which are the natural and
probable consequences of the act
and omission complained of. It is not
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
255
necessary that such damages have
been foreseen or could have
reasonably foreseen by the
defendant. (Article 2202 Civil Code)
The amount should be that which
would put plaintiff in the same
position as he would have been if he
had not sustained the wrong for
which he is now getting his
compensation or reparation.
To recover damages, the amount of

loss must not only be capable of
proof but must actually be proven.
Uncertainty as to the precise amount
is not necessarily fatal.
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY:
Variables considered are:
1. life expectancy
2. net income/earnings
Formula:
{2/3 x (80age of death)} x mo. Earnings x 12
2
NOTE:
Life expectancy is computed as
follows:
{ 2/3 x (80-age at death) }
Net earnings is the total of the
earnings less expenses necessary for
the creation of such earnings and
less living or other incidental
expenses.
Loss of profits
May be determined by considering
the average profit for the preceding
years multiplied by the number of
years during which the business was
affected by the wrongful act or
breach.
Attorneys fees
They are actual damages. It is due to
the plaintiff and not to the counsel.
Plaintiff must allege the basis of his
claim for attorneys fees in the
complaint; the basis should be one of
the 11 cases specified in Article 2208
of the Civil Code.
Interests
Award of interest in the concept of
actual and compensatory damages
actual damages.
The rate of interest, as well as the
accrual thereof is imposed as
follows:
1. When the obligation is breached
and it consist of payment of sum
of money, i.e., a loan or

forbearance of money:
a. The interest due should
be that which may have been
stipulated in writing;
furthermore, the interest
due shall itself earn legal
interest from the time it is
judicially demanded.
b. In the absence of
stipulation, the rate of
interest shall be 12% per
annum to be computed from
default, i.e., from judicial or
extra-judicial demand under
and subject to the provisions
of Article 1169 of the Civil
Code.
2. When the obligation, not
constituting a loan or
forbearance or money, is
breached:
An interest on
the amount of damages to be
awarded may be imposed at
the discretion of the court at
the rate of 6% per annum.
No interest
shall be adjudged on
unliquidated claims or
damages, except when or
until demand can be
established with reasonable
certainty.
Where the
demand is established with
reasonable certainty, the
interest shall begin to run
from the time the claim is
made judicially or
extrajudicially.
3. When the judgment of the court
awarding the sum of money
becomes final and executory, the
rate of legal interest shall be 12%
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE

Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
256
per annum from such finality
until its satisfaction.
Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences
A party cannot recover damages
flowing from consequences which
the party could reasonably have
avoided.
It has a reasonable corollary: a
person who reasonably attempts to
minimize his damages can recover
the expenses that he incurred.
Doctrine of
Avoidable
Consequences
Contributory
Negligence
Acts of the
plaintiff occur
after the act or
omission of the
defendant
Plaintiffs act or
omission occurs
before or at the
time of the act or
omission of the
defendant
B. MORAL
DAMAGES
Includes physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social

humiliation, and similar injury.
No proof of pecuniary loss is
necessary.
GENERAL RULE: The plaintiff must
allege and prove:
1. The factual basis for moral
damages; and
2. Its causal relation to the
defendants act
EXCEPTION: Moral damages may be
awarded to the victim in criminal
proceedings without the need for
pleading of proof of the basis thereof.
Requisites for award of moral damages:
1. There must be an injury whether
physical, mental or psychological,
clearly sustained by the claimant;
2. There must be a culpable act or
omission.;
3. Such act or omission is the
proximate cause of the injury;
4. The damages is predicated on
the cases cited in Art.2219.
NOTE: The award of moral damages
cannot be granted in favor of a
corporation because, being an artificial
person, it has no feelings, no emotions,
no senses. It cannot therefore
experience physical suffering and mental
anguish which can be experienced only
by one having a nervous system.
C. NOMINAL
DAMAGES
Nominal damages are adjudicated in
order that a right of the plaintiff,
which has been violated or invaded
by the defendant, may be vindicated
or recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff
for any loss suffered by him.
(Article2221 Civil Code)
Small sums fixed by the court
without regard to the extent of the
harm done to the injured party.
Law presumes damage although

actual or compensatory damages are
not proven.
They are damages in name only and
are allowed simply in recognition of
a technical injury based on a
violation of a legal right.
Nominal damages cannot co-exist
with actual or compensatory
damages.
D. TEMPERATE OR
MODERATE
DAMAGES
These are damages, which are more
than nominal but less than
compensatory, and may be
recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot be
proved with certainty. (Article 2224
Civil Code)
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),
257
In cases where the resulting injury
might be continuing and possible
future complications directly arising
from the injury, while certain to
occur are difficult to predict,
temperate damages can and should
be awarded on top of actual or
compensatory damages; in such
cases there is no incompatibility
between actual and temperate
damages.
E. LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES
Those agreed upon by the parties in
a contract, to be paid in case of
breach thereof.
F. EXEMPLARY OR
CORRECTIVE
DAMAGES
Imposed by way of example
or correction for the public
good, in addition to the
moral, temperate, liquidated
or compensatory damages.
Requisites for the award of
exemplary damages:
1. They are imposed by way
of example in addition to
compensatory damages
and Imposed only after
the claimants right to
them has been
established;
2. They cannot be
recovered as a matter of
right, their
determination depending
upon the amount of
compensatory damages
that may be awarded;
3. The act must be
accompanied by bad
faith or done in wanton,
fraudulent, oppressive or
malevolent manner.
CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE
Rhodora
John Stephen
Damages), Anthony
Purganan(LTD),

Torts &damages

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Torts &damages

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

215

Dumama(Sales and Lease),

which any kind of

If so, it was the duty of the actor

Vidad EDP : Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon

may not excuse the parents from

borne by the one who occasioned

Legislature has spoken, the standard of

Compliance with a statute is not

MEMORY AID IN CIVIL LAW

Vidad EDP : Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon

is imposed in certain cases:

Enterprises vs. Baladan 91 Phil 488)

building or structure which

CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON : Vida Bocar, Joyce

dispensed with because the

consultant to the patient, while

subject to mitigated liability even if

the damages if the loss would have

negligence. Such waiver is contrary to

defendant is obvious, the plaintiff

to have assumed the risk of using

tortious or criminal act

no negligence on the part of the

Dumama(Sales and Lease),

MEMORY AID IN CIVIL LAW

mitigated under contributory

2179 of the Civil Code.

Dumama(Sales and Lease),

3. Acts contra bonus mores (Article 21

Dumama(Sales and Lease),

deprivation of real property

company disconnects the electricity

regularly, for mere purpose of

the death of the person.

during the course of the newsgathering.

1. Publicity is given to any private

for damages when he published an

which the plaintiff is

excite adverse feelings or opinion

Vidad EDP : Alnaiza Hassiman, Dorothy Gayon

false representation to the

municipalities, is imposed so that

Concurrent Negligence or Acts

the child is living in his parents

San Beda College of Law

(Article 102 Revised

knowledge of such torts.

SUBJECT HEADS: Christopher Rey Marasigan (Persons and Family Relations),

injury, the employer shall not

possessor of property who

the defendant, the latter shall be

product and not on the

CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE

force, intimidation , deceit,

To recover damages, the amount of

of money, i.e., a loan or

CHAIRPERSON: Romuald Padilla ASST.CHAIRPERSON : Vida Bocar, Joyce

feelings, moral shock, social

Law presumes damage although

Вам также может понравиться